EYE ON VIRGINIA

The total upset in the Virginia races for Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General last November 5th, is wreaking havoc on the rule of law here.  All three seats, formerly held by the GOP, were won by Democrats; we now have a 'house divided' similar to D.C. and frankly,  it is mind boggling when you have to deal with it this close up.  Our House of Delegates holds a majority GOP but our Senate is split 50/50 with the tie breaking vote to be cast by the Democratic Lt. Governor.  That should tell you something about how this is going to play out over the next few years.   This post, however, is about our Attorney General, Mark Herring. 

During Mr. Herring's campaign for Attorney General, he was relatively adept at avoiding too much conversation about the Marriage Amendment to the Virginia Constitution passed in 2006 by 57% of Virginia voters.  Then Senator Mark Herring also voted for its passage (twice).  Shortly after taking his sworn oath to defend both the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions in January 2014, Mr. Herring decided he was not going to defend the marriage amendment based on the fact he found it to be unconstitutional and discriminatory and he refused to appoint outside counsel to defend the Commonwealth!  OK, I guess we could deal with that.  This, however, is where Mr. Herring crossed the line and took it one unprecedented step further -  he actually joined the plaintiffs in an existing lawsuit against the Commonwealth asking a federal judge to declare the Amendment unconstitutional. 

This is Mark Herring

 



 



This article is NOT about the marriage amendment.  This article is about the Rule of Law and the blatant disregard of an oath and the duty to a client.  This article is about an attorney adhering to his Professional Conduct Code required by the Virginia Bar Association and his  sworn duty to uphold the laws of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia.  Understand this - there is NO precedent set that allows an Attorney General to abandon his client (the state and its citizens) to actively join in a lawsuit against them.  None.  It is absolutely unheard of.   

WHAT PRICE AMNESTY?

First, let’s look at some statistics from 2013. 

The ‘employment’ situation here in the U.S.

            *   U3:   (the government preferred version)

This is the official unemployment rate, which is the proportion of the civilian labor force             that is unemployed but actively seeking employment. 

As of the end of December 2013, the unemployment rate was 6.7%    

 

*   U6:  (this actually includes everybody)

The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over. 

As of the end of December 2013, (same period of time as above) the unemployment rate was 13.1%

 

Currently, close to 92 million people have dropped out of the labor force – the highest number since 1978. 

Better than 47,000,000 people are on food stamps; 8,942,584 are receiving disability benefits, 12,800,000 are receiving welfare and 5,600,000 are receiving unemployment.  

Does this sound like a healthy economy to you?  Does it sound like we need to make jobs for illegal immigrants when we have so many unemployed and living in or close to the poverty level here already?   No?  Well, here’s how the President and Congress show their allegiance to the American people:

MARCHING TO THE TUNE OF THE PIED PIPER

Thursday, January 10, 1963 in the House of Representatives, Hon. A.S. Herlong, Jr. of Florida requested, at the urging of Mrs. Patricia Nordman, DeLand, Fl., the Communist Goals (1963) be read into the record of the House of Representatives.  They were.  Among those goals, considered to be the "current" communist goals was the following:

 

"#40.  Discredit the family as an institution.  Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce."   [Done]

 

FOIA, FBI, Gay Activists Alliance, File No. 100-469170, adopted by the National Coalition of Gay Organizations in Chicago, Ill., February 13, 1973:

Federal Demands: 

#2.  Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting the military from excluding for reasons of their sexual orientation...."  [Done]

#6.  Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by qualified gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference.....to heterosexuality."  [Done]

 State Demands:

#5.  "Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption.....shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status."  [Done]

#7.  "Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent."  [Working on it]

#8.  "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits of marriage to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers." [Working on it]

THE CONSEQUENCES OF A LAWLESS PRESIDENT

The god of chaos and deception

I'm not sure why I'm ever surprised anymore about anything this administration does, but I just have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that we have a President who cannot be believed or trusted and who thrives on bringing chaos and discontent wherever he can.  I am too old, really, to be jumping, shouting, muttering and sputtering while pacing back and forth like someone who just escaped from the nearest looney bin!   This 'consequence' of one of his previous actions really hit me in the face as I read:

 

CALIF. HIGH COURT GRANTS UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT ADMISSION TO STATE BAR  (NBC News)

 

Apparently the California  Supreme Court decided that Sergio Garcia, 36, who came to the United States unlawfully (illegally) as a child must receive his license.  The State Bar of California determined, according to the report, he had met the rules for admission and his 'lack of legal status' in the United States should not automatically disqualify him.   Did you get that?  'His lack of legal status in the United States should not automatically disqualify him'!  And my automatic question would be "why not?".  Anybody?

According to this report, there are two similar cases pending; one in Florida and one in New York.  Mr. Garcia's win could set a major precedent.