Scandal champ George Santos is now accused of being a white supremacist

There is an old joke about politicians which never ceases to lose its relevance.

Question: How do you know a politician is lying?

Answer: His lips are moving

We do expect a certain amount of embellishment when politicians talk about their records.

Even regular people unknowingly overstate or understate their records, or at times, the human memory plays tricks.

But there is a difference between embellishments and blatant lies, not a product of confusion, but instead an attempt at self-aggrandizement.

In the matter of fabrication, few can surpass Hillary Rodham Clinton.

On March 17, 2008, Hillary claimed that as first lady she landed “under sniper fire” during a trip to Tuzla, Bosnia, she made in March 1996. The goal was to depict herself as the fearless first lady who placed herself in peril to comfort the people of war-ravaged Bosnia.

Well, it soon turned out to be a complete fabrication.

Videos began to surface that showed Hillary arriving on the tarmac and being greeted by a child who offers her a copy of a poem. It was such a massive lie that even the Democrat mouthpiece the WaPo had to step in and fact-check Hillary.

When caught, Hillary said she 'misspoke'

Hillary is not a combat soldier who has been in various wars and confused one occurrence with another. She did not misspeak; she fabricated to deceive her voters. 

Hillary's lies are many and continue to this day.

We move to George Santos, who seems to have received a doctorate from the Hillary Clinton University of fabrication.

Santos did not embellish his resume, he instead created a fictional character.

Santos fabricated his education, his work experience, his religion, and even his charity work.

Santos claimed that he graduated from Baruch College, New York, and worked for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. But there is no evidence that he received a college degree or worked at either financial giant.

Santos claimed to have founded a tax-exempt animal rescue charity that saved more than 2,500 dogs and cats. 

All of these were complete falsehoods.

He claimed he was Jewish and had ancestors who fled the Holocaust. This was a vile fabrication and an affront to the survivors of one of the darkest chapters in human history. 

He claimed to have “lost four employees” at the Orlando nightclub shooting in 2016. There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim.

Santos claimed to be from a wealthy family fortune that owned 13 properties. That, too, is a lie.

Under intense political pressure, Santos admitted to fabricating some of the claims and stood by others, despite contradictory evidence.

The lies are numerous, purposeful, blatant, and unjustifiable.

Santos is a disgrace.

It is baffling that the liberal media, Santos’s political opponent, and even government agencies who relish targeting Republicans failed to do an elementary investigation of Santos.

But Santos unknowingly revealed a lapse or perhaps a flaw in the electoral system.

Currently, individuals running for the House, Senate, or presidency become candidates when they raise or spend more than $5,000 in contributions or expenditures.  

Candidates must register using a Statement of Candidacy within 15 days of becoming a candidate.

The form requires candidates to enter their personal information and details about their postal address. Also required is the name of the campaign and the various other PACs.

However, there seems to be no place for education, work experience or charity. 

This information should be mandatory. Nominations must be accepted only after a thorough background check of the claims made in the form. In Santos’s case, a few phone calls would have exposed his lies. 

This is part of the swamp culture.

The GOP House must pass a law that mandates thorough background checks that the candidate has to pay for if he intends to run in any elections.

Now for the big question:

What happens to Santos now?

Santos appeared determined to try to weather the scandal.

Santos told the New York Post: "I campaigned talking about the people's concerns, not my resume... I intend to deliver on the promises I made during the campaign."

He was sworn in just yesterday and is now the first openly LGBTQ Republican to be elected to Congress. But no Democrat is celebrating this inclusiveness, in this case, they are not wrong.

Federal and local prosecutors in New York have opened investigations into whether Santos violated any laws during his campaign. And, in Brazil, prosecutors said they planned to revive fraud charges connected to a stolen checkbook.

Robert Zimmerman, the Democrat who Santos defeated during the November midterm election, said he should resign and face him again in a special election. 



The media is also very outraged and some are demanding that Santos resign.

The gist of their outrage is that voters were given false information and any voting decision based on lies is unacceptable. Hence the election is invalid.

They also used the story to attack Trump and all of the GOP.

The media is responsible for most of the big lies of our times. It is hence quite ironic that they are suddenly pontificating about the importance of being factual. But the self-righteous often fail to comprehend irony and neither do they possess any self-awareness.

What about the 2020 election where government agencies, the news media, and big tech have colluded to block the Hunter Biden laptop story? 

Suppressing damaging information about one candidate is the equivalent of fabrication because facts remain hidden from voters.

A Media Research Center poll revealed that 16% of Biden voters said they would have voted differently if Hunter Biden's laptop story was known to them. Another survey showed that a whopping 79 percent of Americans suggest President Trump likely would have won reelection if voters had known the truth about Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Some may say that Santos’ scale of lying was much worse than Hunter Biden’s story being suppressed. But the scale of lying is irrelevant, what matters is that it affected voting decisions.

If Santos is forced to quit, why should Biden remain in office?

You would think that Santos suffered enough controversies for one human at any juncture.

But there was more.

The NY Post carried a story that accuses Santos of flashing a white power symbol in the House Chambers. While casting his 10th vote for Kevin McCarthy for House Speaker. Santos unfolded his arms to reveal his left hand making a sideways “O.K. gesture,” a symbol co-opted by white supremacists.

This claim seems as ludicrous as Santos’s resume.

The media is fabricating about a fabricator.

So how should the GOP handle this?

If Santos resigns or is forced out of office, it would prompt a special election in a swing seat, and lead to a potential loss which will narrow further the GOP’s already razor-thin majority.

The GOP doesn't have to support Santos but they do not have to actively work towards dethroning him.

If Santos is unseated, the GOP must remind voters of how similar the situation is to that of the 2020 elections. While it will change nothing, it will help highlight the disparity in standards applied to both parties.

Santos can redeem himself by voting for the right issues.

Image: U.S. House Office of Photography, via Wikipedia // public domain


If you experience technical problems, please write to