Home Blog Page 566

United Nations Control of Law Enforcement in the US

UN Control of Law Enforcement in the US

300x200_george-soros

Laura Ingraham posted a story on her website this past week by Robert Romano about the UN’s call for the nationalization of the US police as outlined by Barack Obama. The left-wing “Snopes” then came out with a rebuke of her article, calling it FALSE, stating it was merely a consent decree issued for reforms, a common practice.
The Ingraham posting they objected to included the following:
“The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice has provided oversight and recommendations for improvement of police services in a number of cities with consent decrees. This is one of the most effective ways to reduce discrimination in law enforcement and it needs to be beefed up and increased to cover as many of the 18,000-plus local law enforcement jurisdictions.”
That was stated by UN reporter Maina Kai on July 27, a representative of the U.N. Human Rights Council, who made the comments during a US tour.
There is unquestionably a takeover of our local police under way in most large US cities and in smaller municipalities with government lawyers out of the DoJ civil rights division forcing dramatic changes on our local police and corrections departments. The police can’t take one step without consulting the civil rights lawyers once they take over and “takeover” is the right word.
The DoJ is in Indiana, LA, New Jersey (Newark and Camden), Boston, Massachusetts, Sacramento, California, Hartford, Connecticut, Madison, Wisconsin, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Salt Lake City, Utah, Charlotte, North Carolina, New Orleans, Louisiana, Ferguson, Missouri, Chicago, Illinois, Miami, Florida, Baltimore, Maryland, Stockton, California, Birmingham, Alabama, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and many other cities and locales.
The Obama leftists are retraining them and the police can’t breathe without asking their permission first. It not only puts a chill on actual policing, it is doing what it’s meant to do — nationalizing them.
From nationalized police, globalists like Obama and Hillary want to move towards a UN-dominated police force.
That is what the 21st century police task force is about and that is what Loretta Lynch’s UN global police network on US soil is about. It transforms the loyalty of police from the people to the central government.
Listen to constitutional lawyer KrisAnn Hall:

The process for the nationalization of police originally began with six volunteer cities who were bullied into it but it now begins with the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice filing a lawsuit in federal court against a city, county, or state, alleging constitutional and civil rights violations by the police or at a corrections facility.
They do this under a section of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which grants the attorney general the power to prosecute law enforcement misconduct.
 
The local police department then agrees to the finding of the courts which means they must exist under a broad federal court order that imposes onerous regulations on local police, regulations that have little to do with policing and more to do with following leftist mandates, leftists who hate policing.
The very policing that has been reducing crime over the last three decades is being unraveled by goons from the left.
The takeover of police is happening under our noses and no one is railing against it. Police department after police department is falling.
Legitimate use of force is being banned, searches are being lobotomized, and onerous regulations are tying the hands of police to federal bureaucrats in DC.
The fact that the human rights abusers in the joke of a UN Human Rights Council is cheerleading a takeover of local police should tell everyone all they need to know.
The UN human rights abusers want to see the end of local government and hope for an all-powerful leftist, corrupt government in the US, a government like the rest of the world.
In April, 2015, at the kickoff of his National Action Network’s annual convention, Al Sharpton, an anti-police, racist advisor to Barack Obama, called for the nationalization of police.
“There must be national policy and national law on policing,” Rev. Al said, as The Observer reported.
“We can’t go from state to state, we’ve got to have national law to protect people against these continued questions.”
His audience applauded his speech. The audience included leftists and sketchy politicians including leftists Mayor Bill de Blasio, Congressman Charles Rangel, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, city Comptroller Scott Stringer and state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli.
“We commend them (the officials who arrested and charged the officer), but we cannot have a justice system that hopes we have a mayor in the right city or a police chief,” he said. “We have to have one policy that is national.”
This was after the Charleston murders. Sheriff Clarke weighed in.

Congressional partisan and seriously vicious racist, Elijah Cummings sent a letter the end of August in 2014 to President Obama demanding a police czar and national regulations that would in effect nationalize local police forces.
“The administration must quickly establish a national commission to review existing police policies and practices,” the letter reads. “And identify the best policies and practices that can prevent more Fergusons and vastly improve policing in communities across the nation.”
The letter calls for the appointment of a federal czar within the Justice Department to monitor and oversee local police departments that receive federal funding.
The letter claims “systemic racial bias”, using the Ferguson case as an example and while also acknowledging the facts in the Brown case are unclear. They want control over hiring and firing in the local police organizations by implementing national standards. The czar would constantly oversee local law enforcement and new rules and regulations would be passed non-stop. It would be another uncontrollable and overly-large and powerful executive branch agency.
Ferguson was created by George Soros and his organization MORE. They paid violent protesters to stir up trouble after the Trayvon Martin situation didn’t work out because the killer wasn’t white and he wasn’t a cop.
It was to be used for the purpose of controlling the police, no other.
This was in collaboration with Barack Obama who meets with the violent protesters in the White House, forcing police chiefs to take them seriously at these meetings.
Hillary’s biggest bundler is George Soros and she has every intention of following through on the nationalization of police.
She refused to have uniformed police on the DNC Convention floor, recently told the largest national police union she would not seek their endorsement, and she has supported every one of these Obama anti-police initiatives.
While this goes on, Congress appears to be oblivious.
Read about the UN Global Network on US soil:

U.S. Attorney Looking Into Clinton Foundation after block by DOJ/Obama

Editors Note:

Nixon deletes 30 seconds of a recording
Clinton’s are above the law so far. The US. attorney from N.Y. may change this finally. Lie after lie to the FBI, Congress, and the American people go without any consequence. The Clinton political protection rivals that of a dictator controlling everything including the media. The Clinton’s will get you out of the picture one way or another using any and all methods to eliminate the problem.
Corruption has been part of their political lives from the very beginning. Look how the media rips apart anything Trump says and never challenged Hillary on anything. Could it be that the Clinton’s have a strangle hold on the media coupled with their socialist leanings.

Report: Multiple FBI investigations underway into Clinton Foundation corruption


Videos are at the bottom of this article

Justice Department Prevented FBI Probe Of Clinton Foundation; Reporters Slam State Department Stonewalling

For an increasingly vocal group in this country – that sees ‘the establishment’ for what it is – it may not come as a total shock thatCNN is reporting that The (Clinton-appointee-Loretta-Lynch-run) Department of Justice has “pushed back” against The FBI‘s desires to begin a probe to investigate whether there was a criminal conflict of interest with the State Department and the Clinton Foundation during Clinton’s tenure.
Officials from the FBI and Department of Justice met several months ago to discuss opening a public corruption case into the Clinton Foundation, a US official has told CNN…

At the time, three field offices were in agreement an investigation should be launched after the FBI received notification from a bank of suspicious activity from a foreigner who had donated to the Clinton Foundation, according to the official.
 
FBI officials wanted to investigate whether there was a criminal conflict of interest with the State Department and the Clinton Foundation during Clinton’s tenure.

Makes perfect sense right? But before we go on, as a gentle reminder – it was then President Bill Clinton that gave Loretta Lynch her big break, nominating her in 1999 to serve as US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York... “probably nothing”
So with that said, guess what happened next?

The Department of Justice had looked into allegations surrounding the foundation a year earlier after the release of the controversial book “Clinton Cash,” but found them to be unsubstantiated and there was insufficient evidence to open a case.

As so as a result…

DOJ officials pushed back against opening a case during the meeting earlier this year.
 
Some also expressed concern the request seemed more political than substantive, especially given the timing of it coinciding with the investigation into the private email server and Clinton’s presidential campaign.

For there to be criminal conflict of interest, there would have to be evidence showing a government employee received something of value in exchange, such as a job post-employment or money. But, as CNN points out,

There doesn’t appear to be anything so far suggesting that in the newly released heavily redacted emails from Judicial Watch, but those emails do raise questions about whether the relationship between the State Department and Clinton Foundation was too cozy, particularly after Clinton pledged she would not be involved with the foundation when she became secretary of state in an effort to prevent an inappropriate relationship.

 
In a case where there’s a possible conflict of interest that’s not necessarily criminal, the inspector general can look into it and take an administrative remedy if necessary.
 
The State Department OIG has been looking into connections between the State Department and Clintonduring her term as Secretary of State since earlier this year, but has not said anything about the matter.

And it is this stonewalling in the face of clear evidence of the potential for ‘inappropriate relationships’ that has pushed a normaly docile press corps to its breaking point with The State Department. As Mediaite details, having refused to comment – other than the prepared party-line bullshit – when asked straightforward questions with regard the potential for conflicts of interest raised by the emails, reporters confronted State spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau…

Three separate reporters – starting with NBC’s Abigail Williams – asked Trudeau about whether there was any improper relationship between State and the Clinton Foundation.
 
Trudeau repeatedly downplayed the emails and said the department is “regularly in touch” with a wide range of people.
 

 
One reporter pointed out that Clinton had “made a pledge” not to involve herself with the foundation while she was Secretary of State. Trudeau shot back that the agreement did not preclude others from talking to foundation staff.
 
At one point, as another reporter – the AP’s Matt Lee – was getting frustrated with the lack of answers, he said this:I’m sorry, are you – am I not speaking English? Is this – I mean, is it coming across as foreign – I’m not asking you if – no one is saying it’s not okay or it’s bad for the department to get a broad variety of input from different people. Asking – the question is whether or not you have determined that there was nothing improper here.

Enjoy…

So – to summarize – we have hard evidence of the potential for an inappropriate relationship between Hillary Clinton’s State Department and The Clinton Foundation – after she had pledged that this would not occur. We have The Justice Department  – led by Clinton appointee Loretta Lynch – implicitly blocking The FBI’s probe of The Clinton Foundation’s dealings (for, among other reasons, the timing could be viewed as “politically motivated.” We have a State Department Inspector General who is silent.. and a State Department public relations person who has stonewalled so much, even the American press corps has grown frustrated… and the mainstream media on TV will be running stories on Trump’s poll numbers, his apparent ‘resignation’ to losing, and his “friends and family” economic plan.
Is it any wonder an increasingly frustrated majority of Americans do not trust Hillary, the establishment, and the status quo’s American Dream? Simply put, the lengths by which strings are being pulled to ensure a Clinton presidency may well turn out to the straw that broke the camel’s back of public restraint… especially if GDP, productivity, US corporate revenues, and construction spending is a more accurate picture of economic reality than the goal-seeked narrative-confirming payrolls data.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd7vY1LCYpk

Email Exposes Billionaire Globalist Soros as Hillary Clinton’s Puppet Master

POLITICS

WikiLeaks’ Email Exposes Billionaire Globalist Soros as Hillary Clinton’s Puppet Master

clitnon-soros

By: Jay Syrmopoulos via thefreethoughtproject.com
Washington, D.C. – Contained within WikiLeaks’ recent release of hacked DNC emails is a message from billionaire globalist financier George Soros, to Hillary Clinton while she was U.S. Secretary of State, that clearly reveals Clinton as a puppet of the billionaire class.

Found within the WikiLeaks’ Hillary Clinton email archive is an email with the subject ‘Unrest in Albania,’ in which Soros makes clear to Clinton that “two things need to be done urgently.” He then directs the Secretary of State to “bring the full weight of the international community to bear on Prime Minister Berisha” and “appoint a senior European official as mediator.” Revealing the influence he wields within the corridors of power, Soros then provides Secretary of State Clinton with three names from which to choose. Unsurprisingly, Clinton acquiesced and chose one of the officials recommended by Soros — Miroslav Lajcak.
Cpl769bWAAAIsmO
This is standard operating procedure for Soros. Anyone familiar with the history of the Soros Open Society Foundations in Eastern Europe and around the world since the late 1980’s, will know that his supposedly philanthropic “democracy-building” projects in Poland, Russia, or Ukraine in the 1990’s allowed Soros the businessman to literally plunder the former communist countries wealth, according to the New Eastern Outlook.
Soros-affiliated organizations are deeply connected to numerous color revolutions, the Arab Spring, and a number of other uprisings across the world. They have been intimately involved in the coup that took place in Ukraine, and subsequent ratcheting up of Cold War tensions with Russia.
In this particular instance, puppet master Soros instructs the U.S. Secretary of State that “the U.S. and European Union must work in complete harmony over this,” exposing how far his influence in international relations extends.
With the recent revelations about the pay for play scheme between the Clinton Foundation, numerous donors, and the State Department on display in the latest release of Clinton emails by the Judicial Watch organization, it has become exceedingly apparent that the U.S. policy under Clinton is variable depending upon whether you have contributed to the Clinton Foundation.

Emails reveal Clinton Foundation tieshttp://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/08/10/inside-the-batch-of-clinton-emails-lead-griffin-dnt.cnn 

Photo published for State Dept. discussed favor for Clinton foundation donor - CNN Video

State Dept. discussed favor for Clinton foundation donor – CNN Video

CNN’s Drew Griffin explains the connections between Clinton family and aides, donors named in new emails sent during Clinton’s time as Secretary of State.

edition.cnn.com

 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
This is standard operating procedure for Soros. Anyone familiar with the history of the Soros Open Society Foundations in Eastern Europe and around the world since the late 1980’s, will know that his supposedly philanthropic “democracy-building” projects in Poland, Russia, or Ukraine in the 1990’s allowed Soros the businessman to literally plunder the former communist countries wealth, according to the New Eastern Outlook.
Soros-affiliated organizations are deeply connected to numerous color revolutions, the Arab Spring, and a number of other uprisings across the world. They have been intimately involved in the coup that took place in Ukraine, and subsequent ratcheting up of Cold War tensions with Russia.
In this particular instance, puppet master Soros instructs the U.S. Secretary of State that “the U.S. and European Union must work in complete harmony over this,” exposing how far his influence in international relations extends.
With the recent revelations about the pay for play scheme between the Clinton Foundation, numerous donors, and the State Department on display in the latest release of Clinton emails by the Judicial Watch organization, it has become exceedingly apparent that the U.S. policy under Clinton is variable depending upon whether you have contributed to the Clinton Foundation.

War on Taxpayers: Illinois’ Rigged Elections

Pat Headshot

War on Taxpayers: Illinois’ Rigged Elections

By Pat Hughes
 
Long before Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz were colluding with MSNBC to tilt the Democratic Presidential Primary to Hillary, the Chicago Machine was manipulating the outcome of election after election after election. Most famously, the first Mayor Daley was widely believed to have rigged the 1960 Presidential Election in favor of John F. Kennedy. It’s the Chicago Way, after all. And, it is still alive and well in Illinois. No longer content to merely buy votes or add the dearly departed to the roll of eligible voters, Democrats recently wielded their super-majority power in Springfield to codify their tradition of election day malfeasance.
 

 
 
In 2014, Illinois Democrats, led by Mike Madigan and an outgoing Governor Pat Quinn, enacted (on a straight party-line vote) a system for Election Day voter registration exclusively designed to increase the number of Democrat voters. The scheme requires the twenty Illinois counties with 100,000 or more residents to offer Election Day voter registration at all polling places. However, the law does not require the eighty-two counties with less than 100,000 residents to offer Election Day voter registration at all polling places – making it more difficult for people to register and vote in some areas of the state than in others.
 
The measure is brazenly political. According to a lawsuit filed last week by the Liberty Justice Center, Democratic candidates already perform significantly better in high-population counties. In statewide elections from 2004 through 2014, Democratic candidates received more than three fifths (62.1%) of the two party vote in counties with more than 100,000 residents. During that same time, Republican candidates received 54.1% of the vote in lower population counties. Thus, the Democrats’ Election Day Registration scheme will increase the rate and number of Democratic voters relative to Republican voters, by ensuring that Democratic voters have more places to register and vote.
 
It’s just one more part of a rigged system designed to help the powerful stay in power so they can wreak more havoc on those of us who play by the rules.
 
Under Illinois Democrats, the state’s security and productivity have been decimated. Yet they persist by any means – regardless of whose rights they trample and whose lives they decimate. Sure, we won the Governor’s Office. But unless the people of Illinois find the will to end the reign of the legislative despots who have conspired to rig everything – even who gets to vote when and where – we will never break Illinois’ fall.
 
From now until Election Day, we must work to elect new legislators to the Illinois General Assembly. Legislators who are neither beholden to those in power or afraid to demolish the status quo. Legislators who believe in free markets, free minds and smaller government. Legislators who know they work for us. We have been pushed around for far too long. It’s time we pushed back.
 
Related
 
Pat Hughes talks to AM-560′s Dan Proft and Amy Jacobson about Illinois Election Day Voter Registration.
 

Election Day Rules in Illinois favor Madigan Democrats

In 2014, Illinois Democrats, led by Mike Madigan and an outgoing Governor Pat Quinn, enacted (on a straight party-line vote) a system for Election Day voter registration exclusively designed to increase the number of Democrat voters…the measure is brazenly political. Patrick Hughes, co-founder of the Liberty Justice Center, joined Dan Proft and Amy Jacobson to discuss.
Watch the interview now and let us know what you think on Facebook and Twitter using #UpstreamIdeas.

Of H1-B Visas For White Collar Tech Workers, 70 Percent Have Gone To India

Of H1-B Visas For White Collar Tech Workers, 70 Percent Have Gone To India

The H1-B visa continues to be a source of controversy, especially as more stories emerge about American workers being displaced by non-US citizens, a policy explicitly prohibited.  That as many as 70% of H1-B recipients are from India and that approximately 80 percent have been men may further undermine support for the program. JL
John Miano and Ian Smith commnet in the Daily Caller:

Between FY2013 and May of this year, almost one million H-1B petitions for imported white collar-workers were approved by DHS officials. And of all those successful petitions, a whopping 70 percent went to white collar-workers from India.
Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon hosted a mini-conference aimed at building awareness of the supposed lack of tech-education among America’s youth. The policy-push comes off Microsoft’s ‘National Talent Strategy’ hatched a few years back; an initiative which the company’s own general counsel apparently admitted was nothing but a ‘manufactured crisis’ really geared to serve the industry’s H-1B immigration agenda. Indeed, if America really did have an ‘education crisis’ in the STEM-fields, why do so many of the hundreds of thousands of H-1B professionals imported here  every year come from places that do far worse educationally than we do?
The H-1B program was created in 1990 following claims from the then-brand new tech lobby that American professionals with sufficient tech-skills were in short supply. Twenty-five years on, that labor market-shortage has apparently still not been corrected with the industry spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year lobbying Congress to import more and more tech-professionals from abroad. But this recent push of the ‘K-12 crisis’-narrative may be signalling a messaging-pivot from the industry. This would only make sense. With negative stories abound in the media this past election cycle, from lawsuits and congressional inquiries into Disney and SoCal Edison’s mass layoffs to the flurry of bills being introduced to curb H-1B abuses, even reliably globalist news outlets such as the New York Times and Huffington Post have come around on this issue. Recently, the latter attacked top officials within the Obama State Department for fast-tracking thousands of Indian H-1B visa applications in 2011 in violation of federal law.
The Indian allegation is an important one. Recently, the Immigration Reform Law Institute obtained government records showing that between FY2013 and May of this year, almost one million H-1B petitions for imported white collar-workers were approved by DHS officials. And of all those successful petitions, a whopping 70 percent went to white collar-workers from India. This isn’t exactly surprising. BigTech loves Indian workers; not only because English is India’s national language, but because the workforce there is young (and therefore cheap). Unsurprisingly then, according to DHS-data almost three-quarters of petitions awarded to professionals in 2011 went to those aged between 25 and 34—Gender discrimination’s also likely. Although DHS says it doesn’t track gender-data, one labor association’s estimated that at least 80 percent of H-1B petitions go to men.

But if the H-1B program really is meant to correct the failings of our education system, as BigTech’s new messaging-push implies, why is it importing so many people from India? According to results from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a global standardized math and science assessment sponsored by the OECD, India scored almost dead last among the 74 countries tested. The results were apparently so embarrassing, the country pulled out of the program all together. Not surprisingly then, there isn’t a single Indian university that appears within the top 250 spots of the World University Rankings Survey. And unlike American bachelor’s degrees, obtaining a bachelor’s in India takes only three years of study.


Ways Hillary’s Pay-To-Play State Department Was Corrupt

100 Million “Huge” Ways Hillary’s Pay-To-Play State Department Was Corrupt

HillaryPhone-small

Even a huge storm can disappear on the vastness of the ocean, and this amazing story of corruption in Hillary’s State Department can vanish in the boundless volume of Trump news. But it shouldn’t. This is a big deal.
In a new batch of emails released on Tuesday, watchdog group Judicial Watch revealed an incredible scheme to reward big Clinton Foundation donors with lucrative contracts and favors using Hillary’s State Department as the graft ATM, reports show. As the New York Post writes on Thursday morning, it’s not just the one incident that broke through on cable news, but rather a “huge” number of recipients of Clinton influence peddling.
The shady Lebanese-Nigerian businessman who got Hillary Clinton’s State Department to arrange a high-level meeting was only one of a dizzying number of big ­donors to the Clinton Foundation to score government favors.
The list includes high rollers whose relationships with the Clintons made them even richer; countries with dubious human-rights records; and companies looking to grease the skids to get an edge on the competition.

Included in the new document production is a 2009 email in which Band, directs Abedin and Mills to put Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire and Clinton Foundation donor Gilbert Chagoury in touch with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon. Band notes that Chagoury is “key guy there [Lebanon] and to us,” and insists that Abedin call Amb. Jeffrey Feltman to connect him to Chagoury.
Chagoury is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton and a top donor to the Clinton Foundation. He has appeared near the top of the Foundation’s donor list as a $1 million to $5 million contributor, according to foundation documents. He also pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative.

The Clinton folks, with the explicit assistance of New York Timesspin doctors (I mean just look at that headline), tried to explain this away as merely inquiring about an election, but the New York Post elaborates:

It wasn’t long before Chagoury had an appointment with Jeffrey Feltman, the former US ambassador to Lebanon.
A rep for Clinton claimed Wednesday that Chagoury simply wanted to talk about the upcoming Lebanese election.
But Chagoury was also a key financial backer of pro-Hezbollah politician Michel Aoun, who was running for parliament on the Hezbollah-aligned bloc, according to multiple press accounts.
A close friend of Bill Clinton, Chagoury struck a plea deal on money-laundering charges in Switzerland in 2000 and was fined $66 million.
The e-mails between State ­Department aides and foundation staffers were hardly unique — the department estimated the number at more than 12,000.

Remember, Hillary specifically vowed to keep Foundation matters separate from her State Department work. Twelve thousand emails? That’s not separate. That’s cahoots.
As Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton put it, the Chagoury incident alone is “a violation of that agreement on its face.” But it wasn’t alone.
More:

Frank Giustra, a billionaire mining magnate from Vancouver, pledged $100 million to the foundation in 2005 — and then reaped a fortune from the relationship.
Giustra had dinner in 2010 with Bill and Hillary Clinton right before the Clintons met with the president of Colombia.
Shortly afterward, a company Giustra partially owned acquired the lucrative rights to conduct logging operations in an ecologically sensitive area along the ­Colombian coast.
Giustra and Bill Clinton also jetted off to Kazakhstan in 2005 to meet with President Nursultan Nazarbayev, and Giustra’s mining company later signed a deal giving him stakes in three state-run uranium mines in the country.
The mines were acquired by the Russian atomic-energy agency, Rosatom, in a deal that got State Department approval on Hillary’s watch.

He pledged $100 million to the Clinton Foundation and then made a fortune off them. How does anyone need this spelled out for them? Money of this magnitude talks, and in this case Bill and Hillary did the talking.
And still more:

The Clinton Foundation also has accepted millions from foreign countries — some with deplorable human-rights records — that needed approval from State for roughly $165 billion worth of weapons deals.
In one case, State approved a huge increase in arms shipments to Algeria, even though the department’s own 2011 human-rights report blasted the country for “arbitrary killing,” “widespread corruption” and a “lack of judicial independence.”
The Algerian government that same year donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
A year later, State approved a 70 percent jump in military exports to the country, including “chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment.”

Guys. Come on.
And yet still more, from Fox News:

In another email from April 2009, Band seems to pressure Clinton’s former aides Cheryl Mills and Abedin into hiring a foundation associate.
In the email, Band writes it’s “important to take care of [name redacted].”
Abedin responds, telling Band, “Personnel has been sending him options.”
The latest batch of emails came more than a week after Clinton said, in a “Fox News Sunday” interview, that “there is absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of state and the Clinton Foundation.”

Oh yeah, absolutely none. It’s one hundred million nothings.
And people, the list goes on.
The crossover and conflicts of interest between Hillary’s position as Secretary of State and the Clinton Foundation are abundant, apparent, unacceptable, outrageous, and obvious, just like her clear negligence and dishonesty with her entire personal email server saga. But like that epic “mishandling” of classified information, her abuses of power and overt corruption seem poised to go unpunished once again.
In any other year it would be a sexy story. In any other year, it would be irresistible, even to the Democrat owned MSM. But it’s Two Thousand and Trumpteen. This can easily fade behind some idiotic thing Trump will say or do that gives her cover once again. He’s her best defense.
What a year.

Most Say Union Leaders Out of Touch With Members

Most Say Union Leaders Out of Touch With Members

Wednesday, August 10, 2016  Rasmussen


Most voters – including those who are now or have been union members – believe the majority of union leaders are out of touch with their membership nationwide.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 20% of Likely U.S. Voters think most organized labor leaders do a good job representing union members. Fifty-seven percent (57%) say most union leaders are out of touch with most of their members from throughout the nation. One-in-four (24%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Even among voters who are now or have been a member of a labor union, only 25% think union leaders do a good job representing their membership. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of these voters say most organized labor leaders are out of touch with their members. This is a concern to Democrats this election cycle with many union members reportedly leaning toward Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump because of his positions on jobs and free trade even though union leaders are solidly behind Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Fifty percent (50%) of all voters continue to feel that labor unions have too much political influence in America today, unchanged from last September.  Twenty-five percent (25%) still believe unions do not have enough political clout, but that’s down slightly from 30% in the previous survey. Thirteen percent (13%) say unions basically have no impact on politics in this country, while 11% are not sure.
Since organized labor historically has been strongly pro-Democratic, especially when it comes to giving money, it’s not surprising that 68% of Republicans and 53% of voters not affiliated with either major party think unions have too much political influence. Only 33% of Democrats agree, while slightly more Democratic voters (39%) say they don’t have enough influence.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on August 3-4, 2016 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
[Rasmussen Reports analysts Amy Holmes  and Fran Coombs are available for interested media. Please call 732-776-9777 ext. 205 for interviews.]
In late August of last year, just before Labor Day, 44% of Americans held a favorable view of labor unions, while 45% viewed them unfavorably. That  included just 14% with a Very Favorable opinion and 24% with Very Unfavorable one.
Half of voters who are now or have been union members agree that unions have too much clout, but 33% of these voters don’t think they have enough influence. Just 21% of non-union members share that view.
Men are much more likely than women to think unions have too much political influence and that their leadership is out of touch with the rank and file. Women are more likely to be undecided.
Whites believe more strongly than blacks and other minority voters that unions have too much influence. Blacks feel much more strongly than the others that the leaders of organized labor are out of touch with their members.
Sixty-five percent (65%) of Republicans and 61% of unaffiliated voters say union leaders are out of touch with those they represent. Democrats agree but by a much narrower 46% to 30% margin.
The economy remains the number one issue for all voters this election cycle.
Americans strongly agree with both major presidential candidates about the importance of bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States and are willing to pay more for consumer goods to make it happen.  Voters aren’t big fans of NAFTA and other international free trade deals.
There’s been voter anger towards the leaders of both major political parties in this year’s highly contentious presidential primary season, but Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to say their party bosses are out of touch with the voter base.
Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.

The big Obamacare bubble is about to explode

The big Obamacare bubble is about to explode

Bryan Rotella, attorney and founder of the Rotella Legal Group

Bubble about to burst

Soubrette | Getty Images
This commentary originally appeared on The Hill.

“No one can see a bubble. That’s what makes it a bubble.” That was Christian Bale’s character’s summation of a market bubble in last year’s hit movie “The Big Short,” which chronicled the few investors who saw the signs pointing to the mortgage market collapse. With terrorism, email scandals and race relations dominating the headlines, has a healthcare bubble been filling up quietly behind the scenes?
Since the 2010 passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare), the health-care industry has seen record growth and increased revenues. Why? Illness, especially chronic, sadly is a moneymaking business. Illness requires more office visits, more hospitalizations and inevitably more bills. Obamacare halted insurance companies’ practice of rating premiums based on a customers illness history, or as more commonly known, preexisting conditions.
In the 2013 roll out of the Obamacare exchanges, the promised result was that more people would have insurance coverage. Undoubtedly, this part of the law worked. By Jan. 7, 2016, more than 11.3 million Americans had signed up for Obamacare; by March, 20.3 million were covered. A large percentage of these new insureds were high-risk. As NBC reported in April, “Last month, an analysis of medical claims from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association concluded that insurers gained a sicker, more expensive patient population as a result of the law.”
While bad for insurance companies, this was very good for the bottom lines of the merging large healthcare systems and newly formed physician monolith groups. A drafter of the law admitted the law was founded on the belief that the “consolidation of doctors into larger physician groups was inevitable and desirable.” With consolidation, the dollars have racked up. According to U.S. News & World Report, “from June 3, 2010, to June 30, 2015, the Russell 3000 Healthcare benchmark (an all capitalization index) posted a gain of 176.8 percent.”
So there are profits, but where is the bubble? Joe Cortelli, a health insurance expert from the nationwide consulting group HIG, explains:
“We have done nothing to improve the outcomes of the 10 percent of the population that drives 80 percent of our claims costs. We have merely pumped billions of dollars into these [Obamacare] exchanges masking the real problems. Unless the government can continue to pump money into these exchanges, the end result is not that hard to imagine. It is not a question of how, but when, this will all come home to roost.”

“Millions of previously uninsurable sick people are flooding the insurance market, driving premiums sky high.”

The facts support this. Millions of previously uninsurable sick people are flooding the insurance market, driving premiums sky high. As noted in the Fiscal Times, “The combination of market forces and limitations imposed by the [ACA] will put enormous pressure on insurers to up their premiums.” The pressure on insurers is undeniable, including the $650 million losses recently reported by UnitedHealth.
With these losses, rates on the exchanges are exploding. Exchange premiums in Michigan are set to jump up to 17.3 percent. Virginia average premium increases could go as high as 37.1 percent. Comparing the state monthly premium averages from 2013 to 2016, almost every single state has increased significantly. There is no stop-loss. In fact, two of three federal programs to manage this exact risk are due to expire in 2017. Without these programs to fall back on, many insurance companies likely will need to jack up their premiums even higher or bail out of the exchanges all together.
So how did we miss this? Like in “The Big Short,” nobody asked those actually working in the doctor’s offices their opinions. Dr. Tommy McElroy, CEO of an innovative concierge practice, Echelon-Health, is puzzled: “When the [ACA] was written, nobody came around to ask doctors what would happen when the most complicated patients were shuttled to the exchange plans. A small practice can’t survive; that’s why doctors are being bought up by hospital groups or abandoning insurance altogether for membership medicine.”
With more doctors jumping ship and healthy patients choosing to take the annual penalty rather than buy extremely overpriced exchange plans, what’s left to avoid a healthcare economic freefall? President Obama and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton both have recently touted a renewed push for a government funded “public option.” What irony, as the “public option” looks an awful lot like the government bailout of the mortgage banks. Only here, it’s the big health systems and insurers that are too big to fail.
“The Big Short” opens with Mark Twain’s thesis, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” Providing affordable insurance to the chronically ill is a dilemma. Those who were certain the healthy exchange customers would flock to pay for health insurance that is starting to cost more than their mortgages were just flat wrong. Hopefully a more humble answer is found before this bubble bursts.
Commentary by Bryan Rotella, founder and managing shareholder of the Rotella Legal Group.

Job numbers are fake created by the statisticians

136242057
Last Friday saw the release of a bombshell jobs report, with headlines exclaiming that the U.S. economy added over 250,000 jobs in July, far in excess of any forecasts. The reality was far more grim. Those “jobs” weren’t actually created by businesses – they were created by the statisticians who compiled the numbers, through the process of “seasonal adjustment.” That’s a bit of statistical magic that the government likes to pull out of its hat when the real data isn’t very flattering. It’s done with GDP, it’s done with job numbers, and similar manipulation is done with government inflation figures to keep them lower than actual price increases. In reality there are a million fewer people with jobs this month than last month, but the magic of seasonal adjustment turns that into a gain of 255,000.

Delving further into the jobs report, we see that many of the jobs that were supposedly created were jobs in government and health care. Government jobs, of course, are paid for by siphoning money away from taxpayers. And health care jobs are increasingly created solely because of the ever-growing mandates of Obamacare. Other major sources of job growth were temp jobs and leisure & hospitality (i.e. waiters and bartenders). These aren’t long-lasting jobs that will contribute to economic growth, they are mostly just jobs that cater to the tastes of the well-to-do who continue to benefit from the Federal Reserve’s easy monetary policy.
As New York, San Francisco, Washington, DC, and other political and financial hubs continue to benefit from trillions of dollars of debt-financed government spending and the trillions more dollars the Federal Reserve has created from nothing, the politicians, lobbyists, and bankers who receive that money demand ever more exotic food, drink, and entertainment. The jobs that arise to satisfy that demand, we are supposed to believe, are the backbone of the job market “recovery.” Yeah, right.
Eight years after the worst part of the last financial crisis, the U.S. economy still has not fully recovered. The number of people employed may have finally begun to grow past its pre-crisis peak but the quality of jobs has deteriorated, and the number of people who are still looking for jobs or who have even given up looking for jobs and dropped out of the labor force still numbers in the millions and shows no signs of shrinking. Quantitative easing, zero or negative interest rates, and other inflationary central bank policies cannot lead to lasting job creation or economic growth. Try telling that to the central bankers, though. They only care about aggregate numbers, not what is actually behind those aggregates. A castle built of sand is the same to them as a castle built of stone.
Until the notion that wealth and prosperity can come from a printing press is eradicated from the thinking of policymakers, economies around the world will remained mired in this malaise. Jobs are created by meeting consumer demand. If you provide the goods and services that customers want at the price they want, your business will grow, jobs will be created, and everyone in society will be better off.
If, on the other hand, jobs are created through government money creation and heavily protectionist laws and regulations, those jobs will not meet the needs of consumers, will add nothing to productivity, and ultimately will not last. When politicians pursue policies that incentivize jobs like the latter to those of the former, economic stagnation is the unfortunate but predictable result.

RECENT POSTS