Saturday, January 6, 2018

SEN. HASSAN - WE NEED $25 BILLION IN ADDITIONAL SPENDING TO COMBAT OPIOID CRISIS

Dem Sen Hassan: We Need $25 Billion in Additional Spending to Combat Opioid Crisis


During Friday’s Democratic Weekly Address, Senator Maggie Hassan (D-NH) pushed for an agreement that would increase spending to combat the opioid crisis by $25 billion.
Transcript (via FedNews) as Follows:
“Greg Drugan was a young man from Derry, New Hampshire with dreams of becoming a doctor. He had a family who loved him. But Greg also struggled with a substance use disorder. He was showing signs of depression, and after graduating from college, he was prescribed an opioid-based painkiller following an outpatient surgery. After he was prescribed that opioid, he went from bad to worse.
Greg’s father is a firefighter – responding every day to the havoc that the opioid crisis is wreaking on other families. Greg’s family helped him. He got into recovery, and he worked hard at it. But Greg was one of the tens of thousands of Americans who died from an opioid overdose in 2016.
I’m Senator Maggie Hassan. Tragically, Greg’s story is far too common. In my home state of New Hampshire and all across our nation, families and communities are in the midst of a devastating public health and safety challenge: the opioid crisis. And the rising use of synthetic opioids such as fentanyl is making matters worse – killing people faster and with smaller amounts.
This crisis is taking a massive toll on our communities, on our workforce, and our economy. It does not discriminate and it impacts people from all walks of life. In 2016 alone, we lost an estimated 64,000 Americans to drug overdose deaths. In both of the last two years, American life expectancy has decreased – in large part because of the opioid crisis.
Behind those numbers are a lost generation. Moms and dads, sons and daughters, who are dying. And these losses result in a ripple effect of pain and suffering for the family, friends, and communities that they have left behind.
This is the story of far too many families. And Congress must come together and put partisan politics aside to get results for our people because lives are truly at stake.
As negotiations continue on a long-term spending bill, Democrats have a long to-do list, with many priorities we need to address. We still are pushing for increased investments in both military and domestic priorities, and one of the many things we have made clear is that there is an urgent need to significantly increase federal funding to address this crisis and make investments in key programs to combat substance use disorders – many of which have bipartisan support.
The President’s Commission on Combatting Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis has offered a strong set of recommendations, including expanding access to treatment, stepping up evidence-based preventative education efforts and law enforcement activities, and improving job opportunities for people in recovery.
Actually implementing these recommendations requires significant additional funding. That is why I have worked with many of my fellow senators to introduce legislation that would increase funding for this crisis. But we also need to see this Administration take a leadership role in calling for additional funding, and I urge my colleagues across the aisle to come to the table to get this done.
In New Hampshire, and in states across the nation, families and communities are hoping and calling for a budget agreement to include a significant increase in funding to address the fentanyl, heroin, and opioid epidemic. That is why Senate Democrats are fighting for an agreement that includes $25 billion in additional funding to combat this crisis. While it will take far more federal funding to help support those on the front lines and turn the tide of this epidemic, providing an additional $25 billion now is an important step that we must take.
We need to act because people are dying. This is not a partisan issue – and Senate Democrats stand ready and willing to work with our colleagues to fight for progress, to help those struggling get the treatment that they need, and to support all of the dedicated professionals on the front lines of battling this crisis.
Thank you.”

HILLARY and BILLARY CLINTON: GLOBAL LOOTERS OF THE POOR AND STILL ON THE LAM

Whether it is merely the FBI trying to restore its shattered credibility or justice finally being done, the news that the pay-to-play activities of the Clinton Foundation are going to get renewed and serious attention is welcome.  The Clint...

The Clock Ticks for the Clinton Foundation



Whether it is merely the FBI trying to restore its shattered credibility or justice finally being done, the news that the pay-to-play activities of the Clinton Foundation are going to get renewed and serious attention is welcome.  The Clintons have made a career of ignoring, skirting, and breaking the law.  Up to this point, crime has paid off handsomely for the Clintons, but now they may find themselves caught between Little Rock and a hard place:
The Justice Department has launched a new inquiry into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in any pay-to-play politics or other illegal activities while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of [s]tate, law enforcement officials and a witness tell[] The Hill.
FBI agents from Little Rock, Ark., where the foundation was started, have taken the lead in the investigation and have interviewed at least one witness in the last month, and law enforcement officials said additional activities are expected in the coming weeks.
The officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the probe is examining whether the Clintons promised or performed any policy favors in return for largesse to their charitable efforts or whether donors made commitments of donations in hopes of securing government outcomes.
This should be a short investigation – Hillary Clinton is a ham sandwich waiting to be indicted.  All that should be necessary is to empanel a grand jury and read them the known facts.  The Clinton Foundation was hardly charitable except to its donors.
Any investigation should start with Haiti, where the Clinton Foundation plundered the disaster-ridden island for fun and profit.  As the Washington Free Beacon reported:
Haitian activists protested outside ... the Clinton Foundation in New York over the loss of "billions of dollars" that was meant to help rebuild after the devastating 2010 earthquake.  The activists are claiming [that] the money was stolen through the Haiti Reconstruction Commission that was headed by Bill Clinton.  In January 2015, the Clinton Foundation was the target of protests for wasting more than $10 billion and awarding contracts to non-Haitian companies.  The activists also said Haiti is a cover for foreign governments to funnel kickbacks of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.  They believe that this was done for favors that Hillary was doing for the foreign governments while she was [s]ecretary of [s]tate. "We are telling the world of the crimes that Bill and Hillary Clinton are responsible for in Haiti," said Dhoud Andre of the Committee Against Dictatorship in Haiti. 
That the Clinton Foundation's operations were nothing but a cash cow scam is seen in a brilliant analysis and exposé of its operations in Colombia, a country beset by internal strife and an ongoing battle with drug cartels.  The truth,as reported by Ken Silverman and the American Media Institute in Fusion, a joint venture of ABC and Univision, hardly Trump surrogates, explains in part how the Clintons amassed a small fortune without holding any job or running any business:
Colombia should be the Clinton Foundation's best case study.  Ground zero for the drug wars of the 1980s and [']90s, racked by uneven development and low-intensity conflict for half a century, Colombia has received more foundation money and attention than any other nation outside the United States.  Bill and Hillary Clinton have visited the country often and enjoy close relationships with members of Colombia's ruling party.  Colombia has also been home to the vast oil and natural gas holdings of the man who is reportedly the Clinton Foundation's largest individual donor, Canadian financier Frank Giustra[.] ...
Many of the Colombian "success stories" touted on the foundation's website – the ones specific enough for us to track down – were critical about the foundation's effect on their lives.  Labor leaders and progressive activists say foundation programs caused environmental harm, displaced indigenous people, and ... concentrated a larger share of Colombia's oil and natural gas reserves in the hands of Giustra[.] ...
We interviewed young women in the foundation's job-training programs; female business owners who sought help from its programs; workers who toiled for the foundation's biggest individual donor's firms; indigenous fisherm[e]n who were promised jobs and aid; and union leaders, social[] justice activists, and progressive lawmakers.  Some say they lost money.  Others said they were used as props.  Still others simply thought that the foundation had wasted a lot of their time.  "They are doing nothing for workers," one Colombian union official told us, with disgust.  "I don't even know what they are doing in this country other than exploiting poverty and extracting money."
Clinton donor Giustra benefited significantly from his association, even if the people of Colombia didn't:
When we met him (Senator Jorge Enrique Robledo) in his wood-paneled office in Colombia's [c]apitol building in May, his desk was stacked high with papers related to Pacific Rubiales's labor practices, the result of years of investigative work by his staff.  He did not see the Clinton Foundation and its partnership with Giustra's Pacific Rubiales as either progressive or positive.  "The territory where Pacific Rubiales operated," he said, thumbing through pages of alleged human[] rights violations, "was a type of concentration camp for workers." ...
In September 2005, Giustra and Clinton flew to Kazakhstan together to meet the Central Asian nation's president.  Shortly thereafter, Giustra secured a lucrative concession to mine Kazakh uranium, despite his company's lack of experience with the radioactive ore.  As Bill Clinton opened doors for Giustra, the financier gave generously to Clinton's foundation.
As the New York Times reported, this mutual back-scratching gave Clinton donor Giustra, and later Putin's Russia, control of a significant portion of the world's uranium supply:
Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan.  Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world.  And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.
Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium[-]mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic . But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections.  Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton[.] ...
Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton's charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3[-]million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month.  The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra's more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton's inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges[.] ...
In February 2007, a company called Uranium One agreed to pay $3.1 billion to acquire UrAsia.  Mr. Giustra, a director and major shareholder in UrAsia, would be paid $7.05 per share for a company that just two years earlier was trading at 10 cents per share.
Clinton played a pivotal role in the Uranium One deal, which ended up giving Russian interests control of 20 percent of our uranium supply in exchange for donations of $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.  That, ladies and gentlemen, is a federal crime.  As Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer has noted [italics ours –ed.]:
Tuesday on Fox Business Network, Lou Dobbs Tonight, Breitbart editor at large and the author of Clinton Cash, Peter Schweizer[,] said there needs to be a federal investigation into the Russian uranium deal then-[s]ecretary of [s]tate Hillary Clinton's State Department approved after the Clinton Foundation receiving $145 million from the shareholders of Uranium One[.] ...
Discussing the Clinton Foundation receiving $145 million from the shareholders of Uranium One, he continued, "Look[:] there are couple of things that are extremely troubling about the deal we touched on.  Number one is the amount of money – $145 million.  We are not talking about a super[-]PAC giving a million dollars to support a candidate.  We are not talking about campaign donations.  We are talking about $145 million[,] which[,] by the way[,] is 75 percent or more of the annual budget of the Clinton Foundation itself so it's a huge sum of money.  Second of all[,] we are talking about a fundamental issue of national security[,] which is uranium – it's not like oil and gas that you can find all sorts of places.  [There] are precious few places you can mine for uranium, [and] the United States is one of those areas.  And number three[:] we are talking about the Russian government.  A lot of people don't realize it now, in parts of the Midwest[,] American soil is owned by Vladimir Putin's government because this deal went through.  And in addition to the $145 million[,] Bill Clinton got half a million dollars, $500,000, for a 20-minute speech from a Russian investment bank tied to the Kremlin, two months before the State Department signed off on this deal."
As Investor's Business Daily editorialized, donations to the Clinton Foundation even played a factor in the refusal of Hillary Clinton's State Department for two years to designate Nigeria's Boko Haram as a terrorist organization:
Last May, we wondered why for two years on Hillary Clinton's watch the State Department refused to designate a Nigerian Islamist group as a terrorist organization.  This group has murdered thousands as it wages a real war on women. As Josh Rogin at the Daily Beast reports, the Clinton State Department "refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011" after the group bombed the United Nations headquarters in Abuja, Nigeria.
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., sent a letter to [s]ecretary of [s]tate John Kerry last week asking for all of Hillary's records relating to Boko Haram and her reluctance to designate it a foreign terrorist organization.
Vitter also requested all of Hillary's communications with Gilbert Chagoury, a Nigerian construction tycoon who has donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.  Vitter noted that Chagoury had a financial interest in the potential impact of designating Boko Haram a terrorist group.
Uranium One alone is an example of criminal pay-to-play, unless we are to believe that the Russians, who are the least charitable people on Earth, just woke up one morning and decided to funnel $145 million into the Clinton Foundation out of the goodness of their Bolshevik hearts.
One would think that in addition to Hillary's shenanigans, Bill Clinton's making speeches to foreign entities seeking influence with his secretary of state wife for ungodly sums while donations poured into the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments and individuals to pay, among other things, for Chelsea Clinton's wedding dress and lifestyle would be worthy of a criminal investigation.
Emails fully incriminating Hillary are part of documents obtained by Judicial Watch under a court order forcing the State Department to find the documents it said it couldn't find, didn't have, or was too understaffed to look for.
Among the examples cited by Judicial Watch in the documents:
The new documents show that Clinton donors frequently requested and received special favors from the State Department that were connected to the Clinton Foundation.
On July 14, 2009, Gordon Griffin, a[n] XL Keystone [sic] lobbyist, sent an email to Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band, asking if Band could get him into a Council on Foreign Relations dinner at which Clinton was speaking.  Band forwarded the email to [Hillary Clinton aide Huma] Abedin, saying, "Can u get him in?"  Abedin replied: "Yes will get him in."  Band was a top aide to President Bill Clinton and co-founder of Teneo.  Griffin was a major donor to Hillary Clinton's Senate and presidential campaigns[.] ...
On September 11, 2009, Terrence Duffy, chairman of futures brokerage firm CME Group, a donor to the Clinton Foundation, asked Clinton to arrange "government appointments" for him in Singapore and Hong Kong.  Clinton, using her HDR22@clintonmail.com address, forwarded the request to Abedin, "fyi."  Abedin responded to Duffy's email, saying she would "follow up" with Duffy's secretary, Joyce.  Duffy gave $4,600 to Hillary's 2008 presidential campaign; CME Group paid Hillary $225,000 for a speaking fee and has donated between $5,001 and [$]10,000 to the Clinton Foundation. ...
On May 5, 2010, major Clinton Global Initiative member, Clinton Foundation donor[,] and real estate[-]developer Eddie Trump forwarded to "Dougie" Band a request for assistance from Russian American Foundation [v]ice [p]resident Rina Kirshner to get the Russian American Foundation involved in a State Department program.  Band forwarded the request to Abedin, saying, "Can we get this done/mtg set."  As Judicial Watch previously reported, the State Department doled out more than $260,000 to the Russian American Foundation for "public diplomacy."
Major Clinton donor Bal Das, a New York financier who reportedly raised $300,000 for Hillary's 2008 presidential campaign, asked Abedin on November 11, 2009 if Hillary Clinton could address the Japan Society at its annual conference in 2010.  Clinton did speak to the Japan Society's annual conference in 2011.
Hillary Clinton and her husband used her position as secretary of state to enrich themselves personally through their Clinton Foundation, a front for a criminal shakedown of donors and influence-peddlers and buyers.  They placed American national security at risk for fun and profit.
Investigate her, and then lock her up.

DANIEL JOHN SOBIESKI - WILL HILLARY FINALLY DO TIME? THE CLOCK TICKS FOR THE FRAUDULENT CLINTON FOUNDATION SLUSH FUND

Whether it is merely the FBI trying to restore its shattered credibility or justice finally being done, the news that the pay-to-play activities of the Clinton Foundation are going to get renewed and serious attention is welcome.  The Clint...

The Clock Ticks for the Clinton Foundation



Whether it is merely the FBI trying to restore its shattered credibility or justice finally being done, the news that the pay-to-play activities of the Clinton Foundation are going to get renewed and serious attention is welcome.  The Clintons have made a career of ignoring, skirting, and breaking the law.  Up to this point, crime has paid off handsomely for the Clintons, but now they may find themselves caught between Little Rock and a hard place:
The Justice Department has launched a new inquiry into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in any pay-to-play politics or other illegal activities while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of [s]tate, law enforcement officials and a witness tell[] The Hill.
FBI agents from Little Rock, Ark., where the foundation was started, have taken the lead in the investigation and have interviewed at least one witness in the last month, and law enforcement officials said additional activities are expected in the coming weeks.
The officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the probe is examining whether the Clintons promised or performed any policy favors in return for largesse to their charitable efforts or whether donors made commitments of donations in hopes of securing government outcomes.
This should be a short investigation – Hillary Clinton is a ham sandwich waiting to be indicted.  All that should be necessary is to empanel a grand jury and read them the known facts.  The Clinton Foundation was hardly charitable except to its donors.
Any investigation should start with Haiti, where the Clinton Foundation plundered the disaster-ridden island for fun and profit.  As the Washington Free Beacon reported:
Haitian activists protested outside ... the Clinton Foundation in New York over the loss of "billions of dollars" that was meant to help rebuild after the devastating 2010 earthquake.  The activists are claiming [that] the money was stolen through the Haiti Reconstruction Commission that was headed by Bill Clinton.  In January 2015, the Clinton Foundation was the target of protests for wasting more than $10 billion and awarding contracts to non-Haitian companies.  The activists also said Haiti is a cover for foreign governments to funnel kickbacks of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.  They believe that this was done for favors that Hillary was doing for the foreign governments while she was [s]ecretary of [s]tate. "We are telling the world of the crimes that Bill and Hillary Clinton are responsible for in Haiti," said Dhoud Andre of the Committee Against Dictatorship in Haiti. 
That the Clinton Foundation's operations were nothing but a cash cow scam is seen in a brilliant analysis and exposé of its operations in Colombia, a country beset by internal strife and an ongoing battle with drug cartels.  The truth,as reported by Ken Silverman and the American Media Institute in Fusion, a joint venture of ABC and Univision, hardly Trump surrogates, explains in part how the Clintons amassed a small fortune without holding any job or running any business:
Colombia should be the Clinton Foundation's best case study.  Ground zero for the drug wars of the 1980s and [']90s, racked by uneven development and low-intensity conflict for half a century, Colombia has received more foundation money and attention than any other nation outside the United States.  Bill and Hillary Clinton have visited the country often and enjoy close relationships with members of Colombia's ruling party.  Colombia has also been home to the vast oil and natural gas holdings of the man who is reportedly the Clinton Foundation's largest individual donor, Canadian financier Frank Giustra[.] ...
Many of the Colombian "success stories" touted on the foundation's website – the ones specific enough for us to track down – were critical about the foundation's effect on their lives.  Labor leaders and progressive activists say foundation programs caused environmental harm, displaced indigenous people, and ... concentrated a larger share of Colombia's oil and natural gas reserves in the hands of Giustra[.] ...
We interviewed young women in the foundation's job-training programs; female business owners who sought help from its programs; workers who toiled for the foundation's biggest individual donor's firms; indigenous fisherm[e]n who were promised jobs and aid; and union leaders, social[] justice activists, and progressive lawmakers.  Some say they lost money.  Others said they were used as props.  Still others simply thought that the foundation had wasted a lot of their time.  "They are doing nothing for workers," one Colombian union official told us, with disgust.  "I don't even know what they are doing in this country other than exploiting poverty and extracting money."
Clinton donor Giustra benefited significantly from his association, even if the people of Colombia didn't:
When we met him (Senator Jorge Enrique Robledo) in his wood-paneled office in Colombia's [c]apitol building in May, his desk was stacked high with papers related to Pacific Rubiales's labor practices, the result of years of investigative work by his staff.  He did not see the Clinton Foundation and its partnership with Giustra's Pacific Rubiales as either progressive or positive.  "The territory where Pacific Rubiales operated," he said, thumbing through pages of alleged human[] rights violations, "was a type of concentration camp for workers." ...
In September 2005, Giustra and Clinton flew to Kazakhstan together to meet the Central Asian nation's president.  Shortly thereafter, Giustra secured a lucrative concession to mine Kazakh uranium, despite his company's lack of experience with the radioactive ore.  As Bill Clinton opened doors for Giustra, the financier gave generously to Clinton's foundation.
As the New York Times reported, this mutual back-scratching gave Clinton donor Giustra, and later Putin's Russia, control of a significant portion of the world's uranium supply:
Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan.  Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world.  And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.
Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium[-]mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic . But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections.  Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton[.] ...
Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton's charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3[-]million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month.  The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra's more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton's inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges[.] ...
In February 2007, a company called Uranium One agreed to pay $3.1 billion to acquire UrAsia.  Mr. Giustra, a director and major shareholder in UrAsia, would be paid $7.05 per share for a company that just two years earlier was trading at 10 cents per share.
Clinton played a pivotal role in the Uranium One deal, which ended up giving Russian interests control of 20 percent of our uranium supply in exchange for donations of $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.  That, ladies and gentlemen, is a federal crime.  As Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer has noted [italics ours –ed.]:
Tuesday on Fox Business Network, Lou Dobbs Tonight, Breitbart editor at large and the author of Clinton Cash, Peter Schweizer[,] said there needs to be a federal investigation into the Russian uranium deal then-[s]ecretary of [s]tate Hillary Clinton's State Department approved after the Clinton Foundation receiving $145 million from the shareholders of Uranium One[.] ...
Discussing the Clinton Foundation receiving $145 million from the shareholders of Uranium One, he continued, "Look[:] there are couple of things that are extremely troubling about the deal we touched on.  Number one is the amount of money – $145 million.  We are not talking about a super[-]PAC giving a million dollars to support a candidate.  We are not talking about campaign donations.  We are talking about $145 million[,] which[,] by the way[,] is 75 percent or more of the annual budget of the Clinton Foundation itself so it's a huge sum of money.  Second of all[,] we are talking about a fundamental issue of national security[,] which is uranium – it's not like oil and gas that you can find all sorts of places.  [There] are precious few places you can mine for uranium, [and] the United States is one of those areas.  And number three[:] we are talking about the Russian government.  A lot of people don't realize it now, in parts of the Midwest[,] American soil is owned by Vladimir Putin's government because this deal went through.  And in addition to the $145 million[,] Bill Clinton got half a million dollars, $500,000, for a 20-minute speech from a Russian investment bank tied to the Kremlin, two months before the State Department signed off on this deal."
As Investor's Business Daily editorialized, donations to the Clinton Foundation even played a factor in the refusal of Hillary Clinton's State Department for two years to designate Nigeria's Boko Haram as a terrorist organization:
Last May, we wondered why for two years on Hillary Clinton's watch the State Department refused to designate a Nigerian Islamist group as a terrorist organization.  This group has murdered thousands as it wages a real war on women. As Josh Rogin at the Daily Beast reports, the Clinton State Department "refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011" after the group bombed the United Nations headquarters in Abuja, Nigeria.
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., sent a letter to [s]ecretary of [s]tate John Kerry last week asking for all of Hillary's records relating to Boko Haram and her reluctance to designate it a foreign terrorist organization.
Vitter also requested all of Hillary's communications with Gilbert Chagoury, a Nigerian construction tycoon who has donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.  Vitter noted that Chagoury had a financial interest in the potential impact of designating Boko Haram a terrorist group.
Uranium One alone is an example of criminal pay-to-play, unless we are to believe that the Russians, who are the least charitable people on Earth, just woke up one morning and decided to funnel $145 million into the Clinton Foundation out of the goodness of their Bolshevik hearts.
One would think that in addition to Hillary's shenanigans, Bill Clinton's making speeches to foreign entities seeking influence with his secretary of state wife for ungodly sums while donations poured into the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments and individuals to pay, among other things, for Chelsea Clinton's wedding dress and lifestyle would be worthy of a criminal investigation.
Emails fully incriminating Hillary are part of documents obtained by Judicial Watch under a court order forcing the State Department to find the documents it said it couldn't find, didn't have, or was too understaffed to look for.
Among the examples cited by Judicial Watch in the documents:
The new documents show that Clinton donors frequently requested and received special favors from the State Department that were connected to the Clinton Foundation.
On July 14, 2009, Gordon Griffin, a[n] XL Keystone [sic] lobbyist, sent an email to Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band, asking if Band could get him into a Council on Foreign Relations dinner at which Clinton was speaking.  Band forwarded the email to [Hillary Clinton aide Huma] Abedin, saying, "Can u get him in?"  Abedin replied: "Yes will get him in."  Band was a top aide to President Bill Clinton and co-founder of Teneo.  Griffin was a major donor to Hillary Clinton's Senate and presidential campaigns[.] ...
On September 11, 2009, Terrence Duffy, chairman of futures brokerage firm CME Group, a donor to the Clinton Foundation, asked Clinton to arrange "government appointments" for him in Singapore and Hong Kong.  Clinton, using her HDR22@clintonmail.com address, forwarded the request to Abedin, "fyi."  Abedin responded to Duffy's email, saying she would "follow up" with Duffy's secretary, Joyce.  Duffy gave $4,600 to Hillary's 2008 presidential campaign; CME Group paid Hillary $225,000 for a speaking fee and has donated between $5,001 and [$]10,000 to the Clinton Foundation. ...
On May 5, 2010, major Clinton Global Initiative member, Clinton Foundation donor[,] and real estate[-]developer Eddie Trump forwarded to "Dougie" Band a request for assistance from Russian American Foundation [v]ice [p]resident Rina Kirshner to get the Russian American Foundation involved in a State Department program.  Band forwarded the request to Abedin, saying, "Can we get this done/mtg set."  As Judicial Watch previously reported, the State Department doled out more than $260,000 to the Russian American Foundation for "public diplomacy."
Major Clinton donor Bal Das, a New York financier who reportedly raised $300,000 for Hillary's 2008 presidential campaign, asked Abedin on November 11, 2009 if Hillary Clinton could address the Japan Society at its annual conference in 2010.  Clinton did speak to the Japan Society's annual conference in 2011.
Hillary Clinton and her husband used her position as secretary of state to enrich themselves personally through their Clinton Foundation, a front for a criminal shakedown of donors and influence-peddlers and buyers.  They placed American national security at risk for fun and profit.
Investigate her, and then lock her up.

NEIL MUNRO - CONGRESS VOWS TO CONTINUE ASSAULT ON THE AMERICAN WORKER TO KEEP THE MEXICAN HORDES JUMPING OUR BORDERS, JOBS, WELFARE OFFICES AND VOTING BOOTHS



44% OF DACA HAVE USED STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS TO STEAL OUR JOBS!

Whom Does Congress Work For?

By John Miano

CIS Immigration Blog, December 12, 2017

When Disney replaced 350 Americans with foreign workers, 

forcing them to train their replacements, did we see any Florida 

members of Congress threaten to shut down the government unless 

it was stopped?

When Southern California Edison and the University of California 

replaced Americans with foreign workers, did any California 

members of Congress threaten to shut down the government unless 

it was stopped?

When Toys "R" Us replaced Americans with foreign workers, did 

any New Jersey members of Congress threaten to shut down the 

government unless it was stopped?

When Cargill and Best Buy replaced Americans with foreign 

workers, did any Minnesota members of Congress threaten to shut 

down the government unless it was stopped?

No.

Yet when illegal aliens working under the 


DACA program are threatened with losing 

their jobs, members of Congress spring into 


Democrats Angry As Trump Restates Pro-American Immigration Principles



Pro-amnesty Democrats insisted President Donald Trump should send them a shorter list of immigration priorities — so he sent them on Friday a new copy of his October 8 priorities plus a new cost estimate for his border wall.

The estimate for the 700-mile border wall says it will cost the government $18 billion, or roughly 1 cent for every $20 spent by the federal government.
Democratic leader Sen. Dick Durbin issued an angry response to Trump’s tough negotiating style:
It’s outrageous that the White House would undercut months of bipartisan efforts by again trying to put its entire wish-list of hardline anti-immigrant bills—plus an additional $18 billion in wall funding—on the backs of these young [illegal immigrants] people.
Bipartisan negotiations continue in good faith among senators who understand what is at stake, and I will continue my efforts to reach a bipartisan agreement.
Durbin also tried to blame Trump for the Democrats’ refusal to offer any significant border security upgrade, or to accept any cutback of the annual chain immigration inflow which lowers’ Americans wages and drives up housing and rental prices:
I’ve been clear from the beginning that Senate Democrats will consider reasonable border security measures in order to pass the Dream Act into law. The Trump Administration set this crisis in motion when it ended DACA four months ago.
Durbin also revived the Democrats’ intermittent threat to shut down the government if Trump does not quit his popular, election-winning, wage-raising, pro-American immigration policies. Durbin said:
President Trump has said he may need a good government shutdown to get his wall. With this demand, he seems to be heading in that direction.
In December, Trump called the Democrats’ bluffed threat to shut down government spending if they didn’t get an amnesty.
Democrats are scrambling to find an answer to Trump’s policies, in part, because their base is protesting the loss of work-permits for almost 700,000 ‘DACA’ illegal immigrants. Durbin’s statement said:
More than 14,500 Dreamers have already lost their DACA status, and beginning on March 5th, 1,000 additional young people will lose this protection each day.
The scheduled loss of work-permits for roughly 300,000 illegals by November will help American voters switch jobs to get higher wages in the run-up to the 2018 election.
Durbin’s outburst came one day after his bipartisan group of pro-amnesty Senators split Thursday.
GOP Sen. Thom Tillis and Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford quit the group, saying Democrats refused to negotiate new security measures.
Their departure leaves Colo. Sen. Cory Gardner and Sen. Lindsey Graham as the lead GOP advocates for the Democrats’ huge, fast-track DREAM Act amnesty for up to 3.25 million illegals plus their chain-migration relatives.
Retiring GOP Sen. Jeff Flake is part of the group, and is still insisting the pro-amnesty group is making progress. According to a report in TheHill.com:
Arizona GOP Sen. Jeff Flake said that “the small group that’s been meeting — myself, and [Sens.] Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Mike Bennet (D-Colo.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — we’re very close,” to striking a deal to take care of the nearly 800,000 immigrants whose parents brought them to the U.S. illegally that were granted DACA protected status.
Flake added, “now we’ve got to sell that to more of our colleagues, but that small bipartisan group is very close.”
The political standoff will likely ensure that both parties will ask voters in November to settle their disagreement over wages, immigration, and amnesty.
According to Durbin, the new Trump document matches the immigration principles which Trump released to Americans voters on October 8.
The October document called for reductions in immigration — which would likely drive up wages — and said:
IMMIGRATION PRINCIPLES & POLICIES 
1.                  Border Security
A.    Border Wall.  Our porous southern border presents a clear threat to our national security and public safety, and is exploited by drug traffickers and criminal cartels.  The Administration therefore proposes completing construction of a wall along the southern border of the United States.
i.            Ensure funding for the southern border wall and associated infrastructure.
ii.            Authorize the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to raise, collect, and use certain processing fees from immigration benefit applications and border crossings for functions related to border security, physical infrastructure, and law enforcement.
iii.            Improve infrastructure and security on the northern border.
B.     Unaccompanied Alien Children.  Loopholes in current law prevent “Unaccompanied Alien Children” (UACs) that arrive in the country illegally from being removed.  Rather than being deported, they are instead sheltered by the Department of Health and Human Services at taxpayer expense, and subsequently released to the custody of a parent or family member—who often lack lawful status in the United States themselves.  These loopholes in current law create a dramatic pull factor for additional illegal immigration and in recent years, there has been a significant increase in the apprehensions of UACs at our southern border.  Therefore, the Administration proposes amending current law to ensure the expeditious return of UACs and family units.
i.            Amend the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008(TVRPA) to treat all UACs the same regardless of their country of origin, so long as they are not victims of human trafficking and can be safely returned home or removed to safe third countries.
ii.            Clarify that alien minors who are not UACs (accompanied by a parent or legal guardian or have a parent or legal guardian in the United States available to provide care and physical custody) are not entitled to the presumptions or protections granted to UACs.
iii.            Terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA) by passing legislation stipulating care standards for minors in custody and clarify corresponding provisions of the TVPRA that supersede the FSA.
iv.            Amend the definition of “special immigrant,” as it pertains to juveniles, to require that the applicant prove that reunification with both parents are not viable due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment and that the applicant is a victim of trafficking.  The current legal definition is abused, and provides another avenue for illicit entry.
v.            Repeal the requirement that an asylum officer have initial jurisdiction over UAC asylum applications to expedite processing.
C.     Asylum Reform.  The massive asylum backlog has allowed illegal immigrants to enter and stay in the United States by exploiting asylum loopholes.  There are more than 270,000 pending cases in the asylum backlog before USCIS, and approximately 250,000 asylum cases before EOIR.  Therefore, the Administration proposes correcting the systemic deficiencies that created that backlog.
i.            Significantly tighten standards and eliminate loopholes in our asylum system.
ii.            Elevate the threshold standard of proof in credible fear interviews.
iii.            Impose and enforce penalties for the filing of frivolous, baseless, or fraudulent asylum applications, and expand the use of expedited removal as appropriate.
iv.            Close loopholes in the law to bar terrorist aliens from entering the country and receiving any immigration benefits.
v.            Clarify and enhance the legal definition of “aggravated felony” to ensure that criminal aliens do not receive certain immigration benefits.
vi.            Expand the ability to return asylum seekers to safe third countries.
vii.            Ensure only appropriate use of parole authority for aliens with credible fear or asylum claims, to deter meritless claims and ensure the swift removal of those whose claims are denied.
viii.            Prevent aliens who have been granted asylum or who entered as refugees from obtaining lawful permanent resident status if they are convicted of an aggravated felony.
ix.            Require review of the asylee or refugee status of an alien who returns to their home country absent a material change in circumstances or country conditions.
D.    Ensure Swift Border Returns.  Immigration judges and supporting personnel face an enormous case backlog, which cripples our ability to remove illegal immigrants in a timely manner.  The Administration therefore proposes providing additional resources to reduce the immigration court backlog and ensure swift return of illegal border crossers.
i.            Seek appropriations to hire an additional 370 immigration judges.
ii.            Establish performance metrics for immigration judges.
iii.            Seek appropriations to hire an additional 1,000 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys, with sufficient support personnel.
iv.            Ensure sufficient resources for detention.
E.     Inadmissible Aliens.  The current statutory grounds for inadmissibility are too narrow, and allow for the admission of individuals who threaten our public safety.  Therefore, the Administration proposes expanding the criteria that render aliens inadmissible and ensure that such aliens are maintained in continuous custody until removal.
i.            Expand the grounds of inadmissibility to include gang membership.
ii.            Expand the grounds of inadmissibility to include those who have been convicted of an aggravated felony; identity theft; fraud related to Social Security benefits; domestic violence; child abuse; drunk driving offenses; failure to register as a sex offender; or certain firearm offenses, including the unlawful purchase, sale, possession, or carrying of a firearm.
iii.            Expand the grounds of inadmissibility to include former spouses and children of individuals engaged in drug trafficking and trafficking in persons, if the official determines the divorce was a sham or the family members continue to receive benefits from the illicit activity.
F.      Discourage Illegal Re-entry.  Many Americans are victims of crime committed by individuals who have repeatedly entered the United States illegally, which also undermines the integrity of the entire immigration system.  Therefore, the Administration proposes increasing penalties for repeat illegal border crossers and those with prior deportations.
G.    Facilitate the Removal of Illegal Aliens from Partner NationsCurrent barriers prevent the Federal Government from providing assistance to partner nations for the purpose of removing aliens from third countries whose ultimate intent is entering the United States.  Therefore, the Administration proposes authorizing DHS to provide foreign assistance to partner nations to support migration management efforts conducted by those nations.  This will allow DHS to improve the ability of Central and South American countries to curb northbound migration flows and to interrupt ongoing human smuggling, which will also substantially reduce pressures on U.S. taxpayers.
 H.    Expedited Removal.  Limited categories of aliens are currently subject to expedited removal, which erodes border integrity and control by impeding the ability of the Federal Government to efficiently and quickly remove inadmissible and deportable aliens from the United States.  The Administration seeks to expand the grounds of removability and the categories of aliens subject to expedited removal and by ensuring that only aliens with meritorious valid claims of persecution can circumvent expedited removal.
2.                  Interior Enforcement
A.    Sanctuary Cities.  Hundreds of sanctuary jurisdictions release dangerous criminals and empower violent cartels like MS-13 by refusing to turn over incarcerated criminal aliens to Federal authorities.  Therefore, the Administration proposes blocking sanctuary cities from receiving certain grants or cooperative agreements administered or awarded by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security
i.            Restrict such grants from being issued to:
a.      Any state or local jurisdiction that fails to cooperate with any United States government entity regarding enforcement of federal immigration laws;
b.      Any entity that provides services or benefits to aliens not entitled to receive them under existing Federal law; and
c.      Any state or local jurisdiction that provides more favorable plea agreements or sentencing for alien criminal defendants for the purpose of immigration consequences of convictions.
ii.            Clarify ICE’s detainer authority, and States’ and localities’ ability to honor that authority, so that States will continue to detain an individual pursuant to civil immigration law for up to 48 hours so that ICE may assume custody.
iii.            Provide indemnification for State and local governments to protect them from civil liability based solely on compliance with immigration detainers and transportation of alien detainees.
iv.            Require State and local jurisdictions to provide all information requested by ICE relating to aliens in their custody and the circumstances surrounding their detention.
v.            Clarify the definition of a criminal conviction for immigration purposes, to prevent jurisdictions from vacating or modifying criminal convictions to protect illegal immigrants, and roll back erosion of the criminal grounds of removal by courts under the “categorical approach.”
B.     Immigration Authority for States and Localities.  The prior Administration suppressed cooperative partnerships between the Federal Government and State or local governments that wanted to help with immigration enforcement, undermining the security of our communities.  Therefore, the Administration proposes enhancing State and local cooperation with Federal immigration law enforcement in order to ensure national security and public safety. 
i.            Clarify the authority of State and local governments to investigate, arrest, detain, or transfer to Federal custody aliens for purposes of enforcing Federal immigration laws when done in cooperation with DHS.
ii.            Authorize State and local governments to pass legislation that will support Federal law enforcement efforts.
iii.            Incentivize State and local governments to enter into agreements with the Federal Government regarding immigration enforcement efforts.
iv.            Provide the same extent of immunity to State and local law enforcement agencies performing immigration enforcement duties within the scope of their official role as is provided to Federal law enforcement agencies.
C.     Visa Overstays.  Visa overstays account for roughly 40 percent of illegal immigration.  The Administration therefore proposes strengthening the removal processes for those who overstay or otherwise violate the terms of their visas, and implementing measures to prevent future visa overstays which may account for a growing percentage of illegal immigration.
i.            Discourage visa overstays by classifying such conduct as a misdemeanor.
ii.            Require that all nonimmigrant visas held by an alien be cancelled when any one nonimmigrant visa held by that alien is cancelled, to ensure that if an alien abuses one type of visa, he cannot circumvent the immigration system by then relying on another type of visa to enter the United States.
iii.            Bar all visa overstays from immigration benefits for a certain period of time with no waiver.
iv.            Clarify that the government does not bear any expense for legal counsel for any visa overstay in removal or related proceedings.
v.            Require DHS to provide all available data relating to any deportable alien to the Department of Justice’s National Crime Information Center for purposes of that alien’s inclusion in the Immigration Violators File, with the exception of aliens who cooperate with DHS on criminal investigations.
vi.            Enhance the vetting of bond sponsors for those aliens who enter without inspection, to ensure that bond sponsors undergo thorough background checks prior to being eligible to post or receive a bond.
vii.            Permit the Department of State to release certain visa records to foreign governments on a case-by-case basis when sharing is in the U.S. national interest.
viii.            Permit the Department of State to review the criminal background of foreign diplomats or government officials contained in the National Crime Information Center database before visa adjudication, regardless of whether the applicant’s fingerprints are in the database.
D.    Necessary Resources.  The relatively small number of ICE officers is grossly inadequate to serve a nation of 320 million people with tens of millions of tourists and visitors crossing U.S. ports of entry every year.  Therefore, the Administration proposes providing more resources that are vitally needed to enforce visa laws, restore immigration enforcement, and dismantle criminal gangs, networks and cartels.
 i.            Seek appropriations to hire an additional 10,000 ICE officers.
ii.            Seek appropriations to hire an additional 300 Federal prosecutors to support Federal immigration prosecution efforts.
iii.            Reforms to help expedite the responsible addition of new ICE personnel.
E.     Detention Authority.  Various laws and judicial rulings have eroded ICE’s ability to detain illegal immigrants (including criminal aliens), such that criminal aliens are released from ICE custody into our communities.  Therefore, the Administration proposes terminating outdated catch-and-release laws that make it difficult to remove illegal immigrants.
i.            Ensure public safety and national security by providing a legislative fix for the Zadvydasloophole, and authorizing ICE, consistent with the Constitution, to retain custody of illegal aliens whose home countries will not accept their repatriation.
ii.            Require the detention of an alien: (1) who was not inspected and admitted into the United States, who holds a revoked nonimmigrant visa (or other nonimmigrant admission document), or who is deportable for failing to maintain nonimmigrant status; and (2) who has been charged in the United States with a crime that resulted in the death or serious bodily injury of another person.
F.      Legal Workforce.  Immigrants who come here illegally and enter the workforce undermine job opportunities and reduce wages for American workers, as does the abuse of visa programs.  Therefore, the Administration increasing employment verification and other protections for U.S. workers.
i.            Require the use of the electronic status-verification system (“E-Verify”) to ensure the maintenance of a legal workforce in the United States.
ii.            Preempt any State or local law relating to employment of unauthorized aliens.
iii.            Impose strong penalties, including debarment of Federal contractors, for failure to comply with E-Verify.
iv.            Increase penalties for any person or entity engaging in a pattern or practice of violations.
v.            Require the Social Security Administration to disclose information to DHS to be used in the enforcement of immigration laws.
vi.            Expand the definition of unlawful employment discrimination to include replacement of U.S. citizen workers by nonimmigrant workers or the preferential hiring of such foreign workers over U.S. citizen workers.
vii.            Strengthen laws prohibiting document fraud related to employment or to any other immigration benefit.
G.    Deportable Aliens.  The categories of aliens that currently qualify for deportation are insufficiently broad to remove aliens who pose a threat to the security of the American public.  Therefore, the Administration proposes expanding and clarifying the type of aliens who present a danger to Americans and should therefore be removable on an expedited basis.
i.            Expand grounds of deportability to explicitly include gang members.
ii.            Expand the grounds of deportability to include those convicted of multiple drunk driving offenses or a single offense involving death or serious injury.
iii.            Expand the grounds of deportability to include those who fail to register as a sex offender.
iv.            Clarify the technical definition of “aggravated felony” by referring to “an offense relating to” each of the categories of crimes, rather than specifying the crimes themselves.  This will ensure certain kinds of homicide, sex offenses, and trafficking offenses are encompassed within the statutory definition.
H.    Gang Members.  Today, known gang members are still able to win immigration benefits despite the dangers they pose to American society.  As such, the Administration proposes implementing measures that would deny gang members and those associated with criminal gangs from receiving immigration benefits.
I.        Visa Security Improvements.  Without sufficient resources, the State Department is hindered from adequately vetting visa applicants.  As such, the Administration proposes enhancing State Department visa and traveler security resources and authorities.
i.            Expand the Department of State’s authority to use fraud prevention and detection fees for programs and activities to combat all classes of visa fraud within the United States and abroad.
ii.            Ensure funding for the Visa Security Program and facilitate its expansion to all high-risk posts.
iii.            Increase the border crossing card fee.
iv.            Grant the Department of State authority to apply the Passport Security Surcharge to the costs of protecting U.S. citizens and their interests overseas, and to include those costs when adjusting the surcharge.
v.            Strengthen laws prohibiting civil and criminal immigration fraud and encourage the use of advanced analytics to proactively detect fraud in immigration benefit applications.
3.                  Merit-Based Immigration System
A.    Merit-Based Immigration.  The current immigration system prioritizes extended family-based chain migration over skills-based immigration and does not serve the national interest.  Decades of low-skilled immigration has suppressed wages, fueled unemployment and strained federal resources.  Therefore, the Administration proposes establishing a merit-based immigration system that protects U.S. workers and taxpayers, and ending chain migration, to promote financial success and assimilation for newcomers.
i.            End extended-family chain migration by limiting family-based green cards to spouses and minor children and replace it with a merit-based system that prioritizes skills and economic contributions over family connections.
ii.            Establish a new, points-based system for the awarding of Green Cards (lawful permanent residents) based on factors that allow individuals to successfully assimilate and support themselves financially.
iii.            Eliminate the “Diversity Visa Lottery.”
iv.            Limit the number of refugees to prevent abuse of the generous U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and allow for effective assimilation of admitted refugees into the fabric of our society.
Four million Americans turn 18 each year and begin looking for good jobs in the free market.
But the federal government inflates the supply of new labor by annually accepting more than 1 million new legal immigrants, by providing work-permits to roughly 3 million resident foreigners, and by doing little to block the employment of roughly 8 million illegal immigrants.
This Washington-imposed economic policy of mass-immigration floods the market with foreign laborspikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.
The cheap-labor policy has also reduced investment and job creation in many interior states because the coastal cities have a surplus of imported labor. For example, almost 27 percent of zip codes in Missouri had fewer jobs or businesses in 2015 than in 2000, according to a new report by the Economic Innovation Group. In Kansas, almost 29 percent of zip codes had fewer jobs and businesses in 2015 compared to 2000, which was a two-decade period of massive cheap-labor immigration.
Because of the successful cheap-labor 

strategy, wages for men have remained flat 

since 1973, and a large percentage of the 

nation’s annual income has shifted to 

investors and away from employees.

December US jobs report reveals weaker than expected growth


By Trévon Austin

6 January 2018
As the Dow Jones Industrial Average stock index continues to soar, the latest report on job growth and unemployment from the Department of Labor for December makes clear that workers continue to see little of the “recovery” from the 2008-2009 financial crisis.
According to the report, 148,000 jobs were added to the market in December, below an expected growth of 190,000 jobs, making a three-month average of 204,000 new jobs. The December total was depressed by the retail sector, which continued to hemorrhage jobs through the holiday sales period, cutting more than 20,000 jobs.
The additional jobs were enough to hold the unemployment rate steady at 4.1 percent, the same as in November, the lowest official figure since 2000. Finally, average hourly wages rose by nine cents to $26.63, a 2.5 percent increase from 2016.
Despite the weaker than expected jobs report, stock prices shot up, with the Dow Jones ending the day up more than 220 points, the S&P 500 up by nearly 20 points and the Nasdaq up more than 58 points.
The New York Times suggested that the latest jobs report indicates “a year of increasing opportunities for American workers.” Construction jobs increased by 210,000 last year, and manufacturing added 196,000 jobs. This trend is being used to herald a potential “blue-collar boom.”

However, the decline in the official unemployment rate and the number of jobs added over the last year do not reflect improved conditions for the working class. The reality for millions of workers is austerity, underemployment, and wages that are not keeping up with the rising cost of living.

The slight rise in the average wage is essentially meaningless, as the median wage in the United States has remained virtually unchanged since the 1970s, only rising by 0.2 percent per year when adjusted for inflation.
According to a report released by the Department of Labor last month, when accounting for inflation and other factors, the real average hourly wage was just $10.72. This figure accounts for employees in industries that include approximately four-fifths of total employment, such as manufacturing, construction and service industries.
Furthermore, the underemployment rate, which encompasses unemployed workers looking for work and part-time workers looking for full-time jobs, rose to 8.1 percent in December. Approximately 4.9 million American workers remain stuck in part time positions despite their desire for better work.
A study by economists Lawrence Katz of Harvard University and Alan Krueger at Princeton University revealed that the proportion of American workers engaged in “alternative work” increased from 10.7 percent to 15.9 percent from 2005 to 2015. Alternative work is described as temporary or unsteady employment, such as contract work. A staggering 94 percent of job growth during that period was in alternative work.
In other words, nearly all of the 10 million jobs created in the 10-year period were temporary, and the trend likely continues today. The same policies used to promote economic/job growth in the Obama era, pumping surreal amounts of money into Wall Street, are being continued under Trump with trillions in tax cuts for corporations and the rich.
With the ever-increasing cost of living and stagnant wages, those stuck in part-time work must often work multiple jobs to make ends meet. Such jobs are typically low-wage, and offer no benefits such as health care or a retirement plan. Having to work more than one job is mentally and physically exhausting for these workers and leaves little time for family, leisure, education, or the ability to look for a better job.
The real conditions facing millions of workers is further reflected by the continuing wave of retail store closures and a decline in auto sales.
Economists predict that thousands of retail stores will close in 2018, continuing the trend from last year when a host of retail chains closed 8,000 stores nationwide. Sears Holding announced on Thursday that it would be closing 64 Kmart locations and 39 Sears stores following weaker than expected in-store holiday sales. The wave of closures is mostly due to the rise of e-commerce, particularly giants such as Amazon, which heavily exploits its workforce.
According to Business Insider, large department stores, known as “anchor stores,” are particularly at risk. Macy’s announced that it will be closing 11 stores, bringing the total closed in recent years to 81 out of an announced planned total of 100.
Shopping malls rely on anchor stores such as Macy’s to attract the majority of their customers, and attract commerce to smaller businesses nearby. The report indicates 310 out of 1,300 malls are at risk of losing an anchor tenant. The loss in traffic to smaller businesses also spells more job losses in retail.
In another indication of the dismal state of the real economy, US car sales fell in 2017 for the first time since 2009. Annual sales fell 1.8 percent to 17.2 million vehicles according to figures from Autodata. The decline is attributable to the rise in average car prices and the stagnation of wages. The average amount paid for a car was $35,082, up 2.5 percent from last year.
In 2009, annual auto sales declined by 21 percent to 10.3 million cars amid the financial crisis, marking a 27-year low. The fall in sales drove automakers GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy, and they received a massive bailout from the Obama administration on the condition they slash auto workers’ wages and increase the number of part-time and temporary workers.



"Congress must prioritize four repairs for the immigration system before contemplating any DACA-style amnesty negotiation, said Brat: 1. Ending chain migration and the visa lottery; 2. Mandating employer use of E-Verify; 3. Construction of a southern border wall; and 4. Interior enforcement of immigration law." REP. DAVE BRAT

No decline in Michigan poverty since the Great Recession

By Debra Watson
28 December 2017
Despite a drastic fall in the official unemployment rate for the state the same percentage of Michigan households are living below the poverty line today as did after the onset of the Great Recession in December of 2007.
According to new income and poverty statistics from the US Census Bureau released in early December, Michigan’s poverty rate was 16.3 percent at the end of 2016, the same annual rate calculated as an average for the five-years from January 2008 through December 2012. The current rate is not much lower than the peak annual poverty rate of 16.9 percent reported for the five-year period of 2010-14.
Unemployment has been below five percent in the state since the end of 2015, down from a post-recession peak of 14.5 percent in 2009. However, this month Michigan unemployment ticked up slightly, to 4.5 percent.
The proliferation of low-paying temporary and part-time jobs in the auto industry, a process enshrined in the sellout contract imposed by the UAW in 2015, has been a key factor in the general decline in living standards in Michigan. According to data recently reported by the Michigan Department of Technology, Management and Budget wages in manufacturing jobs in the state are down by $2.00 an hour, from a high of $22.73 before the crash.
Behind the apparent contradiction between declining unemployment rates and the ongoing high official poverty level is the massive and increasing income and wealth inequality in the US. As Karl Marx established over a century ago, poverty at one pole of society is complemented by obscene levels of wealth at the other. The three top American plutocrats, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, investor Warren Buffet and the co-founder of Microsoft, Bill Gates, now own more wealth than the bottom half of the US population, 160 million people.
Like Trump’s glorification of the ever-rising bubble in the stock market, Obama pointed to job growth when characterizing his administration as “the best time to be alive.” Michigan’s Republican Governor Rick Snyder and the Democratic Mayor of Detroit Mike Duggan have incessantly boasted of the declining unemployment and job creation as signals of a recovering economy.
Unsurprisingly, the Wall Street Journal recently touted that Michigan had “increased sharply” its “capital investment and hiring.” The paper praised policies that repealed personal-property taxes for manufacturers and right-to-work legislation, policies taken from the Republican playbook and implemented in the state.
The latest Census figures demonstrate that poverty remains a chronic condition in Michigan despite this supposed resurgence in the state’s economy. Even so, the official poverty rate grossly underestimates the depth of economic want.
In the US the official poverty level is not measured as a percentage of median income, as it is in many other developed countries, but on a far narrower measure related to food costs. Poverty for a family of three is pegged at a derisory $20,000 a year, far below sixty percent of Michigan’s current median household income of about $52,400 and drastically below the amount needed to support a family.
Sustained high rates of poverty over nearly a decade have had devastating personal implications. A family’s meagre resources can dwindle as successive years’ income deficits are never offset with rising income. They have had an equally devastating societal impact.
The five-year Census Bureau American Community Series (ACS) rolling averages from the December report supplement annual poverty and income statistics released by the Census’ Current Population Series in September. The greater sample sizes in the five-year averages allow for more accuracy and sufficient data to communities with smaller populations.
There are smaller communities in the state where there are indications poverty has increased dramatically. The large increases in poverty in these small communities indicate how a relatively small economic disruption can have a huge effect on living standards for a village or town.
For example, some villages in the Upper Peninsula with populations in the hundreds saw double digit increases. In Baldwin, which is located toward the middle of the state’s lower peninsula, poverty increased from a third of its one thousand plus residents in poverty in 2008-2012 to well over half now.
The December ACS release shows that in the five-year look-back from the end of 2016, there was an increase in poverty in half of Michigan’s communities of all sizes over the average recorded in the five years that followed the onset of the recession. Communities located throughout the state saw such increases.
Flint and other cities such as Jackson, Lansing, Detroit, Muskegon, Bay City and Ann Arbor showed small increases in their poverty rate. Other cities with comparable population sizes had poverty rates that declined, albeit slightly, including Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo and Saginaw.
Detroit, Michigan’s largest city, recorded a shockingly high official poverty rate of a 39.4 percent using the five-year ACS average. The city’s poverty rate was one percentage point higher than the 38.1 percent average for the years 2008 through 2012.
Whole cities with substantially sized populations like Detroit and Flint have average poverty rates that are more than twice the state poverty rate. The high rates in some cities reach the level of poverty concentration that is utilized by social scientists to identify neighborhoods endemic to urban areas where pervasive poverty seriously debilitates families and social structure.
Inequality is driving communities to be divided by income like never before in recent history. The growth in concentrated poverty nationwide was noted in a Brookings Institution report last year. According to the report, between 2005-09 and 2010-14 the number of such high poverty neighborhoods in the US, where more than forty percent of households are below the official poverty line, grew by more than 4,300.
By the end of 2016 Detroit, along with Cleveland, had a poverty rate a full ten percentage points higher than the city with the third highest poverty rate in the country, Philadelphia. Detroit Democratic Mayor Mike Duggan’s recent re-election campaign relied on the narrative of an ongoing “Detroit comeback” based on highly concentrated downtown real estate investment.
Detroit’s poverty statistics present a window into the effect of exploding growth in temporary and part-time jobs and parallel wage stagnation and how it has affected workers struggling in the lowest-paying jobs.
Thirty-six percent of Detroit residents now work for less than $15,000 a year. Twenty-five percent of residents do not have access to a car. Industrial jobs have hemorrhaged out of the city over the nine years since the recession. Suburban jobs require serious time and expense to reach as the mass transit system in the area is barely functional.
Two of the cities in Michigan where poverty rates were even higher than Detroit’s are actually enclaves of Detroit and would cause a higher rate and higher increase in the poverty rate for the Detroit inner-city area if their data was included. Hamtramck, a small enclave of Detroit has a poverty rate of 49.7 percent, up from 44.6 percent in the years immediately after the recession started. The other municipal enclave, Highland Park, has a poverty rate of 51.1 percent, up from 46.7 percent in the earlier years.


A Tale of Two Op-Eds

By Jason Richwine

The Corner at National Review Online, December 21, 2017

How about restricting low-skill immigration to encourage 

recruitment of Americans? No, Furman says, because — well, 

actually, he does not mention immigration at all, not even to 

dismiss its importance. Omitting the i-word in discussions of labor-

force dropout is an unfortunate habit on both the left and the right. 

Amy Wax and I wrote our Inquirer op-ed (based on a much longer 

essay in American Affairs) to show that employers turned to 

immigrants as the native work ethic declined. As evidence, we 

point both to the much higher labor-force participation of low-skill 

immigrants compared to low-skill natives, as well as to the near-

universal preference expressed by employers for immigrant labor. 

Restricting the flow of foreign workers would generate a major 

incentive for business owners, politicians, and opinion leaders to 

reintegrate American men into the labor force. It is, in our opinion, 



Study Shows E-Verify's Effectiveness... 


WHICH IS WHY THEY DON'T USE IT!



By Preston Huennekens

CIS Immigration Blog, December 8, 2017

Their study indicates that E-Verify is one of the most important enforcement tools available to states that wish to reduce their illegal alien populations. Research shows that most illegal migration is for economic reasons, and that the adoption of E-Verify and other worksite enforcement measures effectively blocks illegal aliens from procuring employment, thereby preventing many from settling down in the United States. Faced with mandatory E-Verify, the study shows that many aliens either returned to their home countries or traveled to other states that did not have employment verification regulations.
. . .
https://cis.org/Huennekens/Study-Shows-EVerifys-Effectiveness



Whom Does Congress Work For?

By John Miano

CIS Immigration Blog, December 12, 2017

When Disney replaced 350 Americans with foreign workers, 

forcing them to train their replacements, did we see any Florida 

members of Congress threaten to shut down the government unless 

it was stopped?

When Southern California Edison and the University of California 

replaced Americans with foreign workers, did any California 

members of Congress threaten to shut down the government unless 

it was stopped?

When Toys "R" Us replaced Americans with foreign workers, did 

any New Jersey members of Congress threaten to shut down the 

government unless it was stopped?

When Cargill and Best Buy replaced Americans with foreign 

workers, did any Minnesota members of Congress threaten to shut 

down the government unless it was stopped?

No.

Yet when illegal aliens working under the 


DACA program are threatened with losing 

their jobs, members of Congress spring into