Thursday, June 23, 2016

Is Barack Obama a Psychopath, a Lackey of His Crony Banksters or Merely a Chicago Huckster Who Bought the Moniker "Hope & Change"?

No, Mr. President -- You Are Not Who We Are

Using the royal “we”, the president indicates his displeasure with the U.S. for failing to live up to his vision of how “we” should be with the phrase, “That is not who we are.” No, Mr. President. It is not so much that that is not who we are as that you are not who we are.
It was 2007 and the Democratic candidates all had their hands over their hearts while the "National Anthem" was being played -- but not Obama. That should have told the whole story then and there. But that was unthinkable -- just a glitch for a man of superior intellect and vision preoccupied with bringing the U.S. up to speed with the real issues facing the world -- from climate change to economic justice for all -- where “all” means all the nations and peoples of the world. For Obama the U.S. presidency is a platform for his world leadership and by now it should be apparent to all that, if anything, Obama pledges allegiance to the UN and his job is to bring the U.S. into line with the UN world perspective. Hisapology tours reveal that he sees provincial U.S. nationalism as an embarrassment to his position as a world leader and statesman. The president is a World Statesman and if that means sacrificing shortsighted U.S. interests, so be it. For Obama, his stature as a world leader is more important than merely being president of the U.S. and being concerned with narrow U.S. interests. No, Mr. President. Most Americans want a president who will put America’s interests first.
Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States, but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. -- Charles Krauthammer
There is a difference between open opportunity for both sexes and peddling feminization of males and masculinization of females -- giving dolls to little boys and hammers to little girls. Trying to obliterate differences between male sexuality and female sexuality -- the “pajama boy” initiative -- seems to be theunder-the-table initiative that our suave, epicene president is subtly pushing in K-12. In our own best interest of course. No, Mr. President, Most Americans don’t see twisting sexuality as being a healthy way to raise their children.
When it comes to Islam, our president shows all the characteristics of the “battered wife syndrome”. No matter how badly treated by her husband, the battered wife knows that he really loves her -- that the brutish behavior of her husband is not really him. No, Mr. President -- most Americans try to be realists despite the feigned dismay displayed by Muslim leaders regarding terror committed in the name of Allah. They see the reports and pictures of the Muslim faithful railing against the West. They see the devastation wreaked by suicide numbers. They learn that striving for world domination is the ultimate duty of all Muslims. They see what is going on instead of falling for word magic and wishful thinking. If the president doesn’t conjoin the words “Islam” and “terror” it will not exist? And conversely if he does then poof it will come to be? No, Mr. President. Most Americans don’t believe in your Voodoo (Islamic) Terrorist Security policy. 
Most Americans know when enough is enough. Using the U.S. as the safety valve for the failed social policies of any country in the world only delays reform of the oppressive misguided regimes that have brought their countries to disaster. From Cuba to Venezuela, using the U.S. to export their disaffected population only perpetuates the regimes in question. Moreover, despite clever Pew research which chops up the question of cutting back on immigration into so many subquestions that there seems no consensus, most Americans believe that the age of immigration is over. What once was a good thing has inflicted immense harm on the middle class and the black population in particular. Civilization no longer requires population density and the entire world is already overpopulated -- something the greenheads and climate alarmists disingenuously refuse to confront. No, Mr. President. Most Americans do not believe in open borders and favoring Muslim immigration.
A recent poll shows that a plurality Americans see Obama as the worst president since WWII. Hopefully, the next president will get it right. No, Mr. president, contrary to your World Statesman narcissistic fantasy, most Americans believe what is good for the U.S. is good for the world.





40% of Federal Criminal Cases in 2013 Were in
Districts on Mexican Border

We’ve got an even more ominous enemy within our borders that 

promotes “Reconquista of Aztlan” or the reconquest of California, 

Arizona, New Mexico and Texas into the country of Mexico. 







Is Hillary Clinton's Record In Politics as Phony as Her Phony Clinton Foundation?

SEN. SANDERS SURRENDERS TO HER CORRUPTNESS… Will he serve her Wall Street Paymasters also?

Hillary & Billary….. Operating like third world dictators sucking in the bribes from every 

criminal and sleaze bag they know and they know all of them!

She’s Not Trump

At first, she was this: The First Woman.
Neither she nor her supporters admit that Hillary was initially running solely because she is the First Woman. Instead, she was running on her supposed wealth of experience and competence, her selfless, lifelong public service, but those reasons don’t hold up particularly well under close scrutiny.
She accomplished nothing of note as Secretary of State -- no important treaties, no high-profile peace agreements, no ground-breaking negotiated settlements, nothing. There’s not one single world hotspot or American adversarial relationship that is unequivocally better today as a direct result of her actions as Secretary.
Our relations with Israel -- our best friend in the region? Weaker, strained, tenuous.
The so-called “Russian reset?” A joke. Putin acts with impunity, taking liberties (literally as well as figuratively) as he pleases.
  • China?
  • North Korea?
  • Syria?
  • Libya?
  • Iran?
  • Mexico?
All worse. Nuclear weapons abound, trade imbalances/currency manipulations run wild, illegal immigration/drug running remains unchecked, dictators butcher their own populations without pause, and to cite the oft-used but completely accurate phrase du jour, “Our friends no longer trust us and our enemies no longer fear us.”
No, it’s not all her “fault.” Not by a long shot. Obama’s overall weakness and apparent lack of caring or concern (some say outright intention) about seeing the U.S. slip into “also-ran” status as a player/influencer on the world stage has much to do with our current position.
However, if that slippage was contrary to her deeply-held convictions, then her high-profile experience, reputation and personal persuasive skills would certainly have come to the fore and been a major factor in not allowing it to happen. While it’s very tempting to say she simply wanted to check the “Served as Important Cabinet Member” box on her résumé, rather than actually do anything important or memorable, it’s even scarier to think she actively wanted markedly different results but wasn’t able to bring them about.
According to all the polls, she’s a very untrustworthy individual, a supremely negative character trait, because of four major reasons:
1) Her e-mail server situation appears to be close to out of control. Fortunately for her, the specifics and technical legalities of it seem far too arcane for the average casually-attentive voter to be concerned with. A recent poll of Democratic voters found 71% would vote for Hillary even if she were indicted. Trying to compare her e-mail situation to that of General Petraeus (“Who?”) or any other past administration official is an exercise in futility for the eternally communications-challenged Republican opposition, who wouldn’t be able to formulate a cogent, pithy, impactful statement explaining “Why it really matters” if their political lives depended on it. Which, to a great extent, they do.
Her private e-mail server, the legal negligence she showed in maintaining it, the 100s -- if not 1000s -- of classified communications that went through that unsecured server (regardless of any ‘marking’ at the time), everything has long since passed the threshold of technically “illegal, actionable” behavior. We’re now deep into the realm of the FBI essentially trying to find a certifiably un-Photoshopped picture of her standing over the body holding the dripping knife, knowing full well that Obama’s Justice Department will derisively dismiss with contempt and inaction anything less. This is the best example of the direct impact of a complicit liberally-biased media so far in this campaign. The liberal media walk a very fine line: they report on her e-mail doings just enough to be able to say to their critics, “See? We’re covering it,” but not anywhere near doggedly enough to actually have any tangible influence on the Great Unwashed. There is no pressure on the mainstream news organizations to press the matter. No one in the mainstream of liberal political thought wants to discover what the so-called “truth” may be, quite unlike if the situation and parties were reversed.
2) Her trustworthiness also takes a hit on the Benghazi Libya terror attack on September 11, 2012 that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. This is either a major or minor hit to Ms. Clinton, depending on the extent of awareness of the incident on the part of the voter. In another stark example of over-the-top liberal media bias that works to her favor, the predominant theme of the coverage after her Congressional Benghazi hearings some months back was “Clinton emerges from 11 hours of Benghazi hearings unscathed.”
Which, of course, was the exact factual opposite of what transpired at those hearings. The exact opposite. During the course of the hearings, Clinton admitted that before Susan Rice went out on her now infamous Five-Sunday-Show Lying Tour (where the fairy tale of the “attack was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim internet video” was first put forth), she (Clinton) had told both Egypt and her daughter Chelsea the night before Rice appeared on TV that the attack was unquestionably a preplanned terror attack. That was brand new information, gleaned at the hearing, and it proved Clinton had willingly lied to protect a political narrative.
The liberal media never reported this finding from those hearings. Clinton’s supporters continue to believe to this day that the hearings accomplished “nothing,” that they were all for show. It’s as if the Tigers beat the Red Sox in the actual game 4-2, but the TV reported that the Sox won and everyone simply accepted it. Still, her character has suffered a bit, if only because she is on videotape telling the victims’ families that they died from a violent reaction to an anti-Muslim video. Some voters have heard the deeper story and doubt about Clinton’s character remains an issue to that small slice of the electorate.
3) Influence peddling at the Clinton Foundation while also serving as secretary of state? Cutting deals and passing favors to foreign entities in exchange for donations to their pure-as-the-driven-snow charitable Foundation? There are about 20 layers of plausible deniability and unpinnable implication between any supposed wrongdoing and the Clintons. It just doesn’t smell good to anyone paying attention, but that’s a self-defining statement. Any voters at the edges who might negatively impact her candidacy are not paying close attention. This one’s an amorphous dead end. You know it’s there, she knows you know it’s there and she smiles, because she knows it’ll never happen.
4) Finally, there’s the Women’s Issues issue. “Any woman who accuses a man of sexual assault deserves to be believed.” Except, of course, any woman who accuses Bill Clinton, because that’s old news, “different,” and came from the well-known Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Her behavior as Enabler-in-Chief during the ‘90s was one of the most remarkable performances in service to an overriding political agenda ever witnessed in American history. Forgetting for just the briefest of moments the quaint notion in the American justice system of a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, is the liberal mainstream media so far in the tank for Ms. Clinton that they won’t even mention the rank hypocrisy of her outlandish current position in light of her past actions? The answer is ‘yes.’
So what exactly, besides her Democratic femaleness, is her candidacy based on? Hard to say. She has no real, tangible accomplishments to point to, either as secretary of state or NY senator. There are no Clinton Acts. There are no Clinton Accords. She has no military service, no heroism under fire, no great business and/or managerial accomplishments, no outright high-level expertise in any technical or economic or social or scientific field. She’s never started a business or run anything or managed a great number of people or made difficult, fast-paced life-or-death decisions. She gives every impression of being situationally dishonest, opportunistic, loyal only to her self-advancement.
But in spite of that, over the last few months she has been carefully crafting and refining a new rationale for her candidacy, one that her sycophants enthusiastically endorse, an approach that has real potential to appeal to Undecideds and Crossovers.
Hillary’s New Campaign Rationale: “I’m not Trump.”
That alone could make her the odds-on favorite to win.


Islamism is the great evil of our age….

Instead, with the aid of our media and Internet, we greet each new act of
Islamic murder with a show of lies and anger. The Left is in charge of the lies. They tell us, in Hillary Clinton’s absurd words, that “Muslims . . . have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

The second comes from “Shep” on a Disqus comment at Scott Adams’s blog.  It is particularly poignant today, in the wake of Hillary calling out the Saudis for funding radical Islam, and posing as a friend of gays:

I encourage readers to add their own examples of Hillary Hilarity in the comments.




May 28, 2016

Hillary Clinton -- Career Criminal

At the conclusion of an article on the State Department IG’s findings that Hillary Clinton brazenly violated federal record-keeping statutes, National Review’s Andrew McCarthy asks:
“What are we to make of Mrs. Clinton’s public posturing that of course [emphasis in original] she is prepared to cooperate -- and encourages her subordinates to cooperate -- with government investigators?”
The question is obviously rhetorical, but one problem with rhetorical questions is that we don’t always really answer them, other than shrugging. So allow me in this case to answer that question. What we are to make of Mrs. Clinton is that she is an accomplished career criminal -- and I mean that literally, not rhetorically. 
Like a lot of accomplished career criminals Mrs. Clinton has committed so many high crimes and misdemeanors, and gotten away with them to boot, that we tend to forget (or ignore) past acts of lawlessness because the new ones keep on coming. And like skillful felons the world over, Mrs. Clinton takes full advantage of this very human inclination, by sloughing off past accusations as “old news” or the result of biases that have emerged through “misunderstandings.” Anyone who has worked in criminal justice has seen this phenomenon, where repeat offenders get to know police, prosecutors and judges so well that law enforcement tires of them -- maybe even comes to like them a bit -- and so cut the career criminal a break. And the clever crook knows this tendency and plays upon it. It’s this dynamic that led to the development of “three strikes” laws, so such crooks don’t receive unearned or plainly manipulated sympathy. 
Donald Trump’s recent faux pas regarding the long-ago apparent suicide of Clinton confidant Vince Foster is an example of this process. Trump, as is his wont, made a poorly thought-out off-the-cuff remark suggesting that Foster was murdered, and that Clinton was behind it. Since this is one crime that the Clintons probably did not commit, Trump’s remark was foolish, since, like accusations about Obama’s birthplace, it just gives the leftist media ammunition to belittle legitimate criticisms. But it was also understandable -- Trump didn’t claim the accusations were true, only that he was aware of them, and given we’re talking about Hillary Clinton, well…
But Trump needn’t speculate about Foster’s fate, nor should we. Rather than trying to pin Foster’s death on Hillary, he ought to remind the public of her other crimes, and launch focused attacks on her documented and provable malfeasances, starting with her cattle futures trading windfall/bribe. Today, Hillary’s cattle trading is usually mentioned casually as an indicator of how far back Hillary’s corruption goes, but that crime (from 1978/79) itself is worth revisiting in some detail. 
Like most of Hillary’s wrongdoing, she benefits from the fact that her schemes are complex, superficially boring, and often hard for the general public to understand. In that sense it’s understandable that Trump fell into the trap of talking about the Foster case. Murder and/or suicide is comprehensible and sexy, trading livestock is not. That doesn’t change the fact that Hillary’s $100,000 trading windfall cannot reasonably be seen as anything but a criminal bribe. 
Anybody that knows anything about trading commodities understands that what Hillary claims to have done -- turn an initial $1000 investment in cattle futures into a $100,000 profit ten months later -- is as a practical matter almost impossible even for the most skilled commodity operator, and absolutely impossible for a neophyte such as Hillary was. My father traded commodities for decades, was very smart, reasonably good at it, and even ran an advisory service for a time. He managed to stay ahead but not by much. Three quarters of commodity traders lose money, the vast majority inexperienced traders like Clinton. 
An inexperienced blackjack player would have a much, much easier time turning a $1000 stake at a casino into $100,000, than would a similarly situated person in futures trading, though of course such a blackjack run would require almost perfect play. What Hillary claims to have done would have required divine intervention, or a criminal scheme. Since I am fairly sure the Almighty is not on her side, we need to go with the latter. 
After the trading scheme became public in the 1990s, Clinton and her defenders tried to explain the windfall away as a combination of Hillary’s native intelligence, luck, and good advice. But a scholarly paper put out in 1994 by the Journal of Economics and Finance calculated that the odds of gaining such a profit in ten months under conditions at the time, and giving the investor the benefit of the doubt, at 31 trillion to 1. By way of comparison, the odds that the blood detected on O.J. Simpson’s notorious glove (found after the murders at Simpson’s estate), did not contain the blood of his victims is between 21 and 41 billion chances in one. Thus, at least by this metric, it is far, far more likely that O.J. Simpson is innocent of the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, than it is that Hillary’s cattle futures profit was not illegal. Even a bored, inattentive and not very bright electorate can understand that. And I understand that some people never will understand it no matter what, which is why O.J. walked. 
The futures trading incident is also notable in that after the scheme became a legal and political issue, Hillary’s cool reaction to it proved to be her coming out party as an effective mob boss who could handle herself under intense pressure and scrutiny. She was widely praised in the liberal press for being forthcoming and unflappable, while also giving no ground, a pattern that would repeat itself again and again, up to the present.   
Hillary’s cattle futures bribery scheme dates back to the same time frame as she began her other introductory criminal scam, Whitewater. From there came the Rose Law Firm billing records scandal (related to Whitewater), Travelgate, Hillary’s libels against victims of her husband’s predatory sexual behavior, Troopergate (related to Bill’s dalliances), the White House’s missing furniture, the friendly mortgage for the house in Chappaqua, a carpet-bagging Senate run, the Clinton Foundation, pay for play speeches, Benghazi, and the email scandals. (I may have missed one or two others.) 
It is a breathtaking history of scandal and criminality that might make Tony Soprano blush, and is certainly the envy of real life mob bosses cooling their heels in penitentiaries jail across the nation. Hillary simply has almost all the traits (and history) of a successful mob boss, including a close knit group of loyal confederates who operate under a code of omerta
Trump has many flaws, but to my knowledge he is not an outright criminal, much less a mob boss. Trump needn’t concern himself with Vince Foster. He does need to thoughtfully and aggressively hone his attack on Hillary’s enduring criminality. There is plenty to work with. 

Read more:

OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS: OPEN BORDERS AND DEPRESSED WAGES - US wages and jobs decline, inequality rises



"The EPI report refers to one particularly revealing episode in the

operations of the wealthy parasites who dominate American

society: the bipartisan deal in 2012, between Obama and the

congressional Republicans, which extended the Bush tax cuts for

all but the highest earners."

"Under the Obama administration, economic inequality has grown

worse, and the growth is accelerating. In 15 states, the top 1 percent

captured all of the income growth between 2009 and 2013. In 10 of

these, the top 1 percent captured more than 100 percent of all

income growth, with the result that incomes of the bottom 99

percent actually fell."

“I estimate that enforcing the law and deporting all illegals would raise real low-skill wages by about 20% to 40% within 6 years, providing immediate relief to the oppressed low-skill citizens of our country.  (See my notes.)  Allowing in more high-skill people and few low-skill people would have long-term benefits that would eventually tower over this short-term benefit.  A more skilled population would increase the historical trend of economic growth in this country.  We might even become the richest per capita country in the world."

US wages and jobs decline, inequality rises

US wages and jobs decline, inequality rises

By Patrick Martin
23 June 2016
Two reports issued over the past week document the drastic worsening of the economic position of the American working class, and the consequent rapid rise in economic inequality.

Men with a high school education now make barely 50 percent of the wages of men with a college degree or more, according to data presented Monday by the White House Council of Economic Advisers. This is down from near equality between the college-educated and the non-college-educated 40 years ago (see Chart 1).

The CEA correlated the declining economic position of blue collar workers (using education as a surrogate for occupation) with the plunge in labor force participation rates among men of prime working age, those between 25 and 54 years of age (see Chart 2).

While 98 percent of men of prime working age were in the labor force in 1954, that figure has fallen to 88 percent today (81 percent actually working and 7 percent unemployed but available for work). The same divergence based on education was shown in these figures: 94 percent of male college graduates aged 25 to 54 were in the labor force, but only 83 percent of men with only a high school education.

The proportion of American men not in the labor force has risen six-fold over 60 years, from 2 percent to 12 percent. This compares to 7 percent in Spain and France and only 4 percent in Japan, countries which provide considerably better social benefits for the long-term jobless. In other words, men outside the labor force are both more numerous in the United States, and treated far worse by society.

The CEA report, like most such government and academic studies, is heavily laden with statistical jargon. But one passage makes clear that the brutal wage-cutting and job-slashing directed at workers in manufacturing and other semi-skilled occupations—carried out with the collaboration and support of the unions in those industries that are unionized—is a key factor in this social retrogression.

The report says: “In addition to reducing wages, abrupt demand shifts for less-skilled workers create inconsistencies between workers' expectations of the types of jobs they have traditionally had access to (and that were closely associated with their identity) and the realities of the jobs currently available to less-educated workers—for example, the decline in available jobs in manufacturing. This mismatch between what workers seek and what the job market offers may lead them to leave the labor force …”

In plain English, workers leave the labor force because they can no longer earn a living and support their families, which has a crushing moral and psychological impact in many cases.

The CEA report further finds that “the drop in the labor force participation rate for men over the past several decades may be explained by a decline in job opportunities for middle-skill workers and their reluctance to take jobs in other industries and skill classes.”

Again, in plain English, workers are dropping out of the labor force because they refuse to go from decent-paying factory jobs to low-paying work at WalMart, fast food or other so-called service industries.

Other details in the CEA report document regional differences, with the lowest rates of labor force participation in smaller industrial centers in the Midwest, the mining areas of Appalachia, and in rural, agricultural areas throughout the country—all areas where there has been little economic diversification and which are remote from high-tech centers or the booming financial markets.
The worst impact of the decline in labor force participation and the relative decline in blue-collar wages has been for black men. This is associated not so much with racial discrimination in employment, which is much less overt today than 60 years ago, as with the enormous increase in incarceration rates.

Men in prison are not included in the jobless figures and their appalling conditions are not recorded in reports like that issued by the CEA. But men who have been released from prison are far less likely to find decent-paying work and consequently leave the labor force altogether. These are disproportionately black and Latino.

The second report issued this past week was by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank supported by the AFL-CIO. This provided a state-by-state picture of the growth of economic inequality over the past century, supplementing reports issued last year on economic inequality at the national level.

The report found that income inequality declined in every state from 1928 until 1979. From 1979 through 2013, by contrast, economic inequality has risen in every state, and in many states it has now reached the level of 1928, the height of the stock market boom before the Great Depression.

Under the Obama administration, economic inequality has grown

worse, and the growth is accelerating. In 15 states, the top 1 percent

captured all of the income growth between 2009 and 2013. In 10 of

these, the top 1 percent captured more than 100 percent of all

income growth, with the result that incomes of the bottom 99

percent actually fell.

For the US as a whole, the top 1 percent captured 85.1 percent of all income growth for that five-year period. The average income of the top 1 percent grew 17.4 percent from 2009 to 2013, while the average income of the bottom 99 percent grew only 0.7 percent. The result is that by 2013, the average income of the top 1 percent was 25.3 times the average for the bottom 99 percent.

The EPI profiled the 10 states with the biggest increase in the share of the top 1 pecent from 1979 to 2007. These included: “four states with large financial services sectors (New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Illinois), three with large information technology sectors (Massachusetts, California, and Washington), one state with a large energy industry (Wyoming), one with a large gaming industry (Nevada), and Florida, a state in which many wealthy individuals retire.”

The EPI report refers to one particularly revealing episode in the operations of the wealthy parasites who dominate American society: the bipartisan deal in 2012, between Obama and the congressional Republicans, which extended the Bush tax cuts for all but the highest earners.

This legislative change touched off a frenzy of “tax planning” (i.e., fraud) by the super-rich, which caused them to reduce their incomes significantly in 2013. This means that the disparities reported by the EPI study are significantly understated, since the wealthy deliberately avoided “earning” income in 2013 to avoid paying taxes.

Taken together, the CEA and EPI reports document a society that is deeply dysfunctional, unjust and unstable. For the workers who produce the wealth of society, wages and participation in the labor force are plunging. For the parasites in the financial aristocracy who owe their vast fortunes to the labor of others, incomes are rising faster than ever.

It is figures like these that underlie the upheavals that have already shaken the US political system in the course of the 2016 election campaign, which has many months to run its course and more shocks to endure. More fundamentally, these figures are infallible indicators that American society faces an eruption of mass struggle, as young people and working people rebel against the destruction of their jobs, living standards and social rights.

Working-Class Families Now Majority of Americans Squatting

Working-Class Families Now Majority of Americans Squatting

• Tens of thousands of average Americans reduced to living illegally in vacant buildings, paying to live in tents.
By Victor Thorn —
From the beginning, Barack Hussein Obama’s presidency has been based more on illusion than real hope and change—the illusion of peace, the illusion of reform, the illusion of government transparency, and the illusion of an economic recovery.
Take Obama’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example. These government economists have regularly cooked the books soterribly that it’s as if America’s entire financial foundation rests upon rigged statistics, stock market bubbles, artificial money, and trillions in unfunded mandates that can never be repaid.
Today, more Americans collect food stamps than ever before in our country’s history, and the labor participation rate is lower than it was during Jimmy Carter’s presidency.
In 2008, Obama’s handlers, aided by a sycophantic press, misdirected the electorate with slick razzle-dazzle rhetoric without discussing how this candidate would enter the Oval Office with less business experience than an eight-year-old kid running a lemonade stand.

Reflecting his ineptitude, Obama surrounded himself with Keynesian pie-in-the-sky theorists, Marxist professors who advocated big government at any cost, and Wall Street crony capitalists intent on manipulating industries such as “greenenergy,” healthcare, and higher education.
Amid this seven-year stretch of economic stagnation, the renewed trend of squatting plagues many communities.
In Mira Mesa, California, for instance, squatters caused an apartment fire, resulting in $50,000 in damages to the building.
And only weeks after a police sweep cleared hundreds of squatters out of the former Seattle Times office building, the structure was once again overrun by homeless people.
That’s only the beginning.
Californians are renting out tents in posh suburban areas at a rate of $1,000 per month. In Colorado, a Denver SWAT team was forced to evacuate drifters residing in makeshift trailers.
At other locales, the working poor are reduced to shacking up in tent cities, the backseats of cars, shanty towns, or abandoned buildings.
A particularly troublesome example can be found near Atlanta, Georgia. There, a black woman named Daquisha Barber and her five children squatted in a home for months after forging the signature of a bogus real estate agent. The home they opportunistically took over had been placed on the market by its owner. It ended up costing the man over $10,000 in legal fees to finally evict her from the premises.
The same tactics were utilized in Charlotte, North Carolina when another black woman, Ninti El-Bey, returned to squatting in a home even after having been arrested and jailed for doing the same thing in another house.

Circumstances have reached such dire levels in Detroit that homeowners in a northwest neighborhood are actively seeking squatters to occupy a rash of abandoned or foreclosed residences in hopes of preventing vandalism or arson.

On November 16, AMERICAN FREE PRESS interviewed Ryan Hertz, president and CEO of Detroit’s South Oakland Shelter.
When asked about his city’s desperate housing situation, Hertz replied: “It’s an interesting concept, but not a solution. I would never encourage anyone to squat. It’s not our public position, and we can certainly do better. When homeless peoplelive in vacant properties, who’ll keep them up to par in terms of maintenance?”
As for the so-called Obama recovery, Hertz posited: “We’ve seen a change in the demographics of those who are displaced. It’s been a transition from the chronically homeless, disabled, and mentally ill to first-timers whose unemployment has run out. You’d never expect to see these people in shelters, and I’d estimate that 50%-80% of these folks are generally from working-class families. They don’t fit the mold of what you’d anticipate.”
Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and author of over 50 books.

Poverty has become more concentrated under Obama

Poverty has become more concentrated under Obama

By Nancy Hanover
2 May 2016
Under the Obama administration, more Americans have found themselves consigned to economic ghettos, living in neighborhoods where more than 40 percent subsist below the poverty level. Millions more now live in “high poverty” districts of 20-40 percent poverty, according to recently released report by the Brookings Institution.
All in all, more than half of the nation’s poor are now concentrated in these high-poverty neighborhoods. This means that on top of the difficult daily struggle to make ends meet, they face a raft of additional crushing barriers because of where they live.
The Brookings’ Metropolitan Policy Program report, “Concentrated poverty continues to grow post recession,” is authored by Elizabeth Kneebone and Natalie Holmes and scrutinizes this unprecedented shift in the aftermath of the 2008 financial meltdown.
The report, based on an analysis of US census tracts, shows that concentrations of poverty have grown under the Obama administration in all geography types: large metropolitan areas, small cities and rural areas. In fact, the number of poor people living in concentrated poverty in suburbs grew nearly twice as fast as in cities, putting paid to the myth of affluence or even stability in America’s suburbs.
The growth of social and economic distress within large parts of the US is demonstrated by the statistics. Pockets of high poverty exist in virtually every part of the country, including adjacent to the nation’s wealthiest neighborhoods. Since 2000,

according to the report, the total number of poor

people living in high-poverty neighborhoods has

doubled to 14 million Americans. This is five

million more than prior to the Great Recession.

Referring to the “double burden” facing the poor when they live in high-poverty neighborhoods, Kneebone and Holmes say, “Residents of poor neighborhoods face higher crime rates and exhibit poorer physical and mental health outcomes. They tend to go to poor-performing neighborhood schools with higher dropout rates. Their job-seeking networks tend to be weaker and they face higher levels of financial insecurity.”

These effects are clearly discernible once a neighborhood’s poverty rate exceeds 20 percent, the report explains. During the study period, between 2005-09 and 2010-14, the number of such high poverty neighborhoods grew by more than 4,300.

Across many demographics: City and suburb, black and white

Suburbs accounted for one-third of the newly high-poverty neighborhoods, a higher share than cities, rural or small metro areas. The share of poor black and Hispanic suburban residents climbed by 10 percent while poor white residents climbed by eight percent, almost as much.

The palpable effects of the auto industry restructuring, with the Obama administration’s stipulation of a 50 percent cut in wages for new autoworkers, is demonstrated in the growth of poverty in the sprawling auto-dominated Detroit region. Out of metro Detroiters living in poverty, 58 percent now reside in suburban districts, according to a survey by Oakland County Lighthouse.

A recent and similar demographic study by the Century Foundation states that the six-county region has the highest concentration of poverty among the top 25 metro areas in the US by population. This represents 32 percent of the poor living in concentrated tracts.
There has been a staggering growth of poor neighborhoods in and around Detroit, Kneebone told the Detroit Free Press, adding that the number “grew almost fivefold between 2000 and 2010-14.” Detroit now has an official poverty rate of 39 percent, the highest in the US among cities with more than 300,000 residents.

“Sadly this report reinforces what we have been seeing year after year in Detroit and across Michigan.” Gilda Jacobs, of the Michigan League for Public Policy told the World Socialist Web Site. “Poverty is too high, and where people—especially kids—live has a direct and significant impact on their economic standing, health and other outcomes.”

From the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt

Detroit, however, is just the most concentrated expression of the national trend. “Among the nation’s largest metro areas, two-thirds (67 percent) saw concentrated poverty grow between 2005-09 and 2010-14,” the Brookings study found. The authors note that some of the “largest upticks included a number of Sun Belt metro areas hit hard by the collapse of the housing market—like Fresno, Bakersfield and Stockton in California and Phoenix and Tucson in Arizona—and older industrial areas in the Midwest and northeast—like Indianapolis, Buffalo, and Syracuse.”

Eight metro areas now show concentrated poverty over 30 percent: Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, Wisconsin (30.1 percent); Memphis, Tennessee (31.1 percent); Bakersfield, California (31.7 percent); Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, Michigan (32 percent); Syracuse, New York (32.4 percent); Toledo, Ohio (34.9 percent); Fresno, California (43.8 percent); and McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas (52.3 percent).

As the WSWS has previously reported, all job growth over the last decade has been “temp” or contingency employment, traditionally the lowest wage levels of any job and paying no benefits. This loss of hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs has impacted communities throughout the US. Concentrated poverty in suburbs has jumped 2.4 points in the wake of the recession, to a record high of 7.1 percent.

What is the “double burden” of concentrated poverty?

In her remarks to the WSWS, Gilda Jacobs elaborated on the double burden of concentrated poverty: “So many detrimental factors come with living in high-poverty neighborhoods. There are no viable jobs, public transportation, childcare, or grocery stores. Crime rates are high, there’s blight and abandoned buildings, and the health risks of lead exposure and asthma. Even Detroit’s public schools are unhealthy and even dangerous.

“This is what Detroit kids and other low-income children are dealing with every day, and what they have to try to overcome in improving their futures. These living and learning conditions are all connected, and harm kids’ development and learning, their academic outcomes and their future job prospects. It is called toxic stress when kids are under constant strain. This study reiterates that so many factors affecting poverty are external and environmental, making them nearly impossible to defeat alone,” she stressed.
A series of studies [including George Galster’s “The Mechanism(s) of Neighborhood Effects Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications” and others] have documented how poor neighborhoods undermine even the most determined individual efforts to escape poverty.

Taken together, these studies demonstrate how the escalating growth of poverty concentration exacts an ever-higher toll on American society, affecting many aspects of life and particularly destroying the potential of the next generation.

*Education. High-poverty neighborhoods exert “downward pressure” on school quality. Data from the Stanford Data Archive has recently shown a staggering effect upon child learning capacities of attending impoverished school districts. Utilizing 215 million state accountability test scores, the study showed that “Children in districts with the highest concentrations of poverty score an average of more than four grade levels below children in the richest districts [emphasis added].”

*Violence. Exposure to violence has reached epidemic proportions for low-income youth, particularly among minorities. Parental stress over neighborhood violence is a substantial factor motivating families to move—when they can—from high-poverty neighborhoods, compounded by fears of negative peer influences upon their children. Youth and adults who have been exposed to violence as witnesses or victims suffer increased stress and documented declines in mental health.

*Toxic exposures. Poor areas are chronically associated with higher concentrations of air-, water- and soil-borne pollutants. Lead poisoning is most often associated with older housing stock. Researchers have demonstrated that depression, asthma, diabetes and heart ailments are correlated with living in high-poverty neighborhoods. Additionally, individuals in poor neighborhoods often receive inferior health care and reduced government services.

* Other effects of physical decay . The inability to exercise outdoors is a known factor in the rise of obesity, especially among children. High levels of noise pollution produce stress, and prolonged exposure to run-down surroundings can lead to hopelessness.

*The poor pay more. Prices in poor neighborhoods are notoriously higher and the goods of poorer quality than those in better-off areas. Food and health-care “deserts” are common. The costs of home and car insurance are usually substantially higher.

*Lack of social cohesion. Disorder and lack of social cohesion are associated with both crime and mental distress. Children who live without a cohesive neighborhood network are more likely to have behavioral problems and have lower verbal skills. Those in areas of concentrated poverty are typically more isolated within their households and have fewer educated or employed friends and neighbors. Low levels of employment in distressed neighborhoods also destroy the informal networks crucial for workers to find good jobs.


“I estimate that enforcing the law and deporting all illegals would raise real low-skill wages by about 20% to 40% within 6 years, providing immediate relief to the oppressed low-skill citizens of our country.  (See my notes.)  Allowing in more high-skill people and few low-skill people would have long-term benefits that would eventually tower over this short-term benefit.  A more skilled population would increase the historical trend of economic growth in this country.  We might even become the richest per capita country in the world."




Can Anybody Save the Whites?

Can Anybody Save the Whites?
• White males, now down to 31% of the population, have become the only Americans against whom it is not only permissible, but commendable, to discriminate.
By Patrick J. Buchanan —
“Something startling is happening to middle-aged white Americans. Unlike every other age group, unlike every other racial and ethnic group, unlike their counterparts in other rich countries, death rates in this group have been rising, not falling.”
The big new killers of middle-aged white folks? Alcoholic liver disease, overdoses of heroin and opioids, and suicides. So wrote Gina Kolata in The New York Times of a stunning study by the husband-wife team of Nobel laureates, Angus Deaton and Anne Case.
Deaton could cite but one parallel to this social disaster: “Only HIV/AIDS in contemporary times has done anything like this.”
Middle-aged whites are four times as likely as middle-aged blacks to kill themselves. Their fitness levels are falling as they suffer rising levels of physical pain, emotional stress, and mental depression, which helps explain the alcohol and drug addiction.
But what explains the social disaster of white Middle America?

First, an economy where, though at or near

full employment, a huge slice of the labor force

has dropped out. Second, the real wages of

working Americans have been nearly stagnant

for decades.
Two major contributors to the economic decline of

the white working-class: Scores of millions of

third-world immigrants, here legally and illegally,

who depress U.S. wages, and tens of thousands of

factories and millions of jobs

shipped abroad under the label of “globalization.”

Another factor in the crisis of middle- and working-class white men is the plunging percentage of those who are married. Where a wife and children give meaning to a man’s life, and to his labors, single white men are not only being left behind by the new economy, they are becoming alienated from society.

“It’s not surprising,” Barack Obama volunteered to his San Francisco high-donors, that such folks, “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”
We all have seen the figure of 72% of black children being born out of wedlock. For working-class whites, it is up to 40%.
A lost generation is growing up all around us. In the popular culture of the 1940s and 1950s, white men were role models. They were the detectives and cops who ran down gangsters and the heroes who won World War II on the battlefields of Europe and in the islands of the Pacific. They were doctors, journalists, lawyers, architects and clergy. White males were our skilled workers and craftsmen—carpenters, painters, plumbers, bricklayers, machinists, mechanics. They were the Founding Fathers, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Hamilton, and the statesmen, Webster, Clay, and Calhoun.
Lincoln and every president had been a white male. Middle-class white males were the great inventors: Eli Whitney and Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers.
They were the great capitalists: Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford and J. P. Morgan. All the great captains of America’s wars were white males: Andrew Jackson and Sam Houston, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee, U.S. Grant and John J. Pershing, Douglas MacArthur and George Patton.
What has changed in our culture? Everything.
The world has been turned upside-down for white children. In our schools the history books have been rewritten and old heroes blotted out, as their statues are taken down and their flags are put away.
Children are being taught that America was “discovered” by genocidal white racists, who murdered the native peoples of color, enslaved Africans to do the labor they refused to do, then went out and brutalized and colonized indigenous peoples all over the world.
In Hollywood films and TV shows, working-class white males are regularly portrayed as what was once disparaged as “white trash.”
Republicans are instructed that demography is destiny, that white America is dying, and that they must court Hispanics, Asians, and blacks, or go the way of the Whigs.
Since affirmative action for black Americans began in the 1960s, it has been broadened to encompass women, Hispanics, Native Americans, the handicapped, indeed, almost 70% of the nation.
White males, now down to 31% of the population, have become the only Americans against whom it is not only permissible, but commendable, to discriminate.
When our cultural and political elites celebrate “diversity” and clamor for more, what are they demanding, if not fewer white males in the work force and in the freshman classes at Annapolis and Harvard?
What is the moral argument for an affirmative action that justifies unending race discrimination against a declining white working class, who have become the expendables of our multicultural regime?
“Angry white male” is now an acceptable slur in culture and politics. So it is that people of that derided ethnicity, race, and gender see in Donald Trump someone who unapologetically berates and mocks the elites who have dispossessed them, and who despise them.
Is it any surprise that militant anti-government groups attract white males? Is it so surprising that the Donald today, like Jess Willard a century ago, is seen by millions as “The Great White Hope”?
Patrick J. Buchanan is a writer, political commentator, presidential candidate and author.

"Growing mortality rates for working people 

are not the outcome of accidental or 

unavoidable processes, but rather a social 

counterrevolution which has been consciously

directed at dramatically lowering the living 

standards of the working class. The impact of 

the implementation of multi-tier wage 

structures, the elimination of employer-paid 

health care, the eradication of defined-benefit 

pensions and the slashing of retiree pension 

benefits is finding expression in these 


US death rate rose in 2015
US death rate rose in 2015
By Niles Niemuth 
2 June 2016
The death rate in the United States increased across the board last year for the first time since 2005 according to preliminary figures released this week by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The report provides yet another piece of information documenting the deep social distress which is fueling the growth of social opposition in the working class.
Earlier this year the CDC reported that life 

expectancy at birth for white Americans had 

fallen between 2013 and 2014 from 78.9 years

 to 78.8 years, after remaining flat between 

2012 and 2013.
Not all Americans are being affected equally, with income and social class overwhelmingly determining the quality of an individual’s health and the length of their life. A report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in April found that income was the most critical factor in longevity and that the life expectancy gap between the richest and poorest is widening.
Growing mortality rates for working people are not the 

outcome of accidental or unavoidable processes, but rather 

a social counterrevolution which has been consciously 

directed at dramatically lowering the living standards of the

working class. The impact of the implementation of multi-

tier wage structures, the elimination of employer-paid 

health care, the eradication of defined-benefit pensions and 

the slashing of retiree pension benefits is finding expression 

in these statistics.
Policymakers have been quite open about their desire to drive down the life expectancy of the working class and poor. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the leading architects of the Obama administration’s health care overhaul, has called for the rationing of health care based on income and has discouraged people from getting potentially life-saving medical screenings. On Tuesday, the day before the CDC’s figures were released, Emanuel called for raising the cost of prescription antibiotics, nominally in the name of halting over-prescription. “Low prices reduce the barrier to prescribing antibiotics, while high patient demand fosters overprescribing,” Emanuel declared.
In reality, Emanuel and his co-thinkers would be more than pleased if the rise in the death rate continued in the coming years and decades. While its full impact has yet to be felt, one of the unstated goals of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act is to reduce workers’ access to health care, reducing the life expectancy for all those who cannot afford to pay in order to pad the profits of health insurers and corporations.
Decades of deindustrialization and austerity, accompanied by a dramatic rise in economic inequality and associated social ills, are finding expression in the broadest of social indicators: mortality and life expectancy.
In its latest estimates, adjusted to account for an aging population, the CDC found that the death rate was 729.5 per 100,000 in 2015, up from 723.2 in 2014. The leading causes of death following heart disease were cancers, lung disease, accidents (including automobile crashes, falls, shootings and drug overdoses) and stroke.
The national mortality rate has declined significantly and almost continuously since 1940, when the rate was 1,785 per 100,000. Above all the growth in life expectancy was the outcome of fierce struggles waged by the working class in the first half of the 20th century for better wages; shorter working hours; company-paid pensions, to provide for them in old age; and health care, which gave them access to revolutionary new medicines and treatments. Workers also fought for the implementation of safety standards and regulations which dramatically decreased the number of people killed or sickened on the job.
Yearly increases in the overall mortality rate have been relatively rare: last year was only one of seven instances in the last 36 years in which the national rate ticked upwards.
According to the CDC, the rate was driven upwards last year by an increasing rate of death from Alzheimer’s, drug overdoses and suicides. At the same time, the rate of death from heart disease, the leading cause of mortality in the US, on the decline for decades, edged up slightly.
The suicide rate in the US increased from 12.7 in the third quarter of 2014 to 13.1 in the same quarter of 2015. The rate has increased more than 24 percent since 1999, with much of the increase coming since 2006. The biggest surge in the suicide rate has occurred among young girls between the ages of 10 and 14 and men between 45 and 64.
The rate of deaths from drug overdoses also increased substantially, from 14.1 in the second quarter of 2014 to 15.2 last year. A majority of drug overdose deaths were unintentional, and opioids, including prescription pain medication and heroin, accounted for an increasing share of these deaths. The number of opioid overdoses and deaths has exploded in the last few years, an ongoing epidemic impacting cities and counties in every part of the country.
The long-term reversal of the social gains 

made by the working class has only 

accelerated in the wake of the 2008 economic 

crisis. President Obama has overseen one of 

the greatest transfers of wealth from the 

working class to the rich in world history.
Obama’s much-hailed economic recovery has seen 95 percent of all income gains go to the top 1 percent and all job growth over the last decade has come from people working as independent contractors, temps through contract agencies or on-call. Median household income has declined as workers have seen their wages and benefits stagnate or decline.
These are the objective social conditions which are driving the anger and discontent that has found an initial expression in the 2016 presidential primaries.
The fascistic and xenophobic Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has found support posing as an opponent of the political establishment and tapped into social anger over the decline of living standards, promising to “Make America Great Again.”
Under conditions where the leading Democratic presidential candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is the favored candidate of Wall Street and the corporations that have immiserated the working class, millions of workers and young people have cast their ballot for Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders.
While the ultimate purpose of Sanders’ campaign is to direct workers and young people back into the Democratic Party, he has garnered substantial support because he promotes himself as a socialist and a staunch opponent of the “billionaire class” and the status quo which has contributed to the dramatic decline in living standards.
Growing opposition to the political establishment has been accompanied by the eruption of social struggles, including the recent strike by 39,000 communication workers at Verizon; mass protests against the poisoning of residents in Flint, Michigan; and opposition to the destruction of public education in Detroit, Michigan, the historic center of the US auto industry.




For Obama, destroying the American middle

class financially and with endless waves of

Mexican flag wavers is the first step in

reordering of America to mirror his Muslim

crony dictators over there.

"Gun homicides in America kill about as many people as car

crashes. They occur at an almost exponentially greater rate than in

all other advanced industrialized countries. In the US, the death 

rate from gun homicides is about 31 per million people per year. In

Germany, the figure is two per million; in England, only one. In

Japan, the likelihood of dying from a gunshot is roughly the same

as an American’s chance of being killed by lightning—one in 10



The final death of the American Middle Class and the
staggering expansion of the LA RAZA Mexican welfare state

The social roots of the mass shooting in Orlando

15 June 2016
It took barely 48 hours for the initial official narrative about the massacre in Orlando, Florida—that it was an ISIS-directed attack on the US homeland—to unravel. Whatever role Omar Mateen’s sympathies for Islamic terrorism may have played in his decision to carry out a mass killing at the Pulse gay bar with a military-style assault rifle, it is now acknowledged by the government that there is no evidence that his actions were directed by ISIS or any similar organization.

Moreover, it has emerged that Mateen was largely driven by a combination of personal emotional and psychological demons, including a conflicted sexual identity, and backward, reactionary and racist views that have much in common with home-grown right-wing and white supremacist groups.

These revelations have not prevented the president of the United States, the presumptive presidential nominees of both major political parties and the corporate-controlled media from continuing to exploit the deaths of 49 victims, the injuries, some life-threatening, of another 53, and the grieving of thousands of family members and friends to push a preexisting agenda of war abroad and repression within the US.

Without seriously attempting to align their prescriptions with the facts that have thus far emerged about the killer and his crime, they continue to seize on this latest in an endless series of mass shootings in America to push the so-called “war on terror,” which has played such a sinister role in creating the social environment that breeds these types of horrific events.

It is now known that Mateen’s evident homophobia coexisted with frequent visits to the Pulse bar and an active presence on social media used by homosexuals. Former coworkers have come forward to describe the killer’s far-right and racist views. Daniel Gilroy, who worked alongside Mateen between March 2014 and March 2015, can been seen in an interview posted on the New York Times web site describing his encounter with the future mass murderer.

Gilroy stated that he was “not surprised” when he heard that Mateen had carried out the Orlando massacre. “He was very racist, very sexist, anti-Jew, anti-homosexual and he made it known by derogatory statements as much as he could.” Gilroy has added that Mateen often talked about killing blacks. When his employer failed to heed his complaints about Mateen, Gilroy quit the firm.

The homicidal eruption of Omar Mateen, while the worst mass shooting in modern American history, is anything but an aberration. Thus far in June, according to the Gun Violence Archive web site, there have been 18 mass shootings in the US. Gunshot homicides totaled 8,124 in 2014, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Gun homicides in America kill about as many people as car crashes. They occur at an almost exponentially greater rate than in all other advanced industrialized countries. In the US, the death rate from gun homicides is about 31 per million people per year. In Germany, the figure is two per million; in England, only one. In Japan, the likelihood of dying from a gunshot is roughly the same as an American’s chance of being killed by lightning—one in 10 million.

The question that is imperiously raised by such facts is: What is it about American society that so frequently leads mentally unstable individuals to resort to mass murder, often combined with suicide? This is a question that the political and media establishment does not care to—or dare to—address. The reason is that it leads rapidly to an exposure of the malignant state of American capitalist society.
Instead, what is offered is a cynical and dishonest rehash of past cover-ups for the system that generates such levels of social dysfunction and violence. The official response to each new incident of mass killing is a stereotypical combination of war mongering and demands for further surveillance on the population and other police-state measures. From the Democrats, the recipe also includes demands for gun control, as though the prevalence of guns is the cause, rather than a symptom, of the disease.
From the Republicans, and especially their current likely presidential candidate, the fascistic billionaire Donald Trump, the response features new and even more savage attacks on immigrants in general, and Muslims in particular.

This was fully on display Tuesday when President Obama gave a speech following a meeting of his National Security Council. Flanked by his secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the head of the Homeland Security Department, the director of national intelligence and other security officials, Obama declared the central priority arising from the Orlando massacre to be the intensification of the war to “destroy” ISIS.

He touted his recent actions escalating US military violence in both Iraq and Syria, including the deployment of additional Special Forces troops and additional assets such as attack helicopters. He boasted of having “taken out” more than 120 top ISIS leaders, and alluded to plans to escalate the US military intervention in Libya.

He then moved to demands that Congress, meaning the Republicans, pass legislation restricting gun ownership, and concluded with a denunciation of Trump for calling for a ban on Muslim immigration and other discriminatory measures against immigrants, primarily from the standpoint of the exigencies of the “war on terror” and US neocolonial operations in Muslim countries.

Of course, as always, nothing was said about the direct responsibility of his own policies and the wars of the past quarter-century in Central Asia and the Middle East for the rise of ISIS, both in the sense of its roots in the catastrophe unleashed by US mass killing and destruction and Washington’s deliberate stoking of sectarian conflict, and in the more immediate sense of CIA backing for ISIS and its forebears and their arming and financing by Washington’s despotic regional allies.

All of this is an attempt to conceal the real causes of mass violence in America, which lie in the decay and malignant crisis of American capitalism. Obama presides over the latest chapter in 25 years of unceasing war abroad, beginning with the first Persian Gulf War in 1991, and relentless attacks on the social conditions and democratic rights of the working class at home, carried out alike by Democratic and Republican administrations.

Never-ending war has been accompanied by the militarization of social life and politics within the US. It is almost impossible to exaggerate the impact of this daily reality within the borders of the United States, especially on the most unstable social elements. Political reaction, national chauvinism, anti-immigrant racism—the most backward sentiments have been systematically cultivated in order to pursue an agenda of imperialist war and the impoverishment of the working class.

To prepare for the inevitable growth of social resistance, the police have been turned into a militarized occupation force in working-class communities, using terror, brutality and outright murder.

The betrayal and collapse of the unions, their alliance with the ruling elite against the workers and suppression of class struggle, have added to the social malaise.

Now, however, we are seeing both in the US and internationally the beginnings of a new upsurge of class struggle, driven by immense anger over the colossal growth of social inequality and the brazen criminality of the ruling elite. This prefigures the inevitable revival of social revolution.

For the American ruling class—all the more reason to seek to deflect internal social tensions outward by means of nationalism and war.

For the working class—there is only one answer to the sickeningly routine eruption of homicidal violence in America, the path of socialist revolution to put an end to the diseased system that produces such horrors.

Barry Grey 










"The country is now at the edge of an abyss following years of

obfuscation, unaccountability, subterfuge, and law evasion by the

Obama administration that have numbed much of its citizenry into

a kind of base “group think acceptance” of government corruption

and abuse of power. Resetting Americans’ trust in government

needs to start with holding people in high office, like Hillary

Clinton, accountable."

"Paralleling the ever more extreme concentration of wealth, American politics is acquiring an increasingly dynastic and nepotistic character, traditionally a hallmark of the decay of bourgeois democracy. In a country of 350 million people, the Democratic Party could do no better than nominate as its presidential candidate an individual whose political career is based, to start with, on the fact that she is the wife of a former president."








Average Family Today Has Less Income Than When Obama Took Office: The President is actually arguing that he’s done a good job with the economy.


Average Family Today Has Less Income Than When Obama Took Office

By Daniel Mitchell | June 10, 2016 | 4:19 PM EDT

(Screen Capture)
What’s the most important economic statistic to gauge a society’s prosperity?

I often use per-capita economic output when comparing nations.

But for ordinary people, what probably matters most is household income. And if you look at the median household income numbers for the United States, Obamanomics is a failure. According to the Census Bureau’s latest numbers, the average family today has less income (after adjusting for inflation) than when Obama took office.

In an amazing feat of chutzpah, however, the President is actually arguing that he’s done a good job with the economy. His main talking point is that the unemployment rate is down to 4.7 percent.

Yet as discussed in this Blaze TV interview, sometimes the unemployment rate falls for less-than-ideal reasons.

Since I’m a wonky economist, I think my most important point was about long-run prosperity being dependent on the amount of labor and capital being productively utilized in an economy.

And that’s why the unemployment rate, while important, is not as important as the labor force participation rate.

Here’s the data, directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
As you can see, the trend over the past 10 years is not very heartening.

To be sure, Obama should not be blamed for the fact that a downward trend that began in 2008 (except to the extent that he supported the big-government policies of the Bush Administration).
But he can be blamed for the fact that the numbers haven’t recovered, as would normally happen as an economy pulls out of a recession. This is a rather damning indictment of Obamanomics.

By the way, I can’t resist commenting on what Obama said in the soundbite that preceded my interview. He asserted that “we cut unemployment in half years before a lot of economists thought we could.”

My jaw almost hit the floor. This is a White House that promised the unemployment rate would peak at only 8 percent and then quickly fall if the so-called stimulus was approved. Yet the joblessness rate jumped to 10 percent and only began to fall after there was a shift in policy that resulted in a spending freeze.

In effect, the President airbrushed history and then tried to take credit for something that happened, at least in part, because of policies he opposed.
One final point. I was asked in the interview which policy deserves the lion’s share of the blame for the economy’s tepid performance and weak job numbers.
I wasn’t expecting that question, so I fumbled around a bit before choosing Obamacare.
But with the wisdom of hindsight, I think I stumbled onto the right answer. Yes, the stimulus was a flop, and yes, Dodd-Frank has been a regulatory nightmare, but Obamacare was (and continues to be) a perfect storm of taxes, spending, and regulatory intervention.
And even the Congressional Budget Office estimates it has cost the economy two million jobs.
Daniel J. Mitchell is a top expert on tax reform and supply-side tax policy at the Cato Institute. Mitchell is a strong advocate of a flat tax and international tax competition.

Hillary Clinton: Dedicated Servant of the Super Rich, Obama’s Crony Banksters and the Mexican Fascist Party of LA RAZA

"The country is now at the edge of an abyss following years of obfuscation, unaccountability, subterfuge, and law evasion by the Obama administration that have numbed much of its citizenry into a kind of base “group think acceptance” of government corruption and abuse of power. Resetting Americans’ trust in government needs to start with holding people in high office, like Hillary Clinton, accountable."

Heather Mac Donald: White House doesn't want to enforce immigration


Is the CIA Investigation the OBAMA Amnesty as a Surrender of American Sovereignty to Mexico?

Poverty has become more concentrated under Obama

By Nancy Hanover

2 May 2016

Under the Obama administration, more Americans have found themselves consigned to economic ghettos, living in neighborhoods where more than 40 percent subsist below the poverty level. Millions more now live in “high poverty” districts of 20-40 percent poverty, according to recently released report by the Brookings Institution.

getting worse!


Californians bear an enormous fiscal burden as a result of an illegal alien population estimated at almost 3 million residents. The annual expenditure of state and local tax dollars on services for that population is $25.3 billion. That total amounts to a yearly burden of about $2,370 for a household headed by a U.S. citizen.



A new survey by the Pew Research Center finds that one-third of all Mexicans would like to move to the U.S. Seventeen percent said that they would be willing to do so illegally. President Obama’s support for amnesty gives them encouragement.

Report: Released Criminal

Aliens Committed Nearly 10

Times More Crimes Than

Obama Admin. Told


y CAROLINE MAY21 Jun 2016630
The Obama Administration “grossly misrepresented” the number of crimes the criminal aliens it released from custody in FY 2014 subsequently committed by nearly tenfold, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) charges.
According to FAIR, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) records the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) request on FAIR’s behalf reveal that the 30,558 criminal aliens ICE released in FY 2014 committed 13,288 additional crimes.
The number of subsequent convictions contained in FIOA documents is far higher than the 1,423 additional offenses ICE reported to the House Judiciary Committee last July.
The criminal aliens released in FY 2014 who went on to commit those additional crimes had convictions for offenses like homicide, kidnapping, assault, sexual assault, and drunk driving. The new crimes, according to ICE’s report to Congress, included vehicular homicide, domestic violence, sexual assault, DUI, burglary and assault.
“Rather than end dangerous politically-driven policies that have put a total of 85,000 deportable criminal aliens back onto the streets in the last three years, ICE tried to hide them by providing grossly inaccurate information to Congress and the American people,” Dan Stein, the president of FAIR, said in statement.
In April, ICE revealed that it released an additional 19,723 criminal aliens —who had a total of 64,197 convictions among them including 101 homicide convictions, 216 kidnapping convictions, 320 sexual assault convictions, 1,728 assault convictions, and 12,307 driving under the influence of alcohol convictions — from custody in FY 2015.
In response to the FY 2015 numbers, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte warned that the Obama Administration’s immigration policies are creating “a sanctuary for tens of thousands of criminal aliens.”
“The American public has been misled by the enforcement priorities, deferred action, and executive action policies of this Administration, which categorize only certain so-called ‘serious’ criminal aliens as worthy of detention and then removal,” Goodlatte said in a statement. “Despite its rhetoric, the fact remains that the Obama Administration continues to willingly free dangerous criminal aliens, allowing them to continue to prey upon communities across the United States.”