Thursday, December 31, 2015


A guide to the allegations of Bill Clinton’s womanizing
A photograph showing former White House intern Monica Lewinsky meeting President Bill Clinton at a White House function submitted as evidence in documents by the Kenneth Starr investigation and released by the House Judiciary Committee in 1998. (Getty Images)

On Twitter, Donald Trump, the GOP presidential front-runner, lashed out at Hillary Clinton, directly attacking her husband, the former president, for what Trump called “his terrible record of women abuse.”

Trump is obviously referring to the sexual allegations that have long swirled around Clinton, even before he became president. We’d earlier explored this question in 2014 when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wrongly claimed that a half dozen women had called Clinton a “sexual predator.” But for younger voters who may be wondering what the fuss is about, here again is a guide to the various claims made about Clinton’s sex life.

We will divide the stories into two parts: consensual liaisons admitted by the women in question and allegations of an unwanted sexual encounter.

Consensual affairs

Gennifer Flowers — a model and actress whose claims of a long-term affair nearly wrecked Clinton’s first run for the presidency in 1992. (Clinton denied her claims at the time, but under oath in 1998 he acknowledged a sexual encounter with her.)

Monica Lewinsky — intern at the White House, whose affair with Clinton fueled impeachment charges. This was a consensual affair, in which Lewinsky was an eager participant; she was 22 when the affair started and Clinton was her boss.

Dolly Kyle Browning — A high school friend who said in a sworn declaration that she had had a 22-year off-and-on sexual relationship with Clinton.

Elizabeth Ward Gracen — a former Miss America who said she had a one-night stand with Clinton while he was governor — and she was married. She went public to specifically deny reports he had forced himself on her.

Myra Belle “Sally” Miller — the 1958 Miss Arkansas who said in 1992 that she had had an affair with Clinton in 1983. She claimed that she had been warned not to go public by a Democratic Party official: “They knew that I went jogging by myself and he couldn’t guarantee what would happen to my pretty little legs.”

Some might argue that because Lewinsky and Gracen had relations when Clinton was in a position of executive authority, Clinton engaged in sexual harassment.

Allegations of an unwanted sexual encounter

Paula Jones — A former Arkansas state employee who alleged that in 1991 Clinton, while governor, propositioned her and exposed himself. She later filed a sexual harassment suit, and it was during a deposition in that suit that Clinton initially denied having sexual relations with Lewinsky. Clinton in 1998 settled the suit for $850,000, with no apology or admission of guilt. All but $200,000 was directed to pay legal fees.

Juanita Broaddrick
— The nursing home administrator emerged after the impeachment trial to allege that 21 years earlier Clinton had raped her. Clinton flatly denied the claim, and there were inconsistencies in her story. No charges were ever brought.

Kathleen Willey
— The former White House aide claimed Clinton groped her in his office in 1993, on the same day when her husband, facing embezzlement charges, died in an apparent suicide. (Her story changed over time. During a deposition in the Paula Jones matter, she initially said she had no recollection about whether Clinton kissed her and insisted he did not fondle her.) Clinton denied her account, and the independent prosecutor concluded “there is insufficient evidence to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that President Clinton’s testimony regarding Kathleen Willey was false.” Willey later began to claim Clinton had a hand in her husband’s death, even though her husband left behind a suicide note.

Note that no court of law ever found Clinton guilty of the accusations.

Peter Baker, in “The Breach,” the definitive account of the impeachment saga, reported that House investigators later found in the files of the independent prosecutor that Jones’s lawyers had collected the names of 21 different women they suspected had had a sexual relationship with Clinton. Baker described the files as “wild allegations, sometimes based on nothing more than hearsay claims of third-party witnesses.” But there were some allegations (page 138) that suggested unwelcome advances:

“One woman was alleged to have been asked by Clinton to give him oral sex in a car while he was the state attorney general (a claim she denied). A former Arkansas state employee said that during a presentation, then-Governor Clinton walked behind her and rubbed his pelvis up against her repeatedly. A woman identified as a third cousin of Clinton’s supposedly told her drug counselor during treatment in Arkansas that she was abused by Clinton when she was baby-sitting at the Governor’s Mansion in Little Rock.”

The Bottom Line

Trump’s claim is a bit too vague for a fact check. In any case, we imagine readers will have widely divergent reactions to this list of admitted affairs and unproven allegations of unwanted sexual encounters. But at least you now know the specific cases that Trump is referencing.


How Marco Rubio helped ex-con relative get a real estate license

When Marco Rubio was majority whip of the Florida House of Representatives, he used his official position to urge state regulators to grant a real estate license to his brother-in-law, a convicted cocaine trafficker who had been released from prison 20 months earlier, according to records obtained by The Washington Post.
In July 2002, Rubio sent a letter on his official statehouse stationery to the Florida Division of Real Estate, recommending Orlando Cicilia “for licensure without reservation.” The letter, obtained by The Washington Post under the Florida Public Records Act, offers a glimpse of Rubio using his growing political power to assist his troubled brother-in-law and provides new insight into how the young lawmaker intertwined his personal and political lives.
Rubio did not disclose in the letter that Cicilia was married to his sister, Barbara, or that the former cocaine dealer was living at the time in the same West Miami home as Rubio’s parents. He wrote that he had known Cicilia “for over 25 years,” without elaborating.

Rubio avoids discussing matter

Rubio has avoided discussing Cicilia’s case in detail and has declined to answer questions about his relationship with his brother-in-law. Earlier this month, prior to The Post publishing an article about Cicilia’s case, Rubio declined to answer a written question about whether he had helped win the approval of his brother-in-law’s real estate license.
Rubio also declined to say whether he or his family received financial assistance from Cicilia, who was convicted in a high-profile 1989 trial of distributing $15 million worth of cocaine. The federal government seized Cicilia’s home; the money has never been found.
Cicilia, 58, could not be reached for comment. He still lives in the same home as Rubio’s mother and has appeared at campaign events for his brother-in-law. Rubio-affiliated PACs and campaigns, including his ongoing presidential operation, have paid Cicilia’s two sons more than $130,000 in the past decade.

‘Paid his debt to society’

“Orlando made some very big mistakes almost 30 years ago, served his time, and has paid his debt to society,” Rubio’s presidential campaign adviser, Todd Harris, said in an email. “Today he is a private citizen, husband and father, simply trying to make a living. It is appalling and shameful that The Washington Post continues to drag him into the spotlight.
“Marco has recommended scores of Floridians for various professional positions and after Orlando paid his debt to society, Marco was happy to recommend him as well. He believed Orlando should be judged on his own merits and felt it would be highly inappropriate, and could be perceived as exerting undue pressure, if his letter stated that Orlando was a relative.”
Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a government watchdog group in Washington, said Rubio’s role concerned her.
“Someone who serves their time should be a productive member of society, and it’s important for families to help each other, but it’s wrong to use your public office for personal or private gain,” Brian said.

Rubio didn’t disclose key information

By not disclosing his relationship, Rubio withheld a key piece of information from the real estate board, Brian added. “The general rule of thumb I apply to conflicts of interest is, if you can’t eliminate them, you need to manage them by disclosing the conflict,” she said. “I’m uncomfortable that he didn’t acknowledge the conflict.”
Rubio, a Republican who represents Florida in the U.S. Senate, was a 16-year-old high school junior in 1987 when Cicilia was arrested in one of the largest drug cases in Florida history. There has never been any evidence that Rubio or his family knew that Cicilia was dealing cocaine, although Drug Enforcement Administration surveillance records show Cicilia stored cocaine from the drug ring at his home, a few miles away from where Rubio and his parents lived.

Nearly 12 years in federal prison

By 2002 — when Cicilia applied for his real estate license — Rubio was accumulating significant power in Tallahassee. He had been tapped as majority whip, and he added to his growing portfolio when he was named chairman of the prominent Task Force on Florida’s Tax Structure. Later that year, he was selected as House majority leader, a position that put him on the fast track to become speaker of the House.
While Rubio was making his mark in Florida politics, Cicilia was reintegrating into the Rubio family and acclimating to life as a free man after 11 1/2 years in federal prison. Cicilia lived with his wife and Rubio’s parents in the future GOP candidate’s childhood home, according to Cicilia’s real-estate-license application. Shortly after his release, Cicilia took a job on the sales staff of a Miami food company and worked his way up to be head of the sales team, according to his application.

Conviction didn’t disqualify application

Cicilia’s cocaine conviction presented a complication for his application. Unlike some states, Florida does not prohibit felons from holding real estate licenses. Their applications are considered on a “case-by-case basis” by seven members of the Florida Real Estate Commission, who are appointed by the governor. The governor, at that time, was Rubio’s political mentor, Jeb Bush — who is now running against the Florida senator for the Republican presidential nomination. The budget of the agency is controlled by the Florida legislature, where Rubio wielded considerable influence.
Cicilia had one technical issue in his favor. In general, the board frowns upon applicants who have been convicted of fraud and related charges — he had been convicted in a drug trafficking case. Regardless of the charge, felons can plead their cases before the board members and can ask character witnesses to submit letters or testify on their behalf.
“If someone has been found guilty of fraud, that’s going to go against them,” said Chelsea Eagle, a spokeswoman for the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, which oversees licensing in the state. “It all depends on the circumstances of the case.”

‘Impeccable record’ in prison

Cicilia applied for his license in February 2002, and he answered “yes” to a question about whether he had been convicted of a crime. State regulators wanted to know more. Cicilia responded on June 5, outlining his cocaine conviction and sentencing, and saying he had an “impeccable record” during his time in prison.
At the suggestion of an official in the Florida Division of Real Estate, Cicilia asked for his application to be considered at a hearing of the Real Estate Commission in July 2002. Along with his request, he sent three recommendation letters. One was from a real estate executive who said he had known him for 30 years; another was from his boss at the food sales company, who described him as “efficient, punctual, meticulous in his work and in every way a model employee.” The third was from the majority whip of the Florida House of Representatives — his brother-in-law.
“I have known Mr. Cicilia for over 25 years,” Rubio wrote in a July 1, 2002, letter to an official in the Real Estate Division of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. “I recommend him for licensure without reservation. If I can be of further assistance on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.”

Commission gives stamp of approval

Cicilia got his hearing. A letter from the Real Estate Division let him know that his application was placed on the agenda for the Real Estate Commission’s July 17, 2002, meeting.
The next day, he was approved. He was officially a real estate agent.
Three years later, when Rubio was looking for a new home, he turned to the real estate agent in the family to help him arrange the purchase: Orlando Cicilia.

Sunday, December 20, 2015


Time and again the Tea Parties in the Badger State have flexed their political muscle and time and again they have prevailed. The Tea Party groups in Wisconsin have proven in the past 3 election cycles, they are tough, they are organized and they will work hard to protect or support the candidate of their respective choice. This was particularly true with the support they gave Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker when he was so viciously attacked by labor Union-backed Democrats for a recall election.

In the closely contested elections financed and backed by big labor, the grassroots hard work of Wisconsin’s Tea Party and conservative groups prevailed to keep a conservative at the helm of the great State of Wisconsin.

Last October, America’s Tea Party and Conservative movement made a decision to trust Congressman Paul Ryan with the most powerful position in the House of Representative’s, that being the coveted position of Speaker of the House. Ryan promised to adhere to conservative values and govern from a perspective of smaller government, less spending, lower taxes and American security would be paramount for his agenda’s.

As all of you have heard, Speaker Ryan did not just break his pledge to conservatism, he Baptized his role as Speaker with nothing short of liberal holy water.

I won’t rehash what all is in this behemoth $1.2 Trillion dollar spending monstrosity, but for conversation purposes, just know that it funds everything that slaps conservatism in the face and spit’s on Tea Party values. Breitbart wrote a great article that you can read here to get the full low-down on just how bad this darned thing is. If Obama’s spending wasn’t bad enough, this Omnibus spending bill also funds those cities which harbor illegal aliens and much, much more that is surely to hack off those of us that love our nation.

If this Omnibus bill is any sort of indication of the way Speaker Ryan is going to govern, it is time to do what “Barney Fife” told us to do so many years ago, “NIP-IT, NIP-IT” in the bud now!

All patriot’s should contact your groups leaders and begin organizing nationwide to put down this RINO in order that he is not re-elected to his seat in Wisconsin. The Badger State patriots need to begin soliciting your State Senators, high-profile business leaders or the State Legislators who reside within the 1st District of Wisconsin.

Apparently nobody in the 1st District has announced any intention of forcing Ryan into a primary, but it is time to locate someone willing to do this who might actually have a chance (with enough grassroots support) at defeating our newest RINO-Speaker. America doesn’t need another John Boehner but that is apparently what we now have as Speaker of the House.

This is the part that is critical patriots!

If the local Wisconsin Tea Party groups can locate a candidate willing to primary Paul Ryan in the 1st District, this candidate will need a truckload of cash to make this an actual race. That candidate will need our full support. This means we all need to reach deep and find an extra $10 or 20.00 bill to send to this candidate. If 200 or 300,000 of us do this, now we have a very real chance of knocking off Ryan in the primary and winning the general election. Currently, Paul Ryan has around $5,000,000 in his campaign coffers.

Patriots; Get on the phones, start calling the Wisconsin groups and get them in gear to find us a candidate. After this has been accomplished, have a very Merry Christmas and a safe and Happy New Year, then it’s time to get to work!

Wisconsin Patriots; LET me know what you need and we at Crows Nest will post it for everyone to rally to your aid.

We cannot allow these politicians to stand and lie to us in this matter. Paul Ryan has broken every promise he made and for that he must pay the political price.

Follow me on Twitter; @kwrcrow

Join thousands of your patriot friends at Crows Nest on Facebook.

If you enjoyed our article, Please consider a donation to help offset our operational costs. Thank you


Friday, December 18, 2015


Senate Unveils the 2013 Immigration Reform Bill

The group of eight Senators released their detailed bill for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR). The bill is called Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. The bill makes it clear that border security and immigration control are key issues that must be resolved prior to granting benefit to immigrants, including the submission of border security strategy for high risk border areas known as the Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy. The bill appropriates 3 billion dollars for border security, including hiring of additional border agents, further development of high tech surveillance and detection, and unmanned aerial systems. The bill creates a program for individuals in unlawful status called the “Registered Provision Immigrant” (“RPI”), however until detailed border security measures are achieved RPI immigrants cannot adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status. There are exceptions for those who would benefit under the DREAM Act and Agricultural legalization.
Adjustment of Status to Registered Provisional Immigrant (PRI) Status

Individuals in unlawful status who had residence in the United States prior to December 31, 2011 and maintained continuous physical presence may apply to adjust their status to the legal status of Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) Status, after they paid a $500 penalty fee (except for DREAM Act eligible students), and assessed taxes for each adult applicant in addition to all applicable filing fees required to pay for the cost of processing the application. Immigrants in RPI status can work for any employer and travel outside of the United States. Spouses and children of people in RPI status can be petitioned for as derivatives of the principal applicant but must be in the United States at the time of the application. Individuals outside of the United States who were here before December 31, 2011 and were deported for non-criminal reasons can apply to re-enter the United States in RPI status if they have a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, or child; or if they are a childhood arrival who would otherwise be eligible for the DREAM Act. The Application period for those removed will be for 1 year with the possibility of extension by the DHS. In addition, individuals in the United States with removal orders or currently in removal proceedingS will be permitted to apply.

RPI status shall last for a 6-year term that is renewable if the immigrant does not commit any acts that would render him/her deportable, and at the renewal another $500 penalty fee has to be paid. However, individuals in RPI status will not be eligible for any Federal means-tested public benefit such as cash welfare. An individual registered a provisional immigrant RPI will be considered lawfully present in the United States for all purposes, and after 10 years, aliens in RPI status may adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident Status – after all people currently waiting for family and employment green cards as of the date of enactment of the law have had their priority dates become current – through the same Merit Based System (see below) everyone else must use to earn a “green card,” as long as the following things have occurred:
Maintained continuous physical presence
Paid all taxes owed during the period that they are in status as an RPI
Worked in the United States regularly
Demonstrated knowledge of Civics and English
Paid a $1,000 penalty fee

However, individuals in DREAM Act Status and in the Agricultural Program can get their green cards within 5 years. In addition, DREAM Act kids will be eligible for citizenship immediately after they get their green cards.

The following individuals will not be eligible for RPI
Convicted of an aggravated felony;
Convicted of a felony;
Convicted of 3 or more misdemeanors;
Convicted of an offense under foreign law;
Unlawfully Voted; and
Inadmissible for Criminal, National Security, Public Health, or other morality grounds.
Family Based Immigration

The bill strives to eliminate the backlog for family and employment-based immigrants. Under current laws there are four preference categories based on family relationships and 480,000 visas are allocated annually to family based immigration. Under the new system there will be only two family preference categories and they will cover unmarried adult children and married adult children under age 31 of US citizens, and unmarried adult children of “green card” holders. The bill also expands the current V visa to allow individuals with an approved family petition to live in the U.S. and allow certain other family members to visit the U.S. for up to 60 days per year. However, the bill will take away the availability of immigrant visas for siblings of U.S. citizens, but provides an 18 month period after enactment for these to be continued to be submitted before elimination. The bill amends the definition of “immediate relative” (which currently only includes spouses, children under 21 of US citizens and parents of a US citizen over 21 years old) to include a child or spouse of a “green card” holder.
“Green Card Lottery”

Going forward the bill also ends the Diversity Visa also knows as the “green card lottery” program. Aliens who were or are selected for diversity immigrant visas for fiscal years 2013 or 2014 will be eligible to receive them.
Employment Based Immigration

On the employment green card categories, the bill exempts from the annual numerical limits some of the categories that are currently counted, which will greatly assist in eliminating backlog in other categories for employment-based immigrants.

Then the bill allocates 40 percent of the worldwide level of employment-based visas to:

1) members of the professions holding advanced degrees and

2) aliens who have earned a master’s degree or higher in a field of science, technology, engineering or mathematics from an accredited U.S. institution of higher education and have an offer of employment in a related field and the qualifying degree was earned in the five years immediately before the petition was filed.

The bill also increases the percentage of employment visas for skilled workers, professionals, and other professionals to 40 percent.

In addition, the bill creates a startup visa for foreign entrepreneurs who seek to emigrate to the United States to startup their own companies.
The Merit Based Visa System

The merit based visa, created in the fifth year after enactment, awards points to individuals based on their education, employment, length of residence in the US and other considerations. Those individuals with the most points earn the visas. Those who access the merit based pathway to earn their visa are expected to be talented individuals, individuals in our worker programs and individuals with family here. 120,000 visas will be available per year based on merit.
H-1B Visa Reform

The bill will raise the base cap of 65,000 to 110,000 and amends the current 20,000 exemption for U.S. advanced degree holders to be a 25,000 exemption for advanced degree graduates in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics from U.S. Schools. Spouses of H-1B holders will receive employment authorization in the U.S., as long as the country where the H-1B worker is from provides reciprocal treatment to spouses of U.S. workers. The cap can go as high as 180,000 (however the most the cap can increase/decrease by each year is 10,000 visas). Additional changes to the H-1B program will include a 60-day transition period for H-1B workers to change jobs, and dual intent visas for all students who come here on bachelor’s degree programs or higher. Recruitment will be a necessary part of the H-1B process through a website established by the Secretary of Labor within 90 days of the passage of the new law.
W-Visa Program For Lower-Skilled Workers of Guest Worker Program

The bill creates a new nonimmigrant classification known as the W-Visa. The W visa holder is an alien having a foreign residence who will come to the US to perform services or labor for a registered employer in a registered position. The spouse and minor children of the W visa holder will be allowed to accompany or follow to join and will be given work authorization for the same period of admission the W nonimmigrant is allowed to be here. Employers cam become a registered employer by submitting an application to the Department of Homeland Security by demonstrating that they are a bona fide employer and providing the estimated number of W nonimmigrants they will seek. Applications to become registered employers will be granted for a three year term and after the employer may submit an application to renew the employer’s status as a registered employer for additional three year periods.

The Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act (AgJOBS) would allow current undocumented farm workers to obtain legal status through an Agricultural Card Program. Undocumented farm workers who have made a substantial prior commitment to agricultural work in the United States would be eligible for an Agricultural Card. Agricultural workers who fulfill future Agricultural Card work requirements in U.S. agriculture, show that they have paid all taxes, have not been convicted of any serious crime, and pay a $400 fine are eligible to adjust to legal permanent resident status. Spouses and minor children would receive derivative status. A new agricultural guest worker visa program would be established to ensure an adequate agricultural workforce. A portable, at-will employment based visa (W-3 visa) and a contract-based visa (W-2 visa) would replace the current H-2A program. The H-2A program would sunset after the new guest worker visa program is operational.
Maintaining LPR Status (Green-Card) and Qualifying for Citizenship » I.S. Law Firm – Virginia, Maryland, D.C. Immigration, Personal Injury, Business, Attorney, Lawyers in VA, MD, DC

Maintaining LPR Status (Green-Card) and Qualifying for Citizenship

NOTICE: The information contained on this page site is intended to educate the general public and is not intended to provide legal advice. To ensure proper handling of your individual situation, please call (703) 527-1779.


A Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) is a person who is not a citizen of the United States, but who resides the in the United States under legally recognized and lawfully recorded permanent residence as an immigrant. A person with an LPR status is also known as Permanent Resident Alien, Resident Alien Permit Holder, and Green Card Holder. Your LPR status generally begins on the day when your green card is issued. The date you became a permanent resident is also written on your green card. Under certain circumstances a person can lose his/her LPR status. Furthermore, a mere maintenance of your LPR status may not qualify you for naturalization.

Maintaining LPR Status

You may lose your permanent resident status (green card) if you commit certain crimes that make you removable from the United States under Section 237 and Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). If you commit such an act, you may be brought before an immigration court to determine your right to remain a permanent resident.

You may also lose your green card if you are found to have abandoned your Permanent Resident Status. This can happen if you:

• Move to another country intending to live there permanently;
• Remain outside of the United States for more than 6 months without providing evidence of close ties demonstrating an uninterrupted intent of permanently residing in the United States;
• Remain outside of the United States for more than 1 year without obtaining a reentry permit or returning resident visa;
• Remain outside of the United States for more than 2 years after issuance of a reentry permit without obtaining a returning resident visa;
• Fail to file income tax returns while living outside of the United States for any period;
• Declare yourself a “nonimmigrant” on your tax returns.

Absence from the United States

A lawful permanent resident (LPR) normally may travel outside the United States and return; however, there are some limitations. You need a reentry permit if you plan to be outside the United States for more than 1 year. However, in determining whether your status has been abandoned, any length of absence from the United States may be considered, even if less than 1 year. For example, even if you were absent from the United States just for a couple of months, you can still be questioned at the port of entry when you attempt to return to the United States, and, if the officer concludes that you have abandoned your LPR status, your green card may be taken away from you. In order to avoid this, whenever you travel as an LPR, you should carry documents with you that confirm your ties and residency in the United States.

Re-Entry Permit

If you intend to be outside of the United States for one year or more, you need to obtain a reentry permit in order to be able to return to the United States. Otherwise, you will face two types of problems:

• Your Permanent Resident Card becomes invalid for reentry into the United States if you are absent from the United States for 1 year or more;
• Your U.S. permanent residence may be considered abandoned for absences shorter than 1 year if you take up residence in another country.

A reentry permit establishes that you did not and do not intend to abandon your LPR status, and it allows you to apply for admission to the United States after traveling abroad for up to 2 years without having to obtain a returning resident visa. Reentry permits are normally valid for 2 years from the date of issuance. If you remain outside of the United States for more than 2 years after issuance of a reentry permit, you will need to obtain a returning resident visa. If you fail to do so, your LPR status may be considered abandoned, and you may not be able to enter the United States after your reentry permit expires.

Qualifying for Citizenship

In order to qualify for U.S. citizenship through naturalization after having been an LPR for 5 years (in some cases 3 years), you need to fulfill two requirements:

• Continuous Residence in the United States;
• Physical Presence in the United States.

Continuous Residence

In order to satisfy the continuous residence requirement, applicants for naturalization are required to show that they have:

• Resided continuously in the U.S. for five years before applying; or
• Resided continuously in the U.S. for three years in the case of qualified spouses of U.S. citizens.

“Continuous residence” means that you have maintained residence within the United States for the required period of 5 or 3 years. While occasional travel outside the United States is permitted, extended absences of over 6 months may disrupt your continuous residence and make you ineligible for naturalization in the United States.

If you were absent in the United States for more than six months but less than one year, you have to prove that you did not abandon you permanent resident status by presenting documents confirming your continuous ties to the United States during the time of absence.

An absence from the United States for one year or more disrupts your continuous residence unless you obtain necessary paperwork in advance in order to preserve your residence for naturalization purposes (see below).

Note: Generally, an absence of more than 1 year while holding a reentry permit interrupts your continuous residence for citizenship purposes. However, it should be noted that event if absence on reentry permit lasts 2 years, the clock for calculating the continuous residence restarts from the conclusion of the first year of absence on reentry permit. In other words, any period of absence beyond the first year, while holding a reentry permit, is counted towards the continuous residence requirement for naturalization purposes.

Physical Presence

Even if you meet the continuous residency requirement (meaning that you have not been absent from the United States for longer than a year at a time), you may still not qualify for U.S. citizenship if you do not meet the physical presence requirement, meaning that you have spent more than half of the time after you became an LPR outside of the United States during all of your trips combined (for example, if you traveled back and forth between the United States and your country of birth).

In order to satisfy the physical presence requirement, applicants for naturalization are required to show that they were:

• Physically present in the U.S. for 30 months (2.5 years) within the 5-year period before applying; or
• Physically present in the U.S. for 18 months (1.5 years) within the 3-year period before applying in the case of qualified spouses of U.S. citizens.

In order to determine whether you meet this requirement, you need to add together the duration of all your trips outside the United States (including visits to Canada and Mexico) since you have become an LPR. You have to count every trip that lasted 24 hours or longer. If you do not meet this requirement, you may need to wait (while living in the United States) until the time you have spent in the United States adds up to 2.5 years within a 5-year period before you can apply for naturalization.

Additionally, you have to show that you have resided for at least three months before applying for naturalization in the USCIS district where you claim to have residency.

Preserving Residence for Naturalization Purposes

If you need to live outside of United States for more than one year for work in specific jobs in the U.S. government, private sector, qualifying scientific, religious, or international organizations, you may file Form N-470, Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization Purposes. An approved Form N-470 allows you to preserve your residency, previously accumulated for naturalization purposes, even if you reside outside the United States for longer than a year. Such permanent residents have to file Form N-470 before departing the United States, with the exception of religious workers, who can apply before or after departure or even after return to the United States. You do not have to be in the United States to file Form N-470, but you have to file it before you have been absent for a continuous period of one year. Please note that in most cases you have to be physically present and residing in the United States for at least one year without any absences after becoming an LPR before you can apply to preserve your residency.

Regardless of when you file Form N-470, you still have to apply for reentry permits before you leave and meet the physical presence requirement for naturalization as appropriate. If you obtain a reentry permit and an approved Form N-470, you can stay outside of the United States for two years without losing your LPR status. This absence will interrupt your continuous residence for only one year, even though you were absent for two years, because one year counts toward the residency requirement according to the Form N-470 rules.

Attorneys at I.S. Law Firm have helped many permanent residents, including those who spent significant amounts of time outside the United States after receiving their green cards, maintain their permanent residency and become U.S. citizens. For more information about our services and for consultation please contact us at (703) 527-1779 or via e-mail:

Thursday, December 17, 2015


Rand Paul thinks the national debt is the “greatest threat” to America’s future. Donald Trump warns that the nation is at risk of becoming “a large-scale version of Greece.” And Marco Rubio says the debt will “shackle future generations.”

But on Capitol Hill this week, just hours before they jet away for the holidays, the GOP-led Congress is going on a $680 billion spending spree — none of which will be paid for by budget cuts or other tax offsets. And all of which will be added to the national debt, according to budget watchdogs.

“We are doing damage to the fiscal health of the country by borrowing this mind-boggling amount at a time when the debt is so high,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan anti-debt nonprofit Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “It’s absolutely at odds with the priority Republicans are making — the debt — when they’re campaigning, and with the Republican budget that was passed out of the House.”

For the GOP presidential candidates, the $18 trillion national debt remains a central campaign talking point. But after years of relative fiscal austerity, including enactment of relatively modest spending rollbacks, GOP lawmakers are steaming toward passing a mammoth $680 billion tax package without offsets. It would make permanent a host of temporary tax breaks commonly called “extenders” — and is also chock-full of goodies for specific business interests and constituents.

There’s something from everybody’s wish list: breaks for energy-efficient homes and commercial buildings; deductions for business office furniture, computers and machines; tax savings for the film and TV industries and rum producers in the Caribbean; and even tax perks for owning a racehorse or two-wheeled plug-in electric car.

The cost, combined with the interest the U.S. would pay after borrowing the money to pay for it, would rise to $830 billion and undo much of the savings squeezed from painful automatic spending cuts called the sequester, according to MacGuineas’ group. Republicans have instituted rules that block such measures unless they’re paid for — restrictions they will waive for themselves on this particular occasion.


Speaker Paul Ryan can count on strong support from Republicans to pass the measure, which he negotiated as one of his first acts since taking over the House.

It helps, perhaps, that national security issues have recently taken over the campaign spotlight, diverting some attention away from fiscal issues. But Democrats are seizing on what they see as a disconnect between the GOP’s national platform and their end-of-year tax bill. And they’re calling the GOP hypocritical for failing to require the new spending to be offset with cuts elsewhere — particularly after spending years battling with President Barack Obama over deficits and spending cuts.

“If you’re concerned about the deficit, why do you write off all this money without an offset?” asked Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.).

Appropriations Committee member Mike Honda (D-Calif.), who often hears Republicans on his panel balk at spending for Democratic priorities, said reading the tax deal was “like being in a candy store.”

“I’m not voting for it,” he said. “There are so many things in there that raise astounding [amounts of] debt.”

Almost every year, Congress passes a series of what were supposed to be “temporary” tax breaks mostly aimed at businesses, including breaks for corporate research and development, wind and solar energy, railroad track maintenance and motor-sports equipment. But tax experts have long maintained that the year-by-year extensions are bad policymaking because they leave businesses guessing whether their provisions will be extended that year, adding uncertainty and making it more difficult to plan for the future.

Many of those experts, along with some members of Congress, have wanted to make them permanent. And this year, Republicans struck a deal with Democrats: Make some of our tax breaks permanent, and we’ll do the same for yours. (Democrats, for their part, got a permanent extension of their own beloved tax break for college students and an extension of those for lower-income individuals.)

The GOP also sees the package as a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine — a more than $1.1 trillion spending bill they have to clear before leaving town — go down. Lawmakers have to fund the government, a tough vote for conservatives who want to cut spending. To swallow it, GOP leadership threw in a tax package.

Despite its sizable price tag, many conservatives see the tax deal as a net positive.

“We’re making permanent some very key pro-growth provisions that are going to grow the economy,” said new Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas). “These are tax provisions we’re extending one year at a time; making the pro-growth provisions permanent doesn’t add any level of funding to our deficit. It’s simply honest budgeting going forward.”

The cost of them over a decade, he added is “right in the neighborhood of one year 10 times.”

The GOP is betting that, over the long haul, it will be worth the cost.

“We don’t score them because economic growth helps them. … We’ll get that back multiple times over in economic growth,” said Republican Study Committee Chairman Bill Flores of Texas, later adding that the tax breaks that are “niche, for a particular industry,” are extended only for a short term.

Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) said the package would let “business people plan their investments.” And Republican Rep. Joe Barton pointed out that part of the package includes a boon for his Texas constituents who pay more sales tax than income tax: the state and local sales tax deduction.

“I’m not a big fan of wind and solar [tax credits], but I’d still rather see dollars stay in the American economy than come to Washington, D.C.,” said Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.).

But while budget watchdogs say there may be merit to many of the tax extenders, they argue that if lawmakers want to be serious about reducing the debt, they should find a way to pay for them.

2,200 pages, $1.8 trillion, dead of night

“There is no way this will pay for itself, and there’s no justifying for not paying for it other than we don’t want to … and we take the easy way out,” said MacGuineas. “What we should be doing is the opposite of this.”

Of course, some Republicans disagree with the premise that tax breaks are a “cost” to begin with.

“I don’t buy into the premise that letting people keep more of their money is a cost — it’s their money,” snipped House Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio.

Tax reform cheerleaders, however, will also note that a tax package that reduces rates for certain industries actually goes against the very purpose of comprehensive tax reform, which is to broaden the base, get rid of special interest loopholes and lower the rate for everyone.

But Republicans asked about the matter Wednesday waived that off for now.

“I’m not fine with it. It’s a deficit buster, but you know we’re going to have to back small businesses, so we might as well do the right thing for them” right now, said Rep. Dave Brat of Virginia.


Great Orators of the Democrat Party – PAST: 

"One man with courage makes a majority." ~ Andrew Jackson 

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt  

"The buck stops here." ~ Harry S. Truman 

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." ~ John F.Kennedy 


Great Orators of the Democrat Party – TODAY:

"It depends what your definition of 'is' is?'' ~   President William Jefferson Clinton 

"Those rumors are false. I believe in the sanctity of marriage." ~   John Edwards

"What difference does it make?" (re: Benghazi) ~   Hillary Clinton   

"I invented the Internet." ~    Al Gore 

"America is, is no longer, uh, what it, uh, could be, uh, what it was once was, uh, and I say to myself, uh, I don't want that future, uh, for my children." ~   Barack Obama

"I have campaigned in all 57 states." ~    Barack Obama   (Quoted 2008)

"You don't need God anymore; you have us Democrats." ~    Nancy Pelosi     (Quoted 2006) (A really, really stupid remark.)

"Paying taxes is voluntary." ~    Sen. Harry Reid   

"Bill is the greatest husband and father I know. No one is more faithful, true, and honest than he is.” ~    Hillary Rodham Clinton     (Quoted 1998)

"You have a business. You didn't build that. Someone else did!" ~   Barack Obama     (Quoted 2012)

And the most ridiculous gem of wisdom, from the "Mother Superior Moron":

"We just have to pass the Healthcare Bill to see what's in it." ~      Nancy Pelosi   (Quoted March,2010) (As one Doctor said: That is also the perfect definition of a stool sample.)



"Life is tough !  It's even tougher when you're stupid.'' ~     John Wayne



Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Tuesday, December 15, 2015


Recently, Charles Krauthammer alluded that he had no doubt some of the 30k emails Hillary deleted from her private email server very likely had references to the Clinton Foundation, which would be illegal and a conflict of interest.

The Clinton Foundation is "organized crime" at its finest, and we are financing it.

Here is a good, concise summary of how the Clinton Foundation works as a tax free international money laundering scheme.

It may eventually prove to be the largest political criminal enterprise in U.S. history.

This is a textbook case on how you hide foreign money sent to you and repackage it to be used for your own purposes.

All tax free. Here's how it works:

1. You create a separate foreign "charity." In this case one in Canada.

2. Foreign oligarchs and governments, then donate to this Canadian charity. In this case, over 1,000 did -- contributing mega millions.

I'm sure they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, and expected nothing in return.

(Imagine Putin's buddies waking up one morning and just deciding to send untold millions to a Canadian charity).

3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations and makes a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.

4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors.

5. The Clinton Foundation then "spends" some of this money for legitimate good works programs.

Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10%.

Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clinton's, pay salaries
to untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, etc. Again, virtually all tax free, which means you and I are subsidizing it.

6. The Clinton Foundation, with access to the world's best accountants, somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings.

They discover these "clerical errors" and begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax returns.

7. Net result -- foreign money, much of it from other countries, goes into the Clinton's pockets tax free and untraceable back to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering.

Oh, by the way, the Canadian "charity" includes as a principal one Frank Giustra. Google him.

He is the guy who was central to the formation of Uranium One, the Canadian company that somehow acquired massive
U.S. uranium interests and then sold them to an organization controlled by Russia. This transaction required U.S. State Department approval, and guess who was Secretary of State when the approval was granted.

As an aside, imagine how former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell feels. That poor schlep is in jail because he and his wife took $165,000 in gifts and loans for doing minor favors for a guy promoting a vitamin company. Not legal but not exactly putting U.S. security at risk.

Sarcasm aside, if you're still not persuaded this was a cleverly structured way to get unidentified foreign money to the Clinton's, ask yourself this:

Why did these foreign interests funnel money through a Canadian charity?

Why not donate directly to the Clinton Foundation?

Better yet, why not donate money directly to the people, organizations and countries in need?

This is the essence of money laundering and influence peddling.

Now you know why Hillary's destruction of 30,000 e-mails was a risk she was willing to take.

Bill and Hillary are devious, unprincipled, dishonest and criminal, and they are Slick!

Warning: They could be back in the White House in January 2017.

Don't let it happen. Remember, most people are not well informed.

You must inform and educate them.