Republicans Overseas (RO) has brought forward a lawsuit against the United States Department of the Treasury, United States Internal Revenue Service, and United States Financial Crimes Enforcement Network over FATCA, IGAs, and the FBAR.
In the back and forth of the litigation, the US Government continues to argue that none of the plaintiffs have any “standing” or have suffered any harm that is relevant for legal/litigation purposes. This is the latest (September 15, 2016) response of the Jim Bopp RO team to the the Government’s arguments. See the link.
A bit of text From the response brief:
“In pre-enforcement challenges, as here, plaintiffs are not required to violate laws to challenge them. One may comply with a statute though deeming it unconstitutional and challenge it as being an unconstitutional burden. See, e.g., Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (2008)…”
“The Government says it has never sought to impose an FBAR penalty against Zell [who is also the attorney in the Israeli FATCA lawsuit] (Opp’n 65), but the Government has nowhere eschewed enforcement, so the provision is not moribund and pre-enforcement challenges allow one to challenge provisions before enforcement begins. He reasonably fears enforcement for noncompliance. (Am.Compl. ¶¶ 130, 132.)”
“The government never addresses Warth on this issue and ignores the other two cases, so the Government’s argument that the actions, e.g., of FFIs, are not fairly traceable to challenged provisions/agreements is already suspect for failing to engage the required analysis. For example, the Government says “Crawford’s alleged loss of business is not fairly traceable to the challenged provisions of FATCA because it results from the independent actions of third parties.” (Opp’n 46.) But that continued assertion cannot be taken seriously given the Government’s failure to show why the coercive aspects of the challenged provisions/IGAs on FFIs do not suffice for traceability under the coerced-harm, indirect-harm, contributing-factor authorities that the Government ignores.”
“Similarly, the Democrats Abroad study shows that FATCA/IGAs are causing widespread relationship harms: “‘their relationships with their non-American spouses are under strain.’” (Br. 26 (citation omitted).) And some Plaintiffs here verify they are experiencing the same such problems as many others have. Yet the Government dismissively cites the district court for the proposition that “disagreement with one’s spouse about a government policy is not a concrete injury on which a federal lawsuit is based.” (Opp’n 41.) But the court errs because the “disagreement” is based on asserted constitutional privacy and equal-protection rights and also on government-coerced actions that are the logical result of the Government’s actions in enacting FATCA, FBAR, and IGAs, e.g., the separation of accounts.”
“Another example of an erroneous non-traceability argument is the Government’s argument that Katerina Johnson suffers no harm because she is not a U.S. citizen and so not subject to any challenged provision/IGA. (Opp’n 66-67.) But of course, this argument ignores the indirect coercive-effect harm, described above, that she experiences as a result of being married to a U.S. Citizen. And the Government claims she “alleges no concrete injury from . . . separation” of her accounts from those of her spouse (Opp’n 79), but the separation itself is cognizable harm traceable to challenged provisions/IGAs. Thus, she has concrete injury that is traceable to government action.”
“The Government says Zell alleges “that his clients have suffered various indignities at the hands of Israeli banks” and alleges invasion of the attorney-client privilege that “belongs to the client alone.” (Opp’n 45 & n.13.) But while a client may waive the attorney-client privilege, absent such a waiver an attorney has a strong interest in preserving the privilege. And Plaintiff Zell verifies loss of business, as the Government acknowledges (Opp’n 47-48) and that his harms are ongoing (Am.Compl. ¶ 133, RE32-1, PageID# 462). Moreover, as a fiduciary and trustee he has a personal interest in protecting information about client accounts. And the Government concedes that the Israeli IGA requires disclosure of such accounts. (Opp’n 48.)”
“The Government argues that Plaintiffs never asserted loss of citizenship as a harm (Opp’n 44 n.12), but Plaintiffs clearly recited the loss of citizenship as a harm flowing from challenged provisions and agreements and then provided Plaintiffs who renounced citizenship on that very basis (Am.Compl. ¶¶ 5, 9, 69, 73-74 (Kuettel), 90, 96-97 (Nelson). So reading the complaint as a whole and giving implications to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs made that claim. Anyway, Plaintiff Kish has now also renounced his citizenship due to challenged provisions/agreements, and recites the harm in his attached declaration (Exhibit A), so it is at issue.”
See above September 15, 2016 response to US Treasury, IRS, and FINCEN in ongoing Republicans Overseas FATCA/IGA/FBAR lawsuit.
@ Stephen Kish
I think I get the gist of Jim Bopp’s response but I’m mostly going on the faith that he and his team know what they are doing. Thank goodness for that. If I’d ever attempted in my past to take a course on legalese I’m certain I would have flunked it. And I still would. How do I know? Well I was incapable (and remain so) of grasping the US concept of being a resident in the US (ONLY for tax purposes) even though my citizenship (my ONLY citizenship) is Canadian and my feet are firmly planted on Canadian soil and will never again tread on American soil. In my simple brain, residency means where you actually are, not an imaginary presence of some type in a place you are not. US government thinking on this does not compute with me and it never will.
The part of the response that was absolutely clear to me was your declaration and my Canadian tendency is to say I’m sorry, Stephen. I know it wasn’t me specifically who put you into the untenable situation of choosing between the US citizenship you wanted to retain and harmony in your family but my Canadian government played a mortifying role in pushing you towards that decision when it allowed FATCA to cross the border. For that I am sorry and that’s why, in part, I contributed as much as I could to ADCS. I hope someday Americans will finally realize that they too should be saying they are sorry for what their American government did to you and 8 million others when it created CBT, designed the unconscionable FBAR form and steam rolled over every sovereign nation in the world with FATCA.
With the number of injuries list in the complaint and the illogical, if not down right idiotic arguments the judges brought, the fact that not one came through is blatant evidence that the judges knew the plaintiffs suffered and had standing, but they were bought and had no intention of doing anything about it. There is now they can believe their own arguments and they don’t care that that anyone with half a brain can see right through them. Let’s just hope the next set is not so corrupt. Even in Sodom and Gomorrah, there was one good man, if you believe these things.
I’m not that surprised, since standing is a very tricky thing. Congress was told that it lacked standing when it tried to take Bill Clinton to court for sending troops into the Balkans for over ninety days without congressional approval and presidents now pretty much have free reign to ignore the constitution and the War Powers Resolution. Alleged terrorist Anwar Al-Alwaki’s father was told that he lacked standing to challenge legality of the drones program that was targeting his son (not that his son was in any way a good “American abroad”) and there are parts of the world where the drone program has few checks on it. Sometimes things change: decades ago they used to throw out abortion cases because by the time the mother to be made it all the way up through the U.S. court system, years had passed and she was no longer pregnant. Then one day the courts decided that that standard of standing was too stringent. I suspect that public opinion played a role, but it’s hard to change that.
With the rise of the cost of renunciation to its present extortionate $2,350 USD fee, this is proof enough that the US has no intention of doing anything except raise the fee and find a new source of income revenue from renunciations. Having to pay this extortionate fee is an injury in itself.
My spouse has gotten into the habit of searching the internet now for Fatca news and articles and came across this today, not sure it was posted here yet but will be of interest.
It’s a series of articles on the so called Land of the Free and Fatca. Hope the links work.
First
http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Opinion/2016-09-15/article-4641226/Land-of-the-free%3F-Really%3F/1
Second
http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Opinion/2016-09-16/article-4641875/The-invasion-of-the-U.S.s-FATCA(T)/1
How about the thousands who have renounced? Maybe the loss of one`s birthright is the ONLY thing that homelanders can understand as “harm” inflicted. Because the rest they just talk their way out of- without making any sense.
This is why we need Citizens in government and Not Lawyers. The democrat party always runs a lawyer. We have a citizen running who may winn.
Keep up the fight, although it is highly doubtful that justice will be done under the current Obama regime. I was once a life-long Democrat. After researching who was behind FATCA, I discovered that FATCA is a 100% Democrat creation. Not one single Republican had anything to do with its conception, drafting, or voting into law. Obama himself is a strong supporter of FATCA and having been made aware of the harm that FATCA is causing to US citizens, including the thousands of accidental Americans, his response was, “we are only asking these people to pay their fair share, just like everybody else.” That summed up what he knows and cares about the situation.
Law suits and trials are fine, but the most important thing is to never, ever, vote for any Democrat, irrespective of what your personal political leanings may be. One sure way to send a clear message to the Democratic Party that all expats know who is responsible for FATCA and who has upheld it and fought to keep it it in the courts. Just vote Republican and send messages to the Democrat Party that you will vote Republican this time as a one issue voter and to punish and send a very strong message to the Democrats that what they have done with FATCA will never be forgotten by the overseas’ community of US persons. If every eligible voter living abroad would vote to punish the Democrats, that would do more to make the point that the overseas’ community of US persons has a voice and will not forget what the Democrats are responsible for. PLEASE, NO MATTER WHAT YOU THINK, VOTE REPUBLICAN THIS ELECTION AND GET AS MANY FRIENDS AND FAMILY MEMBERS STILL LIVING IN THE US BEHIND YOU. I HAVE ALREADY 7 PLEDGES FROM US FRIENDS TO VOTE REPUBLICAN IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE OVERSEAS US COMMUNITY AND TO PUNISH THE DEMOCRATS FOR HAVING CREATED THE FATCA MONSTROSITY.
I would like to share this article, ‘Canada complicit in an invasion of its sovereignty’, that appeared today in the P.E.I. Guardian, which is very supportive of our cause:
http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Opinion/2016-09-16/article-4641875/The-invasion-of-the-U.S.s-FATCA(T)/1
Please share it widely.
“the illogical, if not down right idiotic arguments the judges brought, the fact that not one came through is blatant evidence that the judges knew the plaintiffs suffered and had standing, but they were bought and had no intention of doing anything about it. There is now they can believe their own arguments and they don’t care that that anyone with half a brain can see right through them.”
That is their job. They do their job very well. No one can stop them. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
“Even in Sodom and Gomorrah, there was one good man, if you believe these things.”
He was driven out.
The most famous case is Serpico. Movies were made but he was driven out and criminals remained in power in NYPD.
In the 1990’s, FBI crime labs had an honest employee. Luckily a court awarded him a million dollars, but he was still driven out and criminals remain in power in FBI crime labs. (I can’t find my copy of a Wall Street Journal article about it.)
The US Department of Justice drove out Jesselyn Radack.
The IRS doesn’t have a Serpico. Nor do courts.
The US government’s continued insistence that the plaintiffs have no standing is proof that Americans abroad are subjected to laws (FATCA, CBT and FBAR) that are the modern equivalent of the British Empire’s Stamp Act of 1765, Declaratory Act or 1766, and Townsend Acts of 1767 — referred to by the American colonists as the Intolerable Acts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Townshend_Acts
But if truth be told, CBT, FATCA, and FBAR are actually much worse than the Intolerable Acts of the 18th century.
@Bob – yes, CBT, FATCA and FBAR are Intolerable Acts – you may enjoy this post from several months ago: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2016/05/25/posted-intolerable-acts-by-the-united-states-government-imposed-upon-its-colonists/
@Publius
Standing is not a “tricky thing”. It’s a “simple thing”. The doctrine exists to prevent the Government from being sued.
@Never Again a Democrat Ever
Why were you ever one in the first place? You will see that almost all (exception PFIC rules in 1986) anti-expat legislation share two characteristics:
1. They come from the Democrats
2. They are “revenue offset” measures designed to pay for other initiatives.
While I am on this topic the current S. 877A Exit Tax was the creation of the Clinton Treasury in 1996.
Those who vote for Hillary – who is absolutely committed to CBT, FATCA and FBAR – will get more of the same.
What is particularly sad is this:
There are a great many people who could have claimed a past relinquishment of U.S. citizenship, but then went and voted for the Democrat candidate in 2008. Wonder what they think of their candidate now?
What is even sadder is that:
These same people are happy to continue voting for the Democrats – go figure.
Re: Single-issue voting – Not something I’d normally do, but when the issue at stake is one that has a direct and severe effect* on a group of individuals then I think you should vote for the candidate that would have the better immediate effect on your best interests even if not the preferred candidate in general or over the long term.
*Having your bank accounts closed or your banking options restricted because of your nationality would definitely qualify IMO.
Never Again damn I thought I was the only one
tooting the no democrat vote around here.
You got that right. Expats have a responsibility to vote republican this election and stick it to all democrats. FATCA is a disgrace and the democrats need to pay for what they voted in.
My husband and I were formerly unwavering Democrats. Seeing what this administration has done to expat Americans with FATCA, its refusal to even address the hardships and devastation that it has caused, even after countless articles clearly showing what is going on, there is no way that either of us will ever be able to vote Democrat again. I agree, they must pay and pay big. we will, both for the first time, vote Republican this election. We are spreading the word among all other expats and to our surprise, most agree and say that they will be doing the same. Whatever comes from a Republican win, it could not be more hostile to American expat interests than this disastrous administration has been. we must send a message loud and clear from every corner of the planet, that what the Democrats have done to the expat community with FATCA will cost them a lot and for many elections to come.
“Whatever comes from a Republican win, it could not be more hostile to American expat interests than this disastrous administration has been.”
Remind me which party stacked the FEIE? It didn’t really matter to me because my US-taxable income was negative either way, but it still shows another party making things worse. I read a news headline but couldn’t retrieve the article, that FTC is going to be attacked too, though the headline didn’t say by which party(ies).
If I were still a US citizen, I’d probably switch from Libertarian to Green.
I wasn’t allowed to vote but I wouldn’t have voted for Obama if I was. It’s not clear to me though that McCain wouldn’t jump on some of these expat things. He has backed a few of these tax and foreign account things.
I knew Obama was going to be bad but I had no idea he was going to be as bad as he was.
I think tax is a single issue that you can’t really argue voting based on. The government wants to put it’s hand in your pocket, put traps in the system and make you jump through hoops. They took two years of my live with this crap. So I am quite happy to be a single issue voter. I could think of some other issues if I wanted to but why bother.
I’ve stated numerous times on IBS: I come from 4 generations of committed Democrats. When I was younger, I wouldn’t even date a Republican. I voted twice for Obama.
Never again.
Hubby and I both changed our voter registrations to Republican. We will never vote for a Democrat even for dog catcher.
My homeland acquaintances accuse me of being a single-issue voter. But when that single issue looms so enormously large and is a matter of mental and financial survival for you and your family, it is better to call me an “essential issue voter”. Any expatriate who votes Democrat “for the good of the country” may as well stick a blade into their own guts (in fact, they should).
If only the Democratic Party officials knew how much they’ve made Americans overseas despise their party. I wish there were a way to simply get this message across.
‘When I was younger, I wouldn’t even date a Republican.’
That’s overkill. I could date some Republicans to the mid-19th century and improving human rights at the time. Of course those dated to later eras backtracked.
‘But when that single issue looms so enormously large and is a matter of mental and financial survival for you and your family, it is better to call me an “essential issue voter”.’
Or physical, for example Mark Pinetree, or me. Luckily one midnight in 2012 my stomach hurt so much that I couldn’t sleep, and I went to a nearby hospital’s emergency entrance. They partly treated my stomach[*] but also accidentally found a heart irregularity that they couldn’t deal with, that I had not known about. A different hospital diagnosed my heart irregularity and operated on me in 2013; otherwise I wouldn’t be here now.
My coronary arteries are clean. Before surgery the hospital used a catheter to find which arteries to replace, found all arteries clean, and on an emergency basis did some other investigations to find where my heart was damaged. It wasn’t caused by diet or smoking or anything like that. It was caused by stress, from 10 years of abuse (now 13) by our favourite government agency.
[* Another hospital is also investigating my intestinal problems, formerly wrongly thought to be stomach problems. Nuts and milk and some other things worsen one of the problems, but again the biggest cause is stress, guress where from.]
‘If only the Democratic Party officials knew how much they’ve made Americans overseas despise their party.’
They know. They don’t care. They have to appeal to homelanders’ prejudices.
Oh, they know how much they are despised by expats. They do not care. They are flooding the country with the largest migration of unknown and illegal immigrants they can possibly find, flying them around the country, installing them into unprepared and unwelcoming communities. Their presence will overwhelm their entire social structure and does so already. The democrats do not care. They give them welfare and Obama insists they be given drivers licences and the right to vote and this is AFTER the court ruling that he is to cease and desist such activity. The government under Obama are lawless and will continue to be until they are stopped. IF they win the election the country is over. The US will be Venezuela within a very short time.
The investigation in Congress in the oversight committee is particularly revealing. The FBI , on requests from the committee to turn over documents (ALL documents) pertaining to their investigation of Hillary Clinton , took their time and then sent over heavily redacted documents to the OVERSIGHT committee. The very people in Congress who are to oversee their activities.
They refused to show up to one meeting.
And when they did show up to the next, after being subpoened to do so, made the determination that THEY decide what Congress could and could not see.
The arrogance of the O administration is astounding.
FBI were told to get the documents, ALL documents , unredacted and submit them PRONTO ! Chavettz issued and served that snot nosed FBI spokesman then and there. As good as that was to see, it is nothing to what they SHOULD be doing to these out of control and criminal government agencies. For all the trouble that the US is in with the out of control and criminal government , FATCA is not something that is on the radar of the average voter. But they , too, would not be surprised to learn of it and all the ugly ramifications of it were they to learn of it fully. Many are targeted themselves with criminal targeting of political entities by the IRS and with out and out theft of their assets by IRS unwarranted audits and even roadside confiscating of cash and other assets of unsuspecting travelers on the highways of the nation. This election is the most important election in the country since Lincoln. And the democrats MUST lose it. And MUST be kept out of power for a very long time. For with them come global dominance and the end of sovereignty of the US. And if the US loses her sovereignty so will all nations.
Sorry (yes, I know distinctly Canadian…I was born here in Canada – so I have the tendency to apologize when a fellow Canadian steps on my foot) my latest tirade… or I’d explode like a nuclear bomb.
————————————————————–
The Stamp Act of 1765; an act of Parliament of Great Britain that imposed a “revenue tax” on the Thirteen Colonies was the spark in the tinder that lit off the Revolutionary War of 1775. Colonists objected to the act that taxed their colonies without representation in Parliament. Petitions were given to Parliament and roundly ignored, prompting an outburst in response to the accusations from Charles Townsend of being ungrateful, “and now will these Americans, children planted by our care, nourished up by our Indulgence until they are grown to a degree of strength and opulence, and protected by our arms, will they grudge to contribute their mite to relieve us from heavy weight of the burden which we lie under?” This provoked a reply from Colonel Isaac Barré which read: “They planted by your care? No! Your oppression planted ‘em in America. They fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated and unhospitable country where they exposed themselves to almost all the hardships to which human nature is liable, and among others to the cruelties of a savage foe, the most subtle, and I take upon me to say, the most formidable of any people upon the face of God’s earth. …
They nourished by your indulgence? They grew by your neglect of ‘em. As soon as you began to care about ‘em, that care was exercised in sending persons to rule over ’em, in one department and another, who were perhaps the deputies of deputies to some member of this house, sent to spy out their liberty, to misrepresent their actions and to prey upon ’em; men whose behaviour on many occasions has caused the blood of those sons of liberty to recoil within them … .
They protected by your arms? They have nobly taken up arms in your defence, have exerted a valour amidst their constant and laborious industry for the defence of a country whose frontier while drenched in blood, its interior parts have yielded all its little savings to your emolument … The people I believe are as truly loyal as any subjects the king has, but a people jealous of their liberties and who will vindicate them if ever they should be violated; but the subject is too delicate and I will say no more.”
Yet two hundred and thirty five years later, America would invoke their own “stamp act” – named the Hire Act, ratified by Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, which embedded within lay the controversial Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) – a timebomb of epic proportions with severe ramifications for the colonists of today, American expatriates who lived in countries abroad. These Americans abroad were either dual citizens or citizens of one country born to an American abroad carrying a Trojan horse citizenship which existed solely to decimate their “foreign” bank accounts considered local to those “Americans” who lived in those countries and worked there.
Under the guise of rooting out tax-cheats (while vilifying hard-working Americans abroad) with their own version of Charles Townsend’s venomous, scurrilous accusations of “look at what we have done for you, we protect you under our nuclear umbrella…and you have the benefits (which no one can actually quantify) of being an American…so pay your fair share”, they set about to scrape up every single rotten cent of “taxation without representation” as their English fore-rulers did before them. In fact, the United States of America is embarking on the same road as their English forebears did 235 years prior. In fact a popular slogan in pre-Revolutionary War Boston was the phrase coined by James Otis: “taxation without representation is tyranny” later shortened to “No Taxation Without Representation”. In fact the very essence of the Revolutionary War was rebellion against citizenship taxation.
Americans Abroad of modern times have taken up that cry. Because one after the other, our spineless governments have capitulated under threats of 30% penalties/sanctions (U.S. payors making payments to non-compliant foreign financial institutions are required to “deduct and withhold from such payment a tax equal to 30 percent of the amount of such payment”.) levied against their financial institutions. These are tactics comparable to La Familia protectionist rackets. This financial levy has caused the rest of the world to institute laws to permit the otherwise illegal act of defying their own Banking Privacy Acts. In fact Canada rewrote its own Banking Privacy Law to make it legal for FATCA to stick their tentacles into the Canadian banking system.
FATCA is economic warfare. Allowing a foreign country to siphon revenue from a nation’s revenue stream is capitulation to economic warfare. Oran’s Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as “…[a]…citizen’s actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]. So any national leader who signed the United States Internal Revenue Service’s Inter-Governmental Agreement (henceforth referred to as IGA) is now defined as a traitor to their country and subject to prosecution under each nation’s treason statutes.
Citizenship taxation is only practiced by two countries. The first being the third world country of Eritrea; the second being the United States of America. The second nation hypocritically vilified the first for its practice of levying 2% taxes against their expatriates.
The United States is a hypocrite when it comes to citizenship taxation. Its inception was based on protest against citizenship taxation (taxation without representation) – its reasons for making war against Great Britain; the US’s progenitor. Yet it subjects its own citizens abroad (in the same situation as the 13 Colonies) to the same kind of taxation as it fled from two hundred and thirty five years ago. It must be said that Isaac Barré’s words ring true today as it did then: “They nourished by your indulgence? They grew by your neglect of ‘em. As soon as you began to care about ‘em, that care was exercised in sending persons to rule over ’em, in one department and another, who were perhaps the deputies of deputies to some member of this house, sent to spy out their liberty, to misrepresent their actions and to prey upon ’em; men whose behaviour on many occasions has caused the blood of those sons of liberty to recoil within them …”
We, who have toiled to create our own fortune, paying taxes to the land within which we reside, to the foreign nations in which we toil, have been preyed upon by the Internal Revenue Service, for our meagre wealth; while those lying within the borders of our native land scream hypocritically for our heads and our wealth.
Samuel Adams stated: For if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands & every thing we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern & tax ourselves – It strikes our British Privileges, which as we have never forfeited them, we hold in common with our Fellow Subjects who are Natives of Britain: If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal Representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves.
Samuel Adams charges that we are tributary slaves with the implementation of taxation without representation. The representation being where expats currently live; yet no matter how expats are allowed to vote in the states from which they originated, they are never represented. The politicians represent those who reside within the state and curry the bonus votes of expats from those states whilst ignoring them. So no, there is no representation in any sense of the word.
And if there is no representation, there should be no tax or there should be open rebellion.
My family has chosen the latter: We choose to pay taxes to no-one except the leaders of the land in which we reside in and deem to be protected by. As a Canadian born citizen of Canada married to an American Abroad, I should have expected protection for my wife and my accidental American citizen progeny who were born here in Canada. Yet our treasonous leaders in government capitulated and threw one million plus dual citizens of Canada with US ties under the bus. And the United States has exhibited supreme hypocrisy in initiating the same kind of taxation for which they vilified Great Britain for two hundred and thirty five years previous.
A bulletin from Democrats Abroad (actually I don’t they aren’t really abroad)
https://www.facebook.com/DemsAbroad/videos/10157352805340005/
@The_Animal1970:
A Tour de Force post!
Outstanding and right in every way.
This should be sent to Republicans Overseas. The Donald J. Trump Campaign. Senator Rand Paul and Rep Mark Meadows et al in Congress ( all three who have penned legislation to complement Sen. Rand Paul’s already penned proposed legislation that has languished these last years.
~sigh~ I just did the numbers and came to the realization that my lifetime has spanned the presidencies from Nixon all the way thru Obama.
19 years of Presidents other than Bush & Clinton – 40% of my lifetime (namely the presidencies of Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan.
The rest of it spanned 28 years of nothing but Bushes, Clintons and that fucking idiot, Obama – 60% and with yet another possibility of a Clinton or a Trump in the White House…I’m just hoping to hell ALIENS show up.