The Full List Of Every GOP Senator Who Stands To Be Personally Enriched By The Tax Bill

Submitted by David Sirota of International Business Times

When the U.S. Senate takes up the final tax bill this week, more than a quarter of all GOP senators will be voting on a bill that includes a special provision that could give them a new tax cut through their real estate shell companies, according to federal records reviewed by International Business Times.

The provision was not in the original bill passed by the Senate on Dec. 1. It was embedded in the final bill by Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who is among the lawmakers that stand to personally benefit from the provision. 

In response to Democratic lawmakers who have slammed the provision as a lobbyist-sculpted giveaway to the rich, Republican Majority Whip John Cornyn promoted on Twitter a column by Ryan Ellis, a registered bank lobbyist who has been working to influence the tax legislation and who has defended the provision.

In all, 14 Republican senators (see list below) hold financial interests in 26 income-generating real-estate partnerships — worth as much as $105 million in total. Those holdings together produced between $2.4 million and $14.1 million in rent and interest income in 2016, according to federal records. 

IBT first reported on the tax carve-out, which allows investors in “pass-through” entities, including real-estate partnerships such as LLCs and LPs, with few employees to deduct part of their income that passes through those partnerships. In response to IBT’s reporting, Republican Sen. Bob Corker, who owns up to $35 million in “pass-through” real-estate interests, claimed he did not know of the carve-out when he announced his support for the legislation on Friday, after previously casting the only Republican vote against the bill in the Senate, which did not then include the provision.

In the face of a Twitter-trending hashtag #CorkerKickback, Corker has been vociferously defended by Liam Donovan, a registered lobbyist for the construction and real estate industry who is lobbying Congress on tax reform and specifically on “pass-through rates,” according to federal records.

While Republicans have argued the House version of the bill contained the controversial provision, experts have told IBT the provision appeared in the legislation only after the bill was finalized during House-Senate Conference Committee deliberations.

“The mechanism is completely new and can’t be found in any prior version of the bill,” Matt Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute of Economics and Tax Policy, previously told IBT.

Because the provision was added by the conference committee, it is “unlikely to have been fully priced into the revenue estimate, because the new provision was never subject to the benefits of crowdsourced analysis of all its implications,” University of Southern California law professor Edward Kleinbard told IBT.

GOP senators will vote on a tax bill with a real estate tax break that would benefit
14 of them. Sens. Lamar Alexander, John Cornyn and John Barrasso

Corker, the Senate’s fourth richest member in 2015, with an estimated net worth of over $69 million, reported the highest 2016 income from real-estate partnerships — up to $7 million — among GOP senators. His income came from three properties held by LLCs that together were worth as much as $35 million. Montana Sen. Steve Daines, whose estimated net worth was $14.4 million in 2015, reported earning between $425,000 and $4.2 million last year in rental income from eight properties managed by Genesis LLC. Daines, with Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, pushed for a more generous tax deduction for pass-through entities during the Senate tax bill process.

Other top earners were Johnson and Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, who both earned as much as $1 million in 2016 from real estate pass-through vehicles.

Elaine Hatch, the wife of the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee who said Monday that he wrote the real-estate tax break and disputed IBT’s report that the provision had not been in previous versions of the bill, owns a stake in a real-estate LLC worth up to $500,000 that generated between $5,000 and $15,000 of income from rent/royalties, interest and capital gains in 2016.

Several of these senators were also top recipients of campaign cash from the real estate industry during the 2016 election cycle. Ohio Sen. Rob Portman’s campaign took in over $900,000 from real estate industry PACs and individuals; Johnson received roughly $780,000; and Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson got $520,000 from the industry.

Beyond Republican senators, other major beneficiaries of the provision could be President Donald Trump, who owns or directs over 560 companies, most of which are LLCs or LPs. Democrats in recent days have seized on the provision — and its potential benefits to Republican lawmakers — in demanding the bill be halted.

“President Trump made several promises to the American people on tax reform, including the assurance that his tax proposal wouldn’t enrich people like him,” Democratic U.S. Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware told IBT in an emailed statement. “Unfortunately, Republicans are rushing through a tax plan that does indeed enrich the wealthiest people in our country, including business-owners like Mr. Trump. It’s regrettable and, frankly, shameful that my Republican colleagues are rushing ahead with their partisan tax bill despite the mounting questions and concerns about its provisions.”

Stocks Pop After Cornyn Suggests Tax Bill Deal "Possible" Today

Despite numerous headlines indicating a tax bill deal early next week, Republican Senator John Cornyn just told media that there "may be a tentative tax bill deal today." Algos liked the news and immediately bid stocks higher (despite no knowledge of what is in the "deal").

“It’s possible,” John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican, tells reporters of tax bill, according to Bloomberg.

 

The Senate has “ping-ponged” offers back and forth with House and is making good progress, he says.

And stocks popped on it...

 

Of course, its also "possible" that the deal is not done today... and that"s why we were intrigued to see "high tax" stocks underperforming...

The main areas of contention: AMTs and treatment of SALTs (Republicans were planning to tweak corporate rate from 20% to 21-22% to pay for some of the changes but this idea is facing fierce resistance from the business community – Washington Post).

Brady Says Compromise Likely Coming Friday (reported at 1035ET)

House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady, who’s overseeing the House-Senate conference committee for tax negotiations, said the panel will likely come to an agreement on final legislation by Friday.

“We are on track for this week,” Brady told reporters, referring to a so-called conference report.

Conference reports generally go point-by-point through areas of disagreement and say how each was resolved. For example, if the House position on a provision is the one they’ve agreed on, the report will say that with respect to that provision, the conferees propose that the Senate recede from its position and concur with the House’s position.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy told GOP members the goal is for the House to vote on the tax bill next Tuesday, Dec. 19, according to Representative Lamar Smith of Texas.

Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma said he heard that the goal was Tuesday, but there wasn’t an announcement about it directly.

“The time frame of a vote next week is very realistic,” said Representative Tom Reed of New York. -- Erik Wasson

With Reciprocity/FixNICS Bill, NRA Makes Concession on ‘Background Checks’ It Can’t Walk Back

Rep. Goodlatte acted as the chief advocate for the “pro-gun” side. (C-SPAN screenshot)

I spent a good part of yesterday afternoon watching House proceedings on C-SPAN for the national concealed carry reciprocity/”Fix NICS” combination bill. It passed 231 to 198 and now goes on to the Senate.

It’s always interesting to watch the debates, if for no other reason than to see the hypocrisy and conflation that anti-gun Democrats indulge in. Standing out for me were the number of objections that had nothing to do with concealed carriers, except maybe as further evidence that the massacres being recounted conveniently occurred where no armed citizens were present. It was also interesting to watch Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee take a rare break from blaming law enforcement for the ills that plague her constituents so that she could feign concern for the welfare of cops. Not to be outdone, Rep. Val Demings also played on that theme, conveniently not mentioning how she had threatened to sue a website for publicizing she was censured for having her department-issued gun and ammunition stolen back when she was chief of the Orlando PD.

I think those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms can all agree that laws that forbid the carrying them are infringements. It’s also obvious that those infringements happened incrementally, and that realistically, rolling them back via the political and judicial remedies designed into the Constitution is going to be a process. What I’m not going to get into here, except for briefly mentioning them, are all the arguments pro and con about the approach of this bill. You can read those in plenty of places, starting here, which provides a pretty good summary of all sides.

I’d instead like to address something fewer people are talking about, and that’s the spirited defense for “FixNICS” being offered by the National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and the “pro-gun” politicians defending the need to have the bill, and for that matter, an undelegated NICS prior restraint power the government has created for itself (a whole ‘nother argument).

From John Cornyn’s press release:

“For years agencies and states haven’t complied with the law, failing to upload these critical records without consequence,” Sen. Cornyn said. “Just one record that’s not properly reported can lead to tragedy, as the country saw last week in Sutherland Springs, Texas.”

If that’s the case, what Cornyn and his NRA supporters are saying is that citizen disarmament works. That’s not only unsupported and refutable, it contradicts the NRA position that it does not – unless it’s “NRA-brand”^TM “gun control”?

Further, with that admission, they have just thrown private sales under the bus and made the case for “universal background checks.” If they really believe “just one record” is all it takes, how can they turn around with a straight face and oppose “universal background checks”?

My belief is that will be a concession offered up eventually. My feeling, due to discussions I was privy to after Sandy Hook, was that was a hill they wanted to greenlight a surrender on, but couldn’t without risking a member revolt.

But that doesn’t mean they won’t keep trying – on “mental health” and on “No Fly/No Buy” when the time is right, but for the immediate future on “bump stocks.” There’s “study” language in “FixNICS” plus ATF is being pressured by AG Sessions to reevaluate its initial ruling, the very tack endorsed by NRA.

And as for the victory many gun owners are celebrating, you might want to temper the jubilation. It’s got to get through the Senate where GovTrack gives it a “35% chance of being enacted” and Democrat gun-grabber Chris Murphy says it will be “dead on arrival.” That means the horse trading isn‘t over.

It also means all that gets signed into law could end up being an “improved” disqualifying reporting system. And, of course, things won’t change a bit as far as reducing criminal violence goes.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post With Reciprocity/FixNICS Bill, NRA Makes Concession on ‘Background Checks’ It Can’t Walk Back appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Republican Leaders Say GOP Has The Votes To Pass Tax Plan

Update: Mitch McConnell has confirmed that the Republicans have the votes to pass the Senate"s tax-reform plan. McConnell"s comments put a slight bid back in stocks, which have fallen sharply following Mike Flynn"s guilty plea.

 

McConnell says Republicans `have the votes" for Senate tax bill https://t.co/WdC1mWiyJd pic.twitter.com/cGbSwodXxx

— Shailendra Nair (@shailendra_nair) December 1, 2017

              

* * *

John Cornyn, the No. 2 man in the Republican Senate leadership, said Friday that they have secured enough votes to pass the Senate version of the Republican tax reform bill, according to the Washington Post. Earlier in the morning, James Lankford of Oklahoma and Jerry Moran of Kansas, both said they’d support the bill, but Maine’s Susan Collins had said she’s still unconvinced. Hours later, Lindsey Graham echoed his claims.

Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said he planned to back the bill after announcing last week that he would vote against it because it didn’t provide enough tax relief to taxpayers who use the pass-through rate. Steve Daines of Montana, who objected to the bill on similar grounds, also said he’d vote for the bill.

Cornyn said the leadership had “at least 50” votes, but are working to secure one more ‘yea’ vote to provide a buffer against any surprises, like when John McCain voted to kill the senate’s repeal and replace plan over the summer.

Speaking with reporters outside of a meeting with the Republican caucus,Cornyn said “We have at least 50, and we’re still working."

The comments from Cornyn, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, came just hours after Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said he planned to back the bill. He was one of the final holdouts, though the GOP needed a little more help to ensure they had the 50 votes they needed. Cornyn did not say who else had committed to support the package.

 

Johnson’s support followed a late night of negotiations, following a standoff on the Senate floor Thursday when Johnson and two other members aired concerns about the bill.

 

He has long complained that the tax cut package does not provide enough benefits for a certain type of business, though he has requested numerous changes in recent days and it could not be immediately learned what precisely made him decide to back the bill.

 

Support from the Wisconsin Republican is a boost for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), but GOP leaders still need to win backing from at least one more holdout before they can be assured they have enough votes to pass the bill.

Unsurprisingly, Tennessee’s Bob Corker and Arizona’s Jeff Flake were two of the last confirmed holdouts. Both men were pushing measures that would reduce the bill’s impact on the deficit by paring back some of the proposed cuts. As the Post points out, the two men represent a unique challenge for the Republican leadership because they aren’t running for re-election.

Collins has suggested that she plans to support the tax package, but she is insisting on several changes of her own, including a plan to allow Americans to deduct up to $10,000 in property taxes and an expansion of the child tax credit. Collins already helped vote against the Republican repeal and replace plan and has a history of voting against tax cuts.

GOP leaders were meeting in McConnell’s office Friday morning to try to resuscitate the bill after a proposed trigger that would raise taxes if revenue targets were missed was rejected by the senate parliamentarian.

“I think Senator [Steve Daines (R-Mont.)] and Senator Johnson are supporting the bill, and we’re working hard to get the last two members we think we need to get onboard - Senator Flake and Senator Corker,” said Sen. John Cornyn, the second-highest ranking Republican in the Senate.

 

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) was also attending the meeting in McConnell’s office. As he entered, he told reporters that lawmakers were still trying to figure out how to resolve the concerns raised by Corker and Flake. Corker had wanted to put a provision in the bill that would automatically raise taxes after five years if the growth projections that GOP leaders had promised did not come to fruition.

 

The tax increases would kick in through a “trigger” mechanism that was somehow tied to economic growth.

 

But the Senate’s parliamentarian told Corker on Thursday evening that there were issues with how the trigger would be designed. GOP leaders then had to decide whether to try to craft a new trigger or simply add new taxes back into the bill to lessen the impact on the debt.

 

On Friday morning, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said, “I think we’re doing real well.” When asked whether he believed Republicans had the votes to resolve the trigger issue, Hatch said, “I think so.

Corker and Flake are pushing for as much as $350 billion in tax cuts to be reversed if Republicans want the final bill to pass. There’s still no guarantee that the bill makes it to Trump’s desk - it will need to go through the reconciliation process, then be passed against by both the House and Senate.

Republican leaders are hoping to take the vote tonight.
 

Senate Bill Nearly Killed By Deficit Hawks: Will Include $350 Billion In New Tax Hikes

Following a report from the Joint Committee on Taxation, which unveiled late on Thursday afternoon that the Senate Tax bill would generate enough economic growth to lower its $1.4 trillion revenue cost by only about $458 billion over a decade - in other words it would still boost the deficit by roughly $1 trillion - in a dramatic showdown on the Senate floor, GOP leaders agreed to effectively increase taxes by $350 billion in response to a procedural ambush by deficit hawks led by Sen. Bob Corker that nearly killed the GOP tax reform bill.

According to Bloomberg, Senator David Perdue, a Georgia Republican, said that GOP Senators are "discussing a new compromise for their planned tax overhaul that would increase taxes in future years."

David Perdue

Quoted by The Hill, Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn told reporters after a round of intense discussions on the floor, “we have an alternative, frankly, tax increase we don’t want to do to try to address Sen. Corker’s concerns.”  Cornyn said the details of the proposal are being worked out.

Corker had insisted on a "trigger" proposal that would have rolled back tax relief in case economic projections fell short of expectations; the flipside is that it would have also made any recession in the near future far worse by staggering tax increases just as the economy slowed down, in the process sending the deficit soaring and accelerating the economic contraction.

And in an unexpected, 11th hour reversal, the Senate parliamentarian ruled Tuesday afternoon that the trigger would not pass procedural muster. “It doesn’t look like the trigger’s going to work according to the parliamentarian,” Cornyn said. Cornyn’s remarks came after an hourlong standoff on the Senate floor in which three Republicans - Corker, Ron Johnson and Jeff Flake - held up a procedural vote that would have sent the measure back to the Senate Finance Committee.

At least two of those members, senators Bob Corker of Tennessee and Jeff Flake of Arizona, had backed the trigger concept in recent days. Corker The deficit hawks threatened to vote for a motion to recommit the tax bill back to the Finance Committee. That move would have put the legislation in limbo for the foreseeable future and scuttled an all-night voting session on tax relief.

As The Hill adds, Republican leaders appeared extremely frustrated with Corker, Flake and Johnson during their intense discussions on Thursday night while the fate of the bill teetered in the balance.

McConnell’s face grew flushed as he huddled with Corker and Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), one of the main architects of the tax reform bill, while GOP colleagues crowded around them to listen in. Johnson said he joined Corker’s rebellion so he could win an assurance from GOP leaders about getting a vote on setting the corporate tax rate above the 20-percent level favored by President Trump.

Ultimately the hawks allowed the floor debate to continue, but it’s unclear whether or how their demands might be met. Meanwhile, Senator David Perdue said the estimated tax increase would be $350 billion over a decade. Cornyn told reporters that the size could be even larger. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said he held out as well, to ensure he can offer amendments, including one to raise the pass-through deduction to about 25%, paid for by eliminating the corporate deduction for state and local taxes.

Quoted by Bloomberg, Johnson said he doesn’t know if senators will finish the bill Thursday night. “We just saw a kink in the time plan right there so who knows what other cogs might be put in this wheel,” he said.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham added: “I think you’re going to see a lot of these scrums, and here’s the way they’ll end: We’ll pass the bill sometime tomorrow.”

For the sake of the parabolic market, he better be right. 

‘A+’-Rated John Cornyn Continues to Side with Gun-Grabbers

Informed American gun owners don’t. And pretending this bill will prevent future acts of evil in order to impose forced infringements is nothing short of fraud.

“Americans want background checks for gun sales,” Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn assured his Twitter followers Friday. He was linking to a San Antonio Express-News editorial board advocacy piece spreading poll summaries showing alternatively that either “95 percent” or “84 percent” of Americans “support universal background checks for gun sales.”

That polls may show that reflects more on the media sound bite “understanding” most being queried have of gun issues in general. When put to the test in the only poll that impacts the real world, Nevada’s Question 1 referendum, the numbers came up different. Despite similar polling and millions of dollars from out-of-state billionaires to fund an Astroturf campaign effort, the measure passed by less than one percent, being rejected in all counties except populous (and Democrat-dominated) Clark County.

The real question here is why is John Cornyn so eager to give the gun-grabbers a victory, teaming with the likes of Chris Murphy and Dianne Feinstein to “Fix NICS”? After all, we’re talking about a politician that the NRA, which gives him an”A+,” says “has always defended our gun rights in Congress!”

And it’s not like there’s any delegated Constitutional authority for the national government to impose prior restraints on firearms transfers in the first place. So why give citizen disarmament leaders something to crow about, especially since no one but a useful idiot believes expanding infringements is aimed at any but the law-abiding?

“John Cornyn knows that the Second Amendment isn’t subject to negotiation, because our right to defend ourselves is the cornerstone of our democracy,” NRA has gushed in the past. “He also knows that the extreme agenda pushed by gun control groups will make us less safe, less free and turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals for simply exercising their rights.”

So why is he helping the anti-gunners in their “baby step” quest to completely end private sales and then move on to the next stop on their “slippery slope”? For that matter, why is NRA supporting giving up any ground to people who want it all, especially since no less a source than the National Institute of Justice has concluded:

“Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration…”

It’s hardly the first time Cornyn — and NRA — have come out in support of citizen disarmament measures. Due process concerns raised in this column have still never been comprehensively addressed about the mental health dragnet they both support, including:

What protections will exist to offset politically-connected anti-gun judges, politically-appointed boards, and “expert” adherents of the American Psychiatric Association’s “Position Statement on Firearm Access, Acts of Violence and the Relationship to Mental Illness and Mental Health Services.” It’s fair to ask, because APA includes in its advocacy platform registration-enabling, background checks, “smart” guns, storage requirements, “gun-free” zones, doctor-patient boundary violations, tax-funded anti-gun “studies,” all outside the scope of the training and credentialing of those making these proposals.

Also of interest – or it should be – how will rights be restored when there is no longer a compelling mental health reason to deny them? What universal appeal mechanism – affordable to all, not just to elites for whom money is no object – will exist to declare a person is once more “eligible” to keep and bear arms? What guarantees are there that the same biases that colored the disability ruling in the first place won’t reassert themselves in the “parole” process? And have we identified psychiatric evaluators, risk management administrators and insurers who will be willing to subject themselves to malpractice liabilities should a person deemed “fit” be misdiagnosed? Or will the pressure be to “err on the side of caution”?

Lest we forget, Cornyn andother “top Congressional Republicans” have also “signaled” to the media they “would be open to banning the firearm accessory that the Las Vegas gunman used to transform his rifles to mimic automatic weapon fire.”

Add to that Cornyn’s abysmal grades on immigration issues from Numbers USA. That’s directly relevant to the right to keep and bear arms – despite NRA’s deliberate indifference to the issue. That’s because all credible polls – plus real world experience in places like California – demonstrate such populations overwhelmingly support “gun control.” Open a “pathway to citizenship” and overwhelmingly anti-gun legislatures will be empowered to pass whatever infringements they want, plus ensure federal judges confirmed by the majority will uphold them.

What will A-rated Republican politicians and the “gun rights” organization that gives the green light to their defections tell us we need to give up then? And what will constituents and members who feel betrayed tell them in return?

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post ‘A+’-Rated John Cornyn Continues to Side with Gun-Grabbers appeared first on Oath Keepers.

An Army Of Lobbyists Is Coming To Kill Tax Reform

Having sworn themselves to secrecy, Republicans on the House Ways and Means committee are scrambling to put together a tax bill by next week. But not knowing anything about the details of the plan, as it stands right now, hasn’t stopped an army of lobbyists from mobbing Capitol Hill with one overweening mission: To threaten, cajole or otherwise coax lawmakers into preserving loopholes that benefit their clients.

Here"s Bloomberg:

The stage was set with the House’s adoption Thursday of a budget resolution designed to speed the course of tax legislation and kick off a three-week sprint toward a House bill. Now, lobbyists representing every corner of the economy are poised to first devour, then attack what may be hundreds of pages of legislation that Brady says he’ll release Nov. 1.

 

Special interests from realtors to dairy farmers will be trying to save their industry-specific tax breaks, said Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity. His group, which is backed by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, supports ending such breaks.

 

“It’s pretty fierce,” Phillips said. “We met with Brady on Tuesday and he was saying their offices are swamped with all the special interest groups swarming in asking to be protected.”

The immense pressure to find a source of revenue to compensate for the sweeping cuts to corporate and individual rates has already nearly derailed the tax reform process. Yesterday, House Republicans narrowly approved the Senate version of a $4 trillion federal budget over the objections of 20 blue-state Republicans who oppose the elimination of the state and local tax deduction, which they say would disproportionately raise taxes on middle-class taxpayers in blue states, which tend to have higher taxes. Yet, Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady has said the elimination of the SALT deduction will stay in the bill - for now, at least.

Kevin Brady

On a static basis, the nine-page outline introduced by the White House and GOP Congressional leaders last month will cost $2.4 trillion over the first decade and $3.2 trillion over the second decade, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The TPC also found that 80% of the benefits from tax reform would accrue to the top 1% of earners. Republicans who are writing the bill must somehow reduce the impact on the deficit to $1.5 trillion, while adhering to President Donald Trump’s promise that middle-class Americans would be the biggest beneficiaries of the tax overhaul.

Still, it remains to be seen which groups will lose their benefits. According to Bloomberg, even Republican members of Ways and Means don’t know what will be preserved and what will be eliminated.

That could make releasing the bill by the Wednesday deadline difficult.

“The problem is that Ways and Means has somewhat been kept out of the loop with details,” Representative Jim Renacci of Ohio, a member of the House tax-writing panel, said in an interview. “There are still a lot of hurdles to get it done.”

As Bloomberg points out, the elimination of the SALT deduction has become one of the most divisive issues surrounding tax reform. Trump and congressional leaders have proposed abolishing that break, which benefits high-tax states that tend to vote Democratic. But several Republican House members from such states want to preserve the break in some form.

“Can you get people to put their party loyalty above home-grown constituents’ concerns?” said Hollier, a former chief of staff and legislative director for Senator Mike Crapo, an Idaho Republican. “How they deal with that will show that people can be broken.”

And unsurprisingly, corporate lobbyists, who are used to their clients’ interests being given priority in Congress, are upset with the Republicans’ decision to keep other details of the bill under wraps.

Will Hollier, whose clients include Microsoft Corp. and Visa Inc., told Bloomberg that secrecy is a double-edged sword: The secrecy has allowed for some efficiency, but it’s also prevented GOP leaders from winning broad support.

Which could create problems for the bill as it moves forward because, as Sen. Bob Corker told Bloomberg: “I don’t think that people realize that 80 percent plus of this effort is eliminating things in the code,” referring to special interest loopholes. Meaning that, once the bill’s details are made public, Republicans will need to guide it to the president’s desk over lobbyists’ objections.  

“I mean, over the next two weeks, especially when the Senate tax-writing committee puts their stuff out, they’re going to realize that this the biggest tax code rewrite since 1986 and it’s going to affect everyone,” Corker said.

Lobbyists have already started pushing back against details in the nine-page outline that would raise taxes on corporate America. Those measures include the elimination of corporate deductions for interest payments – which could raise as much as $1 trillion over a decade – as well as a new foreign minimum tax that would affect corporations who shift profits to offshore tax havens

One of the ways to make up the revenue gap is by limiting the deductions corporations take on the interest they pay on their loans -- a major consideration for industries such as private equity and real estate. A prior House Republican proposal called for completely eliminating the corporate break, which could have raised more than $1 trillion over a decade.

 

“They’re totally undecided,” about how to restrict corporate interest deductions, said Marc Gerson, the chair of law firm Miller & Chevalier. Gerson said proposals include setting limits based on a company’s earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization, or Ebitda, a key measure of profitability. Existing debt might be grandfathered in, he said.

 

Another piece of the framework is aimed at preventing U.S. companies from shifting their earnings to offshore tax havens -- by imposing a minimum foreign tax. The idea -- described briefly and obliquely in the framework language -- was called “appalling” several weeks ago by Ken Kies, a lobbyist whose clients include Microsoft and General Electric Co. The rate and formula for such a tax haven’t been specified, but the proposal carries multibillion-dollar implications for multinationals.

 

On the individual side, the treatment of state and local deductions remains in question. At least 12 Republicans from high-tax states, whose constituents stand to lose if the tax break is repealed, voted no on the House budget Thursday. The most vocal among them have demanded a compromise on the issue.

Given the number of parties involved, there are many obstacles to passing tax reform by the Republicans’ hoped-for deadline of year’s end, including the other issues on the Congressional agenda. Congress must fund the government to avoid a shutdown by Dec. 8. That could turn ugly as the White House has signaled it’ll demand funding for a border wall, and Democrats say they want a solution to protect young undocumented immigrants.

To be sure, there is one powerful political imperative that might force Republicans to swallow their objections: The fear that another legislative failure - especially one with the potential to tank financial markets - could cost Republicans one, or both, of their Congressional majorities.

House and Senate leaders hope to pass bills through their chambers by Thanksgiving, said Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn. The different bills would then have to be reconciled with another round of votes in December. Only then can Congress send the final bill to the president’s desk.
 

Last Ditch Obamacare Repeal Bill Officially Dead After Collins Says No

Not only was the Republicans" third attempt to repeal Obamacare not lucky, but as of moments ago, said attempt has died a total of three times, the first when John McCain said he would vote no last Friday, then yesterday when Ted Cruz also said he would not support the Graham-Cassidy Obamacare repeal bill, and then the third and final time came late on Monday when Maine Senator Susan Collins confirmed she would oppose the latest GOP effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare, dooming the measure.

"Health care is a deeply personal, complex issue that affects every single one of us and one-sixth of the American economy. Sweeping reforms to our health care system and to Medicaid can’t be done well in a compressed time frame, especially when the actual bill is a moving target," she said in a statement.

Senator Collins opposes Graham-Cassidy health care bills https://t.co/nW6MFUvYVg pic.twitter.com/0DSxDJNMPp

— Sen. Susan Collins (@SenatorCollins) September 25, 2017

Her announcement is hardly a surprise: as we said last week, Collins was widely viewed as a "no" vote but talked with Pence over the weekend and said Sunday she wanted to see the preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget Office. "It"s very difficult for me to envision a scenario where I would end up voting for this bill," she told CNN"s "State of the Union." Well, just prior to Collins" statement, the CBO projected that the last-ditch GOP ObamaCare repeal bill would result in "millions" of people losing coverage. The agency did not give a specific number given a lack of time to do the analysis before a vote, but said the "direction of the effect is clear." That was enough to seal Collins" "no" answer.

According to Bloomberg, Collins joins Republican Sens. Rand Paul and John McCain, who have already come out against bill, although technically on Sunday Ted Cruz said that “Right now, they don’t have my vote and I don"t think they have Mike Lee’s vote either,” which means that the third and final attempt to repeal Obamacare was not even down to the wire.

Collins"s announcement came as Graham, Cassidy and the White House engaged in a dash of last minute negotiations to try to keep their ObamaCare repeal push alive and win over holdouts, including Collins. “If there’s a billion more going to Maine ... that’s a heck of a lot,” Cassidy told The Washington Post. "It’s not for Susan, it’s for the Mainers. But she cares so passionately about those Mainers, I’m hoping those extra dollars going to her state ... would make a difference to her.”

According to The Hill, it isn"t immediately clear whether leadership will force a vote even though they are short of necessary support to pass a bill. "I"m in a fact-gathering mode," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the No. 2 Senate Republican, told reporters earlier Monday.

A spokesman for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said last week that it was his "intention" to bring up Graham-Cassidy but he didn"t mention a potential vote in his opening remarks on Monday. Rank-and-file members have also expressed skepticism that they would ultimately have a vote.

And now onto Trump"s tax reform, which despite Wall Street"s recent spike in enthusiasm will likely suffer the same fate as Obamacare repeal.

Obamacare Repeal Officially Dead After Cruz Says No

In a sudden change of heart that kills senate Republicans’ effort to pass a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare before a rule allowing Republicans to circumvent a Democratic filibuster expires at the end of the month, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is now saying he won’t support the Graham-Cassidy Obamacare repeal bill.

Cruz, who revealed his position during a panel discussion at a Texas Tribune conference in Austin, suggested that the proposal also lacks the vote of Sen. Mike Lee, according to Politico. The Texas Republican said he and Lee offered amendments to the Graham-Cassidy proposal last week that would go further in bringing down Obamacare premiums but that the changes weren’t included in the latest draft of the bill.

The latest blow to the seven-year-long Obamacare repeal effort comes as President Donald Trump escalates feuds with Both North Korea and US professional sports leagues. Cruz’s opposition means that, with both he and McCain saying know and at least two other moderates leaning toward a no, that even if Trump manages to flip Sen. Rand Paul, he wouldn’t be able to muster the 50 votes needed for Vice President Mike Pence to break a tie.

“Right now, they don’t have my vote and I don"t think they have Mike Lee’s vote either,” Cruz said during a panel discussion at the Texas Tribune festival in Austin that also included Sen. John Cornyn.

Both Cruz and Cornyn – a member of senate Republican leadership - had said they back the way the bill would convert Obamacare funding into a system of block grants to states. But while Cornyn said he would vote for the bill as it stands, Cruz said that he wants to see more changes, but declined to elaborate.

Ironically, Texas and other states that didn"t expand coverage under Obamacare would fare well under the Graham-Cassidy plan, according to Politico, which cited an independent analyses of the bill showing it would save the state some $35 billion between 2020 and 2026.

Rand Paul reiterated his opposition to the bill during an appearance on “Meet the Press” Sunday morning, saying he would only support the bill if the block-grant provision that Cruz purportedly supports (or at least, once supported) is dropped.

"What it sets up is a perpetual food fight over the formula," he said. "What happens when Democrats win? They"re going to claw back that money from Republican states to give to Democrat states."

Trump had said during a rally on Friday that Paul might “come around” then tweeted Saturday that he might’ve found a way to gain the Kentucky Republican’s support. News of Cruz’s opposition must’ve pleased the dozens of protesters who gathered outside the University of Texas auditorium where Cruz was speaking to protest repealing the bill.
 

* * *

Here"s a roundup of where key senators stand on Graham-Cassidy. As it suggests, the bill now has a very low chance of passing.

Where GOP stands on Graham-Cassidy

Murkowski: ????
Portman: ????
Collins: ????
Capito: ????

McCain: ?
Cruz: ?
Paul: ?

3 GOPers saying ? stops bill.

— Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) September 24, 2017

Decentralize The Gun Laws

With a Republican in the White House, the anti-gun-control lobby smells a bit of blood in the water. Now is the time, they suggest, to pass national gun-licensing reciprocity laws forcing gun-restrictive states to recognize permits issued by gun-permissive states.

It is time for there to be national reciprocity for concealed carry permits, instead of the patchwork of laws governing reciprocity that vary by state. Virginia, where the [recent shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise] happened, has reciprocity for some states’ concealed carry permits, but if members would have brought their guns back and forth from D.C., they would have been breaking the law. It should never be a crime to be responsibly prepared to defend yourself in any possible situation.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) have introduced the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, which would allow legal gun owners and concealed carry permit holders nationwide to responsibly arm themselves no matter where they are. 

The way this is phrased sounds nice and totally unobjectionable: this bill sounds like it"s just saying people should be left alone. 

The problem, however, is that the drive for mandated reciprocity is essentially a drive to increase federal involvement and federal control in the realm of gun policy. 

Schmidt is right in the sense that, of course it should never be a crime to defend one"s self. The question remains however: should the federal government be the agency that guarantees that right? Should the feds have the power to overturn state and local laws that limit gun ownership?

This issue can be addressed from both a legal and Constitutional standpoint, and from a general philosophical decentralist view. 

The Constitutionalist View

Suzanne Sherman at the Tenth Amendment Center has already weighed in against the idea on Constitutional grounds, based on two main arguments: 

1. Reciprocity laws are compacts made among the states, and are not imposed by the federal government.

2. The Bill of Rights Doesn"t apply to the states. 

On the first matter, Sherman notes that the proposed legislation would impose reciprocity on the states. This, Sherman notes, is a departure from what we usually mean by reciprocity, which denotes compacts that two or more states have voluntarily entered into. 

Sherman writes:

Many advocates of forced National Reciprocity point to the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” found in Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution. Such application is likewise problematic because it deviates from the original intent of the clause, lifted directly from the Articles of Confederation without any change to its meaning. This clause, as ratified, simply ensured citizens in one state could own land or property in another with the full rights of a citizen of that state. It in no way implied that one state had to recognize the institutions or licensing of another state. Driver’s licenses are acceptable for passing through various states, but it is, like CCW licensing, by mutual assent of the states. In other words, there is no federal statute mandating that one state must honor another state’s driver’s licenses.

In other words, the sort of "reciprocity" imagined by the backers of nationwide forced reciprocity is a new kind of reciprocity that substitutes federal policy for decentralized state-level policy. 

The enormous downside to this is that it federalizes what has long been recognized as largely the domain of state and local governments. Further federalizing gun policy may look like a fine idea right now, but as Sherman notes, it only takes a couple of new anti-gun appointments to the Supreme Court for the whole idea to blow up in the faces of pro-gun advocates. It"s far more prudent, Sherman contends, to work against any increase in federal involvement in gun policy. 

The Bill of Rights Was Never Meant to Apply to the States 

Sherman"s second point is one that Constitutionalists and decentralists have made for years. Namely, that the Bill of Rights is properly understood as a document that limits the federal government, not state governments. 

Sherman writes: 

When he introduced the proposal for a Bill of Rights to Congress, Madison wanted some of the provisions to be made applicable against the states. He argued that was where liberty would be most likely threatened. Again, he was defeated unanimously. The Bill of Rights was never understood to be applicable against the states. There is absolutely no historical evidence of the Bill of Rights being made enforceable against the states. Even nationalist John Marshall, in the 1833 case Barron v. Baltimore, was forced to admit this when he said that the first ten “amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them."

...It was not until 1925, in the case of Gitlow vs New York, that the Supreme Court magically “found” the authority to apply the Bill of Rights against the states supposedly hidden away in the 14th Amendment..."

Sensing that things are going their way, it has become fashionable for some gun-freedom advocates to push for more federal control over state and local gun laws. One example is the recent case of Mcdonald vs. the City of Chicago which finally declared that the Second Amendment — like other portions of the Bill of Rights — applies to the states. Nevertheless, by pushing for more federal control in this case, gun-rights advocates are only pushing for more federal control over the states.

Even those who have no particular affinity for the current American Constitution have noted this as well. 

Lew Rockwell writes: 

[T]he purpose of the Bill of Rights was to state very clearly and plainly what the Federal Government may not do. That"s why they were attached to the Constitution. The states, under the influence of skeptics of the Constitution"s limits on the central power, insisted that the restrictions on the government be spelled out. The Bill of Rights did not provide a mandate for what the Federal Government may do. You can argue all you want about the 14th amendment and due process. But a reading that says it magically transforms the whole Bill of Rights to mean the exact opposite of its original intent is pure fantasy.

In other words, appealing to the 2nd Amendment as a means of limiting state and local gun laws is based on newly invented federal powers that have no basis in legal or historical facts around the Constitution as written. Thus, it is ironic that many conservatives — who often fancy themselves to be "strict constructionists" and "local control" people — have suddenly made peace with the idea of using the Bill of Rights to boss state governments around. 

The Decentralist View

The Constitutional arguments are all well and good, but the US Constitution should never be viewed as the final word on any matter. The current constitution has always gone much too far in terms of centralizing political power in the United States, and the United States should never have been anything more than a loose military alliance and customs union. It"s no more necessary that the federal government regulate gun laws than it is necessary to define marriage or prohibit prayer at school sporting events.

In fact, gun policy, like abortion policy, wage policy, land-use policy, and everything else, should be relentlessly decentralized. 

In his article "What We Mean by Decentralization," Lew Rockwell explains the various reasons why decentralization is a mroe effective check on power than handing everything over to a Supreme Court or other federal "protectors" or rights. 

Rockwell lists five reasons for this:

First, under decentralization, jurisdictions must compete for residents and capital, which provides some incentive for greater degrees of freedom...

Second, localism internalizes corruption so that it can be more easily spotted and uprooted....

Third, tyranny on the local level minimizes damage to the same extent that macro-tyranny maximizes it....

Fourth, no government can be trusted to use the power to intervene wisely...

Fifth, a plurality of governmental forms—a "vertical separation of powers," ... prevents the central government from accumulating power. Lower governments are rightly jealous of their jurisdiction, and resist... 

Also key to this equation is the fact that decentralization offers a multitude of choices between different regimes in the face of government restrictions and persecution. If only one huge government has been granted the power to protect rights, to where will one go when the government fails to do its prescribed task? On the other hand, when a wide variety of smaller governments are charged with protecting rights, the failure by one regime is not nearly as catastrophic since the offending regime can be far more easily avoided through emigration and boycott than can a large centralized regime. 

Thus, it might sound nice to put the federal government in charge of protecting gun rights, but the potential downside is immense given that federal policy can change easily, and then be imposed nationwide. 

This isn"t to say that small, decentralized government are a cure-all either. Ideology always plays an important role, and in a world where the majority wants all private citizens disarmed — well, that will happen regardless of what level of decentralization exists.

However, if what we desire is a governmental landscape that offers more choices for residents and more limitations on state power, decentralization is the proper path, and handing over gun policy to federal "protectors" is a terrible idea.

Can Republicans Actually Pull It Off: Senate GOP Consdering "Scaled-Down" Healthcare Bill

While ahead of today"s Senate healthcare vote it was nothing but noise and chaos, gradually things are crystallizing, and there is a small chance Senate Republicans may just be able to pull it off.

According to GOP aides quoted by The Hill, Senate Republicans are considering passing a dramatically scaled-down version of their ObamaCare repeal bill as a way to pass something and set up negotiations with the House. The "skinny bill" proposal is intended to be something all Republicans can agree on, allowing something to pass and setting up a conference committee with the House.

As The Hill adds, the scaled-down bill would likely just repeal ObamaCare"s individual and employer mandates and the medical device tax and represents a far narrower measure than the most recent Senate replacement bill, which also scaled down ObamaCare"s subsidies and cut Medicaid.

The consideration of the scaled down measure is a sign of how much trouble Senate Republicans are having coming to agreement on any more significant bill.

The scaled-down bill will likely be revealed after the initial two votes on both a repeal-only measure and the latest replacement bill, fail as expected. Republicans also will need to gather enough votes to start debate, and it is still unclear if they have those votes. Still, John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican, was optimistic when he floated a conference committee with the House on Monday evening. “I think if you want to get a result that may be a selling point."

And in a sign that things may be starting to move in Trump"s favor, ealier today Sen. Rand Paul said Tuesday that he will vote in favor of the Senate healthcare.  Paul tweeted that he will vote in favor of a motion to proceed to a debate on healthcare because Mitch McConnell told him the chamber would take up the 2015 ObamaCare repeal bill previously passed by Congress.

“If this is indeed the plan, I will vote to proceed and I will vote for any all measures that are clean repeal.”

This morning, @SenateMajLdr informed me that the plan for today is to take up the 2015 clean repeal bill as I"ve urged.

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) July 25, 2017

If this is indeed the plan, I will vote to proceed and I will vote for any all measures that are clean repeal.

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) July 25, 2017

As The Hill writes, Paul has pushed for a vote on the 2015 bill, which repeals large parts of ObamaCare"s requirements and regulations, instead of the GOP repeal-and-replace plan that Republicans have been working on this year. Even with Ryan"s approval it remains unclear if McConnell has the 50 votes he needs to proceed to debate.

In a major hurdle to the 2015 repeal bill, it would need 60 votes, and will likely fail because it won"t get the support of Democrats and some Republicans. However, the floated "skinny bill" just may be able to squeek through...

Inside The Republicans' 'Black-And-Blue' Bill

Authored by Eric Peters via EricPetersAutos.com,

Naturally, the solution to the problem of police abusing their authority is to hold them less accountable when they do exactly that.

Leave it to “law and order” Republicans such as Texas Sen. John Cornyn and Rep. Ted Poe to evolve such logic. They have put forth the Black and Blue – whoops, Back the Blue – act (see here) which would make it harder to sue run-amok law enforcers in civil court to recover damages resulting from actions undeniably illegal – while at the same time imposing more severe penalties on Mundanes who affront the holy person of a law enforcer than those imposed on Mundanes who do exactly the same thing.

As regards the first:

So long as the victim – er, perp – was “engaged in felonies or crimes of violence” (how this it to be determined in the heat of the moment remains unclear) the law enforcer administering the wood shampoo or “directory assistance” (beating administered with a phone book in between the flesh and he nightstick, to keep the bruising down) or some other such informal technique, will be immunized from subsequent civil suit by his victim, provided the abuse suffered occurred while the enforcer was acting in a “judicial capacity.”

Breathtaking.

It is obvious – or should be – that this only encourage more lawless “street justice” by the enforcers of the law. It will also encourage more generous application of the law – i.e., of bogus/trumped-up charges (such as felony “resisting”) in the immediate aftermath of an otherwise legally unjustifiable beatdown, to immunize the beaters from the legal consequences of said beatdown.

This GOP act of cop suckage is even better than a throw-away stiletto  – which dirty cops used to keep on hand to leave adjacent to the bloodied corpse of their victim, so as to justify his aeration.

That was at least illegal.

Now, they won’t have to bother.

 

What these Republican brownshirts – and that term isn’t too strong; if anything, it is too soft – propose to do is legalize objectively criminal conduct, the conduct to be justified by eructing that the victim was a “law breaker” and so – presumably – deserved to have more than the legally prescribed justice meted out to him and – critically – before he has been duly convicted of anything at all.

Under the proposed Black and Blue lawlessness, law enforcement is to be given discretion to administer street justice, according to its lights – and the victim of this is to be rendered legally helpless. No damages are to be awarded for any violations of law that occurred during “any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in the judicial capacity of that officer.”

Hut!Hut! Hut! You will respect my authoritah!

 

At the same time, any assault upon the person of a law enforcer by a Mundane becomes a separate federal crime with a mandatory two-to-five-year stint in federal prison. Twenty if the accused was in possession of a weapon during the incident.

The legal definition of “assault” can be a trivial as jabbing a finger onto someone else’s chest. Or – in the case of law enforcement – defending oneself against an assault by a law enforcer. Attempt to ward off a wood shampoo –  a reflex action that is almost impossible to suppress, and – to well-practiced cries of “stop resisting!” – you have just purchased a two-to-five-year ticket to the federal prison of their choice.

It goes without saying that a law enforcer who commits exactly the same offense – assuming he is even charged – will suffer nothing of the sort.

Cannot suffer anything of the sort, because the the law specifies more lenient treatment for assault-by-cop upon a Mundane.

And the lights just got a little dimmer.

One hates to trot out the Nazis, but they seem never to go away. They merely change uniforms. In the Third Reich, to strike an officer of the Reich was an enormous crime, far worse – and treated far more severely – than the treatment meted out to officers of the Reich who abused citizens of the Reich. For which acts, the officers of the Reich were usually rewarded.

As is often the case, the words of the brutal but never truckling Reichsmarschall Herman Goring are worth recalling.

But first, it is worth recalling that Goring was Nazi Germany’s chief law enforcer for a time. Head of the Prussian State Police, creator of the first German concentration camps and founder of the Gestapo, the acronym standing for geheim staats polizei, or secret state police. He was hanged – well, supposed to have been hanged – after the judgment at Nuremburg precisely for his activities as Nazi Germany’s Top Cop.

And here is what Goring had to say about his law enforcers, when the question of excesses arose:

“Shoot first and inquire afterwards; if you make mistakes, I will protect you. Every bullet which leaves the barrel of a police pistol is my bullet. If one calls this murder, then I have murdered. I ordered all this. I back it up. I assume the responsibility and I am not afraid to do so.”

One can imagine Cornyn or similar “law and order” Republican – including the current orange-tinctured buffoon – saying pretty much the same.

What the hell happened to us?

Well, to some of us.

There has always been a jackbooted strain in American politics, the bloody lust of the Red Queen to “off with their heads.” But until recently, it was backwater  – along with things like handling snakes, jabbering in “tongues” and sipping strychnine.

But these and worse barbarisms wax mainstream.

Rather than hold those who enforce the law to at least the same standard expected of the rest of us – if not a higher standard – they are to be held to a lesser standard. We, meanwhile, had best not so much as raise our voices to these dispensers of “justice.”

Remarkable.

And it’s only taken 70 years for us to get from there to here.

FBI’s Motto Key to Vetting Director Candidates

Fired FBI Director James Comey names former Direcor of National Intelligence James Clapper “Honorary Special Agent.” Will we see a new direction of Fidelity to the Constittuion under the next director, or can we expect more of the same? (FBI Facebook photo)

“Top Justice Department officials were scheduled to interview four candidates Saturday to serve as FBI director on a permanent basis,” POLITICO Friday reported Friday. “The four potential nominees to be interviewed are: acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), former Justice Department Criminal Division Chief Alice Fisher and New York state judge and former U.S. Attorney in Manhattan Michael Garcia…

“The FBI special agent in charge in Richmond, Adam Lee, also arrived for an interview Saturday afternoon and officials said it was possible more candidates would also be summoned,” the report continued. “Henry E. Hudson, U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, Fran Townsend, former Homeland Security Adviser to former President George W. Bush, and Mike Rogers, the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, were also interviewed.”

Assuming the fix isn’t already in for a political appointment and that the interviews aren’t being scheduled for due diligence theater, they should be looked at not only for law enforcement experience, but also for past conduct, political support and sympathies, and most importantly, for how their actions and philosophy have advanced the whole purpose behind having a national government in the first place, as set down in the Preamble to the Constitution:

“…to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

That, of course, is done by constraining authority to that which is delegated through enumerated powers, something seemingly lost on those in power, and of little concern to enough of our countrymen to allow usurpation and abuse to be the rule instead of the exception.

So what can we demonstrate or infer from Saturday’s round of picks, with an eye toward who has shown true faith and allegiance, particularly toward the right to secure all others, the Second Amendment?

Acting Director McCabe’s inclusion appears to be for the sake of form. His “F*** Trump” advocacy would seem to be career-limiting for him to stay on at the Bureau after the top slot is filled, particularly since the president is known to insist on loyalty. So should citizens, and in this case, McCabe’s ties to gun-grabbers Terry McCauliffe, Hillary Clinton and the Democrat party should disqualify him from serious consideration.

Sen. Cornyn gets a “B” from Gun Owners of America and an “A+” and endorsement from the National Rifle Association. Unfortunately, he fails the Numbers USA grade on the tangentially-related “immigration/pathway to citizenship” issues. Noting that all credible polls and all actual experience shows that demographic votes overwhelmingly Democrat and anti-gun, such destructive practices mean “progressive” control of legislatures and courts. Look how quickly California morphed from being a state that once elected Ronald Reagan.

Washington corporate defense lawyer Fisher appears to be the consummate Beltway insider, meaning her experience and her background show no real connections with or understanding of “flyover” concerns. In terms of Constitutional reverence, there does not appear to be a lot to go on, leaving inferences and educated guesses as to her outlook and convictions. Of note in that case is a reference in The National Law Journal that “Michael Chertoff … was her mentor,” and to then look at some of the lessons he must have imparted.

Former U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia was a G.W. Bush appointee, and a Republican. His subsequent appointment to the New York Court of Appeals by Empire State Gungrabber in Chief Andrew Cuomo ought to raise flags for all.

If any of their names advance beyond the initial Politico report, I’ll do some digging on second-tier candidates Lee, Townsend, Hudson and Rogers. For now, a more prominent name has also arisen, former New York Police Department Commissioner Raymond Kelly, a career citizen disarmament proponent and oath-breaker who would ban handguns and so-called (in order to demonize them) “assault weapons” if he had the power.

“Fidelity” to what, exactly? The oath?

Per the FBI’s motto, its initials stand for “Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity.”

That fidelity must first and foremost be to the Constitution.  While it’s doubtful the political establishment would put anyone liberty-minded enough to endorse Oath Keepers in charge of federal law enforcement, there is one question I’d nonetheless like to see asked of whoever ultimately appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee for confirmation:

What orders would you not obey or issue, and why?

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.