According to new reports, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) is the subject of an ongoing investigation brought by the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors from the public integrity unit.
The investigation dates back at least a year and seeks to determine whether donations made to his gubernatorial campaign violated the law.
As part of the probe, investigators are looking into his time spent as a board member on the Clinton Global Initiative, a branch of the Clinton Foundation established by former President Bill Clinton.
No allegations suggest the foundation did anything improper, but rather the investigation is strictly focused on campaign contributions.
One such contribution in question came from a Chinese businessman, Wang Wenliang, who donated $120,000 to McAuliffe through his U.S. business. Wang served as a delegate to China’s ceremonial legislature, the National People’s Congress.
Wang has also donated a staggering $2 million to the Clinton Foundation and has donated to various other causes and organizations, including New York University and Harvard.
While U.S. election law forbids foreign nationals from donating to federal, state, and local elections, Wang holds a legal permanent resident status in the U.S., which makes him eligible to donate.
So far, neither Wang nor his company have been contacted by U.S. investigators.
McAuliffe wasn’t made aware of the investigation until it was publicly announced, however, his attorney has claimed that McAuliffe will cooperate with investigators on the matter.
“The Governor will certainly cooperate with the government if he is contacted about it,” said attorney for the McAuliffe campaign Marc Elias.
“Neither the Governor nor his former campaign has knowledge of this matter, but as reported, contributions to the campaign from Mr. Wang were completely lawful,” Elias said.
McAuliffe is the second consecutive Virginia governor, following former Gov. Bob McDonnell, to come under investigation by the Justice Department.
In 2014, McDonnell was convicted of corruption charges related to gifts and loans he received from a friend, however, he has appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. (For more from the author of “Democrat Virginia Governor and Clinton Ally Under FBI Investigation” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/maxresdefault-58.jpg10801920Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-23 22:37:442016-05-23 22:37:44Democrat Virginia Governor and Clinton Ally Under FBI Investigation
The Republican mobilization against the White House’s transgender bathroom directive has started. A bill introduced by Rep. Luke Messer, R-Ind., would block the Obama administration’s guidance pushing public schools to allow students to use the restrooms of their choice.
The bill, Messer told The Daily Signal, would return control of the issue to the state and municipal level while also prohibiting the administration from cutting off taxpayer funds to public schools that disregard the directive.
The Obama administration, Messer said, is “bullying local schools.”
Although Messer is a junior member of Indiana’s GOP delegation to the House, he is the fifth-ranking Republican in House leadership as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee. His bill, introduced Wednesday, represents the highest profile and only legislative rebuke of the administration on the transgender policy issue to date.
“I think parents across America are looking for a congressional response,” Messer said, “and so far our response hasn’t been strong enough.”
Earlier in the week, 73 House Republicans, including Messer, wrote an open letter to the administration demanding answers.
The guidelines, announced May 13 by the departments of Justice and Education, instruct local public schools to extend Title IX protections, which prohibit sex-based discrimination, to transgender students.
And though the directive doesn’t carry the force of law, it contains an implicit threat: Comply or lose federal funding.
That’s “the modus operandi of this administration,” Messer, 47, said, adding that the directive “will change the equation for schools across the country.”
As a standalone piece of legislation, Messer’s bill faces an uphill battle out of the House, and another obstacle in a veto by President Barack Obama.
But, the Indiana Republican told The Daily Signal, he plans to attach the bill to a piece of must-pass legislation such as an appropriations package.
In a Wednesday interview with Buzzfeed, Obama described his directive as “part of our obligation as a society to make sure everybody is treated fairly and our kids are all loved and protected.”
Messer, first elected in 2012, criticized that premise as unfounded, arguing that Obama was overstepping his own bounds.
“I think it’s ironic that the president says he brought forward this regulation to combat bullying,” Messer said, “when the truth is that this action is the administration bullying local schools.” (For more from the author of “House Policy Leader Seeks to Block Obama’s School Bathroom Directive” please click HERE)
Refusing to accept the federal government’s excuse that defying one of his judicial orders was a mistake, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen has barred several Justice Department lawyers from his courtroom and ordered others to take classes in ethics.
“The misconduct in this case was intentional, serious and material,” the Brownsville, Texas-based judge wrote Thursday. “In fact, it is hard to imagine a more serious, more calculated plan of unethical conduct.”
In February 2015, Hanen issued an order to block the Obama administration from giving out 100,000 extended work permits as a result of a lawsuit by 26 states against Obama’s executive order allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the United States.
However, the administration went ahead and issued them anyhow. As a result, Hanen expressed his disappointment with the Justice Department on Thursday.
“Clearly, there seems to be a lack of knowledge about or adherence to the duties of professional responsibility in the halls of the Justice Department,” Hanen wrote in a 28-page order.
Judge Andrew Hanen is my new hero! Sad that he has to tell DOJ attorneys to tell the truth in court! Common sense appears to not be common.
Hanen’s order said the Justice Department “admitted making statements that clearly did not match the facts. It has admitted that the lawyers who made these statements had knowledge of the truth when they made these misstatements.”
He said the explanation he was given was that the lawyers “lost focus” or that the “fact(s) receded in memory or awareness,” which caused them to “effectively … misdirect” the court.
The Justice Department, he wrote, “purports to represent all Americans — not just those who are in favor of whatever actions the Department is seeking to prosecute or defend. The end result never justifies misconduct.”
As a result, Hanen ordered that, for the next five years, any attorney from the Department of Justice who wants to argue in either state or federal court in any state involved in the immigration case must take an annual three-hour ethics course.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch was ordered to give Hanen a “comprehensive plan” within 60 days that would “prevent this unethical conduct from ever occurring again.”
Hanen also demanded a list of all illegal immigrants given extended work permits, and said he may release that list to the authorities of the states where those illegal immigrants live, depending on the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of the case, which is expected in June. (For more from the author of “Federal Judge Slams Justice Department for ‘Unethical Conduct’ on Illegal Aliens” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/14711284539_2a5e872af9_b.jpg8161024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-22 23:01:182016-05-22 23:01:18Federal Judge Slams Justice Department for ‘Unethical Conduct’ on Illegal Aliens
Under the administration of President Barack Obama, the Treasury Department stopped blacklisting domestic charities that collect funds for terrorist organizations, Eli Lake of Bloomberg View reported on Thursday.
Lake explained that targeting charities that front for terrorist organizations was a “key tool” of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism after 9/11. During the Bush presidency, the Treasury targeted eight such charities located in the United States, including “al-Qaeda fronts such as the U.S. branch of the al-Haramain Foundation and the Benevolence International Foundation. In this period, the U.S. government also blacklisted groups that raised money for the Palestinian terror group Hamas, including the Holy Land Foundation, and for the Lebanese militia and political party Hezbollah, like the Good Will Charitable Organization.”
In contrast, the only charity to be designated under the Obama administration was the Tamil Foundation, which funded the Sri Lankan terrorist organization the Tamil Tigers. The group was blacklisted in February 2009, a month after Obama’s inauguration.
Lake presented some possible reasons for the drop in such designations, including that “terrorist groups have determined it’s too risky to set up a philanthropic front in the U.S. these days.” Juan Zarate, a deputy national security adviser for counter-terrorism during the Bush administration, told Lake that “enforcement efforts did have an effect on the ability of groups to openly organize and use non-governmental organizations as fundraising mechanisms for designated terrorist organizations.”
Zarate added that a number of terrorist groups have developed other funding mechanisms, so using a U.S. charity may not be as vital to their functioning as it once was.
Another possibility offered by Matthew Levitt, a former FBI counter-terrorism analyst and deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury, is that the designation of charities was of limited use, as the charity could contest the designation. “When an authority does find an entity worthy of this kind of attention, the first inclination is not to designate, which has limited consequences, but rather to investigate and prosecute,” said Levitt, who now heads the intelligence and counter-terrorism program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
However Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism finance analyst at the Treasury and current vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, raised concerns that the drop in designations may mean that charities that finance terrorist groups are escaping scrutiny. Schanzer observed that the Treasury now views itself as more of a “global intelligence shop,” and targets actors such as Iran and the Islamic State while leaving domestic charities to the FBI. But Schanzer expressed concern that “the FBI may be overwhelmed with direct threats to the homeland, thereby relegating domestic terrorism-finance cases to a third- or fourth-tier priority. Is anyone taking the threat of domestic terrorism finance as seriously as the Treasury did back in its heyday? I don’t know.”
Schanzer testified before Congress last month that seven key members of the Holy Land Foundation are now involved with American Muslims for Palestine, a group that is funding the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign against Israel on U.S. campuses.
Lake concluded by observing that “raising money for anti-Israel activism is not the same as raising money for suicide bombers,” but now that Hamas has developed other sources of funding, that “remnants of [Hamas’s] former charity are free to raise funds for the war of ideas against the Jewish State at American colleges.” (For more from the author of “MAKE SURE YOU’RE SITTING DOWN: Since Obama Took Office, U.S. Stopped Targeting Terror-Linked Charities” please click HERE)
After learning of the Obama administration’s letter insisting public schools open their restrooms to transgender students based on gender identity, evangelist Franklin Graham was quick to post his response on Facebook.
In the post, Graham first addressed government overreach. “Who does President Barack Obama think he is? The sultan of Washington?” he asked. Graham went on to ask the question many across the country wish they could ask the president, writing, “What about the privacy and protection of all the other students? Isn’t this discrimination against all of them?” According to Graham, this decision will expose many students to sexual predators.
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch released a statement commenting on the decree. “There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex,” she said. Lynch said the decree would allow teachers as well as parents to safeguard transgender students from harassment from their peers, while uncovering unjust school policies.
“No student should ever have to go through the experience of feeling unwelcome at school or on a college campus. We must ensure that our young people know that whoever they are or wherever they come from, they have the opportunity to get a great education in an environment free from discrimination, harassment and violence,” said another statement from Education Secretary John King Jr.
Graham accused the president of making decisions without any thought of a higher power over him. “The president obviously must have no fear of God, who made us and created us male and female,” he wrote.
Graham ended his post urging school districts to defy the agenda set forth by the Obama administration.
Based on hundreds comments on Graham’s post, many agree with him.
One mother heartily agreed with Graham, commenting, “As the mother of a 15 year old girl, I have a real problem with a biological male having unfettered access to a locker room full of young women in a state of undress …. many [girls] have trouble even changing in front of their biologically female classmates. They have their own feelings and issues, and their rights are just as important. They aren’t somehow less deserving of consideration because their genitals match the gender they identify with.”
Another posted, “I stand with Franklin Graham – Obama is now attempting to act as the king of the United States and what ever he says is law.” (For more from the author of “After Hearing Obama’s Decree, Franklin Graham Asks an Important Question” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Franklin_Graham_Festioweal_Nadziei_2014.06.15-1.jpg27363648Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-21 22:58:522016-05-21 23:20:05After Hearing Obama’s Decree, Franklin Graham Asks an Important Question
By Malia Zimmerman. Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender’s infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the “Lolita Express” — even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.
Clinton’s presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein’s Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including “Tatiana.” The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls.
“Bill Clinton … associated with a man like Jeffrey Epstein, who everyone in New York, certainly within his inner circles, knew was a pedophile,” said Conchita Sarnoff, of the Washington, D.C. based non-profit Alliance to Rescue Victims of Trafficking, and author of a book on the Epstein case called “TrafficKing.” “Why would a former president associate with a man like that?”
Epstein, who counts among his pals royal figures, heads of state, celebrities and fellow billionaires, spent 13 months in prison and home detention for solicitation and procurement of minors for prostitution. He allegedly had a team of traffickers who procured girls as young as 12 to service his friends on “Orgy Island,” an estate on Epstein’s 72-acre island, called Little St. James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Virginia Roberts, 32, who claims she was pimped out by Epstein at age 15, has previously claimed she saw Clinton at Epstein’s getaway in 2002, but logs do not show Clinton aboard any flights to St. Thomas, the nearest airport capable of accommodating Epstein’s plane. They do show Clinton flying aboard Epstein’s plane to such destinations as Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, China, Brunei, London, New York, the Azores, Belgium, Norway, Russia and Africa. (Read more from “Bill Flew on With Child Sex Offender More Frequently Than Thought, Hillary Says, ‘Get Those F***Ing Retards Out”” HERE)
_____________________________________________
Hillary Horror! ‘Get Those F-Ing Retards out of Here’
By WND. “When are they going to get those f—ing ree-tards out of here?!”
Those are said to be the infamous words of Hillary Clinton – also known as Arkansas’ “Mother of the Year” in 1984 – when Hillary reportedly grew frustrated that handicapped children weren’t collecting their Easter eggs quickly enough on the lawn of the Arkansas governor’s mansion.
“[T]he children were having a wonderful time. But they were having a v-e-r-y, v-e-r-y, v-e-r-y s-l-o-w time of finding and picking up the Easter eggs,” wrote Dolly Kyle – a childhood sweetheart of Bill Clinton who had a 33-year relationship with him – in her new book, “Hillary the Other Woman: A Political Memoir.”
Kyle recounted the story as told to her by Arkansas State Police troopers and Louise, a mutual friend of both Kyle and the Clintons and a longtime advocate of what was then the Arkansas Association for Retarded Citizens.
“Hillary had enough. She stomped up the grass to the shaded veranda on the back of the mansion … and accosted one of the troopers,” Kyle wrote. “At this point the story diverges a bit. Some people say there was an open microphone; others said that Hillary could be heard across the yard because she was yelling. … At any rate, the frustrated Me-First Lady demanded, ‘When are they going to get those f—ing ree-tards out of here?’” (Read more from “Hillary Horror! ‘Get Those F-Ing Retards out of Here'” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/24507305865_91a4a3c5f9_b-1.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-21 22:56:272016-05-21 23:22:15SICK: Bill Flew With Child Sex Offender More Frequently Than Thought; Hillary Says, ‘Get Those F***ing Retards Out’
Retail giant Target has been the subject of controversy over the past several weeks since the company opened their bathrooms to members of the opposite sex, sparking “buycotts” and boycotts across the nation in protest.
Now, a new campaign, orchestrated by Life Site News and the Child Protection League, has taken to the streets of Minnesota seeking to #FlushTarget because they believe the company is endangering women and girls by exposing them to sexual predators.
“They are opening bathrooms to all men, whether transgender or non-transgender,” said Julie Quist of the Child Protection League.
The campaign will be using a truck that features the image of a young girl being confronted by a man in the restroom, captioned, “What about her rights to privacy and protection?” The truck will stop at every Target store in the state over the next few weeks.
“Everyone has the right to use the bathroom safely and in privacy without fear of being raped or assaulted,” said Claire Chretien, national spokeswoman for Life Site News. “Unfortunately, Target, one of America’s largest retail chains, has decided to let any man access women’s bathrooms in their stores.”
Organizers of the movement have further stressed that the purpose of their campaign is not to move against transgender individuals but strictly to protect the rights and privacy of women and children.
“I want to be clear, we are not boycotting Target out of fear of [the] LGBT community,” said Chretien. “The are other ways to accommodate men dressed as women that don’t put us and our young children at risk.”
Minnesota state Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen has introduced a constitutional right to privacy and public safety bill in the legislature, which would require all public schools, universities and businesses to limit access to bathrooms and other similar facilities solely on the basis of biological sex. (For more from the author of “75 Target Stores to Face Powerful Protest over Bathroom Policy” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/9642454774_019b2ebdcf_b.jpg7681024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-21 22:54:342016-05-21 23:25:4475 Target Stores to Face Powerful Protest over Bathroom Policy
While the liberal media write about white nationalists supporting Donald J. Trump, the Communist Party (CPUSA) has been broadcasting its support for the national Democratic Party and both of its candidates. But for some reason, our media have failed to take notice.
Since 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected President, the CPUSA—which was then funded by Moscow—has been organizing what it calls an “all-people’s front” against the “extreme right,” and it usually depends on the Democratic Party as its preferred electoral vehicle. John Bachtell, national chair of the Communist Party USA, explains, “This battle has been waged over 35 years through election cycles, in the legislative arena, and in the battle to sway public opinion.”
The CPUSA endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008 and his reelection in 2012. This year, party members are involved in the presidential campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), but are prepared to support former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if she is the eventual nominee.
While Trump is rightly questioned about support for his campaign from such figures as David Duke, the former KKK leader, the open and admitted involvement of communists in the Democratic Party gets completely ignored by the press.
The CPUSA is based on Marxist doctrine, which calls for the abolition of private property and the overthrow of global capitalism. What is called “Cultural Marxism” seeks to eliminate traditional adherence to Judeo-Christian values and silence those in favor of traditional families and those who recognize male and female differences.
The CPUSA is associated with the International Meeting Of Communist And Workers’ Parties, which represents the international communist movement and includes the Communist Party of Russia. In its contribution to the 2014 meeting, the CPUSA combined elements of traditional Marxism with the cultural version, urging action on behalf of the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer) communities, support for a “democratized and demilitarized U.S. foreign policy,” and protection of the environment “through a massive movement against our domination by the fossil fuel industry…”
In foreign affairs, the CPUSA has also called for the abolition of NATO.
In the current election campaign, the CPUSA is firmly on the side of the Democrats. In a story about the “Super Tuesday” presidential primaries, the party newspaper, the People’s World, announced that while the GOP was pushing “powerlessness,” both Democratic candidates were promoting “empowerment” for the people. This is Marxist jargon for integrating Marxist demands into Democratic Party policies.
Although the liberal media tend to highlight differences between Senator Sanders and Mrs. Clinton, the communists say there is more that unites than divides them.
The Communists dislike Trump because of his “authoritarian” tendencies and criticism of immigrants. However, while the communists claim that Trump “glorifies militarism abroad,” they have not explicitly condemned his foreign policy views, which tend to be on the isolationist side. Trump has been critical of NATO, which began as an anti-Soviet alliance, and is supportive of Russian foreign policy interests in Europe and the Middle East.
More recently, communist writer Larry Rubin expressed the Communist Party view that Sanders and Clinton have to do more to keep workers from defecting to Trump.
Ultimately, Rubin argued that in order to ensure a victory over the Republicans in November, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign should “be ready to inherit the grassroots organizational models and far reaching proposals that have attracted so many working people and millennials to Bernie Sanders’ political revolution,” and that the Sanders campaign should “be ready to unite with the Clinton effort.”
In this way, Marxists of various persuasions could take more important roles in the Clinton for president campaign.
In an interview, “Why America Is Warming To Socialism,” national CPUSA chair John Bachtell mentioned the Sanders appeal and emphasized that “democracy would be at the center” of the growth of socialism in the U.S.
In a separate article, Bachtell warned against Sanders following a third party option in November, and urged communists to continue working through the Democratic Party. While Mrs. Clinton is perceived as “more hawkish on foreign policy,” he said, she “is no neo-con.” The term “neo-con” is often used to disparage advocates of U.S. global engagement and military intervention. “She supports diplomatic efforts like the Iran nuclear deal and the normalization of relations with Cuba,” Bachtell said about Clinton.
Even on domestic issues, Clinton is acceptable to the Marxists because she “is susceptible to pressure from below” from Marxist agitators and their organizations, he said.
He went on to suggest that CPUSA members are currently working inside the Democratic Party by supporting Sanders. The Sanders program, he said, “addresses the needs of the country and is closest to our own. My guess is most of our members support the Sanders campaign.”
Going beyond the Sanders campaign, however, he said the Democratic Party as a whole includes “a substantial current of self-described democratic socialists” and other activists who “exert influence and hold leadership positions at various levels. They still see the Democratic Party as the most viable means to advance their agendas within the party system at this moment.”
As suggested by its endorsements of Obama in 2008 and 2012, the CPUSA has been very pleased with the Obama administration. The communists believe that Obama, who was influenced at an early age by CPUSA figure Frank Marshall Davis, has transformed America into a socialist state through Obamacare and other initiatives, and has changed U.S. foreign policy by establishing relations with anti-American regimes in Cuba and Iran.
Earlier this year, in response to Obama’s State of the Union address, the People’s World praised the first black president for projecting “a bold vision for a more socially and economically just nation while appealing to the hopes of the American people.” The paper said, “President Obama recounted historic achievements of the administration and advanced the challenges with full knowledge of the powerful forces arrayed in opposition.” Those achievements were said to include “creation of millions of new jobs, normalization of relations with Cuba, the Iran nuclear deal and Obamacare and extension of health care to 18 million people.”
Looking ahead, the communists are counting on a “radical restructuring of the economy as advocated by Sen. Bernie Sanders,” and “a new peaceful, non-interventionist foreign policy” that includes “elimination of weapons of mass destruction,” the closing of U.S. military bases, and “radically downsizing the US military.”
Such a plan, of course, would invite more Russian aggression in Europe and the Middle East, and encourage Chinese Communist expansion in Asia and the Pacific.
We eagerly anticipate U.S. media personalities questioning Sanders and Clinton about the support they are receiving from the CPUSA. Of course, any journalist who dares to raise the issue runs the risk of being perceived as a McCarthyite. (For more from the author of “Organization for Mass-Murder Endorses Hillary and Bernie” please click HERE)
Obama has taken issue with Senator Paul “blocking” eight tax treaties from receiving ratification in their current form. Now, you might expect this to be a story about the tax treaties’ role in easing excessive taxation (or double taxation), while promoting cooperation in tax compliance among nations. But the tax treaties are actually being used as a tool for nations to share the private financial data on individuals with bank accounts overseas. This is all done without regard for privacy protections, a warrant or any allegations of wrong-doing.
Sharing data without privacy protections is also a notable departure from past practice. For example, former treaties between the U.S. and Switzerland allowed these countries to share sensitive data on bank customers – but only if a crime, like tax fraud, was being committed. The key here is that data could only be shared if there was probable cause – essentially, a Fourth Amendment style protection for private data. However, the tax treaties now in question lack that same protection, and allow any and all information to be shared between governments, no questions asked.
Therefore, Senator Paul has requested an amendment to the treaties to provide additional privacy protections – among them, that there at least be probable cause of wrongdoing before individual financial data is shared between governments.
Yet, this request is unacceptable to the Obama administration, and the reason is far more nefarious than meets the eye. The tax treaties are merely part of a deeper web of data gathering to enforce a law I dubbed “the most dangerous law you’ve never heard of”- or, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).
To understand the treaties, you must realize how they fuel an even worse law: FATCA.
What is FATCA?
FATCA is a law that requires every foreign bank in the world to provide the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with the financial data on every bank account or asset owned by an American citizen living abroad.
Any foreign bank that fails to comply with this request is penalized. The penalty subjects the bank to a 30 percent withholding tax, or in other words, the U.S. government seizes 30 percent of any transaction that belongs to that foreign bank. Since the U.S. economy is the largest and most interconnected in the world, foreign banks have little choice but to go along with this U.S. law.
FATCA is a law that effectively treats Americans living overseas with the presumption of guilt, since an individual’s private financial data is turned over to the government without any privacy protections.
The law was passed under the guise of catching tax cheats. Unfortunately, it has done little to catch rich Americans trying to hide their loot. Instead, it has punished over seven million Americans working abroad, many of whom have been outright banned from banking with foreign banks, who no longer want to work with U.S. citizens due to the high compliance costs and oversight complications that stem from FATCA. As a result, thousands of Americans have forfeited their U.S. citizenship to avoid the obstacles they now face trying to do simple banking overseas.
Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs)
The key to FATCA is an intergovernmental agreement (IGA). First, it must be understood that foreign banks don’t have to comply with FATCA. After all, FATCA is a U.S. law that is not recognized by foreign banks. The Obama administration’s solution is to implement IGAs, which are similar to a treaty. These IGAs allow for an agreement between the U.S. and foreign nation in which the foreign nation will, essentially, comply with FATCA as if it were its own law – and will agree to coordinate and exchange financial information on private individuals in accordance with FATCA.
Since these agreements imitate treaties, IGAs allow foreign nations to override their domestic laws to comply with U.S. requests. Or in more ominous instances, countries are lured into complying with FATCA by U.S. offers to exchange data from U.S. banks. That’s right: the U.S. government has agreed to spy on YOU (the U.S. customer) in exchange for the foreign banks willingness to spy on American citizens abroad – the old, “you show me yours, I’ll show you mine,” operation.
Generally, any agreement that resembles a treaty is constitutionally required to receive the advice and consent of the United States Senate. The definition of a treaty is “a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations.” But somehow, President Obama calls it by another name and these IGAs bypass the law of the land as “agreements,” rather than as formally ratified treaties.
This entire scheme is like a game of Jenga – remove the wrong block and the entire structure comes falling down. FATCA, the IGAs, and the tax treaties currently pending in the Senate are all an intricate part of this structure.
Former Senate aide and FATCA expert Jim Jatras explains how those tax treaties impact the IGA. In Accounting Today, he writes:
Because the IGAs designate tax treaty mechanisms for FATCA information “exchange,” Paul’s holdup of the bilateral treaties also impedes indiscriminate FATCA reporting. Conversely, if the treaties were amended to allow information transfer only under the probable cause standard, the higher constitutional standard would govern. That, not double tax relief, is why Treasury is so desperate to approve these treaties without amendment.
In other words, FATCA requires an IGA. The IGA is what allows other nations to cooperate with FATCA’s requirements. Still, it is the tax treaties that act as the final authority in permitting the IGAs to collect information; the IGAs lean on the tax treaties as their implicit right to do so.
Furthermore, Jatras concludes that the tax treaties would provide a “backdoor legal authority to issue regulations in the U.S.” to force domestic banks, credit unions, insurance companies, and mutual funds to provide financial information on resident customers to send to foreign governments in order to fulfill the “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine,” reciprocity agreements.
Get that? FATCA needs IGAs, IGAs need tax treaties. Phew.
Therefore, in this confusing, twisted scheme of enforcing the big data gathering machine that is FATCA, these tax treaties play an important role. That is why there is far more to this sleepy issue than just taxes.
There are two senators currently challenging this crazy law and these insane treaties: Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Mike Lee (R-UT). The narrative from the White House and Senate leadership is that these two senators are “blocking” these treaties from moving. But, in reality, Paul and Lee aren’t blocking these treaties at all. Instead, they are just objecting to the Senate ratifying them by “unanimous consent.” The Senate leadership has the authority to bring these tax treaties to the floor for full consideration – debate, amendments, and votes. That is what Senators Paul and Lee are asking for.
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his Democratic counterparts simply want to give unanimous consent to these tax treaties. Unanimous consent means that the process takes all of about 10 seconds; there is no time to review the treaties, there is no time for debate, and not a second of time to offer amendments. They simply want them to be expedited through the Senate without transparency.
At the end of the day, this is a discussion about bad treaties used to implement a terrible law. I applaud Senators Paul and Lee for standing on principle, and trying to insert language into the treaties that provide constitutional protections to all Americans. But perhaps more important is Paul and Lee’s challenge to the establishment. As sitting U.S. Senators, they have the right to ask for debate and amendments to these treaties. They should not be pilloried and smeared for asking for it.
These treaties are dangerous to our personal liberties. Senator Paul and Senator Lee deserve the transparency and debate they’ve requested. We should all stand with Rand and Mike in fighting these terrible treaties. (For more from the author of “The Real Story Behind Rand Paul’s Challenge to Obama’s Insane Treaties” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Rand_Paul_in_Louisville_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg28483440Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-21 22:52:572016-05-21 23:27:23The Real Story Behind Rand Paul’s Challenge to Obama’s Insane Treaties
On Monday’s edition of The View on ABC, the co-hosts talked about an article in The New York Times in which presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump was accused of making inappropriate comments as well as unwanted advances toward women.
One panelist asked whether Trump is guilty of sexual harassment, saying he often accuses Bill Clinton — the husband of his likely Democratic opponent in the general election — of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior.
Joy Behar said, “You know what? They’re going to bring up Bill Clinton. … Bill Clinton is a dog also. What does that have to do with Hillary Clinton?”
Giving her opinion on the idea of Trump becoming president, co-host, Whoopi Goldberg said, “I don’t want a racist as president, sorry. I don’t want somebody who embraces — you know, I don’t mind — you know I have said this before, I would have been fine had he not brought in Muslims the way he did, Mexicans the way he did. And not said to the countless, you know, supremacists that seem to be backing him, ‘Hey, that’s not what I’m running on.’ Had he done that, I would not have an issue with him. But that’s not who I want representing the country.”
Following the posting of the article to Facebook by Breitbart, people were quick to respond to Goldberg’s comments.
One person posted: “How is it racist to point out a fact about the situation with Mexicans crossing the border illegally? Facts don’t have feelings Whoopi. Put all your feels to the side and think logically. And learn what the word racist means if you’re going to be a race baiter.”
Another post read: “Tell me again how securing the border against ILLEGAL immigration is racist…Whoopi is way more racist than Trump is !!!”
Finally, a user posted: “For these liberals/ dems, why in the 39 years Donald Trump has been in the public eye did no one call him a racist? Only now that he’s running for president, as a republican, does the left, the biased media, the sheep, etc say he’s racist. Tell me why? Also what makes him a racist?” (For more from the author of “Whoopi Goldberg Gives the One Reason She Doesn’t Want Trump to Be President” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Whoopi_Goldberg_-_Comic_Relief_2006_-_Daniel_Langer.jpg9361176Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-21 22:49:172016-05-21 23:29:40Whoopi Goldberg Gives the One Reason She Doesn’t Want Trump to Be President