Sunday, July 2, 2017

CITY JOURNAL - EDWARD L. GLAESER - THE JOB CRISIS IN AMERICA'S OPEN BORDERS


DURING  OBAMA'S EIGHT YEARS 75% OF ALL JOBS WENT TO FOREIGN BORN, BOTH LEGAL AND ILLEGAL.

OBAMA, ERIC HOLDER AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY SABOTAGED HOMEELAND SECURITY, E-VERIFY AND THE AMERICAN WORKER TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED FROM ENDLESS HORDES OF ILLEGALS JUMPING OUR BORDERS, JOBS AND VOTING BOOTHS!


om the magazine
The War on Work—and How to End It
An agenda to address joblessness, the great American domestic crisis of the twenty-first century



Economy, finance, and budgets

In 1967, 95 percent of “prime-age” men between the ages of 25 and 54 worked. During the Great Recession, though, the share of jobless prime-age males rose above 20 percent. Even today, long after the recession officially ended, more than 15 percent of such men aren’t working. And in some locations, like Kentucky, the numbers are even higher: fewer than 70 percent of men lacking any college education go to work every day in that state.

The rise of joblessness—especially among men—is the great American domestic crisis of the twenty-first century. It is a crisis of spirit more than of resources. The jobless are far more prone to self-destructive behavior than are the working poor. Proposed solutions that focus solely on providing material benefits are a false path. Well-meaning social policies—from longer unemployment insurance to more generous disability diagnoses to higher minimum wages—have only worsened the problem; the futility of joblessness won’t be solved with a welfare check. The loss of work for so many also reflects the emergence of a modern labor market with little interest in less skilled job seekers. American wages were high in the 1960s and 1970s because of steady demand for unionized labor in Detroit and Allentown. Automation and globalization have destroyed many of those jobs, and the process is likely to continue. Technology gurus like Elon Musk believe that future innovations will make the human contribution to other economic sectors, including services, increasingly obsolete as well.

Yet every underemployed American represents a failure of entrepreneurial imagination. We can do better. Our educational system must improve the way it provides skills that bring higher earnings, and we need to experiment with new forms of vocational training. We should encourage entrepreneurial energies, including by making it easier for small businesses to get up and running in low-income areas. And social programs that deter employment should be reformed—and ideally replaced by a simple pro-work subsidy. It’s time to end the war on work.

Illustrations by The Heads of StateIllustrations by The Heads of State

America began as an oasis of plenty in a world of poverty. Farms from New Hampshire to Georgia offered any free man crossing the Atlantic the chance to exchange hard work for a full belly. In 1820, 78 percent of the American labor force farmed. While droughts and pestilence often threatened disaster, joblessness was no part of then-rural America. If you didn’t work, you starved, and there was always another patch of land to hoe and seed.

Unemployment arrived only when workers moved to cities. A vital strength of urban life is that it can connect people who want to work with people who have capital and ideas. But sometimes, those matches aren’t available. Almost half of America’s workers had left their farms by 1870, setting the stage for the recessions of the 1870s and 1890s. University of Florida economist J. R. Vernon estimates that the unemployment rate hit 8 percent in 1878 and may have exceeded 15 percent in the 1890s. In both downturns, financial crises had led to bank failures and massive firm bankruptcies. In 1894, the Pullman Strike disrupted the nation’s transportation network.

Yet as soon as the banking system recovered, American entrepreneurs resumed hiring cheap, usually unskilled, labor. Nominal wages actually fell over both the 1870s and the 1890s because workers had to accept low pay. With no government safety net, long-term unemployment meant deprivation—or even death.

By 1920, the U.S. had become a majority-urban nation. As urban industry replaced agriculture, the country got wealthier but also more vulnerable to economic dislocation. The Great Depression brought it with terrible force: the unemployment rate exceeded 15 percent in 1931, peaked at 24.9 percent in 1933, and remained above 14 percent as late as 1940. (These figures count those working on federal relief programs as unemployed; exclude these individuals, and the unemployment rate was down to 9.5 percent by the end of the decade.) Depression-era Americans endured long-term joblessness, then, but it was fundamentally different from the kind that afflicts us today. The U.S. economy was in disastrous shape throughout the 1930s, with real GDP and industrial output staying below 1929 levels for most of the decade. Whatever the reason—and debates remain lively—American industry recovered from the Depression with painful lethargy. Persistent unemployment mirrored an enduring economic crisis.

The New Deal saw the rise of public programs that worked against employment. Wage controls under the National Recovery Act made it difficult for wages to fall enough to equilibrate the labor market. The Wagner Act strengthened the hand of unions, which kept pay up and employment down. Relief efforts for the unemployed, including federal make-work jobs, eased the pressure on the jobless to find private-sector work.

The carnage of World War II ended both the Nazi regime and the American Depression. The peace augured in 30 years of remarkable growth and prosperity. America enjoyed technological preeminence and an enormous growth in human capital, thanks to policies like the GI Bill. Women surged into the labor force by the millions, yet demand for male work stayed robust. The empowered postwar unions shifted industrial employment to right-to-work states, as the classic work of Thomas Holmes illustrates, but they didn’t compromise the labor market as a whole.

From 1945 to 1968, only 5 percent of men between the ages of 25 and 54—prime-age males—were out of work. But during the 1970s, something changed. The mild recession of 1969–70 produced a drop in the employment rate of this group, from 95 percent to 92.5 percent, and there was no rebound. The 1973–74 downturn dragged the employment rate below 90 percent, and after the 1979–82 slump, it would stay there throughout most of the 1980s. The recessions at the beginning and end of the 1990s caused further deterioration in the rate. Economic recovery failed to restore the earlier employment ratio in both instances.

The greatest fall, though, occurred in the Great Recession. In 2011, more than one in five prime-age men were out of work, a figure comparable with the Great Depression. But while employment came back after the Depression, it hasn’t today. The unemployment rate may be low, but many people have quit the labor force entirely and don’t show up in that number. As of December 2016, 15.2 percent of prime-age men were jobless—a figure worse than at any point between World War II and the Great Recession, except during the depths of the early 1980s recession.

The trend in the female employment ratio is more complicated because of the postwar rise in the number of women in the formal labor market. In 1955, 37 percent of prime-age women worked. By 2000, that number had increased to 75 percent—a historical high. Since then, the number has come down: it stood at 71.7 percent at the end of 2016. Interpreting these figures is tricky, since more women than men voluntarily leave the labor force, often finding meaningful work in the home. The American Time Survey found that nonemployed women spend more than six hours a day doing housework and caring for others. Nonemployed men spend less than three hours doing such tasks.

Joblessness is disproportionately a condition of the poorly educated. While 72 percent of college graduates over age 25 have jobs, only 41 percent of high school dropouts are working. The employment-rate gap between the most and least educated groups has widened from about 6 percent in 1977 to almost 15 percent today. The regional variation is also enormous. Kentucky’s 23 percent male jobless rate leads the nation; in Iowa, the rate is under 10 percent.

Graphs by Alberto MenaGraphs by Alberto Mena

Why, since 1970, has each new downturn added to the ranks of the permanently unemployed? Social science has not fully answered this question, but the best guess involves a combination of a generous social safety net, deindustrialization, and social change.

Both Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson aggressively advanced a stronger safety net for American workers, and other administrations largely supported these efforts. The New Deal gave us Social Security and unemployment insurance, which were expanded in the 1950s. National disability insurance debuted in 1956 and was made far more accessible to people with hard-to-diagnose conditions, like back pain, in 1984. The War on Poverty delivered Medicaid and food stamps. Richard Nixon gave us housing vouchers. During the Great Recession, the federal government temporarily doubled the maximum eligibility time for receiving unemployment insurance.

These various programs make joblessness more bearable, at least materially; they also reduce the incentives to find work. Consider disability insurance. Industrial work is hard, and plenty of workers experience back pain. Before 1984, however, that pain didn’t mean a disability check for American workers. After 1984, though, millions went on the disability rolls. And since disability payments vanish if the disabled person starts earning more than $1,170 per month, the disabled tend to stay disabled. The economists David Autor and Mark Duggan found that the share of adults aged 25–64 receiving disability insurance increased from 2.2 percent in 1985 to 4.1 percent 20 years later. Disability insurance alone doesn’t entirely explain the rise of long-term joblessness—only one-third or so of jobless males get such benefits. But it has surely played a role.

Other social-welfare programs operate in a similar way. Unemployment insurance stops completely when someone gets a job, which may explain why economist Bruce Meyer found that the unemployed tend to find jobs just as their insurance payments run out. Food-stamp and housing-voucher payments drop 30 percent when a recipient’s income rises past a set threshold by just $1. Elementary economics tells us that paying people to be or stay jobless will increase joblessness.

Scholars Olivier Blanchard and Justin Wolfers have explained Europe’s persistent unemployment, which they called “hysteresis,” by the interaction of adverse economic shocks and extremely generous welfare states. Twenty years ago, the more economically successful European nations, such as Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands, reorganized their welfare states to emphasize work and witnessed positive results. Others, including France, Italy, and Spain, did not, and they have struggled. In a sense, the eurozone financial crisis of the past half-decade is the legacy of southern European countries that wouldn’t fix their failing welfare systems. The U.S. needs to decide if it wants to follow the path of Germany or of Spain.

Yet these programs didn’t immediately generate a crisis of joblessness in America. Manufacturing workers weren’t going to leave their well-paying union jobs in 1967 because of the existence of food stamps. But over the next half-century, things changed dramatically. As hundreds of studies have documented, wages for the best-educated and most-successful Americans have risen, while those for the least-educated and least-successful Americans have stagnated.

These developments result from tectonic movements in the economy. Globalization and technological change have steadily eroded—and continue to erode—the demand for American brawn. In 1966, American factories employed millions of industrial workers, making products that were shipped to far poorer places. As technology spread, the world’s lower-wage countries started manufacturing. Asia’s economic tigers initially thrived because of low labor costs, but these increasingly educated countries eventually achieved technological parity with—and sometimes became superior to—many American industries.

Manufacturing’s share of total American output has fallen from 25 percent in 1968 to 12 percent today. The number of manufacturing workers has shrunk from 19.5 million in 1979 to 12.2 million, which represents 8.8 percent of nonfarm employment. The fact that manufacturing today is a larger share of GDP than of employment underscores a shift toward technology-intensive production—another response to high U.S. labor costs. For millennia, men were valued for their muscles. Human strength was crucial to feudal farming and to Henry Ford’s assembly line. We still have some jobs that depend on strong backs, as in the building trades. But they are getting rarer because machines can do the work for us.

We’re not moving toward an entirely mechanized economy. Between 1980 and 2000, U.S. service-sector employment rose by 73 percent—a whopping 37 million new jobs. There remains commercial value in a friendly face and the charm of human interaction. But for millions of men, working in the service sector wasn’t a good option.

American joblessness reflects the social unraveling that Charles Murray describes in Coming Apart. A significant portion of the American heartland has moved from a norm of stable marriage and traditional religion to single-parent families and social dysfunction. A study by Raj Chetty and Nathan Hendren calculated mobility across America using income-tax records. Their data show that the share of single-parent families in an area is a particularly strong predictor of low upward mobility. Any parent knows that raising children is tough, even with two adults involved. When only one parent is around, that task gets even harder. Unsurprisingly, many kids from broken families lack the skills needed to get ahead in today’s competitive economy.

During World War II, the army taught millions of Americans how to behave effectively in a tough organization. Such skills may have helped returning veterans thrive in the industrial America of the 1950s. Yet that very success may also have enabled younger Americans to tolerate joblessness, as they wind up relying for extended periods on their parents’ (or grandparents’) help. Thirty percent of prime-age jobless men currently live with their parents.

The rise of joblessness among the young has been a particularly pernicious effect of the Great Recession. Job loss was extensive among 25–34-year-old men and 35–44-year-old men between 2007 and 2009. The 25–34-year-olds have substantially gone back to work, but the number of employed 35–44-year-olds, which dropped by 2 million at the start of the Great Recession, hasn’t recovered. The dislocated workers in this group seem to have left the labor force permanently.

https://www.city-journal.org/sites/cj/files/27_work-eg4.jpg

Unfortunately, policymakers seem intent on making the joblessness crisis worse. The past decade or so has seen a resurgent progressive focus on inequality—and little concern among progressives about the downsides of discouraging work. Advocates of a $15 minimum hourly wage, for example, don’t seem to mind, or believe, that such policies deter firms from hiring less skilled workers. The University of California–San Diego’s Jeffrey Clemens examined states where higher federal minimum wages raised the effective state-level minimum wage during the last decade. He found that the higher minimum “reduced employment among individuals ages 16 to 30 with less than a high school education by 5.6 percentage points,” which accounted for “43 percent of the sustained, 13 percentage point decline in this skill group’s employment rate.”

The decision to prioritize equality over employment is particularly puzzling, given that social scientists have repeatedly found that unemployment is the greater evil. Economists Andrew Clark and Andrew Oswald have documented the huge drop in happiness associated with unemployment—about ten times larger than that associated with a reduction in earnings from the $50,000–$75,000 range to the $35,000–$50,000 bracket. One recent study estimated that unemployment leads to 45,000 suicides worldwide annually. Jobless husbands have a 50 percent higher divorce rate than employed husbands. The impact of lower income on suicide and divorce is much smaller. The negative effects of unemployment are magnified because it so often becomes a semipermanent state.

Time-use studies help us understand why the unemployed are so miserable. Jobless men don’t do a lot more socializing; they don’t spend much more time with their kids. They do spend an extra 100 minutes daily watching television, and they sleep more. The jobless also are more likely to use illegal drugs. While fewer than 10 percent of full-time workers have used an illegal substance in any given week, 18 percent of the unemployed have done drugs in the last seven days, according to a 2013 study by Alejandro Badel and Brian Greaney.

Joblessness and disability are also particularly associated with America’s deadly opioid epidemic. David Cutler and I examined the rise in opioid deaths between 1992 and 2012. The strongest correlate of those deaths is the share of the population on disability. That connection suggests a combination of the direct influence of being disabled, which generates a demand for painkillers; the availability of the drugs through the health-care system; and the psychological misery of having no economic future.

Increasing the benefits received by nonemployed persons may make their lives easier in a material sense but won’t help reattach them to the labor force. It won’t give them the sense of pride that comes from economic independence. It won’t give them the reassuring social interactions that come from workplace relationships. When societies sacrifice employment for a notion of income equality, they make the wrong choice.

Politicians, when they do focus on long-term unemployment, too often advance poorly targeted solutions, such as faster growth, more infrastructure investment, and less trade. More robust GDP growth is always a worthy aim, but it seems unlikely to get the chronically jobless back to work. The booms of the 1990s and early 2000s never came close to restoring the high employment rates last seen in the 1970s. Between 1976 and 2015, Nevada’s GDP grew the most and Michigan’s GDP grew the least among American states. Yet the two states had almost identical rises in the share of jobless prime-age men.

Infrastructure spending similarly seems poorly targeted to ease the problem. Contemporary infrastructure projects rely on skilled workers, typically with wages exceeding $25 per hour; most of today’s jobless lack such skills. Further, the current employment in highway, street, and bridge construction in the U.S. is only 316,000. Even if this number rose by 50 percent, it would still mean only a small reduction in the millions of jobless Americans. And the nation needs infrastructure most in areas with the highest population density; joblessness is most common outside metropolitan America. (See “If You Build It . . .,” Summer 2016.)

Finally, while it’s possible that the rise of American joblessness would have been slower if the U.S. had weaker trade ties to lower-wage countries like Mexico and China, American manufacturers have already adapted to a globalized world by mechanizing and outsourcing. We have little reason to be confident that restrictions on trade would bring the old jobs back. Trade wars would have an economic price, too. American exporters would cut back hiring. The cost of imported manufactured goods would rise, and U.S. consumers would pay more, in exchange for—at best—uncertain employment gains.

The techno-futurist narrative holds that machines will displace most workers, eventually. Social peace will be maintained only if the armies of the jobless are kept quiet with generous universal-income payments. This vision recalls John Maynard Keynes’s 1930 essay “Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren,” which predicts a future world of leisure, in which his grandchildren would be able to satisfy their basic needs with a few hours of labor and then spend the rest of their waking hours edifying themselves with culture and fun.

But for many of us, technological progress has led to longer work hours, not playtime. Entrepreneurs conjured more products that generated more earnings. Almost no Americans today would be happy with the lifestyle of their ancestors in 1930. For many, work also became not only more remunerative but more interesting. No Pennsylvania miner was likely to show up for extra hours (without extra pay) voluntarily. Google employees do it all the time.

Joblessness is not foreordained, because entrepreneurs can always dream up new ways of making labor productive. Ten years ago, millions of Americans wanted inexpensive car service. Uber showed how underemployed workers could earn something providing that service. Prosperous, time-short Americans are desperate for a host of other services—they want not only drivers but also cooks for their dinners and nurses for their elderly parents and much more. There is no shortage of demand for the right kinds of labor, and entrepreneurial insight could multiply the number of new tasks that could be performed by the currently out-of-work. Yet over the last 30 years, entrepreneurial talent has focused far more on delivering new tools for the skilled than on employment for the unlucky. Whereas Henry Ford employed hundreds of thousands of Americans without college degrees, Mark Zuckerberg primarily hires highly educated programmers.

https://www.city-journal.org/sites/cj/files/27_work-eg5.jpg

What could change this dynamic? The first step is to improve Americans’ skills. The jobless rate is about 8 percent for prime-age men with a college degree or more but more than 22 percent for men with only a high school diploma or less. We have levers that can improve educational outcomes, like the very best early-childhood programs and charter schools. Such innovations should be expanded and made better through competition and evaluation.

We should also improve the way that we do vocational education. (See “Vocational Ed, Reborn,” page 36.) Many vocational schools, like Boston’s Madison Park High School, have long been troubled. The most ambitious students avoid getting tracked onto a vocational path, and they—and their parents—want schools that focus on college readiness. Consequently, less fortunate or struggling students often get segregated into these vocational centers. The conventional teachers in many vocational programs often lack the know-how for teaching either high-paying blue-collar trades, like plumbing, or cutting-edge fields, like computer programming.

A more effective approach might be to keep students in college-readiness-oriented schools and experiment with out-of-school vocational training. Kids could be taught after school, on weekends, and during the summer by programs specializing in particular occupations. These initiatives can be evaluated swiftly—you can readily determine if a program has produced, say, good carpenters. The superior training programs can then be scaled up and bad ones shut down. Adopting this structure would mean that anyone could potentially compete to run the programs—trade unions, private providers, nonprofits—increasing the chances that some programs will excel. We should also be open to initiatives like Cambridge, Massachusetts’s “The Possible Project,” which has been training youths, many from poorer backgrounds, to launch themselves in the start-up economy. (I am currently working on a randomized control trial for the project.)

Older workers present the toughest training problem. The extensive literature on retraining adults for new jobs has few success stories. We must keep trying; here, too, the more experimentation, the better.

Along with up-skilling workers, we should lower the regulatory barriers to entrepreneurship. It’s a sad fact that America tends to regulate the entrepreneurship of the poor much more stringently than it does that of the rich. You can begin an Internet company in Silicon Valley with little regulatory oversight; you need more than ten permits to open a grocery store in the Bronx.

One-stop permitting would be a good step, especially in poorer areas. If new businesses had only a single regulatory office to satisfy, the obstacles to entrepreneurship would be less daunting. One-stop permitting would also make it easier to evaluate the regulator on its speed and the number of permits issued. Permitting shops could specialize in the languages and businesses most common in their areas.

Occupational licensing is another area crying out for reform. The University of Minnesota’s Morris Kleiner has found that the share of American workers who need an occupational license has increased from 5 percent in the 1950s to 29 percent in 2008. States now credential interior designers, tree trimmers, and even florists. In many cases, these requirements are merely means for protecting incumbents from competition. When we license basic service jobs, we make it tougher for the jobless to find something new to do.

https://www.city-journal.org/sites/cj/files/27_work-eg6.jpg

American entrepreneurs can solve our joblessness crisis only if the U.S. stops incentivizing joblessness. Consolidating social policies would be a crucial step. Struggling families now receive food stamps, housing vouchers, Temporary Aid to Needy Families, and other assistance—all of which punish work. If the various programs were combined into a single cash benefit, that benefit could be designed so that the tax on earnings never went above 30 percent. We could follow the lead of Norway on unemployment and disability insurance, allowing the disabled to keep, say, 50 percent of their benefit above the $1,170 threshold, while tightening the requirements for being designated as disabled. Unemployment insurance could be structured so that payments were no longer contingent upon staying completely out of work.

Here, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) offers a design model, by providing funds that initially scale up with earnings, especially for lower-income families with children. Economists Nada Eissa and Jeffrey Liebman found that the credit’s introduction in 1986 increased labor-force participation significantly. The EITC was instituted during one of those rare moments in modern U.S. history when policymakers wanted to avoid rewarding joblessness.

We also need to make hiring workers less costly for employers. Temporarily cutting the payroll tax was one of the most constructive policies adopted during the Great Recession. We could enact a permanent payroll-tax reduction. The tax could be gradually phased in for workers once their hourly earnings went beyond a certain threshold. The payroll tax could be eliminated for workers who had been unemployed, at least for an initial period. The costs of reducing the payroll tax could be offset by raising the minimum retirement age for employees who hadn’t paid these taxes for enough years. Reducing mandated benefits, like health care, that employers must provide lower-income earners would help encourage work, too. Ideally, the reform of our health-care system will ensure that workers have health-care options that don’t unduly burden employers.

Making work pay needs one final, major policy initiative: wage support, which would replace the EITC. The EITC had the right overall idea, but it is cumbersome and indirect. Instead, the federal government could simply provide pay to increase the earnings of minimum-wage workers by a fixed amount—say, $3 per hour. Consequently, a worker paid $7.25 would take home $10.25 hourly, with the difference paid for by taxpayers. The subsidy could fall gradually as wages rise, and it could be targeted for specific groups—larger for returning veterans or the long-run jobless—and rise or fall with the level of aggregate unemployment. The phaseout might slightly slow private-sector wage growth, but the cost would be more than offset by the benefits of such a visible push toward employment. Such a program would be expensive, so it should be matched with spending reductions for other social services.

The rise in joblessness is not inexorable. But to solve this crisis, we must educate, reform social services, empower entrepreneurs, and even subsidize employment. That is an ambitious—but necessary—agenda for ending the war on work before it consumes another generation of Americans.

Edward L. Glaeser is a professor of economics at Harvard University, a City Journal contributing editor, and the author of Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier.


AMERICA’S YOUTH STARVE


FOR EIGHT YEARS BARACK OBAMA AND HIS HAREM OF CORRUPT

DEM POLS HAVE  SABOTAGED OUR BORDERS TO EASE TENS OF

MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS INTO OUR JOBS, WELFARE OFFICES AND

VOTING BOOTHS. 


What is left for Legals is only the tax bills for La Raza's looting!


The new reports show that in addition to “traditional” coping strategies of skipping meals and

eating cheap food, these teens and pre-teens are increasingly forced into shoplifting, stealing,

selling drugs, joining a gang, or selling their bodies for money in a struggle to eat properly.

(same as above)


THE DEMOCRAT PARTY: MUCK AMERICA’S YOUTH…. WE’VE GOT OUR ILLEGALS CLIMBING THE BORDERS, JOBS AND VOTING BOOTHS!



OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS pounds America’s youth as they build a border to border Mexican welfare state on our backs!

AMERICA’S YOUTH STARVE
                                 
…… ILLEGALS SUCK IN BILLIONS IN WELFARE… they also get our jobs!



The new reports show that in addition to “traditional” coping strategies of skipping meals and eating cheap food, these teens and pre-teens are increasingly forced into shoplifting, stealing, selling drugs, joining a gang, or selling their bodies for money in a struggle to eat properly.

AMERICA STUDENTS STARVE:
Report on the impact of OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS-TRUMPERNOMICS

THE  GIG JOB – In America, No Legal Need Apply
"Possibly most affected by this shift in the economy is the Millennial generation, those  aged 18-30. The report notes that more than half of those under age 25 participate in independent work, not just in the United States but throughout the European Union as well."

(YOUTH)
AMERICA’S BLUDGEONED YOUTH: Homeless, Hopeless and Addicted…. Will they start the revolution?


"Public education as a whole came under brutal attack as part of the Obama administration’s effort to shift the burden of the financial crisis onto the backs of the working class."
 

E. JEFFREY LUDWIG - REJECTING GLOBALISM and AFFIRMING NATIONALISM - Pushing the La Raza Mexican flag wavers back over our open borders



OBAMANOMICS: 

SERVE CRONY BANKSTERS, PROTECT THE BORDERS OF CRONY MUSLIM DICTATORS AND SUCK OFF THE WEALTH OF THE NATION TO FILL THE POCKETS OF THE SUPER RICH!


"Attempting to buy a secure future for ourselves, our national debt has created problems for future generations that are too disturbing to even contemplate."
 

July 1, 2017
Rejecting Globalism and Affirming Patriotic Nationalism
Our nation has gradually been subverted from within. Our national identity has been portrayed as hypocritical and unworthy of the claims of being a free society. The left wing insists that the U.S. has not lived up to its so-called ideals from the very beginning. For decades, the left and the Democrats have been pounding home the idea that we are not the land of opportunity but are the land of exploitation. Further, the America haters insist that the ideals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the statements of many of our early leaders are deceptions. They are intended to deny that the seeking of power and wealth by a ruling elite are the motives that have driven the growth of our country, and that the ideals and legal strategies that are supposed to strengthen our rights, our liberties, and our prosperity are merely strategies by which white, male persons have gained and sustained control of the centers of power and wealth in the USA.
Abraham Lincoln’s assertion that we are a nation “of the people, by the people, and for the people” was a nice sounding but false slogan, according to the brainwashed ideologues. Rather, under leftist dogma, the USA, from its very inception and even before that going back to Christopher Columbus is portrayed as anti-“the people.” The left portrays the USA as anti-black, anti-Latino, anti-Catholic, anti-worker, anti-women, anti-liberty, anti-farmer, anti-Native American, anti-blue collar, anti-Chicano, anti-Muslim, anti-world, anti-health, anti-freedom, anti-poor people, and anti-protected classes (such as the disabled, elderly, LGBQT individuals, or religious minorities). Undocumented immigrants or illegals are referred to by the left simply as “immigrants” and are another victimized group.
This propaganda can come under the general rubric of “Zinnism,” named after the writings of Howard Zinn, a longtime professor of history at Boston University. Zinn was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, and wrote the bestselling American History college textbook A Peoples’ History of the United States. In this textbook, he portrays the USA as a bastion of economic exploitation, militarism, racism, hypocrisy, and in fact as completely ignoble from its founding to the present day. Because his textbook has become the best-selling textbook for introductions to American history in our universities, the Zinnian mindset has become dominant in a large portion of the population.
This extremely negative depiction of the U.S., a depiction intended to reverse the image of a righteous country that is the land of opportunity par excellence, is intended to drive us into acceptance of globalism and world government as the antidote for the social and economic problems that beset us. If our Constitution is an outdated document, one which has allowed so many injustices to occur and to continue occurring in the name of “justice” (i.e., based on the leftist paradigm, that over time we are a nation prone to systemic injustice), then the corrective must come from the outside. Outside influence can only increase if there is a dilution of U.S. sovereignty. That means more immigration (we already have the highest level of legal immigration in the world), more transfers of funds to other countries via the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and more contributions to the United Nations. Under the Democrat Party dissent from patriotic nationalism, we are called by our bogus leadership to engage in multilateral trade agreements that sacrifice U.S. benefits in favor of benefits to other countries, and living beyond our means in order to spend moneys we do not have to correct perceived as well as real injustices. The so-called unjust and selfish system of capitalist America will presumably be corrected by running up an incredibly shocking and nauseating debt of over $20 trillion, a debt that was doubled during President Barack Obama’s eight years in office.
Attempting to buy a secure future for ourselves, our national debt has created problems for future generations that are too disturbing to even contemplate. Instead of budgeting ourselves with a prudent and thoughtful national policy, and instead of aiming for balance and not for overdrafts that bail out the top 1% (despite the Democratic rhetoric of hating the top 1%), we have printed and borrowed ourselves into a desperate economic cul de sac. Also, Democrats and Republicans have not openly challenged the Federal Reserve policy of keeping interest rates excessively low. With the low interest rates, people who are thrifty and save find that their money growth cannot keep up with inflation, and they are losing buying power.
Nevertheless, inflation rates, and stock prices have continued to be high since the collapse of the housing market in 2008 and the concomitant venal bank bundling of mortgages with phony ratings of those bundles by rating agencies like Moody’s and Standard & Poor. Because the government continues printing so much money and making the money more available to financial institutions, those institutions are buying stocks, which is why the stock market prices remain high. Those higher stock prices and higher priced consumer products are not reflective of consumer demand or market projections. Thus, Zinnism, excessive national debt, and globalist policies of law, economics, and government go hand in hand in hand.
As an empowered citizenry and as good deplorables, we must dedicate ourselves every day to a restoration of patriotic nationalism and the overthrow of Zinnian anti-Americanism and globalism. Zinnism and globalism are bonded twins of the public socioeconomic/political landscape. Together they continually attempt to destroy the morale of our republic by destroying our national identity. We need to include daily prayers for the restoration of our national patriotic identity just as prayers were lifted up regularly and often by the those living in the thirteen original colonies for unity and relief from the oppressions of the mother country. Without anger or vituperation but with firm righteousness, we need to affirm to others that we live in a land of opportunity not a land of exploitation.
We should often and freely express to others our gratitude at having the opportunities and enjoyments that life affords us here in the USA. Introduce the topic in a light and pleasant way. Say, “I’m just so thankful today that I live in the USA, the land of opportunity.” And if assailed by hostility or ridicule or just plain old disagreement, we should be prepared to ask the other(s), “Why aren’t you more grateful for the liberties and many opportunities and possessions you and your family receive and have received as a consequence of living in the USA?” While the left will confront us with the drumbeat of their quest for “equality,” we must counter with the assertion that liberty takes precedence over equality. Equality at best is a subset of liberty. Without liberty as first priority, the quest for “equality” can and will become oppressive.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/rejecting_globalism_and_affirming_patriotic_nationalism_.html#ixzz4lgbDPGU1
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook



Will Democrats stop their Politics of Hate and Violence?

June 16, 2017. Alexandria, VA. (ONN) Whether it’s Kathy 


Griffin, Snoop Dogg, a Broadway play, or hate-filled 

progressives online - Democrats’ constant call to assassinate

President Trump and Republican Congressmen has been 

loud and clear. And after weeks of frantic warnings by 

everyone from political commentator Michael Savage, the 

Drudge Report, Charlie Daniels and even us here at 

Whiteout Press, it’s finally happened - a mass assassination 

attempt on two dozen Republican Congressmen.

http://www.whiteoutpress.com/ articles/2017/q2/will- democrats-stop-their-politics- hate-and-violence/


"The American financial and bankster oligarchy, steeped in 

criminality and parasitism, can produce only a government of 

war, social reaction and repression. In its blind avarice, it is 

creating the conditions for unprecedented social upheavals. It

is hurtling toward its own revolutionary demise at the hands 

of the working class."

"Throw in Loretta Lynch and John Koskinen in the political 

targeting of the Tea Party and Eric Holder’s role in Operation Fast 

and Furious and withholding of records under executive privilege, 

and you have a rogues gallery of felons in the most corrupt 

administration. The very real possibility exists that James Comey, 

Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch Lois Lerner, John Koskinen, and even 

Hillary Clinton herself are guilty of federal crimes and belong in 

federal prison."
s former FBI Director James Comey’s best friend, Robert Mueller, stocks his Seinfeld investigation-about-nothing with every Democratic lawyer and Hillary and/or Obama donor he can find, we are treated to the delicious irony of collusion with R...

Obama’s Criminal Enterprise Collapsing



As former FBI Director James Comey’s best friend, Robert Mueller, stocks hisSeinfeld investigation-about-nothing with every Democratic lawyer and Hillary and/or Obama donor he can find, we are treated to the delicious irony of collusion with Russia being confirmed -- and the colluder-in-chief being Ex-president Barack Hussein Obama.
Even Obama’s Democrat supporters are now acknowledging he knew about Russia’s hacking of the DNC and Podesta emails. They are acknowledging that he did nothing but are not acknowledging the reason why – that he thought Hillary Clinton was going to succeed him and he wanted to do nothing to offend the Russians to whom he had once famously promised more “flexibility.”AsFox News Politics reported:
President Trump criticized his predecessor for allegedly doing “nothing” about reports that Russia interfered in last year’s presidential campaign, in a recent interview.“I just heard today for the first time that (former President) Obama knew about Russia a long time before the election, and he did nothing about it,” Trump said in the interview set to air Sunday on “Fox & Friends Weekend.” “The CIA gave him information on Russia a long time before the election. … If he had the information, why didn't he do something about it?”
Even Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee,acknowledged that President Obama’s refusal to embarrass his Russian friends by doing nothing was a mistake:
President Obama’s decision to not act sooner on Russian election interference last year was “a very serious mistake,” says California Rep. Adam Schiff.
“I think the administration needed to call out Russia earlier, and needed to act to deter and punish Russia earlier and I think that was a very serious mistake,” Schiff said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday.
Schiff, the top ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that Obama was hesitant to confront Russia over its active measures campaign for fear of being seen as helping Hillary Clinton and of fueling Donald Trump’s allegations that the election was being “rigged” against him.
That is the excuse made by those caught with their hands in the cookie jar. What happened to our democracy being at stake, the sanctity of our electoral process being violated? It was okay to jeopardize our national security through inaction as long as it was thought it might embarrass Hillary? But when Trump won, suddenly it became an issue for which he was responsible?
As noted, Obama’s collusion with the Russians began years earlier when he conspired to gut U.S. missile defense efforts in Europe. As Investor’s Business Daily noted over a year ago, President Obama had other plans and his betrayal of our allies was exquisitely ironic:
Yet within hours of Medvedev's election as president in 2008, the Russian announced that Moscow would deploy SS-26 missiles in his country's enclave of Kaliningrad situated between our NATO allies Poland and Lithuania.
He wanted the U.S. to abandon plans to deploy missile interceptors in Poland and warning radars in the Czech Republic designed to counter a future threat from Iran.
What did President Obama do? He caved in and notified the Poles in a midnight phone call on Sept. 17, 2009 — the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Union's invasion of Poland — that we were pulling the plug on that system due to Russian objections.
Putin then watched in 2012 as Obama promised Medvedev at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea, that after his re-election he would have more "flexibility" to weaken missile defense, which would help him fulfill his dream of U.S. disarmament.
Hillary Clinton herself was not above colluding with the Russians, as she did inthe Uranium One Deal in which Clinton Foundation donors benefited from her enabling the transfer of 20 percent of our uranium supplies to Russia.  That deal was one reason Putin was probably rooting for Hillary, not Trump.
Instead of investigating Team Trump for collusion and its business dealings with Russia, how about a special counsel to investigate the Uranium one deal? How about a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton’s illegal email server and destruction of emails under subpoena?
Instead of President Trump obstructing justice by firing an FBI Director he was constitutionally empowered to fire, how about a special counsel to investigate Loretta Lynch’s collusion with the Clinton campaign and obstruction of justice, starting with her meeting with Bil Clinton on the tarmac?
We know from Comey’s testimony that Lynch advised him to call the Clinton investigation a “matter” as the Clinton campaign was calling it. We know that Lynch met on the tarmac with the husband of the subject of a federal investigation. We know that after that meeting, Comey usurped the power of the attorney general and announced that despite all the evidence he himself cited, Hilary would not be prosecuted.
Coincidence? One thinks not, particularly if reports about Loretta Lynch communicating with former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Shultz that the Clinton investigation wouldn’t be allowed to go too far are accurate. As Fox News judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano is contending:
Judge Andrew Napolitano says former Attorney General Loretta Lynch could be facing jail time for obstruction of justice if emails to former DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz reportedly about furthering DNC interests surface.
 “It is alleged, this document has not seen the light of day yet, if it exists that there is one or several emails between Debbie Wasserman Shultz and Loretta Lynch concerning the behavior that Loretta Lynch will take to further the DNC interests while Mrs. Lynch was the Attorney General, that if it happened, would be misconduct in office,” he said.
In all of this there are only two real crimes that we are certain of: James Comey’sleak of his memo on his conversation in the Oval Office and the unmasking and leaking of the name of former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn. As law Professor Jonathan Turley notes:
… Comey demonstrated a pattern of unethical conduct beginning with his appointment as FBI director during the Obama administration. Specifically, Turley and other constitutional experts have noted that Comey’s acquiescence to former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s order for him to refer to the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s illegal handling of classified materials, via an unsecured email server, as a “matter” rather than a criminal investigation proved that he lacked the integrity necessary for someone who treasures the FBI’s supposed political independence…
But the “clearest violation” of federal law that Comey may have committed came after he was fired by the president. During his testimony the former FBI director admitted to leaking his memo to a friend and former colleague at Columbia Law School with, as Turley noted, “the full knowledge that the information would be given to the media.” That was extremely odd and inappropriate, given that Trump had asked Comey to investigate and stop various leakers within the government before Comey himself became a leaker.
Why was releasing the memo potentially a violation of the law? Turley says because it was most likely created using a government computer and because it addressed “a highly sensitive investigation on facts that [Comey] considered material to that investigation.” In fact, Comey communicated that information confidentially to top aides, and later noted that we sought to give it to the special counsel (which he helped facilitate with the leak) because he felt it was vital to the ongoing ‘Russia’ investigation.
Obstruction of justice? How about President Obama secreting away in his presidential library records regarding former National Security Adviser Susan Rice’s involvement in unmasking the names of Team Trump officials in intelligence reports -- for five years! From Breitbart News:

The National Security Council cannot hand over records relating to former National Security Adviser Susan Rice’s surveillance of Americans, because they have been moved to the Obama presidential library and may be sealed for as many as five years, conservative watchdog Judicial Watch announced Monday.

The NSC informed Judicial Watch in a letter dated May 23 that materials related to Rice’s requests to know the identities of Americans swept up in surveillance of foreign targets, including any Trump campaign or transition officials, have been moved to the library.

The NSC’s Director of Access Management John Powers said in the letter:
Documents from the Obama administration have been transferred to the Barack Obama Presidential Library. You may send your request to the Obama Library. However, you should be aware that under the Presidential Records Act, Presidential records remain closed to the public for five years after an administration has left office.
Judicial Watch earlier this year filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for those documents, including of communications between Rice and any intelligence community member or agency regarding any Russian involvement in the 2016 elections, the hacking of Democratic National Committee computers, or any suspected communications between Russia and Trump officials.
Throw in Loretta Lynch and John Koskinen in the political targeting of the Tea Party and Eric Holder’s role in Operation Fast and Furious and withholding of records under executive privilege, and you have a rogues gallery of felons in the most corrupt administration. The very real possibility exists that James Comey, Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch Lois Lerner, John Koskinen, and even Hillary Clinton herself are guilty of federal crimes and belong in federal prison.
Of course, if Hillary Clinton had won, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But Hillary lost and the Democrats made a foolish strategic error in pursuing charges of collusion and obstruction of justice based on sheer vengeance. There was no evidence of Trump collusion or obstruction  and now the tables are turned. The investigation of Loretta Lynch and other revelations could be the undoing of the Obama administration’s criminal enterprise, its trampling of our Constitution and our laws. Reopen the Hillary investigation and expand it to iuinclude the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One. Prosecute the lot of them – and lock them all up.

Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

WHO ASSAULTED THE AMERICAN ELECTION OF 2016?
PUTIN or BARACK OBAMA?

The Obama’s Lay the Grounds for a third-world Muslim-style dictatorship funded by open borders advocate George Soros.


“Mark Levin called Obama’s effort “police state” 

tactics, and suggested that Obama’s actions, 

rather than conspiracy theories about alleged 

Russian interference in the presidential 

election to help Trump, should be the 

target of congressional investigation.”

Daniel Greenfield, the award-winning 

Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom

Center, believes (OBAMA'S POLITICAL 

PARTY) “OFA will be far more dangerous in

the wild than the Clinton Foundation ever 

was.”

THE OBAMA WAR ON AMERICA: His OFA Party is Dedicated to Destroying American and Building the Obama Muslim-style dictatorship funded by crony banksters.




"Obama is no fool and he understands -- having encouraged 

Black Lives Matter and the war on police and law 

enforcement, having facilitated ballooning welfare rolls and

doubling student debt to $1.35 trillion, having presided over

a flood of immigrants illegally crossing the southern border,

and having pushed unprecedented deficit spending that 

added nearly a trillion dollars annually to the federal debt 

and doubling that debt in eight years to $20 trillion -- that 

the U.S. is nearer collapse than at any previous time. And 

every Marxist knows that socialist transformation first 

requires collapse of the old order."

THE OBAMA PLAN: BUILD A MUSLIM-STYLE

DICTATORSHIP BY FINISHING OFF WHITE AMERICA…. But didn’t Obama’s crony banksters already do that?

THE DEATH of WHITE AMERICA



“Whites had the highest rate of overdose deaths of any ethnicity, more than double the combined death rate for blacks and Latinos.

CLINTON’S ENTIRE POLITICAL LIFE HAS BEEN A CESSPOOL OF SELF-SERVING CORRUPTION!

HILLARY CLINTON: SERVANT TO (paying) DICTATORS

HER PUTIN CONNECTION



"Secondly, for eight years Russian businesses 

and businessmen closely aligned with Putin 

pumped millions into the Clinton Foundation 

slush fund, paid her husband a half-million 

dollars for a single speech, and got in return 

a substantial portion of our uranium assets 

when, as Secretary of State, Hillary okayed 

their purchase."


Will Democrats stop their Politics of Hate and Violence?

June 16, 2017. Alexandria, VA. (ONN) Whether it’s Kathy 

Griffin, Snoop Dogg, a Broadway play, or hate-filled 

progressives online - Democrats’ constant call to assassinate

President Trump and Republican Congressmen has been 

loud and clear. And after weeks of frantic warnings by 

everyone from political commentator Michael Savage, the 

Drudge Report, Charlie Daniels and even us here at 

Whiteout Press, it’s finally happened - a mass assassination 

attempt on two dozen Republican Congressmen.


"The American financial and bankster oligarchy, steeped in 

criminality and parasitism, can produce only a government of 

war, social reaction and repression. In its blind avarice, it is 

creating the conditions for unprecedented social upheavals. It

is hurtling toward its own revolutionary demise at the hands 

of the working class."

Concentration of poverty in New York City neighborhoods on the rise

By Philip Guelpa
27 June 2017
Despite being elected on a campaign slogan invoking “Tale of Two Cities,” pledging to fight the extreme economic inequality in New York City, the mayoralty of self-styled progressive Democrat Bill de Blasio has presided over a marked increase in poverty and a continuing rise in the cost of housing. Far from lessening the divide between the two “cities,” which has been growing for decades, the segregation, both economic and geographic, between the city’s wealthy elite and the working class, has only intensified.
The rate of poverty and the concentration of poor people living in impoverished neighborhoods in New York City have both risen dramatically in recent years. These are the findings of a newly released study by the Furman Center at New York University— State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods in 2016. During the period from 2011 to 2015, 1.7 million city residents were classified as living below the official poverty line, set at the absurdly low level of $24,036 annually for a family of four. This represents 20.6 percent of the population, up from 19.1 percent in the 2006-2010 time span. Other, more realistic studies have shown that nearly two thirds of the city’s population suffer from some form of economic distress. Thirty percent of the city’s children are officially poor.
The gap between rich and poor continues to widen. The percentages of New Yorkers at the upper and lower ends of the income range grew, while those in the middle shrank. Between 2000 and 2015, households earning less than $40,000 per year increased by nearly three percentage points; those earning more than $100,000 grew by about one percentage point, but the ones in between shrank from 36 to 33 percent. Clearly, those in the middle are predominantly falling into poverty.
According to the Furman Center study, the geographic concentration of people living in areas of extreme poverty, neighborhoods where more than 40 percent of the residents are officially classified as poor, had fallen somewhat since 2000, when it was 25.4 percent, to 19.4 percent in 2006-2010. This increased markedly, to 23.5 percent, from 2011 through 2015—a period of supposed recovery from the financial meltdown of 2008-2009. These are only the most acute examples. Nearly 45 percent of the city’s population live in areas of either high or extreme poverty (30-40 percent of the residents below the poverty line, respectively). Neighborhoods encompassing 16.5 percent of the city’s population, 1.4 million people, experienced a 10 percent increase in the rate of poverty, the study found.
Living conditions in these poor neighborhoods are appalling. In extreme poverty areas, serious housing code violations were registered at five times the city average and the employment rate was 20 percentage points lower.
Of the five New York City boroughs, the Bronx has the highest percentage of neighborhoods experiencing high or extreme poverty—52.6 percent.
One of the processes driving the increase in poverty is revealed by the report’s finding that the employment rate for the city as a whole increased by 2.4 percentage points between 2005 and 2015. Thus, while a slightly higher percentage of the population is working, the real value of their income is decreasing.
The Furman Center also found that as poverty is increasing, rents are continuing to climb, creating unbearable living conditions for a large portion of the city’s population. These are related phenomena. As the overall cost of housing continues to rise, relatively better off people are forced to move to poorer neighborhoods in search of more affordable rents. This, in turn, prompts landlords to raise rents in those areas, impacting existing low-income residents.
As an example, the study describes the case of East Harlem, a predominantly working class neighborhood in northern Manhattan. In 2000, the poverty rate was 37.1 of the population. It is now 37.5—again based on the absurdly low official poverty line. However, the number of residents with annual incomes of more than $100,000 has risen by more than 4 percent. Thus, while the overall percentage of people living in poverty is increasing, the economic spread between rich and poor is widening.
Simultaneously, rents in East Harlem are increasing at a rapid rate, with the monthly median rising $120 between 2015 and 2016 alone, putting extreme pressure on the already economically stressed residents.
Citywide, between 2005 and 2015, median gross rent increased 18.3 percent, while median household income for renters increased just 6.6 percent.
The acute lack of affordable housing is driving large numbers of people onto the streets. Between 2006 and 2016, the number of city residents spending the night in homeless shelters increased by 87 percent, to about 61,000.
The situation is not new, but is becoming ever more severe. Despite fluctuations, the general trend of increasing poverty and lack of affordable housing has been continuing for decades, but has accelerated in recent years as the global economic crisis intensifies.
The extreme economic inequality that exists in New York City is starkly illustrated by the fact that while nearly two thirds of the population experience some form of economic distress, with over a third living in deep poverty, New York has the second highest GDP of all cities in the world. And yet, despite this huge amount of wealth that could be used to address the crises of poverty and lack of affordable housing, the living conditions for the city’s working class continue to deteriorate.
These statistics and many more presented in the Furman Center report starkly illustrate the utter failure to address the huge economic disparity between the city’s rich and poor by both Republican and Democratic administrations. The two parties, regardless of who lives in Gracie Mansion (the official mayoral residence) or who controls the City Council, are the representatives of the city’s financial and corporate elite.
All of the myriad programs that have over the years been presented allegedly to combat poverty, the lack of affordable housing, and resulting homelessness have been predicated on the need to maximize the wealth of the ruling elite. These programs have utterly failed to improve the former, while definitely facilitating the latter. Indeed, conditions for the mass of the population have only gotten worse.
In just one of many examples, there was a sharp decline in the issuance of permits for construction of new housing units in 2016, following the failure to renew the 421-a tax incentive program. That program, while greatly benefiting developers and large landlords, had done nothing to reduce the critical lack of affordable housing.
The working class of New York is rapidly approaching the breaking point. Mass revolt against increasingly unlivable conditions may erupt at any time. The anger and frustration find no expression within the present political establishment. What is required is the building of a party that fights for a socialist program to expropriate the vast wealth of the city’s elite and employ it to benefit the great majority of the population.

Chuck Todd occupies a singular position in broadcast journalism: host of the oldest program in the history of American television. Yesterday, he did something that must have Tim Russert, Lawrence Spivak and Martha Rountree spinning in their graves. H...

Chuck Todd on MTP does not ask Bernie Sanders about FBI 

investigation of wife for $10 mill bank fraud


Chuck Todd occupies a singular position in broadcast journalism: host of the oldest program in the history of American television. Yesterday, he did something that must have Tim Russert, Lawrence Spivak and Martha Rountreespinning in their graves. He hosted Bernie Sanders, arguably the leader of the American electoral left, and did not ask him about the FBI investigation of his wife for a suspected $10 million bank fraud, nor about reports that he and his wife are lawyering up.
Stephen Miller tweeted:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Oh weird... Chuck Todd has Bernie Sanders on and doesn&#39;t question him about being under FBI investigation. <a href="https://t.co/S9WgiCvwqU">https://t.co/S9WgiCvwqU</a></p>&mdash; Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) <a href="https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/878971155931160576">June 25, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I am sorry: this is pretending that a potentially huge story does not exist, presumably to spare Sanders fans the pain of discovering that their idol might not be quite the idealist they supposed he was.  The guy who once lived in a shack with a dirt floor now has 3 houses. But instead of even acknowledging the topic exists, Todd let Bernie off that hook. (He did press Sanders on his rhetoric of people dying if a GOP bill becomes law.)
The point of asking Sanders about the criminal law counsel he has hired is not the answer he would give. The only prudent answer would be that as a matter under investigation, he cannot comment on it on advice of counsel.
But that would have the fact of the investigation publicly acknowledged by Sanders on Meet the Press.  That is footage that would make news for the program, and be in the best tradition of its broadcast legacy, one of the few remaining glories NBC News can point to. “Sanders declines to comment on FBI investigation” would be the headline on Drudge. It would spread via social media to Bernie’s entire fab base.
But that ain’t gonna happen, thanks to Chuck.
The obvious comparison to all the fuss made over a nonexistent FBI criminal investigation of President Trump’s “collusion” with Russia only highlights the importance of Silent Chuck’s help for Bernie and the Left. 
Hat tip: Soopermexican, The Right Scoop

Sanders promotes Democratic Party at rallies opposing Republican attack on health care
By Josh Varlin
26 June 2017
Over the weekend, Senator Bernie Sanders spoke at rallies in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Columbus, Ohio; and Charleston, West Virginia, opposing the Senate Republicans’ health care bill.
The rallies each had an attendance of about 2,000 people, according to media reports. MoveOn.org sponsored all the rallies and local “progressive,” pseudo-left and trade union groups sponsored in individual cities. The Kanawha Valley chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) cosponsored the Charleston rally, while the Service Employees International Union District 1199 cosponsored the Columbus rally.
The Better Care Reconciliation Act is the Senate version of the House Republicans’ American Health Care Act (AHCA), passed last month to “repeal and replace” the Obama administration’s health care legislation, commonly known as Obamacare. Both the Senate and House bills call for savage attacks on health care for working people, including the ending of Medicaid as a guaranteed government benefit program.
Medicaid is the government health insurance program for the poor and disabled jointly administered by the federal government and the states. It currently covers some 69 million people, nearly 20 percent of the US population. It was established in 1965, along with Medicare, the government health insurance program for the elderly. Enactment of the Trump administration measure will lead to the destruction of one of the three bedrock social programs dating from the 1930s and 1960s, the other two being Social Security and Medicare. Those programs will become the next targets for privatization and dismantling.
Senate Republicans plan to pass Better Care before the July Fourth Independence Day recess, setting the stage for negotiations between the Senate and House of Representatives and President Donald Trump’s signing into law of a final version.
There is immense popular opposition to the attack on health care embodied in the legislation, which would slash Medicaid by over $800 billion and provide tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest Americans totaling more than $700 billion. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the House version would strip 23 million people of health insurance. Enactment of the measure would constitute one of the largest and most blatant redistributions of wealth in American history.
A poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal revealed the depth of popular opposition to the House bill, which is similar to the Senate version. Only 16 percent of Americans thought the AHCA was a “good idea,” while 48 percent thought it a “bad idea.” Even among Republicans it had only 34 percent support, with 17 percent opposed.
Earlier this year, as the House bill was moving through that chamber, town hall meetings around the country addressed by Republican congressmen saw constituents denounce and shout down politicians backing the bill. In some cases, congressmen had to flee meeting halls under police protection.
Health coverage for tens of millions of working people has already been eroded by Obamacare, which slashes health costs for corporations and the government while increasing out-of-pocket costs and reducing benefits for consumers. Now Trump and the Republicans are going significantly farther in denying people access to health care.
Sanders and his faction within the Democratic Party are well aware of the explosive anger in the working class and among broad sections of the middle class over the attack on health care. That is why, under conditions where the Democratic Party establishment is pleading with the Republicans for a reactionary “compromise” and is too petrified of the potential for mass political unrest to call for public protest, Sanders is seeking to get ahead of the situation and make sure that social opposition is channeled once again behind the Democratic Party, where it can be stifled and dissipated.
At the beginning of his Pittsburgh speech, Sanders stressed the reactionary character of the Republican bills: “Let me be as clear as I can be—this so-called ‘health care bill’ passed in the House last month is the most anti-working-class piece of legislation passed in the House of Representatives in the modern history of this country. And the Senate bill in some respects is even worse.” He went on to describe the legislation as a “massive transfer of wealth from working families to the very, very rich.”
But the perspective Sanders advanced was anything but a call for mass social and political protest. Instead, the stated goal of his rallies was “to put pressure [on] senators in those states—specifically, Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio and Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia—and Senate Republicans at large to vote against the legislation.”
The bankruptcy of this approach is underscored by the fact that Toomey was part of the 13-senator “working group” that drafted the Republican bill in secret. In his speech, Sanders addressed Toomey directly, pleading with him to vote “no.”
This is an attempt to derail and demoralize working-class opposition by diverting it into futile efforts to pressure the bribed political representatives of big business. It is of a piece with Sanders’ endorsement of Hillary Clinton, the favored candidate of Wall Street and the CIA, in the 2016 elections, and his so-called “political revolution” to “transform” the Democratic Party.
Sanders and other speakers promoted his bill for “Medicare for all.” The Vermont senator knows full well that such a measure will never be passed by Congress, having no chance of acceptance by either of the two capitalist parties. Moreover, Sanders supports Obamacare, which involves a $700 billion cut in Medicare spending. He backed Clinton for president, despite her explicit opposition to an extension of Medicare to the entire population.
Just two weeks ago in his keynote speech to the “People’s Summit” in Chicago, Sanders touted the California Senate’s passage of a single-payer health care bill as evidence of the supposed success of his “political revolution” in shifting the Democratic Party to the left. On Friday, however, California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, a Democrat, effectively killed the bill, blocking it from coming to a vote in the state’s lower legislative chamber.
Even if Medicare for all were implemented nationally, it would be woefully inadequate to meet the needs of working people. The program has already been significantly privatized, and Medicare recipients are forced to pay private insurers for expensive supplemental insurance plans to cover essential medical services and prescription drugs.
Perhaps the point most underscored by the rallies is how bare-bones health coverage already is for working-class Americans. Most of the speakers—including health care professionals and spokespeople for Planned Parenthood and other organizations—spoke about the ongoing health care crisis in the United States, including the opioid epidemic, inadequate access to mental health services, difficulties in accessing contraceptives, and the high rate of uninsured and underinsured Americans. Nevertheless, the speakers generally argued that Obamacare was a progressive “step in the right direction.”
This proved a difficult circle to square for the speakers, especially Sanders. After all, if Obama’s Affordable Care Act was a progressive reform, why are working class people facing such a health care catastrophe?
Both the Obamacare status quo and the Republican proposals entail immense suffering for workers and a further decline in their standard of living. The only way to guarantee adequate health care for everyone is the socialization of health care: the removal of profit considerations and the placing of the health care industry under public ownership and the democratic control of the working class.
This can be achieved only through a complete political break with the Democratic Party and all of its promoters, including Sanders, and an independent political movement of the working class for socialism.

June 24, 2017

Bernie and Jane Sanders lawyering up for FBI fraud investigation


Just when Bernie and Jane Sanders thought they had it made as the icons of the American left, along comes a mean old Republican to spoil it with accusations so serious that the FBI is investigating.  In a long and sympathetic article, Politico Magazine explains:
Jeff Weaver, Sanders' longtime top political adviser who heads Sanders' political organization, Our Revolution, confirms to Politico Magazine that Bernie and Jane Sanders have lawyered up. The couple has retained Rich Cassidy, a well-connected Burlington attorney and Sanders devotee, and Larry Robbins, the renowned Washington-based defense attorney who has represented I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and disgraced former Rep. Bill Jefferson, to represent Jane Sanders in the matter.
Now, President Donald Trump's Justice Department is handling an investigation that will proceed at the discretion of a U.S. attorney of Vermont that Trump has yet to appoint.
Jane is portrayed as a victim.  The story is going to be that enemies of Bernie are hounding poor Jane:
http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2017-06/198914_5_.jpeg
"I made it clear I didn't want him to run," she told me at their campaign headquarters at the time, "but if he decided to, I would be behind him 100 percent."
The Snidely Whiplash villain in this piece comes from conservative aristocracy.  LawNewz:
The investigation stems from an Jan. 10, 2016 letter sent to the then-U.S Attorney for Vermont, Eric S. Miller. The law firm diGenova & Toensing LLP, [that would be Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing – ed.] representing local parishioners, contend that Burlington College President Jane Sanders engaged in fraud when her school purchased land from a Catholic diocese.
In 2010, the now-defunct Burlington took out a bank loan to make the deal, but that required a minimum commitment of $2.27 million in grant and donations. The letter, authored by Bracy C. Toensing, said she supplied evidence saying they had $2.6 million in the needed money.
But it didn't turn out to be the case, Toensing said.
"At the end of fiscal year 2001 (six months after closing on the loan), Ms. Sanders had collected only $279,000 in donations, which was less than 25 percent of the $1.2 million Ms. Sanders guaranteed to the bank that she would have collected in that year," he wrote.
Politico elaborates:
Backed by six exhibits and a dozen documents, the four-page letter described how Jane Sanders had "orchestrated" the purchase of 33 acres along Lake Champlain in Burlington, Vermont's largest city, where her husband had minted his populist political brand as mayor. The deal closed in 2010, when the senator's wife was president of Burlington College, a tiny, obscure, nontraditional school that always seemed to be struggling for students and funds. The letter alleged that to secure a $10 million loan and execute her grand plan to expand the college, Jane Sanders had falsified and inflated nearly $2 million that she'd claimed donors had pledged to repay the loans.
Sanders had "successfully and intentionally engaged in a fraudulent scheme to actively conceal and misrepresent material facts from a federal financial institution," the letter alleged. It pressed for a federal investigation into potential bank fraud.
The media ignored the letter, but the FBI didn't.
Here is how the deal fell apart.
When Jane Sanders made the offer to the Roman Catholic Diocese, Burlington College was nearly broke – with an annual budget just below $4 million. In order to finance the property, Sanders secured a $6.5 million loan from People's United Bank in the form of a tax exempt bond purchase, and the Catholic Church agreed to carry a $3.65 million second mortgage on the property. Sanders told both institutions that Burlington college had $5 million in likely donor pledges and $2.4 million in confirmed pledges to be used to pay off the debt.
But wait – that was just for the property!
What Jane Sanders didn't plan for was the $6 million or so required to actually build out the campus on the property to include green space, athletic fields, lecture halls, and walkways. Oops!
Disaster…
Sanders' original claim of $2.4 million in confirmed donor pledges was quickly reduced to $1.2 million according to documents filed in the first fiscal year after the purchase – yet in records obtained by VTDiggerBurlington College received only $279,000. Despite hopes by Sanders and college trustees that they could boost enrollment and expand the student body, nothing changed – and the school failed at raising the money to satisfy it's loans.
And then Jane Sanders was fired, with a $200,000 severance package.
In order to try and avoid bankruptcy, Burlington college sold off pieces of the 33 acre property to a local developer – which allowed the institution to pay off some of the debt Jane Sanders had accumulated, however in April 2016 the bank called it's loan – and on May 28th, the college closed it's doors after 44 years in operation.
Joe Patrice offers a defense of sorts for Jane Sanders:
You can have confirmed, contractual deals for $1.2 million and only actually receive $279,000. Those are two completely different things. One could argue that only actualizing about a quarter of the total committed says something about the trajectory of the college's finances, but that's a much more nuanced argument than these two sentences suggest.
A third donor had offered a $1 million bequest, to be paid upon her death. Instead, the college's loan application counted it in funds to be paid out over the next few years.
Um… welcome to accounting. This account sounds shady, but – without vouching for any specific accounting principles – recognizing revenue in installments even if it's coming in a lump sum is perfectly acceptable. Again, that's not saying it was the appropriate way to account for this request, but the way this report reads makes counting funds over time seem like an insane tactic when it's just not.
Um...people do go to prison over accounting decisions on recognizing revenue and misleading shareholders, regulators, or lenders.
For the moment, Jane Sanders probably is less worried about being convicted by a Vermont jury than she and Bernie are about paying for those lawyers.  For all their posturing against greed, Bernie and Jane are thrilled with the financial consequences of Bernie's campaign.  They rushed out and spent more than their reported net worth on a third house last August like some seven-figure jackpot lottery winners.  Saving and financial planning are not their strong suit, which is why people like Bernie and Jane should never be put in charge of anything, even a little hippie college.
I have known ambitious leftists like them – affluent, but with modest net worths – and almost without exception, they feel underprivileged when it comes to wealth, no matter how comfortable they may appear.  Envy is the fuel of their radicalism, and they resent people who have more than they do.  Deep down, they want the same stuff.
Paying for lawyers can ruin the net worth of a couple like Bernie and Jane.  We'll know that the case is serious when they launch a legal defense fund.

WARREN IS AN ADVOCATE FOR NO-

STRINGS AMNESTY FOR 40 MILLION 

LOOTING MEXICANS WHO HAVE VOTED 

DEM FOR MORE!

Sander's fraudulent claims to be leading a “political 
revolution” against the “billionaire class” were designed to 
corral popular anger and promote illusions in the 
Democratic Party, one of the two parties of the American 
corporate-financial aristocracy, as a party representing the 
interests of working people.

"Democrat Elizabeth Warren, who parlayed 
her brief tenure as a rubber-stamp banking 
regulator during Obama’s first term into a 
Senate seat."

Hey Bernie! Welcome to the millionaire’s club!
By Tom Hall
13 June 2017
Personal finance disclosure forms submitted by Bernie Sanders, and widely reported in the media, reveal that Sanders’ income was more than $1 million last year. This figure includes both his $174,000 annual salary as a senator and $858,750 from book royalties, including a nearly $800,000 advance for a book, Our Revolution, about his 2016 presidential primary campaign.
The threshold for the wealthiest 1 percent by annual income 
in the United States is $389,436, according to the Economic 
Policy Institute. Sanders’ income would put him somewhere 
in the top one-fifth of one percent, according to US Census 
data.
The wealth of the average US senator and representative has skyrocketed in recent years, earning Congress a reputation as a “millionaire’s club.” In 2014, the average personal wealth across both houses of Congress surpassed $1 million for the first time in history, with the median net worth of the Senate surging from $2.5 to $2.7 million.
However, few members of Congress are able to amass as much wealth in a single year as Bernie Sanders did last year. Opensecrets.org shows that Sanders’ book royalties alone would been the third-highest outside income in the Senate in 2014, the last year for which the site has figures. At $1.2 million, first place that year went to fellow “progressive” Democrat Elizabeth Warren, who parlayed 
her brief tenure as a rubber-stamp banking 
regulator during Obama’s first term into a 
Senate seat.

Opensecrets.org’s records show that, for years, you 

have been forced to subsist on income levels at or 

around the threshold of the top 1 percent, in the 

low-to-mid six figures. This, no doubt, is what you 

had in mind during a primary debate last year 

when you described yourself as “one of the poorer 

members of the United States Senate.”
But 2016 was a turning point in your career. The $1 million 
payday you received last year is payment for services 
rendered during your intervention in last year’s Democratic 
primaries. Your fraudulent claims to be leading a “political 
revolution” against the “billionaire class” were designed to 
corral popular anger and promote illusions in the Democratic
Party, one of the two parties of the American corporate-
financial aristocracy, as a party representing the interests of 
working people.
And while you attracted considerable interest from left-leaning workers and young people with your false claims to be a socialist, you rejected basic socialist measures such as the nationalization of key industries, endorsed American imperialism’s wars of conquest, and defended a truculent nationalism which pitted American workers against their brothers and sisters internationally.
Your intervention was all the more crucial as the Democratic Party was preparing to nominate Hillary Clinton, who was widely and deservedly hated as a stooge of Wall Street and the military. You threw your support to her in the Democratic National Convention and presented her candidacy as a continuation of your so-called “political revolution.” You declared that electing Clinton was an urgent necessity to defeat Trump, in spite of the fact that her pro-war, anti-working class agenda was no less reactionary than Trump’s.
But your work was not yet done. When this produced a debacle for the Democrats in the November election, you were elevated to a more responsible position within the Democratic political hierarchy, working closely with Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, whose election campaigns have received tens of millions of dollars in funding from Wall Street. You crossed the country stumping for Democrats with the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee, former Obama cabinet member Tom Perez.

You have even emerged as a de facto leader of a wing of the Democratic Party concerned that the party’s focus on the right-wing campaign over Russia against Trump at the expense of posturing over social issues could open the door to the emergence of a mass popular movement outside the control of the Democrats, a potential threat to capitalism. Nevertheless, you have supported the Democrats’ unsubstantiated accusations of Russian collusion with Trump, which are designed to force a confrontation with the world’s second largest nuclear power.
In your campaign to corral social opposition behind the Democrats, you have received the crucial aid of the middle class, pseudo-left organizations which function as satellites of the Democratic Party. They all presented as good coin your calls for a “political revolution” and either endorsed your candidacy, as in the case of Socialist Alternative and the Democratic Socialists of America, or, like the International Socialist Organization, issued mildly worded tactical criticisms of your decision to run as a Democrat rather than continuing the charade of running statewide in Vermont as an “independent.” As with your own campaign, their goal was to prevent the emergence of a genuine socialist movement within the working class capable of challenging American capitalism. Many of them made the trek to Chicago this weekend to hear you speak at the People’s Summit, an annual gathering of what passes for the Democratic Party’s “left.”
The pseudo-left is also being handsomely rewarded for their services to capitalism. Last year, the Ford Foundation announced that it was donating $100 million to Black Lives Matter; it has since cashed in through such investments as a “black debit card” and other projects promoting black capitalism.
Last year’s million, you have reason to hope, will be the first of many. Given the explosive character of the political and economic conditions in the United States, and the broad hostility workers feel towards both the Trump administration and his Democratic opponents, the ruling class will very likely continue to value your political services.

THE SMELL OF MONEY:

Senator Bernie Sanders Takes the Crooked Road For Obama’s Crony Banksters for KILLARY KROOKED KLINTON


Much more here:

http://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2016/10/sandsers-and-clinton-closet-republicans.html



“The response to the publication of these speeches by so-called “socialist” Bernie Sanders exposes the utterly fraudulent character of his entire presidential bid. While he postured during the Democratic Party primaries as a proponent of a “political revolution” against the “billionaire class,” Sanders now functions shamelessly as a sideshow for the Clinton  campaign, browbeating his (now much smaller) audiences with admonitions to vote for the preferred candidate of the “billionaire class”  he claimed to oppose.”

FOLLOWING THE CRIMES OF BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON BECOMES AMERICA’S ROAD TO REVOLUTION

 

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/10/bill-and-hillary-clintons-global.html


Transcripts released by WikiLeaks of Clinton speeches to Wall

Street bankers, for which she received six-figure paychecks,

show her praising the recommendations of the 2010 Simpson-

Bowles deficit-reduction commission, which called for sweeping

cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; the elimination

of 200,000 federal jobs; a tax on employees’


"Hillary Clinton is a known liar, a criminal of monstrous proportions; others have gone to prison for crimes she has committed over and over: lying to Congress, lying to the FBI, violating national security laws by which she was bound as Secretary of State, etc. It's a long list."

                                                                                

Clinton, the candidate favored by most of Wall Street and the corporate elite and large sections of the Republican Party establishment, is seeking to assemble something akin, within the framework of the US political setup, to a grand coalition between the Democratic Party and the Republican leadership.


http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/10/clinton-preparing-bipartisan-government.html


Transcripts released by WikiLeaks of Clinton 


speeches to Wall Street bankers, for which 


she received six-figure paychecks, show her praising the recommendations of the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction commission, which called for sweeping cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; the elimination of 200,000 federal jobs; a tax on employees’ health benefits; and huge cuts in income taxes for the wealthy and corporate taxes.



“But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at 

the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly 

entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their 

friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core 

beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every 

person on the planet by now.”

Wikileaks exposes Obama’s bankster-infested

 

administration!



BARACK OBAMA …… the banksters’ RENT BOY!

 “Citigroup’s recommendations came just three days after then-President George W. Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which allocated $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue the largest Wall Street banks. The single biggest beneficiary was Citigroup, which was given $45 billion in cash in the form of a government stock  purchase, plus a $306 billion government guarantee to back up its worthless mortgage-related assets.”

MUCH MORE HERE:


“As president, Obama not only funneled trillions of dollars to the banks, he saw to it that not a single leading Wall Street executive faced prosecution for  the orgy of speculation and swindling that led to the financial collapse and Great Recession, and he personally intervened to block legislation capping  executive pay at bailed-out firms.”
  
“So when Clinton was hobnobbing with  Goldman Sachs CEO Blankfein in 2013, while  investigations of wrongdoing by Goldman and the other Wall Street banks were still ongoing, she was consorting with a man who belonged in prison.”

CRONY BANKSTER LOOTING OF AMERICA
 THEIR GOLDEN AGE OF PLUNDER IS NOT OVER!



NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY SUCKED IN MORE BRIBES FROM BANKSTERS NOR INFESTED HIS ADMIN WITH BANKSTER CRONIES MORE THAN OBAMA!


And while the Obama administration worked systematically 

to bail out the banks and make the financial oligarchy richer 

than ever, shielding the architects of the Great Recession 

from criminal prosecution, it did impose fines for some of 

the banks’ grossest swindles, including the sale of worthless 

subprime mortgage-backed securities, the rigging of key 

global interest rates such as the London Interbank Offered 

Rate (Libor), drug money laundering, illegal home 

foreclosures and other illicit activities.


BARACK OBAMA , HIS CRIMINAL 

BANKSTERS AND THE LA RAZA

MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS….

There’s more than one way to destroy America’s white middle class!



HSBC laundered hundreds of millions 

and perhaps billions of dollars for drug 

cartels responsible for the deaths of tens 

of thousands of people over the past 

two decades. The bank transferred at least 

$881 million of known drug trafficking 

proceeds, including money from the Sinaloa 

Cartel in Mexico, which is known for 

dismembering its victims and publicly 

displaying their body parts.


THE CRIME DUAL OF HILLARY & 

BILLARY, THE “HOPE & CHANGE”  

HUCKSTER OBAMA




"But the Clintons personify this corruption just as much as 

Trump, even if they made use of a different mechanism and 

on a somewhat smaller scale. They amassed a fortune 

exceeding $150 million in the decade after Bill Clinton left 

the White House, mainly through six-figure fees for 

addressing corporate and Wall Street audiences. Barack 

Obama will shortly take a similar path, reaping his reward 

from the financial aristocracy whose interests he safeguarded 

so assiduously over the past eight years."

 

THE DEMISE AND ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION of HILLARY CLINTON


"Hillary Clinton is a known liar, a criminal of monstrous proportions; others have gone to prison for crimes she has committed over and over: lying to Congress, lying to the FBI, violating national security laws by which she was bound as Secretary of State, etc. It's a long list."


Clinton, the candidate favored by most of Wall Street and the corporate elite and large sections of the Republican Party establishment, is seeking to assemble something akin, within the framework of the US political setup, to a grand coalition between the Democratic Party and the Republican leadership.


http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/10/clinton-preparing-bipartisan-government.html


Transcripts released by WikiLeaks of Clinton speeches to Wall Street bankers, for which she received six-figure paychecks, show her praising the recommendations of the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction commission, which called for sweeping cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; the elimination of 200,000 federal jobs; a tax on employees’ health benefits; and huge cuts in income taxes for the wealthy and corporate taxes.



“But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now.”

Wikileaks exposes Obama’s bankster-infested

 

administration!



BARACK OBAMA …… the banksters’ RENT BOY!
 “Citigroup’s recommendations came just three days after then-President George W. Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which allocated $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue the largest Wall Street banks. The single biggest beneficiary was Citigroup, which was given $45 billion in cash in the form of a government stock  purchase, plus a $306 billion government guarantee to back up its worthless mortgage-related assets.”

MUCH MORE HERE:


“As president, Obama not only funneled trillions of dollars to the banks, he saw to it that not a single leading Wall Street executive faced prosecution for  the orgy of speculation and swindling that led to the financial collapse and Great Recession, and he personally intervened to block legislation capping  executive pay at bailed-out firms.”


“So when Clinton was hobnobbing with  Goldman Sachs 

CEO Blankfein in 2013, while  investigations of 

wrongdoing by Goldman and the other Wall Street banks 

were still ongoing, she was consorting with a man 

who belonged in prison.”

CRONY BANKSTER LOOTING OF AMERICA
 THEIR GOLDEN AGE OF PLUNDER IS NOT OVER!



NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY SUCKED IN MORE BRIBES FROM BANKSTERS NOR INFESTED HIS ADMIN WITH BANKSTER CRONIES MORE THAN OBAMA!



And while the Obama administration worked systematically 

to bail out the banks and make the financial oligarchy richer 

than ever, shielding the architects of the Great Recession 

from criminal prosecution, it did impose fines for some of 

the banks’ grossest swindles, including the sale of worthless 

subprime mortgage-backed securities, the rigging of key 

global interest rates such as the London Interbank Offered 

Rate (Libor), drug money laundering, illegal home 

foreclosures and other illicit activities.



THE SMELL OF MONEY:

Senator Bernie Sanders Takes the Crooked Road For Obama’s Crony Banksters for KILLARY KROOKED KLINTON


Much more here:

http://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2016/10/sandsers-and-clinton-closet-republicans.html



“The response to the publication of these speeches by so-called “socialist” Bernie Sanders exposes the utterly fraudulent character of his entire presidential bid. While he postured during the Democratic Party primaries as a proponent of a “political revolution” against the “billionaire class,” Sanders now functions shamelessly as a sideshow for the Clinton  campaign, browbeating his (now much smaller) audiences with admonitions to vote for the preferred candidate of the “billionaire class”  he claimed to oppose.”

FOLLOWING THE CRIMES OF BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON BECOMES AMERICA’S ROAD TO REVOLUTION

 

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/10/bill-and-hillary-clintons-global.html


Transcripts released by WikiLeaks of Clinton speeches to Wall

Street bankers, for which she received six-figure paychecks,

show her praising the recommendations of the 2010 Simpson-

Bowles deficit-reduction commission, which called for sweeping

cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; the elimination

of 200,000 federal jobs; a tax on employees’


"Hillary Clinton is a known liar, a criminal of monstrous proportions; others have gone to prison for crimes she has committed over and over: lying to Congress, lying to the FBI, violating national security laws by which she was bound as Secretary of State, etc. It's a long list."

                                                                                

Clinton, the candidate favored by most of Wall Street and the corporate elite and large sections of the Republican Party establishment, is seeking to assemble something akin, within the framework of the US political setup, to a grand coalition between the Democratic Party and the Republican leadership.


http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/10/clinton-preparing-bipartisan-government.html


Transcripts released by WikiLeaks of Clinton 


speeches to Wall Street bankers, for which 


she received six-figure paychecks, show her praising the recommendations of the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction commission, which called for sweeping cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; the elimination of 200,000 federal jobs; a tax on employees’ health benefits; and huge cuts in income taxes for the wealthy and corporate taxes.



“But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at 

the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly 

entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their 

friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core 

beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every 

person on the planet by now.”

Wikileaks exposes Obama’s bankster-infested

 

administration!



BARACK OBAMA …… the banksters’ RENT BOY!

 “Citigroup’s recommendations came just three days after then-President George W. Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which allocated $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue the largest Wall Street banks. The single biggest beneficiary was Citigroup, which was given $45 billion in cash in the form of a government stock  purchase, plus a $306 billion government guarantee to back up its worthless mortgage-related assets.”

MUCH MORE HERE:


“As president, Obama not only funneled trillions of dollars to the banks, he saw to it that not a single leading Wall Street executive faced prosecution for  the orgy of speculation and swindling that led to the financial collapse and Great Recession, and he personally intervened to block legislation capping  executive pay at bailed-out firms.”
  
“So when Clinton was hobnobbing with  Goldman Sachs CEO Blankfein in 2013, while  investigations of wrongdoing by Goldman and the other Wall Street banks were still ongoing, she was consorting with a man who belonged in prison.”

CRONY BANKSTER LOOTING OF AMERICA
 THEIR GOLDEN AGE OF PLUNDER IS NOT OVER!



NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY SUCKED IN MORE BRIBES FROM BANKSTERS NOR INFESTED HIS ADMIN WITH BANKSTER CRONIES MORE THAN OBAMA!


And while the Obama administration worked systematically 

to bail out the banks and make the financial oligarchy richer 

than ever, shielding the architects of the Great Recession 

from criminal prosecution, it did impose fines for some of 

the banks’ grossest swindles, including the sale of worthless 

subprime mortgage-backed securities, the rigging of key 

global interest rates such as the London Interbank Offered 

Rate (Libor), drug money laundering, illegal home 

foreclosures and other illicit activities.

OBAMA-CLINTON-TRUMPERnomics: 

The Massive Transfer of Wealth to the Super Rich Ratcheted up!



The American financial and bankster oligarchy, steeped in criminality and parasitism, can produce only a government of war, social reaction and repression. In its blind avarice, it is creating the conditions for unprecedented social upheavals. It is hurtling toward its own revolutionary demise at the hands of the working class.


"Nearly 30 percent of the illegal immigrant children the U.S. is 

holding in its dormitories have ties to criminal gangs, the 

government revealed Wednesday, suggesting that the Obama-era 

surge of Central Americans has fed the country’s growing problem 

with MS-13 and other gangs."


AMERICA: WALL STREET, THE DEMOCRAT 

PARTY, THE GOP and LA RAZA SAY NO 

LEGAL NEED APPLY!

“The percentage of foreign-born workers in the 

U.S. labor force has more than tripled over the 

last four decades and while the U.S. represents 

just 5 percent of the world’s population it attracts 

20 percent of the world’s immigrants, according 

to a new report.”


Open the floodgates of our welfare state to the uneducated, impoverished, and unskilled masses of the world and in a generation or three America, as we know it, will be gone.

Those most impacted are middle class and lower middle class. It is they whose jobs are taken, whose raises are postponed, whose schools are filled with non-English speaking children that absorb precious resources for remedial English, whose public parks are trashed and whose emergency rooms serve as the local clinic for the illegal underground. 

Limiting Foreign Student Entries

in Sanctuary Jurisdictions


Potential Federal Government Response to California’s SB 54



WASHINGTON (June 22, 2017) – A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies examines the administration's option of limiting foreign student entries and immigration activities in "sanctuary" jurisdictions as a potential federal response to state and local obstruction of immigration enforcement. This could be especially important if California's SB54 – with its stringent anti-cooperation requirements – is passed and signed into law. SB54 has been approved by the Senate and is currently before the Assembly.

If SB54 blocks the Cal State and California Community College systems' required cooperation with ICE, DHS may be forced to decertify them for purposes of admitting foreign students.

Andrew Arthur, the Center's Resident Fellow in Law and Policy and author of the report, stated, "If the State of California prevents schools from satisfying their obligations under federal immigration law, then DHS needs to consider whether those schools should be allowed to maintain their certifications to accept foreign students."

View the entire report at: http://cis.org/Limiting-Foreign-Student-Visas-in-Sanctuaries

Foreign student visas are available only to people who will be attending schools certified by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), a component of the ICE National Security Investigations Division. By regulation, SEVP-certified schools must designate school officials to regularly provide information to ICE to verify that the foreign students are maintaining their status while in the country, and to notify ICE when those students are not.

This requirement ensures that the government has essential data on those students necessary for national security and immigration-enforcement purposes. This is especially important given the fact that, as DHS recently reported, almost three percent of all foreign students whose authorized status was supposed to end in FY 2016 are suspected of overstaying and illegally remaining in the United States.

Contact: Marguerite Telford
202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org


AMERICA’S BLUDGEONED YOUTH: 

Homeless, Hopeless and Addicted…. 

Will they start the revolution?


"Public education as a whole came under brutal attack as part

of the Obama administration’s effort to shift the burden of 

the financial crisis onto the backs of the working class."

AMERICA’S YOUTH STARVE


FOR EIGHT YEARS BARACK OBAMA AND HIS HAREM OF CORRUPT DEM POLS HAVE  SABOTAGED OUR BORDERS TO EASE TENS OF MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS INTO OUR JOBS, WELFARE OFFICES AND VOTING BOOTHS. 


What is left for Legals is only the tax bills for La Raza's looting!


The new reports show that in addition to “traditional” coping strategies of skipping meals and

eating cheap food, these teens and pre-teens are increasingly forced into shoplifting, stealing,

selling drugs, joining a gang, or selling their bodies for money in a struggle to eat properly.



OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS pounds America’s youth as they build a border to border Mexican welfare state on our backs!

AMERICA’S YOUTH STARVE
                                 
…… ILLEGALS SUCK IN BILLIONS IN WELFARE… they also get our jobs!



The new reports show that in addition to “traditional” coping strategies of skipping meals and eating cheap food, these teens and pre-teens are increasingly forced into shoplifting, stealing, selling drugs, joining a gang, or selling their bodies for money in a struggle to eat properly.


AMERICA STUDENTS STARVE:

Report on the impact of OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS-TRUMPERNOMICS


THE  GIG JOB – In America, No Legal Need Apply

"Possibly most affected by this shift in the economy is the Millennial generation, those  aged 18-30. The report notes that more than half of those under age 25 participate in independent work, not just in the United States but throughout the European Union as well."

June 22, 2017

Government says 30% of children caught at border have ties to violent drug gangs


Government officials revealed during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that 30% of children captured at the border have ties to M-13 and other violent drug gangs.
The Obama administration knew of the problem but claimed by law, they had to admit the refugees regardless of their ties to violent criminal gangs.
Nearly 30 percent of the illegal immigrant children the U.S. is holding in its dormitories have ties to criminal gangs, the government revealed Wednesday, suggesting that the Obama-era surge of Central Americans has fed the country’s growing problem with MS-13 and other gangs.

Federal officials refused even to guess at the true scope of the problem, telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that they can give only small snapshots of what they see. But they said the devastation on communities across the country is clear: killings and chaos, particularly among other immigrants — both legal and illegal.


The Border Patrol identified 160 teens who were known or suspected gang members when they first showed up at the border, but whom the Obama administration said it had to admit under U.S. law.

Meanwhile, a spot check this month of 138 teens being held by the federal Health and Human Services Department identified 39 with gang ties. Four of them were forced into cooperating with the gangs and 35 joined voluntarily, according to the Office of Refugee Resettlement.
“It is well-known that MS-13 actively targets and recruits children as young as 8 years old,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee who called Wednesday’s hearing.
“While their illegal status and Central American heritage are a key factor in MS-13’s targeting, without a doubt the failures of the current system for handling these children is also to blame,” he said. “The current system is fraught with abuse, systematic errors and a lack of effective cooperation.”
He was stunned that no agency could say how many “UAC,” as the government dubs unaccompanied alien children, have been recruited.
The agencies point to one another and to federal laws, saying their hands are tied.
Agencies are reviewing Obama-era interpretations of the law, but it seems incomprehensible that this loophole can exist. It seems clear that M-13 and other gangs are using the children and US policy on dealing with unaccompanied minors at the border to engage in gang activity on American soil.
Officials said MS-13 is involved in some drug dealing and does engage in human trafficking, but its real money-making operation is extortion. The gang threatens families — including American citizens — with violence against relatives back in Central America unless those in the U.S. pay them off.
Gang members in the U.S. take directions directly from gang commanders in El Salvador, authorities say.
Kenneth A. Blanco, acting assistant attorney general in the criminal division at the Justice Department, also said immigrants who fail to report crimes to local police are often not afraid of being deported by federal authorities, but rather fear retaliation from the gang members and other criminals who live in their neighborhoods.
He said witnesses’ names become public, making them targets for retribution.
“That really, in my 28 years, has been the fear they have of calling the police. Not so much the other way around,” he said. “They’re really scared of these people.”
That runs counter to the argument made by Democrats and some local police chiefs that illegal immigrants refuse to report crimes because they fear entanglement with federal deportation agents.
These kinds of "below the radar" policies cost lives. That should be the bottom line in creating and implementing any immigration and refugee policy regardless whether it affects adults or children. That 30% of children who we've been told only want to come to America to get away from gang violence, are themselves, engaged in gang activity is a clear and present danger to Americans and illegal immigrants alike. 
That the government has known of this problem for years and allowed it to continue is the height of stupidity and bureaucratic incompetence.






Federal ‘OPT’ Program Rewards Companies For Hiring 330,000 Foreign College Grads in 2016



The federal government quietly helped and rewarded companies and universities which hired roughly 330,000 cheap foreign graduates in 2016 instead of hiring American graduates, many of whom are deep in debt.

The little-known “Optional Practical Training” program has grown from 91,140 new foreign job-seekers in 2009 to 329,158 new job-seekers in 2016, according to data provided by the Department of Homeland Security. That is almost a four-fold increase in seven years — and the program is growing even larger in 2017.
There is no cap on the OPT program, which quietly and semi-automatically gives work permits lasting up to three years when requested by foreign students who graduate from U.S. universities and colleges. Companies are not required to even interview Americans before hiring OPT graduates — and they get tax breaks for hiring foreigners over Americans.
“The government is enticing employers to hire foreigners instead of Americans … it is ridiculous,” said Mark Krikorian, director of the D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies. Even the middle-class Americans who have downplayed the impact of cheap-labor immigration on blue-collar Americans should be alarmed by the government’s discrimination against their own college-graduate children, he added.
In 2014, the OPT program provided work permits to 249,998 foreign graduates, according to the data provided to Breitbart News by the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the program. Two years later, the number of new foreign graduates entering the program had risen by 32 percent up to 329,158.
The program provides a one-year work permit to all graduates. It also provides an extra one-year permit to graduates who work in a so-called high-tech “STEM” job. In 2016, officials working for former President Barack Obama extended the STEM permits from one year to two years. If only 20,000 of the 51,672 STEM workers from 2015 used Obama’s one-year extension, they would have increased the 2016 total from 329,158 up to 350,000.
That 350,000 estimate for 2016 means that the government is offering work permits to one foreign graduate for almost every two of the 800,000 young Americans who graduate from college each year with high-skilled degrees in business or medicine, science or software, math or physics.
The OPT program will likely grow to 500,000 foreign workers in 2020 unless it is killed by a pending lawsuit.
Under the new transparency rules established by DHS secretary John Kelly, DHS officials also provided Breitbart with the initial OPT numbers for 2017. That data showed the OPT program in the first half of 2017 by giving work permits to 255,412 foreign students, including 57,315 high-skill technology graduates. That half-year number for 2017 is larger than the 2014 total.
These high numbers likely understate the scale of the OPT outsourcing program, because the federal government also allows foreign students to get a one-year work permit via the “Curriculum Practical Training” program before they graduate into the OPT program. If 100,000 students used that CPT program in 2016, then the combined CPT and OPT programs delivered almost 450,000 white-collar American jobs to foreign students and graduates in 2016.
The annual inflow of new foreign OPT workers is now roughly three times larger than the annual inflow of 110,000 H-1B white-collar contract workers. However, the H-1B program offers longer visas to foreign workers, so it keeps a larger population of roughly 650,000 foreign white-collar workers in the United States, compared to roughly 35o,000 OPT workers.
The H-1B visas help companies hire foreign white-collar workers to take the place of the experienced American professionals who need decent salaries to help support and educate their children.
Who is impacted?
Many American college graduates are threatened by OPT, partly because the program allows foreign students to take any job, but also because the government grants three-year work permits to students who take “Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math” jobs — but those STEM jobs are very expansively described. They include:
dairy science… horticultural science…  environmental studies … natural resources conservation … urban forestry … artificial intelligence … computer graphics … solar energy … naval science … cyber/electronic operations and warfare … nutrition sciences … sustainability studies … child psychology … archaeology … medical science … veterinary physiology … business statistics … management science.
The OPT program is also a threat to upward mobility because it is increasingly being used to outsource community college technician jobs — such as nursing — which are the primary upward path for Americans born into lower-income families. The DHS list of STEM jobs also includes more than 50 types of technical jobs, including:
Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Engineering Technology/Technician … solar energy … welding … industrial production … quality control … automotive engineering … [and] biology.
College grads have done better than American blue-collar workers since the 2009 crash, but recruiters say graduates overestimate their market value, and researchers say salaries remain low in 2017:
Wages for college graduates across many majors have fallen since the 2007-09 recession, according to an unpublished analysis by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce in Washington using Census bureau figures. Young job-seekers appear to be the biggest losers … “It has been like this for the past five, six years now,” said Ban Cheah, a research professor at Georgetown who compiled the data. “It’s a little depressing.”

Liberty University, graduation 2017.
Many recent graduates were hurt long-term by the slump, according to a 2014 Pew rstudy:
In a recent report, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York went deeper and looked at underemployment among recent grads (defined as people aged 22 to 27 with at least a bachelor’s degree). The Fed researchers used data from the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to examine whether employed grads were in jobs that typically required a college degree, what those jobs paid, and whether they were working full- or part-time. They found that in 2012, about 44% of grads were working in jobs that didn’t require a college degree — a rate that, while about what it was in early 1990s, increased after the 2001 and 2007-09 recessions. Only 36% of that group were in what the researchers called “good non-college jobs” — those paying around $45,000 a year — down from around half in the 1990s. The share of underemployed recent grads in low-wage (below $25,000) jobs rose from about 15% in 1990 to more than 20%. About one-in-five (23%) underemployed recent grads were working part-time in 2011, up from 15% in 2000.
Other reports emphasize negative and positive prospects for recent college grads as the nation emerges from a decade-long slump.
Critically, the OPTs compete with new American graduates and nudge down the Americans’ starting salaries — which can have a huge impact on their lifetime earnings, say salary experts:
“Maximizing your first salary is really important because it determines your salary for the rest of your life,” says Matt Wallaert, chief scientist at GetRaised.com … “Your final salary is heavily dependent on your starting salary,” agrees Glenn Hiemstra, the founder of Futurist.com,
Moreover, many U.S. graduates are defaulting on college loan debts owed to the U.S. government because they cannot find well-paying jobs.
Joseph Palos, a high-tech graduate from Cornell University, formally objected to the OPT program in 2015. ”Companies don’t want to hire Americans and they abuse… OPT to hire cheap immobile labor instead of hiring anyone over the age of 35, especially in software or tech areas,” he wrote to a federal agency, according to a report in ComputerWorld.
Which companies hire OPTs?
Most universities and colleges hide useful data about their OPT programs from their American students, the tuition-paying parents and the voting public.
But a Breitbart search of the data revealed that Penn State posted a list of companies which hire OPT and other foreign graduates. The companies include accounting firms Deloitte & Touché LLP plus Ernst & Young, LLP, as well as Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and the GE Global Research Center in New York. Other OPT employers included Advanced Micro Devices in Sunnyvale, Calif., Intel in Arizona, Motorola in Florida, Nokia in Texas,  and Microsoft in Washington State, plus Cadbury Schweppes in New Jersey, Glaxo Smith Kline in Philadelphia, Hyatt Hotels in Washington D.C., Westinghouse in Pittsburgh, Penske Logistics in Ohio, and the Environmental Systems Research Institute in Redlands, Ca.
The Penn State list also includes many universities, many of which can keep cheap OPTs on the payroll for several years by converting them into H-1B employees. There are no limits on universities’ hiring of H-1Bs.
There’s not much reason to blame the companies for hiring OPTs, said Krikorian. By reducing employers’ taxes and subsidizing OPT employees’ pay with a chance to win green cards, “the government is encouraging these employers to hire foreign workers,” he said.
Who supports the OPT program?
Unsurprisingly, the semi-secret OPT program has intense behind-the-scenes support in Washington.
First, the OPT program — like the similar H-1B and H-2B programs — are strongly supported by business groups because they provide very cheap, compliant and disposable workers:
When a job is given to an OPT worker, neither the worker nor the employers have to pay Social Security or Medicare taxes. That tax break cuts the company’s salary costs for that foreign worker by roughly 23 percent.
When a foreign students seeks a job, Americans lose bargaining power to get decent wages for that jobs. Nationalwide, the extra inflow of immigrant labor annually transfers roughy $500 billion from employees to employers, accordin to data in the 2016 report on immigration by the National Acadeimes of Sciences.
The OPT jobs put the foreign graduates on the first step towards citizenship, which is a hugely valuable deferred bonus student studemt her overseas fmaily and their descedents in perpetuity. In effect, the federal government provides OPT workers a free lottery ticket for the prize of citizenship if they work for the pay and conditions set by the employer. But this is also a huge hidden subsidy for employers who hire foreigners instead of Americans because it allows employers to pay foreigners with hope of citizenship, while Americans must be paid in dollars.
Also, the OPT employers is heavily dependent on the employer to put him or her the next step on the path to citizenship, ensuring a compliant attitude despute low-pay and long hours. The next step is usually a H-1B visa, which requires the employer to ask the govrenment for the visa.
The OPT program adds a small but useful addition to the number of native-born and immigrant consumers who buy products in hte U.S. economy.
Universities strongly favor the OPT program because it allows them to effectively sell government-supplied, no-cost work permits to the foreign students who pay higher than normal tuition fees — providing there is no political pushback from their own indebted graduates and their worried parents.
The annual inflow of foreign students adds $2.8 billion in economic activity, and 400,000 jobs to the economy, says the NAFSA advocacy group, wich is led by university officials. Few politicians are willing to openly disagree with the universities in their district.
Universities market themselves to foreign customers as way-stations to citizenship. For example, Dartmouth University highlighted employment statistics for foreign graduates, saying 71 of 79 foreign graduates got work permits and jobs in 2015, and 79 of 86 got work permits and jobs in 2014.
A growing percentage of foreign students are using the OPT work permits. The percentage rose from 21.5 percent in 2014 up to 24.5 percent in 2016, according to DHS data.
The OPT and CPT programs allow a growing number low-grade “diploma mill” universities to provide work permits to foreign workers in exchange for tuition. The scale of the new industry was described by Buzzfeed in 2016: “With little fanfare and virtually overnight, Nothwestern Polytechnic has become one of the country’s largest importers of international students — 95% of whom are Indian. Last year, 9,026 foreign students had active visas to attend NPU, according to federal immigration data — that’s more students than the entire undergraduate population of Harvard, and an increase of 350% from two years earlier, when Northwestern had just 1,200 … Northwestern Polytechnic’s 9,026 foreign students would make up the ninth-largest body of international students in the country, according to IIE numbers — above Michigan State University and just below UCLA.”
Education-industry officials have downplayed the number of OPT approvals for several years. For example, the New York-based Institute of International Education estimated  67,804 OPT job-seekers in 2009, and 147,498 OPT seekers in 2016. In contrast, DHS estimated the numbers at 91,140 in 2009 and 329,158 in 2016.
Progressives strongly favor the OPT program, partly because it is backed by their prestigious allies in the Internet industry and by university groups, but also because it levels the status of foreigners and Americans.
In June 2017, a pro-immigration columnist for the New York Times, who formerly worked at the Wall Street Journal, argued that Americans rightly belongs to foreigners, not Americans, saying:
I’m the child of immigrants and grew up abroad, I have always thought of the United States as a country that belongs first to its newcomers — the people who strain hardest to become a part of it because they realize that it’s precious; and who do the most to remake it so that our ideas, and our appeal, may stay fresh.
That used to be a cliché, but in the Age of [President Donald] Trump it needs to be explained all over again. We’re a country of immigrants — by and for them, too. Americans who don’t get it should get out.
GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan backs programs that allow low-tech business to import cheap foreign workers instead of hiring U.S. workers. “We need to have an immigration system that is wired for what our economy needs … so let’s find out where those gaps in our labor markets are and have our immigration system wired for that,” Ryan said in 2016.
President Barack Obama declared in 2014 that Americans do not have the right to favor their fellow citizens over foreigners, saying:
Sometimes we get attached to our particular tribe, our particular race, our particular religion, and then we start treating other folks differently. And that, sometimes, has been a bottleneck to how we think about immigration.  If you look at the history of immigration in this country, each successive wave, there have been periods where the folks who were already here suddenly say, ‘Well, I don’t want those folks’ — even though the only people who have the right to say that are some Native Americans.
Under Obama’s lax border policies, roughly 550,000 additional illegal aliens flew or walked into the United States in 2016, while only a tiny percentage of the 11 million resident illegals were sent home.
This bipartisan open-border viewpoint is part of the law and played a large role in Obama’s policies. For example, from 2011 to 2016, Obama used a loophole in federal law to allow more than 300,000 unskilled migrants from Central American to live and work in the United States, despite the harmful impact on the kids’ schools and local crime rates.
Economic and Political Impact
These pro-immigration views held by progressives and business-minded Republicans means that the federal government now imports one million legal immigrants each year to compete for jobs against the 4 million Americans who graduate from schools or colleges each year.
The federal government also imports more than 1 million temporary contract workers, including roughly 110,000 H-1B workers per year. That rapid rise of the secret OPT program — plus likely rises in other semi-secret L and B-1 visas — suggest that the government allows companies and universities to keep an army of more than 1.6 million foreign contract-workers in the United States.
Most of those foreign contract workers are white-collar professionals, while fewer than 100,000 are legal temporary agricultural workers, according to the left-of-center Economic Policy Institute.
This flood of foreign labor spikes profits and stock values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees, drives up real estate prices, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, and sidelines marginalized Americans and their families. The flood also fragments Americans’ civic society into competing identity groups, sometimes dubbed social “diversity.”
OPT
2017 graduation ceremonies at Agnes Scott College, Decatur, Georgia.
This social conflict also distorts Americans’ politics, allowing the inauguration of New York real-estate magnate Donald Trump on January 20, 2017.
Since then, despite massive bipartisan pressure from politicians and industry groups eager for cheap labor, Trump has declared his policy to be “Buy American, Hire American.” He has scuttled the cheap-labor Trans-Pacific Partnership program, sharply reduced illegal immigration, slowed the growth of contract workers programs, started reforming the H-1B white-collar outsourcing program, and eliminated the ‘DAPA’ amnesty for four million illegals.
Because of pressure from progressives in the media and the Democratic Party, Trump has also preserved some of Obama’s open-borders rules, such as the 2012 ‘DACA’ policy which delivers work permits to roughly 765,000 younger illegals.
So far, Trump and his deputies have done little publicly to curb the fast-growing OPT program — even though it discriminates against the children of politically influential college-graduates. “You would think that when their own college-educated kids are being discriminated against, it would get attention,” said Krikorian.
However, in December 2016,  the Department of Education disbarred the accreditation organization which validated the NPU’s educational claims. In March 2017, Trump’s DHS stopping issuing OPT or H-1B approvals to foreign students from the diploma-mill colleges which rely on that accrediting organization.
However, Trump’s officials will soon need to deal with the legality of the “crony capitalist” OPT program, said lawyer John Miano, who is suing the federal government on behalf of the Washington Alliance of Tech Workers. His lawsuit shows how OPT was created by regulators in 1992 and then expanded in 2002 without any action by Congress or an agency regulatory process. The legal claim is strong, he said, because “we have the government making law via regulation… [what is] the largest guest worker program” in the nation.
But without strong public pressure on legislators, the corporate and university pressure for the OPT program will likely deter the Trump administration from accepting a courtroom defeat over OTP, Miano said. “I don’t expect the Trump administration to say ‘We can’t defend it’ … [but] we don’t know what they are planning to do.”

Follow Neil Munro on Twitter @NeilMunroDC or email the author at NMunro@Breitbart.com
Below are four images of the Penn State list of companies that hired OPT or “Academic Training” foreign graduatesMany of the companies and universities also hire H-1B workers. 
OPT
OPT






New education regulations will make colleges much more vulnerable financially and legally. Some colleges could be forced to shut down.