Tag: More

German Chancellor Merkel: “We Must Accept Migrants Are More Criminal” (Videos)

Chancellor Merkel Says: “We Must Accept Migrants Are More Criminal”… After Accepting 1 Million Into Germany – Gateway Pundit

German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened Germany up to one million new third world Muslim migrants in 2015.

.

.
Seventy percent of the migrants entering Europe were men.

German officials admitted they did not able to fingerprint all of the new migrants flooding across the border.

On New Year’s Eve a horde of young Muslim men sexually assaulted and harassed hundreds of German women outside of Cologne’s busy main train station during public celebrations.

Video captured Muslim men shooting off fireworks at the cathedral and police station in the area.
.

.
THis week Angela Merkel reminded Germans that the migrants are more violent.
.

.
————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Berlin, Cologne, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Dusseldorf… New Year’s Migrant Sex Assault In Every Major German City – Breitbart

German capital city Berlin has joined the sad parade of cities touched by migrant sex violence on New Year’s Eve, with hundreds of assaults now reported to police in Cologne and other cities.

Although on a smaller scale to the unrestrained and un-policed sex attacks in Cologne, the Berliner Morgenpost has now reported on assaults taking place on the street “in front of the Brandenburg gate”.

The revelation may prove difficult for the German media, which until now has stressed in most reports on the new year’s rapes that Berlin was not caught up in the scandal.

The paper reports four separate incidents around the cite, including a tourist being sexually assaulted by a group of “three to five men”, and two women being “sexually harassed” by men from Pakistan and Iraq.

Another woman came forward to police on Tuesday following national press coverage of the migrant rape scandal to report being “touched” at a music event by “several immoral men”.

More analagous to the Cologne attacks were events in Hamburg, where groups of “southern or Arab appearance” men aged between 20 and 40 sexually assaulted dozens of women.

Police have recieved 53 complaints of harrasment relating to new year’s eve so far, including 39 of sexual harassment. One 19 year old girl identified by the pseudonym of ‘Lotta’ went out to celebrate the new year in a ‘chic’ dress and high heels.

Spiegel reports their comments when they related while walking between two clubs, they were warned by a bouncer not to go down a particular street, to do so “would be your death”. Despite the warning Lotta and her girlfriends walked down the road but became separated by the men. She said: “I was suddenly alone… 20 to 30 men were standing around me… every time a hand went away, already arrived the next… I felt helpless”.

Having been assaulted under her dress, her hair pulled, and finally thrown to the ground, Lotta met up with her friends, who had all been treated similarly by other groups of men. The girl told Spiegel she thought they were “foreign origin”.

In Stuttgart two 18 year old women were assaulted and robbed by a gang of 15 men reports the Stuttgarter Zeitung, as well as an unspecified number of other “mostly young women” victims. The state prosecutor warned against making comparisons between Stuttgart and Cologne, remarkng “The incidents in both cities vary greatly in their dimensions”.

Düsseldorf saw at least eleven sexual assaults in the historic city centre by “North African” men. In contrast to Stuttgart a police source here was less reticent to admit the scale of the problem, admitting “The nature of the offenses with which is comparable in Cologne”.

Breitbart London was the first English language news site to report on the Cologne sex attacks this week, the events having been obscured by German news media until large numbers of women coming forward to report rapes and sexual abuse and on-line discussion forced events.

.

.

President Asshat Thinks Gitmo Is A ‘Recruitment Tool For ISIS’… So He’s Releasing More Muslim Terrorists

Obama Releases Dangerous Jihadists… Then Misleads Country About It – Weekly Standard

.

.
President Barack Obama says his administration will continue releasing terrorists from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, so long as those released are less dangerous than the jihadists currently fighting against the U.S. and its interests.

The bizarre argument comes in a new interview with Olivier Knox of Yahoo! News and is one of several comments in their discussion that reinforces the president’s stubborn nonchalance on issues related to jihad. Obama also shrugs off concerns about recidivism of former Guantanamo detainees, suggesting that only a “handful” of former detainees have returned to the fight and claiming that only “low-level” terrorists have been released from the detention facility. Both claims are demonstrably false.

In the interview, Knox asked Obama about Ibrahim al Qosi, a Guantanamo detainee transferred by the Obama administration to Sudan in July 2012, who recently resurfaced as a leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, often described as the most dangerous al Qaeda branch. Al Qosi appeared in a propaganda video disseminated by the group last week. Knox asked Obama whether having someone return to the fight “in a big way,” like Qosi, has caused the administration to revisit its vetting procedures.

“I am absolutely persuaded, as are my top intelligence and military advisers, that Guantanamo is used as a recruitment tool for organizations like ISIS,” Obama began. “And if we want to fight ’em, then we can’t give ’em these kinds of excuses.”

There is no reason that Obama would need to be “persuaded” of something that can be easily demonstrated. Either Guantanamo is a major recruitment tool or it’s not.

Administration officials have been making this claim for years and it’s not true.

Guantanamo rarely appears in jihadist propaganda, whether ISIS or al Qaeda, and reviews of recent propaganda materials from ISIS and al Qaeda – online videos and audio recordings, glossy magazines, etc. – found very few mentions of the facility.

“Keep in mind that between myself and the Bush administration hundreds of people have been released and the recidivism rate – we anticipate,” Obama said. “We assume that there are going to be – out of four, five, six-hundred people that get released – a handful of them are going to be embittered and still engaging in anti-US activities and trying to link up potentially with their old organizations.”

A handful? Obama is woefully ill-informed or he’s being dishonest. According to the most recent report on Guantanamo recidivism, prepared in September 2015 by James Clapper’s office, Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, 196 former detainees are either confirmed (117) or suspected (79) of returning to the fight. That’s a recidivism rate of more than 30 percent. Intelligence officials tell THE WEEKLY STANDARD that those numbers are almost certainly low, as they do not include jihadists the United States and its allies are no longer tracking.

(Obama’s formulation there is odd, too, using “embittered” as if the reason the jihadists would once again take up arms against the United States is their time in detention.)

Obama continued, describing the process officials use to determine whether a detainee can be released or transferred. “The judgment that we’re continually making is: Are there individuals who are significantly more dangerous than the people who are already out there who are fighting? What do they add? Do they have special skills? Do they have special knowledge that ends up making significant threat to the United States?”

It’s an odd set of criteria for evaluating threats unless your main objective is emptying the detention facility. These are standards set up to allow the administration to claim that the knowledge base and skill sets of Guantanamo detainees are outdated. But former Guantanamo detainees return to the fight with elevated status and often assume leadership roles in the groups determined to attack the U.S. and its interests. Just like Ibrahim al Qosi.

Obama went on to suggest that those released don’t present much of a threat anyway. “And so the bottom line is that the strategic gains we make by closing Guantanamo will outweigh, you know, those low-level individuals who, you know, have been released so far.”

Again, Obama’s claim is false. Many of the 653 detainees transferred or released from Guantanamo as of September 2015 were much more significant than “low-level individuals.” It’s a group that includes al Qaeda operatives who worked directly for Osama bin Laden, senior leaders of the Afghan Taliban, and veteran jihadists with decades of experience fighting.

According to assessments provided by Joint Task Force Guantanamo, the original population of Guantanamo was 43 percent “high risk,” and 36 percent “medium risk.” Only 20 percent of those ever detained at Guantanamo were deemed “low risk.” The Bush administration transferred many of the detainees found to present minimal risks to the U.S. and by the time Obama took office, 98.7 percent of those remaining were considered medium risk (23.8 percent) or high risk (74.9 percent).

Consider the Taliban Five, released in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl. Although Obama administration officials initially downplayed the significance of these detainees, intelligence and military officials made it clear that they were high-risk transfers. Michael Leiter, the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center under Obama, said it was “very, very likely” that the five Taliban leaders would return to the fight. Rob Williams, the national intelligence officer for South Asia, who briefed Congress shortly after the transfer, testified that there was a high likelihood that at least four of the five freed detainees, and possibly all of them, would rejoin the fight.

And what about Ibrahim al Qosi? He’s the Guantanamo recidivist that triggered Knox’s question to the president. Was he a “low-level” fighter, as Obama suggested?

He is not. Qosi is now a senior leader in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, as well as the group’s public spokesman. AQAP has repeatedly attempted to attack the U.S., while taking over large parts of Yemen. The dossier compiled by U.S. officials for Qosi demonstrates that he served bin Laden in multiple roles because he was so trusted.

A threat assessment of al Qosi prepared by the intelligence officials on the Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) reported that he would present a “high risk” of taking up arms against the United States or its allies if he were freed from the detention facility. “Detainee is an admitted veteran jihadist with combat experience beginning in 1990 and it is assessed he would engage in hostilities against US forces, if released.”

Virtually everything Obama said in his Yahoo interview about Guantanamo is false. Guantanamo is not a leading recruitment tool for jihadists. From the earliest days of the facility, many of those detained there were deemed more than the “low-level” fighters the president would have us believe. And far more than a “handful” of released detainees – nearly 200 suspected or confirmed – have returned to the fight.

We are left with this uncomfortable but incontrovertible fact: Barack Obama is releasing jihadists known to present a serious threat to the United States and he’s misleading the country about it.

.

.

11 Of 23 Obamacare Co-Ops Have Collapsed, Leaving Half A Million More Americans Without Health Insurance

Obamacare Doomsday? ‘Collapses’ Drop Half-Million Americans – WorldNetDaily

.

.
About half of Obamacare’s Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans, or co-ops, have imploded, leaving nearly half-a-million Americans looking for new health coverage.

And instead of addressing the problem, the Obama administration is pretending it doesn’t exist.

That’s the assessment of Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., a member of the House Ways and Means Committee who recently wrote about the spate of failures in the Wall Street Journal.

“When it passed Congress in 2010, the Affordable Care Act offered substantial financial support to create nonprofit health-insurance plans. Today 11 of the 23 such regional Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans have failed – seven since the beginning of October,” Smith wrote.

“They’ve collapsed despite federal startup loans totaling more than $1.1 billion. These loans will likely never be fully repaid, while insurers and consumers will be on the hook for any unpaid claims left behind by failed insurers,” he added.

The congressman estimates 400,00-500,000 Americans lost their coverage in those 11 failed co-ops.

In an interview with Radio America, Smith says the co-ops were doomed from the start.

“I think they were improperly structured. They were allowed to charge too low a premium, not reflecting the actual costs. They thought the original subsidies – or loans if you will, but let’s face it, they’re subsidies, especially since they’re so unlikely to be repaid. That wasn’t enough,” said Smith, who is fuming more as he learns how these collapses transpired.

“The more I am learning about this entire situation, the more offensive it is, and this is just one part of Obamacare,” Smith said.

The congressman said what galls him most is that the government forced many people out of coverage they liked and then left those same people out in the cold.

“The thing that bothers me the most is when a good, upstanding citizen is doing everything they’re supposed to do to be a responsible individual,” Smith said. “Yet they are faced with canceled coverage, or they’re faced with a penalty for taking care of themselves.”

Adding to Smith’s frustrations is what he believes is utter indifference to the problem from the Obama administration.

“We had a hearing earlier this week, and the chief of staff from [the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services] was our witness,” Smith said. “[Dr. Mandy Cohen] sent the message that everything is just fine in the Obamacare co-op arena.”

He said it’s quite obvious that co-ops are not “just fine.”

“It’s not a win,” Smith said. “Nearly half of the co-ops have collapsed and that’s from New York to Nevada. Ours, with Nebraska and Iowa together, we were the first to collapse a year ago. Now we see them collapsing at a much quicker pace.”

How can the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, say all is well when almost half the co-ops have failed?

“In a very dismissive manner, I have to say, and it’s disappointing,” Smith said. “I started asking questions almost a year ago and HHS is not offering any answers.”

Not only is the government doing little to help, in some circumstances it is actually pushing co-ops to their deaths.

“The administrators of the Nebraska-Iowa plan saw a larger number of people sign up for their plan than they originally anticipated,” Smith said. “So they requested permission from HHS to suspend enrollment, to basically cap that at a number they figured was more manageable. They were prohibited by HHS from capping the number of enrollees.”

The congressman said that hastened the demise of the Nebraska-Iowa co-op. He said HHS did give permission for the Tennessee co-op to cap enrollment, but it collapsed anyway.

In the meantime, Smith is sponsoring legislation that would protect those who lost coverage with the failure of the co-ops from being fined by the IRS for not having coverage as mandated by federal law.

He believes all of Obamacare will eventually crater, but he hopes too many people aren’t hurt in the process.

“Ultimately, I think it collapses under its own weight,” he said. “I just want to do everything I can to minimize the damage in the ensuing time. That’s what weighs heavy on my mind is that the heavy hand of the federal government is actually hurting the very people Barack Obama was saying he was wanting to help.”

.

.

More Bad News For Hitlery

Potential Classified Clinton Emails Grow To More Than 300 – Daily Caller

.

.
The State Department is referring 305 of Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails to the intelligence community to review for classified information, the federal government reported in a court filing on Monday.

“Out of a sample of approximately 20% of the Clinton emails, the [Intelligence Community] reviewers have only recommended 305 documents – approximately 5.1% – for referral to their agencies for consultation,” State Department attorneys told U.S. District Court judge Emmet Sullivan, according to The Washington Times.

The State Department has reviewed about 6,000 of the approximately 30,000 emails Clinton handed over in December. If reviewers continue to find emails with secret information at the current rate, more than 1,500 of Clinton’s emails could potentially contain highly classified material.

The government’s revelation comes after the Intelligence Community inspector general, I. Charles McCullough, told Congress earlier this month that his agency had determined that two emails that traversed Clinton’s private email server contained information that was “top secret” – the highest classification level.

That finding prompted the FBI to intervene and gain control of the private email server Clinton used to maintain her personal email account during her tenure at State. The agency also commandeered thumb drives containing copies of Clinton’s emails that her attorney, David Kendall, had stored in a safe in his office.

The State Department has already redacted and released 60 Clinton emails which contain information that is classified as “confidential” – the lowest category. The agency insists that the information was not classified at the time it was sent and stored on Clinton’s server.

Some of those emails were sent by Clinton herself, including one she sent in Nov. 2009 to her longtime friend, Sidney Blumenthal, about former U.S. ambassador Joe Wilson.

.

.
Clinton has downplayed the entire email controversy as a right-wing conspiracy. At a campaign event in Iowa on Friday, she said she “won’t get down in the mud” with Republicans. But she has also walked back some of her most adamant claims about her handling of classified material.

In March, she said at a press conference that “there was no classified material” on her server. But as the investigation has progressed, she’s changed her tune. Last month she said: “I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received.”

After the McCullough’s finding of “top secret” information was revealed, Clinton and her team have turned to claiming that none of the emails were “marked” classified at the time they were sent or received.

Clinton has also attempted to portray herself as a willing participant in the email inquiry.

In a radio interview conducted over the weekend, she claimed that if it wasn’t for her, the emails never would have been made public.

“Because if I had not asked for my emails all to be made public, none of this would have been in the public arena,” she said.

The Republican operative group America’s Rising called that claim false, pointing out that Clinton handed over her emails only after the State Department sought them in response to the congressional investigation into the Benghazi attacks. Clinton had been out of office nearly two years when she finally provided the emails. The off-the-books email operation was only made public in a New York Times article in March. Clinton had also said that she would not turn over her private email server to a third-party. The hardware has also been scrubbed, her attorney has said.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related articles:

.
ABC: “Highly Likely” A Backup Of Hillary’s Original Server Files Exists – Hot Air

Hillary Clinton visited the Iowa State Fair this weekend, trying to pass off the FBI and Inspectors General probe into her e-mail system as nothing more than partisan politics. She even joked about having a Snapchat account where messages disappear on their own. If this ABC News report is correct, though, Hillary won’t be laughing for long. Platte River Services, the company to which the Clintons entrusted the server after she left office, believes that a backup of her data is “highly likely” to exist. And if it does, the 31,000+ e-mails that Hillary and her team deleted may not be gone after all (via the Daily Caller):

.

.

JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Out in Iowa this weekend, Hillary Clinton joked about the thousands of e-mails she deleted from her time as secretary of state.

HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I recently launched a Snapchat account. I love it. I love it. Those messages disappear all by themselves. (LAUGHTER)

KARL (voice-over): But her infamous private server is now in the hands of the FBI, which is intensifying its investigation into the handling of classified information in her e-mails. According to sources familiar with the investigation, it’s already been determined that at least two of the e-mails included information that’s top secret, some of it from so-called signals intelligence, among the most sensitive intelligence there is. Investigators are also trying to determine if the Chinese or Russians were able to get access to Clinton’s private e-mails.

COL. STEVE GANYARD, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: Anybody that works around this level of classification knows the sensitivity. It’s not something you can talk around and it’s always obvious.

KARL (voice-over): But in the most intriguing new development, Platte River Networks, the Colorado company that set up Clinton’s server, told ABC News it’s highly likely that a full backup of the server was made, meaning those thousands of e-mails she deleted may still exist.

It seems exceedingly odd to hear Hillary cracking jokes about disappearing messages. She’s trying to sell the idea that this is a partisan nothingburger, which is a strange tack to take when the investigation has been taken up by Barack Obama’s Department of Justice. Let’s also not forget that the intelligence community that has been outraged by this conduct hardly qualifies as a GOP-friendly outfit, as George Bush and Dick Cheney can attest. It’s like hearing Richard Nixon make jokes about wiretaps while the House prepared articles of impeachment, only Nixon was smart enough not to try that, at least in public. What’s the message supposed to be here – that voters should celebrate her impunity towards transparency and secure handling of classified materials? I guess that makes sense in the context of Hillary’s desire for a coronation, but don’t expect most Americans to be laughing along with her.

If the FBI finds a backup at Platte River Services of Hillary’s original e-mail database, the Snapchat jokes will dry up quickly. It seemed odd that such a firm wouldn’t have made backups, which would be another moment of incompetence for Hillary and her team in their attempt to clean up the e-mail stash. Once the FBI gets a backup copy, then the fun will truly begin. The House will want access to the complete set of data, and if they or the DoJ discover responsive materials within those that got trashed, then all sorts of new problems begin for Hillary Clinton – including a potential perjury charge. The State Department will be forced to comply with a number of FOIAs stalled by Hillary’s use of a secret e-mail server, and if there is any indication of influence peddling in connection to the Clinton Foundation or Bill Clinton’s speeches within her e-mails, Hillary may not be the only Clinton in legal trouble.

Perhaps Hillary should laugh while she can, but it’s either false bravado or irrational denial at this point.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Woodward On Clinton Emails: ‘Reminds Me Of The Nixon Tapes’ – Breitbart

.

.
Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodward said of Hillary Clinton’s emails, “It, in a way, reminds me of the Nixon tapes” on Monday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Woodward stated that allowing Clinton and her lawyers to decide whether to turn over information was “unprecedented,” and “follow the trail here. You know, there are all these emails. Well, they were sent to someone, or someone sent them to her. So, if things have been erased here, there’s a way to go back to who originated these emails, or who received them from Hillary Clinton. So, you’ve got a massive amount of data. It, in a way, reminds me of the Nixon tapes. Thousands of hours of secretly recorded conversations that Nixon thought were exclusively hers – his, that he was not going to get them. Hillary Clinton initially took that position, I’m not turning this over. There’s going to be no cooperation. Now, they’re cooperating. But, this is – this has to go on a long, long time, and the answers are probably not going to be pretty.”

Earlier he said, “It’s extraordinary. And, again, it’s the volume. 60,000 emails, and Hillary Clinton has said 30,000 of them, half, were personal and they were deleted. Who decided that? What’s on those emails? I would love to have all 60,000, read them, it would be a character study about her personal life, and, also, what she did as secretary of state. And let’s step back for a moment, the big question about Hillary Clinton is, who is she? Is she this secretive, hidden person, or is she this valiant public servant? Look at those 60,000 emails, and you’re going to get some answers. And there’s a hydraulic pressure always in the system here. You’ve got the FBI, you’ve got the inspector generals, you’ve got lots of people in government who are furious, because they spent hours being trained, like the example of Madeleine Albright. You have to be careful about this. Hillary Clinton went in – I mean, what was the origin? Who knew about this idea of using a private server? I mean, when I first found about that, it’s unimaginable.”

Woodward added, “for Hillary Clinton to go out, as she did, in recent days, and say, [paraphrasing] ‘This is politics. This is dirty politics. They’re trying to smear me in an unfair way,’ that dog will not hunt, at all. You have got Barack Obama’s government now investigating her and looking at this. Now, at the same time, nothing’s been proven to be illegal and [Ed] Rendell there had a good point that, you know, kind of slow down. I think, in the media and political environment we’re in, where everything is driven by impatience and speed, that’s going to not be possible. But, they’re going to have to get some answers.”

Woodward concluded, in response to a question about the responsibilities of officials to ensure classified material doesn’t get out, “the first level of scrutiny is common sense. And, you know, in the world where Petraeus was dealing, either as a general or as CIA director, or Hillary Clinton was dealing [at the] State Department, almost everything is classified one way or another. And so you have to have some systems to protect it, and you have to use common sense.” He also stated that it’s “easier to describe the creation of the universe” than say how material becomes classified. And “the idea of the server, and this excuse, oh, it was all for convenience, isn’t going to work.”

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.

.

*VIDEO* More Planned Parenthood Atrocities Exposed


.

.

Feds To Issue More Green Cards Than The Populations Of Iowa, New Hampshire And South Carolina Combined

USA To Issue More Green Cards Than Populations Of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina Combined – Big Government

.

.
Breitbart News has exclusively obtained text and a chart from the Senate’s Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, chaired by Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), concerning America’s ongoing policy of massive legal immigration:

The overwhelming majority of immigration to the United States is the result of our visa policies. Each year, millions of visas are issued to temporary workers, foreign students, refugees, asylees, and permanent immigrants for admission into the United States. The lion’s share of these visas are for lesser-skilled and lower-paid workers and their dependents who, because they are here on work-authorized visas, are added directly to the same labor pool occupied by current unemployed jobseekers. Expressly because they arrive on legal immigrant visas, most will be able to draw a wide range of taxpayer-funded benefits, and corporations will be allowed to directly substitute these workers for Americans. Improved border security would have no effect on the continued arrival of these foreign workers, refugees, and permanent immigrants – because they are all invited here by the federal government.

.

.
The most significant of all immigration documents issued by the U.S. is, by far, the “green card.” When a foreign citizen is issued a green card it guarantees them the following benefits inside the United States: lifetime work authorization, access to federal welfare, access to Social Security and Medicare, the ability to obtain citizenship and voting privileges, and the immigration of their family members and elderly relatives.

Under current federal policy, the U.S. issues green cards to approximately 1 million new Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) every single year. For instance, Department of Homeland Security statistics show that the U.S. issued 5.25 million green cards in the last five years, for an average of 1.05 million new legal permanent immigrants annually.

These ongoing visa issuances are the result of federal law, and their number can be adjusted at any time. However, unlike other autopilot policies – such as tax rates or spending programs – there is virtually no national discussion or media coverage over how many visas we issue, to whom we issue them and on what basis, or how the issuance of these visas to individuals living in foreign countries impacts the interests of people already living in this country.

If Congress does not pass legislation to reduce the number of green cards issued each year, the U.S. will legally add 10 million or more new permanent immigrants over the next 10 years – a bloc of new permanent residents larger than populations of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina combined.

This has substantial economic implications.

The post-World War II boom decades of the 1950s and 1960s averaged together less than 3 million green cards per decade – or about 285,000 annually. Due to lower immigration rates, the total foreign-born population in the United States dropped from about 10.8 million in 1945 to 9.7 million in 1960 and 9.6 million in 1970.

These lower midcentury immigration levels were the product of a federal policy change: after the last period of large-scale immigration that had begun in roughly 1880, immigration rates were lowered to reduce admissions. The foreign-born share of the U.S. population fell for six consecutive decades, from 1910 through 1960.

Legislation enacted in 1965, among other factors, substantially increased low-skilled immigration. Since 1970, the foreign-born population in the United States has increased more than four-fold – to a record 42.1 million today. The foreign-born share of the population has risen from fewer than 1 in 21 in 1970, to presently approaching 1 in 7. As the supply of available labor has increased, so too has downward pressure on wages.

Georgetown and Hebrew University economics professor Eric Gould has observed that “the last four decades have witnessed a dramatic change in the wage and employment structure in the United States… The overall evidence suggests that the manufacturing and immigration trends have hollowed-out the overall demand for middle-skilled workers in all sectors, while increasing the supply of workers in lower skilled jobs. Both phenomena are producing downward pressure on the relative wages of workers at the low end of the income distribution.”

During the low-immigration period from 1948-1973, real median compensation for U.S. workers increased more than 90 percent. By contrast, real average hourly wages were lower in 2014 than they were in 1973, four decades earlier. Harvard Economist George Borjas also documented the effects of high immigration rates on African-American workers, writing that “a 10 percent immigration-induced increase in the supply of workers in a particular skill group reduced the black wage of that group by 2.5 percent.” Past immigrants are additionally among those most economically impacted by the arrival of large numbers of new workers brought in to compete for the same jobs. In Los Angeles County, for example, 1 in 3 recent immigrants are living below the poverty line. And this federal policy of new large-scale admissions continues unaltered at a time when automation is reducing hiring, and when a record share of our own workers here in America are not employed.

President Coolidge articulated how a slowing of immigration would benefit both U.S.-born and immigrant-workers: “We want to keep wages and living conditions good for everyone who is now here or who may come here. As a nation, our first duty must be to those who are already our inhabitants, whether native or immigrants. To them we owe an especial and a weighty obligation.”

It is worth observing that the 10 million grants of new permanent residency under current law is not an estimate of total immigration. In fact, the increased distribution of legal immigrant visas tend to correlate with increased flows of immigration illegally: the former helps provide networks and pull factors for the latter. Most of the countries who send the largest numbers of citizens with green cards are also the countries who send the most citizens illegally. The Census Bureau estimates 13 million new immigrants will arrive, on net, between now and 2024 – hurtling the U.S. past all recorded figures in terms of the foreign-born share of total population, quickly eclipsing the watermark recorded 105 years ago during the 1880-1920 immigration wave before immigration rates were lowered. Absent new legislation to reduce unprecedented levels of future immigration, the Census Bureau projects immigration as a share of population will continue setting new records each year, for all time.

Yet the immigration “reform” considered by Congress most recently – the 2013 Senate “Gang of Eight” comprehensive immigration bill – would have tripled the number of green cards issued over the next 10 years. Instead of issuing 10 million green cards, the Gang of Eight proposal would have issued at least 30 million green cards during the next decade (or more than 11 times the population of the City of Chicago).

Polling from Gallup and Fox shows that Americans want lawmakers to reduce, not increase, immigration rates by a stark 2:1 margin. Reuters puts it at a 3:1 margin. And polling from GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway shows that by the huge margin of nearly 10:1 people of all backgrounds are united in their belief that U.S. companies seeking workers should raise wages for those already living here – instead of bringing in new labor from abroad.

.

.

Tech Giant Qualcomm Lays Off Thousands Of Americans While Simultaneously Seeking More Foreign Workers

Qualcomm Lays Off 4,500 Workers While Demanding More H-1bs – Daily Caller

.

.
Another tech giant that says it must import foreign workers because there aren’t enough skilled American workers in the industry is laying off thousands of workers.

Qualcomm – a major producer of smartphone chips – announced last week it’s eliminating 15 percent of its workforce or about 4,500 employees, just weeks after fellow tech giant Microsoft announced a massive round of layoffs.

Both companies are top beneficiaries of the H-1b visa program, which backers say allows companies to temporarily hire foreign workers for jobs they can’t find qualified Americans workers to fill. Critics contend the program is really used to cut costs.

Microsoft and Qualcomm were in the top 15 users of H-1b visas in Fiscal Year 2013, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data obtained by Computer World. They’re part of a major tech lobbying effort to increase the cap on these temporary workers, on the grounds there is a shortage of Americans with science, technology, engineering and math degrees.

“Qualcomm has been engaged within the technology industry in highlighting the ‘skills deficit’ in all areas of today’s workforce, especially engineering,” a spokeswoman for Qualcomm told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “This is an industry-wide problem, and we are committed to working to build the pipeline of students studying STEM fields.”

One in five of the new Qualcomm hires in Fiscal Year 2013 were foreign workers with H-1b visas, according to an analysis of SEC filings by Ron Hira, a professor at Rochester Institute of Technology who is an expert in offshoring. Those 900 foreign workers hired in 2013 triple the total number of workers Qualcomm hired in 2014.

“Qualcomm and other tech firms have argued that they turn to H-1Bs because there is a significant shortage of American talent available,” Hira told TheDCNF. “Given the recent large layoff announcements by Qualcomm, Microsoft, Intel, and Cisco, how can the tech industry continue to argue there’s a shortage of American workers?”

Microsoft did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Hira also analyzed the skills of H-1b workers Qualcomm hired from Fiscal Year 2010 through 2012, and found most of the workers weren’t the highly skilled, U.S.-trained workers lobbyists imply make up the majority of H-1b holders.

Thirty-five percent of the 1,265 workers Qualcomm hired at that time held only a bachelors degree, and just 32 percent held advanced U.S. degrees. Only 44 of them held Ph.Ds from U.S. universities.

“This is very different than the carefully constructed, and misleading, narrative constructed by the tech industry that the H-1b program is primarily a vehicle for keeping people from abroad that the U.S. trained, and paid for,” Hira told TheDCNF.

.

.

Intel Assessment: Obama Regime’s Incompetent Response To Cyber Attacks Encouraging More Of Them

Intel Assessment: Weak Response To Breaches Will Lead To More Cyber Attacks – Washington Free beacon

.

.
The United States will continue to suffer increasingly damaging cyber attacks against both government and private sector networks as long as there is no significant response, according to a recent U.S. intelligence community assessment.

Disclosure of the intelligence assessment, an analytical consensus of 16 U.S. spy agencies, comes as the Obama administration is debating how to respond to a major cyber attack against the Office of Personnel Management. Sensitive records on 22.1 million federal workers, including millions cleared for access to secrets, were stolen by hackers linked to China’s government.

U.S. officials familiar with the classified cyber assessment discussed its central conclusion but did not provide details.

Spokesmen for the White House and office of the director of national intelligence declined to comment.

Recent comments by President Obama and senior military and security officials, however, reflect the intelligence assessment.

Obama said during a summit in Germany June 8 that he would not disclose who conducted the OPM hack. But he said such attacks would continue.

“We have known for a long time that there are significant vulnerabilities and that these vulnerabilities are gonna accelerate as time goes by, both in systems within government and within the private sector,” the president said.

Last week, Adm. Mike Rogers, commander of the U.S. Cyber Command, said the increase in state-sponsored cyber attacks is partly the result of a perception that “there’s not a significant price to pay” for such attacks.

Privately, administration officials said the assessment appears to be an indirect criticism of the administration’s approach to cyber attacks that has emphasized diplomatic and law enforcement measures instead of counter-cyber attacks.

“The administration is expecting more attacks because they’re unwilling to do anything,” said one official. “They’re preparing for more attacks because we’re failing to deter and defend against them.”

Intelligence and cyber security experts agreed with the assessment that weak U.S. responses are encouraging more cyber attacks.

“Until we redefine warfare in the age of information, we will continue to be viciously and dangerously attacked with no consequences for those attackers,” said retired Army Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, a former Defense Intelligence Agency director.

“The extraordinary intellectual theft ongoing across the U.S.’s cyber critical infrastructure has the potential to shut down massive components of our nation’s capabilities, such as health care, energy and communications systems. This alone should scare the heck out of everyone.”

James Lewis, a cyber security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, agreed. Lewis said the defensive approach that emphasizes closing vulnerabilities to cyber attacks is not working.

“Unless we punch back, we will continue to get hit,” Lewis said.

Lewis says that conducting retaliatory cyber strikes without starting a war is difficult but not impossible.

“There are a lot of ways to do this – leaking some party leader’s bank account could be a good start,” Lewis said. “Many people think a cyber response is the best way to signal where the lines are the other side should not cross.”

“We’re all coming to the same place – that a defensive orientation doesn’t work,” he added.

Rogers, the Cyber Command chief who has stated in the past that he favors more aggressive U.S. responses, acknowledged that the U.S. response to the OPM hack has been muted compared to the government’s highly-public response to North Korea’s damaging cyber attack in November against Sony Pictures Entertainment. The Sony hack was a failed bid by the North Koreans to derail the release of a comedy film critical of dictator Kim Jong Un.

Major incidents in recent months include the Sony attack; cyber attacks against the health care provider Anthem that compromised the records of some 80 million people; attacks against State Department and White House networks from suspected Russian government-linked hackers; the OPM hacking; and an Iranian-backed cyber attack against the Sands casino in Las Vegas.

Asked about the increase in state-sponsored attacks, Rogers said during a security conference in Colorado that one factor has been a lack of response.

Rogers earlier in congressional testimony has suggested a more muscular cyber policy that would include demonstrations and threats of retaliatory cyber attacks against hackers in a bid to create deterrence similar to the Cold War-era strategic nuclear deterrence.

In addition to more capable hackers, “you’ve got a perception, I believe, that to date there is little price to pay for engaging in some pretty aggressive behaviors,” Rogers aid.

“Whether it’s stealing intellectual property; whether it’s getting in and destroying things as we saw in the Sony attack; whether it’s going after large masses of data – OPM being the most recent but go back to the summer of ’14 and we saw a successful penetration of a large health insurance company and the extraction of most of the medical records and personal data information that they had.”

Nation states are only one part of the threat. Criminal groups also are conducting large-scale cyber attacks, Rogers said.

In November, Rogers said he argued for going public in naming North Korea’s communist regime for the Sony hack and having the president make a public statement that Pyongyang would pay a price.

Rogers said some officials in the administration favored a less public response to the Sony case.

“So one of my concerns was this time it was a movie,” Rogers said. “What if next time a nation state, a group, an individual, an actor decides I don’t like the U.S. policy, I don’t like a U.S. product, I don’t agree with this particular position taken by a company, or taken by an individual. If we start down this road, this is not a good one for us as a nation.”

Rogers said he argued strongly that “we cannot pretend that this did not happen,” and that the attack had to be linked to North Korea directly.

“My concern was if we do nothing, then one of the potential unintended consequences of this could be does this send a signal to other nation states, other groups, other actors that this kind of behavior [is okay] and that you can do this without generating any kind of response,” Rogers said.

On not naming the Chinese for the OPM hack, Rogers appears to have lost out during the administration’s debate on naming the Chinese.

“OPM is an ongoing issue,” Rogers said, adding that he would not discuss the specifics of internal discussions.

“But I would acknowledge, hey, to date the response to OPM, there’s a thought process and I’m the first to acknowledge to date we have to take a different approach.”

Asked if he agreed with doing nothing about the OPM response, Rogers suggested some action might be forthcoming.

“Just because you’re not reading something in the media does not mean that there’s not things ongoing,” he said. “So I would argue, let’s step back and see how this plays out a little bit.”

He defended the more public U.S. response to the Sony hack that included limited sanctions against North Korean agencies and officials, by noting that to date no similar cyber attacks by Pyongyang have been conducted.

.

.

More Proof That Leftists Are Dumber Than Dirt… As If We Needed More

California To Force Porn Actresses To Wear Safety Goggles On Set – Downtrend

.

.
In their never ending quest to control all aspects of life with silly regulations, the liberal ninnies that run California have come up with a long list of safety rules for porno film shoots. Among other things, they want to require actors and actresses to wear safety goggles while performing sex scenes. It would seem as if the state has become every adult in the movie A Christmas Story: “You’ll shoot your eye out, kid.”

The California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board released a 21-page proposal of porno regulations. If you find it funny that the state is pushing this volume of rules for porn shoots, it’s even more hilarious that they spent 5-years of hearings and research to come up with this stuff.

One of the big recommendations is to make condom use mandatory for all filmed sex scenes, something Los Angles passed into law recently. As unenforceable as that is, there’s even more hard-to-regulate regulations:

No one on a porn set would be allowed to pick up broken glass with their hands. They’d have to use a broom and dust pan.

Porn actors would not be allowed to share razors or any personal grooming devices.

Porn sets would have to be covered in plastic protective coverings capable of keeping the area safe from contamination.

There’s a set of rules regarding the cleaning of dildos.

Porn producers would have to provide soap to the actors that is not irritating.

Anyone handling clothing, including the actors, must wear latex gloves.

And the best of the bunch: If there is to be a facial “money shot” actors and actresses would have to wear eye protection. In fact, the facial as we know it would be outlawed by these regulations:

6. Barrier protection for the eyes, skin, mouth, and mucous membranes. The employer shall not permit ejaculation onto the employee’s eyes, non-intact skin, mouth or other mucous membranes.

In addition to this stuff, there are pages and pages of regulations requiring that porn producers provide vaccinations, laundry service, and my favorite: that they post warning signs on the set. It’s not real clear what these warning signs should be, but I imagine “Caution: Splash Zone” would do the trick.

In addition, there are 10 different regulations related to condom use, including mandatory lubricant. If a porn actor changes the point of entry, he must then remove the condom and put on a new one.

Cal/OSHA is holding public hearings on their massive porn regulation proposal and will soon make a decision on whether to implement these rules or not. This being California, it’s a given that they will vote in favor of unrealistic unenforceable regulations.

I think it will be hilarious to see a porno shot with all of these rules in place: the walls and furniture are covered in plastic drop cloths, the actor and actress are wearing latex gloves and safety goggles, every time they switch positions the actor stops to apply a new condom and lubricant, when it’s over crew members in biohazard suits rush in to quickly decontaminate the set. It should be pretty hot.

.

.

Clinton Foundation Lies As More Secret Donors Uncovered

More Clinton Foundation Secret Donors Uncovered, And Foundation Lies About It – American Thinker

.

.
Not only did the Clinton Foundation conceal the names of 1100 big foreign donors to an affiliate, it has lied about doing so. First, the concealment, via Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger of the Washington Post:

A charity affiliated with the Clinton Foundation failed to reveal the identities of its 1,100 donors, creating a broad exception to the foundation’s promise to disclose funding sources as part of an ethics agreement with the Obama administration.

The number of undisclosed contributors to the charity, the Canada-based Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, signals a larger zone of secrecy around foundation donors than was previously known.

Details of the organization’s fundraising were disclosed this week by a spokeswoman for the Canadian group’s founder, mining magnate Frank Giustra.

Giustra is the billionaire who greased the skids for approval of the sale of American uranium mines to the Russians.

Now, for the Clintion Foundation lie. Helderman and Hamburger:

S foundation official this week defended the arrangement with the Giustra group, noting in a blog post that Canadian law prevents charities in that country from disclosing their donors without the donors’ permission.

The Canadian partnership has in recent days begun to reach out to its 28 largest donors, each of whom gave donations equivalent to at least $250,000 in U.S. dollars, to seek permission to release their names, said a person familiar with the foundation, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist exposes the lie:

The Clinton foundation claims that it couldn’t be totally transparent about who was doing business with this Giustra Partnership because of Canadian law barring them from listing individual donors. And in this CNN story, a Giustra spokesman claims that they didn’t brief the Clinton Foundation on donations to the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership:

Giuistra’s spokesperson would not detail the group’s donors, but said that no one from the Clinton Foundation was briefed on donations to The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) because that would have broken Canadian law.

But @morgenr found a few instances of the Clintons publishing this information on Canadian web sites (snip)

According to an expert on Canadian charitable organization law, however, the Clinton Foundation claim that public disclosures are barred by federal law rests on shaky ground. Adam Aptowitzer, an attorney with Drache Aptowitzer LLP, told The Federalist that Canadian federal law does not have a blanket prohibition on public disclosure of the names of charity donors.

“Federal law prohibits disclosure related to commercial activity: things like selling, renting, or bartering of a list. Fundraising is not a covered activity under PIPEDA, the federal privacy law,” Aptowitzer said. Federal privacy laws in Canada prohibit the disclosure of personal information in the course of commercial activity.

“I don’t see how the public disclosure of a donor’s name constitutes commercial activity,” Aptowitzer concluded. “There’s no transaction; there’s no consideration.”

As Aptowitzer notes, Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) discusses disclosure of personal information but it covers only commercial activities. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada specifically declares that charities are exempted:

It should be noted that PIPEDA does not apply to organizations that are not engaged in commercial activity. As such, it does not generally apply to not-for-profit and charity groups, associations or political parties, for example – unless the organization is conducting a commercial activity (fundraising is not considered a commercial activity).

The Federalist also reached out to the Canada Revenue Agency, the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and the primary federal overseer of charitable organizations in Canada, and asked if the agency was aware of any blanket statutory ban on donor disclosure.

“The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is responsible for administering only those provisions of the Income Tax Act that relate to the registration and monitoring of charities and other qualified donees,” Magali Deussing, a public affairs representative for the CRA, told The Federalist. “Although the Income Tax Act regulates whether the CRA can disclose taxpayer information (including donor information), it does not regulate whether a registered charity or other qualified donee can disclose donor information.”

Either way, if the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership’s Canadian bundler somehow felt that they needed to ask for permission, they could easily do that. Just looking at other large Canadian foundations shows us that other foundations don’t hide their donors using claims it’s illegal to disclose donor information in Canada.

All the big donors to United Way in Toronto, for instance, are named on the charity’s web site, including roughly how much they gave. If donors “requested” anonymity, United Way gave it but no one who gave at the Platinum Club ($5M+), Gold Club ($2.5M-$5M) or Million Dollar Round Table ($1M-2.5M) levels did so. All the folks who made endowment and bequest gifts – with a few exceptions – were listed on the United Way Toronto’s website. None who gave at the $500K+ level requested anonymity. Or the $200K-$500K level. And so on and so forth. Why should United Way Toronto have such a higher standard for transparency than the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership? This is particularly true considering the nature of the mining deals charitable work being done by the Clinton groups.

In an update, Hemingway debunks the respone of the Clinton Foundation:

[UPDATE: After this article was initially published, the Clinton Foundation sent The Federalist two links (here and here) allegedly supporting its contention that federal law in Canada prohibits public disclosure of the names of charitable organization donors. Unfortunately for the Clinton Foundation, neither link supports the organization’s rationale for deliberately withholding donor information from the public. In fact, one of the links actually includes information that directly contradicts the Clinton Foundation’s assertion.

According to a guide for non-profit compliance that is prominently linked on the page provided by the Clinton Foundation, fundraising activities of non-profits are specifically exempt from the privacy protections in Canada’s federal privacy law. Why? Because, as the article below states, public disclosure of non-profit donors does not constitute “commercial activity” and is therefore not at all prohibited:

Most non-profits are not subject to the Act because they do not engage in commercial activities. This is typically the case with most charities, minor hockey associations, clubs, community groups and advocacy organizations. Collecting membership fees, organizing club activities, compiling a list of members’ names and addresses, and mailing out newsletters are not considered commercial activities. Similarly, fundraising is not a commercial activity.

.

.

Republican Midterm Wave More Massive Than Anyone Realized

GOP Wave More Massive Than Anyone Realized – WorldNetDaily

The GOP “wave” Tuesday was not limited to Congress alone.

“This was a wave election victory for Republicans in state legislatures across the country, leaving Democrats at their lowest point in state legislatures in nearly a century,” Morgan Cullen, senior policy specialist at the National Conference of State Legislatures in Colorado, told WND.

“Even though the GOP was already at a high-water point in state legislative control, last night was a big night for Republicans in that the 2014 midterm election saw the GOP make important additional gains in legislative control.”

Voters Tuesday were deciding 6,049 state legislative seats in 46 states, nearly 82 percent of all seats.

State legislatures typically are the place where both Republicans and Democrats groom future candidates to run for governor, as well as for Congress.

Cullen noted Republicans have gained a net total of 332 seats in state legislatures nationwide out of the 649 seats up for election, with some outstanding races still too close to call.

Moreover, the GOP added majority control of 10 state legislative chambers, including the Colorado Senate, the Maine Senate, the Maine House, the Nevada Assembly, the Nevada Senate, the New Hampshire House, the New York Senate, the New Mexico House, the Washington Senate and the West Virginia House. The West Virginia Senate is now deadlocked and two chambers still undecided are the Colorado House and the Washington House.

In addition, Democrats lost their super-majorities in the California Senate, the Vermont House and the Maryland Senate.

Republicans now control 67 state chambers while the Democrats control 28. Prior to Tuesday, Republicans had a 57-41 advantage.

Republicans have complete state control – both chambers and the governor’s mansion – in 23 states, compared to six states for the Democrats.

“This was a big night for Republicans,” Cullen said. “If you had asked me before the election, I would have told you mid-term elections disfavor the party in the White House; and looking into my crystal ball I would have told you the Republicans were poised to pick up a few chambers here and there. But I would have said it was going to be a ripple, when it was a wave.”

Cullen said the Republican gains in the 2014 midterm elections were more significant than in 2010.

“To put last night in context, the Republicans had an even bigger night in the last mid-term elections in 2010, when they picked up over 700 seats in state legislatures nationwide and control in 22 chambers,” she said.

“But you have to put this into perspective and realize the Republicans had lost the three previous legislative election cycles before 2010 and the GOP was at a low-water mark going into the 2010 mid-term elections. The gains Republicans made in this 2014 mid-term election are even more impressive when you consider the GOP topped the high-water mark set in 2010.”

.

.

.

Corruption Update: Obama Regime Releases 7,173 More Illegal Aliens In Three Weeks

Feds Release 7,173 More Illegals In Three Weeks – Big Government

.

.
The federal government released 7,173 more illegal immigrant juveniles into the United States from July 7 to July 31st, according to updated data from the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

During those three weeks, Alabama received 108 more illegal immigrants; California,, 759; Florida 628; Georgia, 258; Louisiana, 204; North Carolina, 373; New Jersey, 237; New York, 897; Texas, 1,000.

The federal government has now released 37,477 illegal immigrant juveniles detained at the U.S.-Mexico border this year. They had released 30,304 as of July 7.

Since October of last year, there have been at least 60,000 illegal immigrant juveniles who have been apprehended at the border, and federal officials expect nearly 150,000 more will be detained in the next fiscal year. According to Pew Research, nearly 90% of the illegal immigrant juveniles who have been detained in the last two years have been teenagers. The number of illegal immigrants who have been detained drastically spiked after President Barack Obama enacted his temporary amnesty program for illegal immigrants two years ago.

Here are the updated numbers, according to the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

Alabama – 515
Alaska – 5
Arizona – 203
Arkansas – 209
California – 3,909
Colorado – 263
Connecticut – 394
Delaware – 141
District of Columbia – 238
Florida – 3,809
Georgia – 1,412
Hawaii – 8
Idaho – 13
Illinois – 377
Indiana – 309
Iowa – 159
Kansas – 207
Kentucky 284
Louisiana – 1,275
Maine – 12
Maryland – 2,804
Massachusetts – 989
Michigan – 124
Minnesota – 202
Mississippi – 202
Missouri – 146
Montana – 1
Nebraska – 232
Nevada – 163
New Hampshire – 24
New Jersey – 1877
New Mexico – 28
New York – 4,244
North Carolina – 1,429
North Dakota – 4
Ohio – 405
Oklahoma – 241
Oregon – 73
Pennsylvania – 456
Puerto Rico – 1
Rhode Island – 148
South Carolina – 434
South Dakota – 27
Tennessee – 909
Texas – 5,280
Utah – 85
Vermont – 3
Virginia – 2,856
Virgin Islands – 4
Washington – 265
West Virginia – 12
Wisconsin – 60
Wyoming – 7

Total – 37,477

.

.

*VIDEOS* MORE Of Trey Gowdy’s Greatest Hits


PART 1

.
PART 2

.
PART 3

.
PART 4

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related videos:

.
PART 1

.
PART 2

.
PART 3

.
PART 4

.
PART 5

.

.

More Obama-Muslim Brotherhood Cooperation Revealed: Smells Like Treason To Me (Allen West)

More Obama-Muslim Brotherhood Cooperation Revealed: Smells Like Treason To Me – Allen West

.

.
We’ve frequently addressed the mounting evidence showing the deep ties between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, just recently we reported on Mohammed Elibiary’s tweets about America being an Islamic country – he just happens to be an Obama administration advisor on Homeland Security with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

As par for the course, liberal progressives prefer to put their heads in the sand and dismiss the growing evidence – like this particular story, for instance.

According to the Gulf News, cooperation between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood has been going on for quite some time. In 2010 even before the “Arab Spring,” Obama personally issued Presidential Study Directive 11 (PSD-11) to assess the Muslim Brotherhood and other “political Islamist” movements, including the ruling AKP in Turkey. The report concluded the United States should shift from its longstanding policy of supporting “stability” in the Middle East and North Africa (in other words, supporting “stable regimes” even if they were authoritarian), to a policy of backing “moderate” Islamic political movements.”

Just go back and review the speeches Obama gave in 2009 to the Turkish General Assembly and at Cairo University in Egypt and you’ll get the sense that President Obama wasn’t taking the Islamist threat seriously – or at least didn’t think there was anything wrong with it.

Gulf News says, “to this day, PSD-11 remains classified, in part because it reveals an embarrassingly naïve and uninformed view of trends in the Middle East and North Africa (Mena) region.”

If you need a little refresher about the Muslim Brotherhood’s ultimate goals – or still refuse to acknowledge it – take a quick read of their Explanatory Memorandum.

According to Gulf News, “through an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, thousands of pages of documentation of the US State Department’s dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood are in the process of being declassified and released to the public. US State Department documents obtained under the FOIA confirm that the Obama administration maintained frequent contact and ties with the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood. At one point, in April 2012, US officials arranged for the public relations director of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammad Gaair, to come to Washington to speak at a conference on “Islamists in Power” hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.”

Don’t you find it interesting that the Obama administration unilaterally made the decision to engage in military operations in Libya? And don’t give me the NATO line because the U.S. is NATO. President Obama violated the War Powers Act – something where Dennis Kucinich and I stood together – and committed U.S. military resources in support of Islamist militia. It was also the same Obama who praised the rise of Mohammed Morsi – formerly an imprisoned Muslim Brotherhood member – as the President of Egypt but did not recognize the more than 30 million Egyptians who took to the streets for the ouster of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. And the Obama administration is still wound up about Egypt cracking down on the Brotherhood, as Kerry’s spokesman clarified.

Gulf News reveals the contents of a State Department Cable classified “Confidential” report saying in April 2012, Mission Benghazi met with a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood steering committee to discuss the Muslim Brotherhood’s decision to form a political party as both an opportunity and an obligation in post-revolution Libya after years of operating underground.”

“Another State Department paper marked “Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU)” contained talking points for Deputy Secretary of State William Burns’ scheduled July 14, 2012 meeting with Mohammad Sawan, the Muslim Brotherhood leader who was also head of the Brotherhood’s Justice and Construction Party. The document is heavily redacted, but nevertheless provides clear indication of Washington’s sympathies for the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood as a major political force in the post-Gaddafi Libya.”

And just for coincidental posterity, the July 14 meeting was attended by both Secretary Burns and Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Barely two months later, Ambassador Stevens and three other American diplomats were dead.

I know Speaker of the House, John Boehner, is pursuing a lawsuit against President Obama for constitutional power usurpation. I think we need to be looking under another rock – the one of aiding and abetting the enemy that leads to high crimes and misdemeanors. The Obama administration’s collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood is just that – and could easily be seen as treasonous.

.

.

20 Million MORE Americans Could Lose Insurance Thanks To Obamacare

20 Million More Americans Could Lose Insurance -WorldNetDaily

.

.
The same failed Obamacare promise that plunged the individual health-care market into chaos last year is now hitting small group plans and could result in lost coverage for 20 million Americans.

Obamacare’s employer mandate does not apply to businesses with fewer than 50 employees, but many of those those companies are still receiving notices from their insurance providers informing them their previous plans are being canceled because they don’t contain all the provisions required under the new law.

Much like individual policyholders last year, small group plan holders are discovering their plans don’t qualify for being grandfathered, despite the famed assurance that if they liked their plans they could keep them.

“If you had your plan prior to March 2010 when Obamacare became law, it was supposed to be grandfathered in. You were supposed to keep it, but the Department of Labor came out with these grandfather regulations. It’s almost like telling a guy you can keep walking on the beach as long as you don’t get any sand on your feet. It’s almost impossible not to violate,” said National Center for Public Policy Research health-care analyst Dr. David Hogberg.

“If one of your co-pays goes up $10 over one year, your plan is no longer grandfathered. If the co-insurance you pay for a procedure was at 15 percent and they moved it up to 16 percent, it is no longer grandfathered,” he said.

Hogberg points to Labor Department statistics that admit 66 percent of small group plans will fail to be grandfathered because of those types of technicalities. With 31 million people employed by firms with less than 50 employees, some 20 million Americans are facing cancellation of their policies.

“It was obvious from the start that these regulations were going to result in loads of people losing their health insurance, but the president kept making that promise that if you like your insurance you can keep it, when he should have known better and I kind of suspect that he did know better,” Hogberg said.

The issue is not just theoretical for Hogberg, whose employer has fewer than 50 workers. In January, the National Center for Public Policy Research was informed by Kaiser Permanente that the policy the organization used since 1996 no longer met federal standards and had to be canceled. Hogberg said the plan Kaiser now recommends requires a six percent hike in premiums, which is a much better deal than other small firms are seeing.

Hogberg said his boss noted the cancellation would provide most small employers plenty of incentive to scrap insurance altogether and force employees onto health-care exchanges. He said it’s hard to estimate how many businesses would actually do that.

Another concern for Hogberg is how the story seems to be slipping below the radar for a mainstream media that were all over the headaches caused by individual policies getting canceled. He said it’s probably because of how enrollment periods are defined for different groups.

“Individual policies are mostly renewed in January of each year, and so these cancellation letters had to all be sent out over a period of a few months. Small group plans are renewed practically every month,” Hogberg said. “I think that’s one reason why the media might not be giving small group cancellations quite the same coverage because it’s happening over a more protracted period of time. The number of cancellations doesn’t escalate very quickly, so at this point it’s not making a huge media story.”

However, the number of Americans set to lose their small group plan coverage is much greater than those affected by the individual market, whether their employers end up finding another plan or dropping coverage and forcing employees to find insurance on the exchanges. As a result, Hogberg predicts this will be another black eye for Obamacare.

“I think this is another reason why Obamacare is in such trouble. First of all, the law shouldn’t be forcing people to lose their insurance to begin with. But if that’s going to happen, if many people are going to lose the plans that they like, I suspect most people would at least prefer to get a new plan that’s better than the old one,” Hogberg said.

“So far, I really don’t see much evidence that that’s happening and quite a bit of evidence that it’s not. People are paying higher premiums and higher out-of-pocket costs. Networks of doctors and hospitals are more restrictive,” he said. “I suspect the Obama administration and other Obamacare supporters are kind of in denial about that. Maybe that denial will end come November, but who knows?”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Racist Eugenicists Update: More Black Babies Killed By Abortion In New York Than Born

NYC: More Black Babies Killed By Abortion Than Born – CNS

In 2012, there were more black babies killed by abortion (31,328) in New York City than were born there (24,758), and the black children killed comprised 42.4% of the total number of abortions in the Big Apple, according to a report by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

.

.
The report is entitled, Summary of Vital Statistics 2012 The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes, and was prepared by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Vital Statistics. (See Pregnancy Outcomes NYC Health 2012.pdf)

Table 1 of the report presents the total number of live births, spontaneous terminations (miscarriages), and induced terminations (abortions) for women in different age brackets between 15 and 49 years of age. The table also breaks that data down by race – Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black – and also by borough of residence: Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island.

The numbers show that in 2012, there were 31,328 induced terminations (abortions) among non-Hispanic black women in New York City. That same year, there were 24,758 live births for non-Hispanic black women in New York City. There were 6,570 more abortions than live births of black children.

In total, there were 73,815 abortions, which means the 31,328 black babies aborted comprised 42.4% of the total abortions.

For Hispanic women, there were 22,917 abortions in New York City in 2012, which is 31% of the total abortions.

Black and Hispanic abortions combined, 54,245 babies, is 73% of the total abortions in the Big Apple in 2012.

The number of non-Hispanic white abortions was 9,704, and the number of Asian and Pacific Islander abortions was 4,493.

The total number of live births in New York City in 2012 for women ages 15-49 was 123,231. That is a rate of 14.8 live births per 1,000 women, which is the lowest rate since 1979, according to the report. In addition, the live birth rate (per 1,000 women) has declined 3.9% since 2003, when it was a 15.4 rate, states the report. (See Pregnancy Outcomes NYC Health 2012.pdf)

In addition, while there were 73,815 abortions in New York City in 2012, the rate of abortions per 1,000 women is down 8.6% since 2011, according to the report.

Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have not published their abortion statistics for 2011 or 2012 yet, they do have data for 2010. (See Table 12.) In the CDC’s numbers, there were 38,574 black babies killed by abortion in New York City in 2010; Hispanic babies aborted, 27,112; white babies killed by abortion, 9,220; and “other” aborted, 5,368. The total abortions in New York City in 2010 “reported by known race/ethnicity” were 80,274, according to the CDC.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Obamacare Catastrophe Update: 185 Times More Health Plans Canceled Than Selected On Exchange

Congressman: 185 Times More Health Plans Canceled Than Selected On Federal Exchange – Daily Caller

.

Republicans are continuing to hammer the point that vastly more people have lost their health care than gained new health insurance coverage under Obamacare.

In a Friday memo, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp emphasized that the number of people who have had their individual health insurance plans canceled due to Obamacare is 185 times the number of people who have selected an insurance plan on the federal Obamacare exchange.

Camp’s memo – released a day after President Obama announced his “fix” to allow people to retain their current coverage until after the midterms – pointed out the 5 million Americans who have had their plans canceled due to Obamacare and the mere 106,185 people who have actually signed up for the exchange, with just 26,794 people enrolling through the federal exchange.

“What they didn’t say was that the data represents not just those who purchased a plan, but also those who have selected a plan – aka placed in their ‘shopping cart,’” The memo explains of the enrollment data. “This inflated number (what the Administration calls pre-effectuated enrollment) still falls well below the Administration’s month-by-month projections included in a memo obtained by the Ways and Means Committee.”

In a state-by-state comparison of the Obama administration’s projections for the first month of October and the recently released enrollment data, just New York, Rhode Island, and Connecticut exceeded their expectations.

.

The House is set to vote on a Republican plan to allow insurance providers to continue to provide and sell plans that do not meet the Obamacare requirements.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Project Veritas Releases 2nd Video Exposing More Obamacare Navigator Fraud, Deceit

Project Veritas Releases Second Video Exposing More TX Navigator Fraud & Deceit – Gateway Pundit

James O’ Keefe’s Veritas released a second video showing even more Texas Obamacare Navigators suggesting fraud and deceit to undercover reporters. Veritas reported:

Obamacare Navigator Fraud Continues

Project Veritas caught Obamacare Navigators counseling applicants to lie on their applications, which is cheating the federal government, the American taxpayer, and the countless families who truly need quality health care.

But critics are saying the video wasn’t in context and it was just an isolated incident. Certainly, our encounters might have been isolated, so we decided to visit with even more Navigators (who are funded by your hard-earned tax dollars).

And what did we find? Watch the video below and see for yourself!

Via Capitol City Project:

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.