Home Blog Page 567

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.

Mullin enters the race as a spoiler

US versus Russia
First, former CIA chief Michael Morell endorsed Hillary Clinton in a lengthy New York Times op-ed. Now, former CIA operative and GOP advisor Evan McMullin is being touted as a legitimate alternative to Donald Trump for conservative voters.
McMullin, a 40-year-old who spent more than a decade as an undercover CIA operative, is being pushed by a group of Republican insiders as the never-Trump choice for GOP voters.
The long-shot candidate has deep ties to the GOP establishment through his work as a former policy adviser to the House Republican Conference.
McMullin, who will run as an independent, officially announced his candidacy Monday.
“It’s never too late to do the right thing, and America deserves much better than either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton can offer us,” he said in a statement published by the New York Times. “I humbly offer myself as a leader who can give millions of disaffected Americans a conservative choice for president.”
The candidate has little chance of actually winning the presidency, which makes it clear his bid is aimed at simply making sure Trump doesn’t either.
As The New York Times pointed out of McMullin, who is a Mormon: “If Mr. McMullin is competitive nowhere else but Utah, he still could nonetheless have an impact on the race: Mr. Trump cannot win the presidency without holding the states that Mr. Romney won, his aides have concluded.”
If you believe McMullin’s bid is anything other than an attempt to make Trump loose Utah, which the candidate’s aides say is vital to campaign success, consider this assessment via Reuters:

McMullin has never held public office and is unknown to American voters. In addition to also lacking a quick source of campaign cash, he will face immediate hurdles to try to get his name on enough ballot papers to make himself a serious candidate.
Texas, for example, requires third-party candidates to get more than 79,000 signatures from residents who did not vote in either the Republican or Democrat primary. And the deadline for that was in early May.
Deadlines to get on the ballots have also lapsed for the large states of North Carolina, Illinois and Florida.
The best McMullin could likely hope for would be to simply play spoiler to Trump in a handful of states, eating away at the New York real estate developer’s ability to win states that are generally reliably Republican.

The former CIA operative’s fledgling campaign has the backing of Better for America, an anti-Trump group headed by Mitt Romney friend John Kingston.
So what gives?
It probably has something to do with Russia. Trump has hinted at a willingness to work with the nation’s Cold War foe to avoid extreme tension and maybe even foster cooperation to eliminate an Islamic terror problem that’s a threat to both the U.S. and Russia.
Trump’s tough statements on the problems Islamic extremism creates throughout the world are, in fact, in line with Russian foreign policies which seem to favor backing dictatorships when the only other option is destabilization which hands countries over to militant Islam.
Clinton psychotically put it in a conversation about U.S. actions to oust Libyan leader  Muammar Gaddafi, “We came, we saw, he died.”
It sounded like a celebration because it was. His death meant Libya would descend into chaos.
Putin, meanwhile, said: “They showed to the whole world how he (Gaddafi) was killed; there was blood all over. Is that what they call a democracy?”
ISIS has now filled the power vacuum left in Libya by the U.S. actions under Clinton’s watch.
And as ISIS has grown in power in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East destabilized by the brand of U.S. interventionism championed by the Clinton State Department, they’ve begun attacking Americans on U.S. soil with alarming regularity.
But Clinton and her CIA backers don’t mind. ISIS is a monster they created and one they believe they can control. As for the American lives lost to ISIS-inspired attacks, they might ask “what difference does it make?”
They want Americans to believe Russia is a far bigger threat than the terrorists the U.S. continues arming.
Here’s how that ties back to Kingston and his anti-Trump CIA candidate.
If you remember, Romney is no fan of Russia either. In 2012, he referred to the country as “our number one geopolitical foe.”
Clinton’s hawkish position on Russia is more in tune with that line of thinking than Trump’s.
She actually said Russian President Vladimir Putin is as bad as Hitler.
As commentator Paul Craig Roberts, an economist who served as assistant secretary of treasury under President Reagan, said, that means we can expect some fireworks if she’s elected.
“When you go that far out on a limb, you really kind of have to go the rest of the way,” he said in an interview at Infowars.com. “I don’t’ think there is any candidate that we can end up with as president that would be more likely to go to war with Russia than Hillary.”
Trump’s rapport with the Russian president is so much better, meanwhile, that Morell went so far as to accuse him of being a stooge for Putin.
Putin has expressed public support for Trump, calling him “the absolute leader in the presidential race.”
Of Clinton, Putin suggested a war between the U.S. and Russia could break out pending her election.
So what would be so bad about improving relations between the U.S. and Russia under a Trump administration?
Nothing for the average Russian or American.
But for people heavily invested in defense spending and investment, it could be catastrophic on a number of fronts.
Trump/Putin cooperation might not “spread democracy”—as if that’s happened yet, anyhow— but it could reduce the amount of jihadist-led turmoil in key regions throughout the world. That’s because both leaders have taken hard stances against anything resembling Islamic extremism.
So, the Trump/Clinton election is sort of a pick your devil scenario: Let extremists run rampant or allow secular dictators to regain control of some regions.
Neither outcome is ideal.
But the former is much better for people involved with companies heavily invested in defense and the big banks that move around their money.
Can you guess who they are?

Is something wrong with Hillary Clinton

FOX News’ Sean Hannity sets up the photo and the Clinton response:

The picture, which shows Hillary Clinton apparently needing assistance to climb a flight of stairs at a campaign stop back in February was picked up by the Drudge Report, which posted this headline over the weekend, details Hillary Clinton’s history with falls and speculating that the former Secretary of State could be experiencing a serious undisclosed medical condition.
Earlier today we reached out to the Clinton campaign for a statement, and a spokesman told us that the Drudge Report is shameful, and anyone who buys into that medical condition shameful, what is missing is a statement about the health issues.

Dr. Marc Seigel said “the public has a right to know” and speculated on what the issue could be but was more interested in previous spills and a concussion she had in 2012.
“I think the public has a right to know,” Seigel said. “We’re talking in 2008, Sean, I looked over a thousand pages of John McCain’s records because of a melanoma he had 10 years ago. What about Hillary? In 2009, a severe fall. She breaks her elbow. In 2011, she boards a plane, falls. In 2012 she has a severe concussion which Bill Clinton says took her six months to recover from.
“Then she ends up with a blood-clot in the brain and a lifetime of blood thinners,” Seigel said. “Just that point alone — if she’s prone to falling, you can see from that picture up there that it looked like she can barely get upstairs without two people carrying her. Guess what if she falls and hits her head? She’ll get a blood-clot.”
“I want to know what her neurological records show,” he added.
“The picture going up the stairs speaks a million words,” Dr. David Samadi said. “Is she fatigued? Is she dehydrated? One of the main reasons she fell in 2012 and had the concussions was severe dehydration. They’re holding her and going up the stairs. So she may be really dehydrated, she may have arthritis, she may have back pain, she may have fallen again. We don’t know. There are questions that are unanswered. What we know today is she’s on thyroid medication, she suffers from hypothyroid, low thyroid, that can cause fatigue and gaining weight and all of that.”
“I think a traumatic brain injury with symptoms down the road is very, very likely here especially since she had a blood-clot on her brain. As David mentioned that could lead to a seizure problem. Someone is carrying a [diazepam] pen that you’d use in case of a seizure, a Valium pen, that makes me wonder about that,” Dr. Seigel said.

Homer 33C New hires gather for orientation program

0

News Release
Homer CCSD 33C
Goodings Grove   Luther J. Schilling   William E. Young   William J.Butler
Hadley Middle   Homer Jr. High
 
Contact: Charla Brautigam, Communications/Public Relations Manager
cbrautigam@homerschools.org | 708-226-7628

Among those joining the Homer 33C teaching staff this year are two Homer Junior High School graduates — Taylor Ketelaar (Class of 2007) and Allison McCann (Class of 2008). Both will teach at Young School starting this fall.
 
 
For Immediate Release:
Aug. 8, 2015
 
New hires gather for orientation program
 
On Monday (Aug. 8), Homer School District 33C welcomed 13 new teachers to the district, including two who graduated from Homer Junior High.
 
“It feels like I went full circle,” said Taylor Ketelaar who graduated from Homer Junior High in 2007 and is returning nine years later to teach fourth grade at Young School.
 
Joining her is schoolmate Allison McCann (Homer Class of 2008) who will teach third grade at Young School.
 
Together, they attended a New Staff Orientation program on Aug. 8 with 11 other educators who are new to Homer 33C: Jordana Fink, Kate Sisto, Kristen Rekruciak, Cathy Cruz, Sarah Brusokas, Theresa Fisch, Janet Peters, Jennifer Kohler, Chris Janssen, Erin Sagon and Kelly Kardas.

Homer 33C Superintendent Kara Coglianese welcomes a group of new teachers to the district Aug. 8 during a New Staff Orientation program.

“We are excited to welcome our new teachers to the Homer family,” said Kathleen Robinson, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction. “Exemplary teachers are critical to student success in schools.”

Kathleen Robinson, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, reviews policies, procedures and expectations with teachers during a New Staff Orientation program on Aug. 8.
 
 
During the day-long orientation program, teachers were given an overview of the district, including its history, policies, procedures and expectations.
 
They also reviewed First Year Teacher Tips with a team of Homer 33C teachers and reflected on what makes a great teacher.
 
“Make sure you show interest and enthusiasm,” advised Robinson. “The tone you set that first day is going to carry you through to the end of the school year.”
 
Many of the new hires replace educators who retired at the end of the 2015-16 school year. Some are first-year teachers straight out of college; others are seasoned educators who taught in other districts.
 
No matter how many years they’ve been teaching, each new employee will be paired with a veteran teacher who will serve as their mentor.
 
“Research shows that teachers who have strong mentors have longer, more fulfilled careers and an easier time their first few years,” said Robinson.
 
The mentors and mentees will meet at least once a week and discuss what’s going on in their classrooms. They’ll also meet monthly for building meetings and come together as a large group three times a year for district meetings.
 
The first day of school is Aug. 22.

RECENT POSTS