Thursday, May 21, 2015

Under 0bama income inequality has increased 26%

A measure of a failed presidency: Under 0bama income inequality has increased 26%

While soaring stock prices do nothing to boost the economy, because as 7 years of hard facts have shown, the only thing "trickle down" QE has done is forced economists to jump the shark and demand not one but two seasonal adjustments to goal seek collapsing economic data, the S&P hitting new all time highs on a daily basis has certainly succeeded in one thing: pushing inequality around the globe, and especially in the US, to new record highs.

And earlier today the latest OECD report confirmed just that, when it reported that gap between the rich and poor in most of the world's advanced economies is at record levels.

In most of the 34 countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development the income gap is at its highest level in three decades, with the richest 10 percent of the population earning 9.6 times the income of the poorest 10 percent.

In the 1980s this ratio stood at 7 to 1, the OECD said in a report.

The wealth gap is even larger, with the top 1 percent owning 18 percent and the 40 percent only 3 percent of household wealth in 2012.
"We have reached a tipping point. Inequality in OECD countries is at its highest since records began," said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria.

Keep in mind this only looks at earnings, which have actually slowed down in recent years, and ignores the massive imbalance in accumulated assets: assets which almost exclusively are controlled by the top 10%. As for the bottom 10%, 50% and even 90%? Well they have "liabilities."

Sadly as this point it is far too late for hopes of a change: the wealthy are so engrained in the fabric of official decision-making, that any hope they would willingly cede their wealth, or power, is naive. As a result, the failed policies which have pushed the world to this disastrous condition will continue as can be seen by the recent launch of QE in Europe and the boost of QE in Japan, which will make the rich even richer, and the poor and hungry even madder until one day, the entire world decides it has had it and is covered in a bloody revolution against a broken status quo regime.

The OECD's is a little more politically correct, but it too now gets the message:

"By not addressing inequality, governments are cutting into the social fabric of their countries and hurting their long-term economic growth," said Gurria.

Here is the direct evidence that it is the Fed's policies that are causing the economic slowdown: the study found that the rise in inequality between 1985 and 2005 in 19 OECD countries knocked an estimated 4.7 percentage points off cumulative growth between 1990 and 2010.

One can only imagine what inequality did to GDP after 2005 when it really took off.

Another point Zero Hedge has made since 2010: the reason there is no inequality is the surge in part-time labor and temp jobs, which the idiot economists have consistently spun as bullish for an "any minute now" recovery. As it turns out it was just another byproduct of the Fed's disastrous monetary policies.

According to AFP, "an increase in part-time and temporary work contracts as well as self-employment was seen as an important driver of increased inequality, with half of all jobs created in OECD countries between 1995 and 2013 falling into these categories."

So we guess that wasn't just yet another Zero Hedged "conspiracy theory" after all.

Naively, the OECD believes that wealth redistribution with taxation may fix the problem:

Redistributive taxes and transfers is another effective option, said the OECD as it noted that existing mechanisms have been weakened in many countries.


"To address this, policies need to ensure that wealthier individuals, but also multinational firms, pay their share of the tax burden," said the OECD, which has been playing a key role in an international effort to crack down on tax avoidance.

Great on paper; horrible in practice for the simple reason that it is the wealthiest 0.001% who now own the legislative branch, directly and indirectly, will never agree to laws that tax them more. Case in point: Buffett who is all about boosting income tax which crushes the middle class, while staying mute on carried interest and financial asset tax. Of course: he is no idiot, and realizes that in a crony capitalist world made for billionaires, the only thing that matters are "assets." Plus cash flow in a ZIRP (and certainly NIRP) world is a thing of the past.

And finally, while the US middle class is approaching extinction and millions are desperate to find how to feed their families, the 0.001% are spending their money on stuff like $50,000 monthly rentals. From Bloomberg:

There's a four-story townhouse on the Upper East Side for $35,000 a month that Marilyn Monroe once called her "sanctuary," according to the listing, and a four-bedroom duplex in Midtown for $70,000 that Oscar winner Anne Hathaway used to rent. There are rentals in iconic new buildings and in grand old hotels. For $42,500 a month, you can live in the Chelsea condominium designed by Pritzker-winning architect Jean Nouvel. For a cool quarter million, there's the Jewel Suite at the New York Palace, decorated with glass-encased rings and necklaces by the designer Martin Katz. (Management will gladly add the baubles to your bill, said Margaret Bay, an agent at Brown Harris Stevens, who has the listing.)


In all, there were 82 apartments renting for at least $50,000 a month listed on StreetEasy during the first three months of the year, more than triple the number listed in the first quarter of 2008. At lower thresholds, luxury listings are also on the rise. Apartments renting for more than $25,000 a month made up 0.95 percent of total inventory in the first quarter of 2015, up from 0.46 percent in the first quarter of 2008. Real estate agents and wealth managers say the increase in expensive rentals is partly an outgrowth of the luxury building boom sweeping through New York City, and partly due to the shifting whims of a global elite that wants luxury digs without the hassle of a long-term commitment.

How does all of this class insanity end? Simple: watch the following documentary on the French Revolution which we first posted over the weekend, for the answer.

Rand Paul Filibustering Renewal of Patriot Act 5-20-2015

Funny, how most of the Senators that were there and agree with Senator Rand Paul are Democrats, including this opening segment with Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon.
The NSA withheld information from the Senate and lied about it.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Jobs? Only in government with this administration

Congressman Love: "Funny how some only talk about jobs when it expands government control. Where was the concern for jobs in 2010 with the passage Obamacare?"

Monday, May 18, 2015

Yahoo Finance: The Saudi's just went nuclear on their 0bama snub

The Saudis & others now say they'll match Iran--so thanks, 0bama, for setting off a Middle East nuclear arms race!

Friday, May 15, 2015

0bama is simply a passenger in the nation's car wreck

There you have it, straight from the mouth of a typical millennial. 0bama is on the sidelines, and is not responsible in ANY way for the mess we are in, whether it be Iraq, the economy, healthcare costs, you name it. It's just not his fault.

On Wednesday afternoon, just as she sat down to watch TV and eat a corn dog, Ivy Ziedrich's phone rang. It was her sister in Montana.

"I am so proud of you," her sister said, "for yelling at a politician."

It was the first inkling that Ms. Ziedrich, a 19-year-old college student with a passion for the debate team and the finer points of Middle Eastern policy, had gone viral.

Her confrontation with Jeb Bush, in which she told the former Florida governor a few hours earlier, "Your brother created ISIS," was suddenly everywhere online, casting an unwelcome hue on President George W. Bush's legacy from the war in Iraq.

"My sister started freaking out," Ms. Ziedrich recalled.

In an interview, Ms. Ziedrich described a dizzying 24 hours of social media frenzy, her upbringing in a conservative Republican family, and the circumstances that prompted her to approach Jeb Bush, who was in Reno for a town hall-style meeting on Wednesday.

She had shown up with a few college friends uncertain of whether she wanted to ask anything at all. But as Mr. Bush spoke about the rise of the Islamic State, and put blame on President Obama for removing troops from Iraq, Ms. Ziedrich found herself becoming furious. ISIS, she believed, was the product of George W. Bush's bungled war in Iraq.

"A Bush was trying to blame ISIS on Obama's foreign policy — it was hilarious," said Ms. Ziedrich, who attends the University of Nevada. "It was like somebody crashing their car and blaming the passenger."

She acknowledged she was deeply nervous about walking up to him after the meeting and asking her question. "I get nervous any time I talk to an authority figure — he wants to be president of the United States," she said.

Her question and his reply seemed to distill deep, lingering anger of the war in Iraq and encapsulate Mr. Bush's political challenges as the brother of George W. Bush. Much online commentary has focused on her somewhat aggressive tone, a fact that Ms. Ziedrich finds a bit baffling.

"I wasn't trying to be disrespectful," she said. In fact, she said she is grateful that Mr. Bush responded, even if it did not exactly satisfy her.

Ms. Ziedrich, a high school debater who specialized in the parliamentary style and still helps coach her former team, said that all the attention she is garnering from those on the right (who thought she was rude) and those on the left (who want to canonize her) is confounding given her own political journey. Growing up in Northern California, she considered herself a conservative like her mother and father, who is a loyal Fox News viewer.

Then she identified as a libertarian and, ultimately, as Democratic, influenced by her time spent debating and by books like Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States."

Speaking from her apartment, Ms. Ziedrich says she is busy juggling calls from old friends and media outlets.

"I am still trying to process all of this," she said.

So far, her mother has expressed approval of the confrontation. But she hasn't yet spoken with her father. "I am hoping he will be proud of me," she said.

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

No worries - Stocks at all time highs!

Given that US equities are at record highs, everything must be great in the US economy...

US Retail Sales At Recession, Weakest Since Financial Crisis

Yeah, now would be a GREAT time to buy stocks. Bwahaha ha ha

Oh well: it rained in the spring, unexpectedly, preventing Americans from spending trillions in cash they don't have on stuff they don't need. Oh, and don't forget Easter came around this year.

April just printed the slowest YoY growth since Nov09 at just 0.9% (retail sales has still missed expectations for 4 of the last 5 months). Against expectations of a 0.2% MoM rise in April (considerably slower than the 0.9% pop in March), Retail Sales missed with a 0.0% change. Ex-Auto and Gas MoM also missed with a mere 0.1% gain (aghainst +0.5% exp.) but it was the control group that saw the biggest miss, printing 0.0% (against hopeful expectations of a 0.5% gain). There was widespresd weakness with outright declines in autos, furniture, gas, food, electronics (AAPL hangover), and general merchandise.

What is curious is that moments ahead of the release, sellsiders were overslling the retail print to appear far more important than it is, in hopes for a big beat. CRT strategist David Ader says in note that "Retail Sales is, oddly, perhaps more important than NFP..."

And now we get the talking down.

MoM saw a modest reveision in march save it from 5 monthly misses in a row:

Year-over-Year retail sales growth slowest since July 2008's slump:

Worse, non-seasonally adjusted retail sales which however are perfectly relevant on a Y/Y basis as the same seasonal adjustment takes place every 12 months, posted their first decline since the Great Recession.

And the Control Group shows no signsof improvment post-weather or post-gas savings...

The Breakdown is particularly ugly...

Oh well: it rained in the spring, unexpectedly, preventing Americans from spending trillions in cash they don't have on stuff they don't need. Oh, and don't forget Easter came around this year.

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

National Debt: Can You Explain It In 10 Seconds?

Yeah: Dummycrats spend more that we have on useless crap!

There are so many ways to talk about the 10-year balanced budget plan Congress passed last week – the first blueprint of its kind since 2001.

But when a 16-year old blogger asked Speaker Boehner, "Can you explain this debt to me so I can explain it to my friends?," he went with a more straightforward approach. Take a look.

Over seven years, President Obama has NEVER proposed a budget that balances.  But now, just four months into the new Congress, Republicans have worked together to pass the first joint 10-year balanced budget since 2001.  

As former Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote last week, "The comparison between undisciplined, out-of-control spending and a pro-growth plan to cut spending and reduce the size and scope of the federal government should hearten every conservative."
Of course, this budget is just a blueprint, and as we continue to build on it, it's worth putting in perspective  – as Speaker Boehner did here -- why this work is so important.

Friday, May 08, 2015

Americans Not In The Labor Force Rise To Record 93,194,000

Shameful. We can do much better!

Americans Not In The Labor Force Rise To Record 93,194,000

Part-Time Jobs Soar By 437,000; Full-Time Jobs Tumble, Stay Firmly Under Pre-Recession Highs

0bama economy still sucks!
For all the talk about a jobs recovery and about a US economy that has put the great financial crisis and recession of 2007/8 in the rear view mirror, don't tell it to those workers who desire a full-time job and instead are forced to settle with measly part-time offerings (mostly courtesy of Obamacare). Because as the chart below shows, as of April 2015, the number of full-time jobs remained well below the pre-recession peak, which incidentally was hit on December 2007, the month the last recession officially started.

Wednesday, May 06, 2015

In 2014 there were 141 pipeline explosions in the US.

Correction, 141 oil train derailments and fires.

Exactly two months after the latest Warren Buffett-owned BNSF train derailed near the spot where the Galena river meets the Mississippi, resulting in a huge fire and the evacuation of all homes in a one mile radius, moments ago another of Buffett's BNSF oil trains derailed, this time near the town of Heimdal, North Dakota, resulting in the same outcome.

According to the Bismark Tribune, the town in Wells County was evacuated Tuesday morning after a train full of oil tanker cars derailed and burned about a mile and half east of here.

Wells County Emergency Manager Tammy Roehrich said the BNSF Railway oil tanker train derailed around 7:30 a.m., setting six oil tanker cars on fire.

Roehrich said she couldn't get close enough to the train to see whether it was exploding or just burning. No injuries were reported, she said.

 "It looks a lot like Casselton," she said, referring to the fiery train wreck of oil tankers near Casselton in late 2013.

As a reminder, in 2013 another oil train, also owned by Buffett's Burlington Northern, derailed and led to the evacuation of the town of Casselton, and people living in a 5 mile radius.

Tuesday, May 05, 2015

Keeping score ?

For those keeping score at home, the 2016 race for president pits a corrupt aged white woman on one side (Clinton)...
Against a female former CEO of a Fortune 500 company (Fiorina),
 a brain surgeon who is black (Carson),
 a former TV host and governor (Huckabee),
 the longest serving Governor of Texas (Perry),
 the Indian-American Governor of Louisiana (Jindal),
 and we already have a doctor turned Senator (Paul),
 two Hispanic Senators (Rubio, Cruz),
 and we are waiting on the former Governor of Florida who speaks Spanish and is married to a lovely lady from Mexico (Bush),
 not to mention the very successful Governor of Wisconsin (Walker).
There may be more (NJ Gov Christie, Ohio Gov Kasich, Former PA Sen Santorum, SC Sen Graham)


So why would we ever vote for a corrupt aged white woman of a bygone era with little or no accomplishments telling the nation that to go forward they must go backward?

Friday, May 01, 2015

Quid Pro Quo: Uranium One for campaign cash

If this were a Republican the story of Quid Pro Quo would be on the front page of the New York Times. Oh wait, this IS from The New York Times! Time for Hillary to pack her bags and go... directly to jail

From the NYTimes:
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company's assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show....

Thursday, April 30, 2015

181 Clinton Foundation donors who lobbied Hillary's State Department

181 companies I will no longer patronize. ..

181 Clinton Foundation donors who lobbied Hillary's State Department
Jonathan Allen

The size and scope of the symbiotic relationship between the Clintons and their donors is striking. At least 181 companies, individuals, and foreign governments that have given to the Clinton Foundation also lobbied the State Department when Hillary Clinton ran the place, according to a Vox analysis of foundation records and federal lobbying disclosures.

The following chart shows entities that donated to the foundation and lobbied the State Department during Hillary Clinton's tenure. The totals include funding for the foundation from both corporate and charitable arms of listed companies that lobbied State, even though the charities themselves don't necessarily lobby. One exception: The Gates Foundation, co-chaired by Microsoft co-founder and board member Bill Gates, is not Microsoft's charitable arm (that's another group) and does not register to lobby. The chart does not account for contributions made by executives, and it may omit some companies who made contributions or lobbied through subsidiaries.

Clinton Foundation donor Gave between this much* And this much*
Microsoft/Gates Foundation (Gates Foundation co-chair Bill Gates is a co-founder and member of the board of Microsoft, which is a separate entity. Both donate to the Clinton Foundation. Only Microsoft reported lobbying the State Department.)
$26,000,000 No limit reported
Walmart/Walton Family Foundation (Similarly, the Walton Family Foundation is distinct from Walmart and does not lobby. Both are run by the Walton family.)
$2,250,000 $10,500,000
Coca-Cola $5,000,000 $10,000,000
State of Qatar and related entities $1,375,000 $5,800,000
Goldman Sachs $1,250,000 $5,500,000
Dow Chemical $1,025,000 $5,050,000
Pfizer $1,010,000 $5,025,000
Duke Energy Corporation $1,002,000 $5,010,000
ExxonMobil $1,001,000 $5,005,000
Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa $1,000,000 $5,000,000
Hewlett-Packard $1,000,000 $5,000,000
Nima Taghavi $1,000,000 $5,000,000
NRG Energy $1,000,000 $5,000,000
Open Society Institute $1,000,000 $5,000,000
Procter & Gamble $1,000,000 $5,000,000
Nike $512,000 $1,035,000
Google $511,000 $1,030,000
Daimler $510,000 $1,025,000
Monsanto $501,250 $1,006,000
Arizona State University $500,000 $1,000,000
Chevron $500,000 $1,000,000
General Electric $500,000 $1,000,000
Morgan Stanley $360,000 $775,000
Intel $252,000 $510,000
Noble Energy $250,000 $500,000
Sony $175,000 $400,000
AstraZeneca $150,000 $350,000
Bloomberg and Bloomberg Philanthropies $150,000 $350,000 $125,000 $300,000
Verizon $118,000 $300,000
Yahoo $125,000 $300,000
Lockheed Martin $111,000 $280,000
Qualcomm $103,000 $265,000
TIAA-CREF $103,000 $265,000
JP Morgan $102,000 $260,000
Accenture $100,000 $250,000
American Cancer Society $100,000 $250,000
Applied Materials $100,000 $250,000
CH2M Hill $100,000 $250,000
Corning $100,000 $250,000
FedEx $100,000 $250,000
Gap $100,000 $250,000
Gilead $100,000 $250,000
Hess Corporation $100,000 $250,000
Humanity United $100,000 $250,000
Hyundai $100,000 $250,000
Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $100,000 $250,000
Johnson Controls $100,000 $250,000
Lions Clubs International $100,000 $250,000
Mylan $100,000 $250,000
Pepsi $100,000 $250,000
Sanofi-Aventis $100,000 $250,000
Starwood Hotels $100,000 $250,000
United States Pharmacopeial Convention $100,000 $250,000
UPS $100,000 $250,000
Washington University, St. Louis $100,000 $250,000
Time Warner $75,000 $150,000
Hunt Alternatives $60,000 $125,000
Ericsson $51,000 $105,000
Abbott Laboratories $50,000 $100,000
Anadarko $50,000 $100,000
BT Group $50,000 $100,000
Discovery Communications $50,000 $100,000
Earth Networks $50,000 $100,000
Feed the Children $50,000 $100,000
General Motors $50,000 $100,000
Hilton $50,000 $100,000
Marriott $50,000 $100,000
NextEra Energy $50,000 $100,000
NOUR USA $50,000 $100,000
Novozymes $50,000 $100,000
Oceana $50,000 $100,000
Starbucks $50,000 $100,000
Teck Resources $50,000 $100,000
The American Institute of Architects $50,000 $100,000
Nature Conservancy $50,000 $100,000
Trilogy International Partners $50,000 $100,000
Unilever $50,000 $100,000
World Vision $50,000 $100,000
S.C. Johnson & Son
Motorola $35,000 $75,000
JCPenney $27,000 $60,000
Target $27,000 $60,000
Novartis $26,000 $55,000
3M $25,000 $50,000
AAR $25,000 $50,000
AFL-CIO $25,000 $50,000
APCO Worldwide $25,000 $50,000
AREVA $25,000 $50,000
Bayer $20,000 $50,000
Capstone Turbine $25,000 $50,000
Cemex $25,000 $50,000
CHF International $25,000 $50,000
Eli Lilly $25,000 $50,000
Georgetown University $25,000 $50,000
HBO $25,000 $50,000
Honeywell $25,000 $50,000
Mars, Inc. $25,000 $50,000
McGraw-Hill Financial $25,000 $50,000
MWH Global $25,000 $50,000
New Venture Fund $25,000 $50,000
Partners HealthCare $25,000 $50,000
Rotary Foundation $25,000 $50,000
Shell $25,000 $50,000
Special Olympics $25,000 $50,000
Brink's $25,000 $50,000
United Technologies Corporation $25,000 $50,000
Viacom $25,000 $50,000
Wildlife Conservation Society $25,000 $50,000
Ze-gen $25,000 $50,000
AT&T $11,000 $30,000
BP $11,000 $30,000
SAP America $10,250 $26,000
Actavis $10,000 $25,000
ALFA $10,000 $25,000
American Iron and Steel Institute $10,000 $25,000
Amgen $10,000 $25,000
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. $10,000 $25,000
BHP Billiton Limited $10,000 $25,000
Chesapeake Energy Corporation $10,000 $25,000
ConocoPhillips $10,000 $25,000
Danfoss $10,000 $25,000
Delphi Financial Group $10,000 $25,000
Digital Globe $10,000 $25,000
Dow Corning $10,000 $25,000
EMD Serono $10,000 $25,000
Entertainment Software Association $10,000 $25,000
Herbalife $10,000 $25,000
Hermitage Capital Management $10,000 $25,000
InnoVida Holdings $10,000 $25,000
Levi Strauss & Co. $10,000 $25,000
Life Technologies $10,000 $25,000
Motion Picture Association of America $10,000 $25,000
Nokia $10,000 $25,000
Occidental Petroleum $10,000 $25,000
Sesame Workshop $10,000 $25,000
Siemens $10,000 $25,000
SNCF $10,000 $25,000
Symantec $10,000 $25,000
Tamares Management $10,000 $25,000
Telefonica International $10,000 $25,000
Hershey $10,000 $25,000
NASDAQ OMX Group $10,000 $25,000
The Pew Charitable Trusts $10,000 $25,000
TV Azteca, S.A. DE C.V. $10,000 $25,000
US Chamber of Commerce $10,000 $25,000
Whirlpool $10,000 $25,000
Oneida Indian Nation
American Public Health Association $5,000 $10,000
EOS Foundation $5,000 $10,000
Florida International University $5,000 $10,000
Girl Scouts of the USA $5,000 $10,000
Gonzalo Tirado $5,000 $10,000
NBC Universal $5,000 $10,000
Santa Monica College $5,000 $10,000
Sensis $5,000 $10,000
Adobe Systems $1,000 $5,000
Boston Scientific Corporation $1,000 $5,000
Bristol-Myers Squibb $1,000 $5,000
Cablevision Systems Corporation $1,000 $5,000
Caterpillar $1,000 $5,000
Chicanos Por La Causa $1,000 $5,000
Deere & Company $1,000 $5,000
Dell $1,000 $5,000
Edison Electric Institute $1,000 $5,000
Eligio Cedeno $1,000 $5,000
Festo Corporation $1,000 $5,000
George Mason University $1,000 $5,000
Laborers Int'l Union of North America $1,000 $5,000
Nestle $1,000 $5,000
Northrop Grumman Corporation $1,000 $5,000
American Legion $1,000 $5,000
Association for Manufacturing Technology $1,000 $5,000
Tohono O'odham Nation $1,000 $5,000
Hara Software
Oracle (matching grant program) $250 $1,000
Nova Southeastern University
* The Clinton Foundation reports contributions in ranges.

That's not illegal, but it is scandalous.

There's a household name at the nexus of the foundation and the State Department for every letter of the alphabet but "X" (often more than one): Anheuser-Busch, Boeing, Chevron, (John) Deere, Eli Lilly, FedEx, Goldman Sachs, HBO, Intel, JP Morgan, Lockheed Martin, Monsanto, NBC Universal, Oracle, Procter & Gamble, Qualcomm, Rotary International, Siemens, Target, Unilever, Verizon, Walmart, Yahoo, and Ze-gen.

The set includes oil, defense, drug, tech, and news companies, as well as labor unions and foreign interests. It includes organizations as innocuous as the Girl Scouts and those as in need of brand-burnishing as Nike, which was once forced to vow that it would end the use of child labor in foreign sweatshops. This list of donors to the Clinton foundation who lobbied State matters because it gives a sense of just how common it was for influence-seekers to give to the Clinton Foundation, and exactly which ones did.

Author Peter Schweizer, whose book Clinton Cash is due out May 5, took his best shot but couldn't prove — or even assert — that Hillary Clinton took any official action because of contributions to the Clinton Foundation. I haven't read the book, but even Schweizer concedes that what he's identified is a "pattern of behavior," not hard evidence of corruption.

Clinton Foundation spent only 15 percent of its budget on charitable grants

Wow, look at the lengths this guy goes to to stretch the truth to support the Clintons... Just take this one statement alone: "[T]he foundation says it does most of its charitable work in-house" What do the mean by in-house? Clinton's million dollar mansion? Clinton's 2016 campaign?
Clinton Foundation spent only 15 percent of its budget on charitable grants

"Fifteen cents of every dollar actually went to some charitable beneficiary,"

The Federalist and PunditFact have gone to war over a claim that the Clinton Foundation donates only 15 percent of the cash it raises to charity.

Davis of the Federalist told the Washington Examiner's media desk that the PunditFact rating doesn't hold.

"PunditFact is funded in large part by the Ford Foundation, a significant Clinton Foundation donor and partner. I'll leave it to others to determine why they failed to disclose that fact in their article and how that financial relationship might impact their coverage of the Clinton Foundation," he told the Examiner Wednesday.

"Eighty-five percent of every dollar donated to the Clinton Foundation ended up either with the Clintons or with their staff to pay for travel, salaries, and benefits. Fifteen cents of every dollar actually went to some charitable beneficiary."

Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised $500 million, and only 15 percent of that "went towards programmatic grants," Davis reported.

However, although there's a "grain of truth" to the claim, according to PunditFact, which is connected to the Tampa Bay Times' PolitiFact, the statement is nevertheless "mostly false."

"There's a grain of truth here — roughly 85 percent of the foundation's spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits," PunditFact's Louis Jacobson wrote Wednesday.

But there's more to the story than (by extension, the Federalist) lets on, Jacobson suggested.

"[T]he foundation says it does most of its charitable work in-house, and it's not credible to think that the foundation spent zero dollars beyond grants on any charitable work" he wrote.

A decidedly unimpressed Davis responded Wednesday, accusing PunditFact of "hackery" and "pathetic demagoguery."

First, he wrote, Jacobson told Davis in an email that his "demonstrably factual claim" was both "clearly accurate" and "technically true."

The Federalist "stated that over a four-year period, the Clinton Foundation spent only 15 percent of its budget on charitable grants," Davis wrote.

"Do you know what it takes for that statement to be correct? The demonstration that over that four-year period the Clinton Foundation spent only 15 percent of its budget on charitable grants," he added. "That's it. Nothing else is required. Unless, of course, your goal is to rehabilitate the Clintons rather than to broadcast actual facts."

PolitFact and PunditFact are both funded by the Ford Foundation, which also happens to be a major Clinton Foundation donor, according to Phil Kerpen, head of the conservative activist group American Commitment.

"This is not journalism. This is not fact-checking. This is pathetic demagoguery, and a remarkably unimpressive display of it at that," Davis wrote.

Washington Examiner

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Dilbert Explains HFT

Dilbert Explains HFT (High Frequency Trading)

Not a "shred of evidence"

NY Times:
Team Hillary: Not a "shred of evidence" to suggest that Clinton exerted "undue influence"

Hillary talking to Bill under her breath: "good thing we deleted those emails off our server"

You get ze cash

Quid pro flow.
You get ze cash. I get ze Amerikan uranium suppy. ist wery gut deal!

How Hillary Let Russia Buy 20% of U.S. Uranium Production Capacity

From the New York Times:

The latest revelation comes involves a deal which enabled Russia to own about 20% of the uranium production capacity of the United States for a $2.35 million donation to the Clinton Family Foundation. According to the report a Canadian based company Uranium One, owned the uranium assets was being purchased by Russian state atomic energy agency Rosatom a deal which had to be approved by various U.S. agencies including the State Department.  As the State Department was mulling of the deal, the Chairman of Uranium One donated the $2.35 million from his family foundation to the Clintons.

Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of state, the White House demanded that she sign a memorandum of understanding placing limits on her husband's foundation's activities. To avoid the perception of conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign government donations, the foundation was required to publicly disclose all contributors.

To judge from those disclosures — which list the contributions in ranges rather than precise amounts — the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating. 

But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians. With the Russians offering a special dividend, shareholders like Mr. Telfer stood to profit.

Hey, when State Department decisions are for sale, are they cheaper in bulk? Do you get one of those little cards like the ones in the coffee shop, where once you've bought eleven, the twelfth one is free?

Here's Reuters, with a separate scandal for the Clinton Foundation:

Hillary Clinton's family's charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.

The foundation and its list of donors have been under intense scrutiny in recent weeks. Republican critics say the foundation makes Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, vulnerable to undue influence. Her campaign team calls these claims "absurd conspiracy theories."

The charities' errors generally take the form of under-reporting or over-reporting, by millions of dollars, donations from foreign governments, or in other instances omitting to break out government donations entirely when reporting revenue, the charities confirmed to Reuters.

When you're re-filing your tax returns, that's a concession that this isn't all just "absurd conspiracy theories."

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Re: Tweet from Amanda Carpenter (@amandacarpenter)

The drafters of the Constitution intended to protect the rights of their constituents, the last two items in the Bill of Rights offer an explicit stop against an all-powerful state. "They simply do so from different directions. The Tenth stops new powers, and the Ninth fortifies all other rights, or non-powers."Rafael Edward Cruz

Cruz and Paul Ryan team up to make the case for free trade in today's WSJ

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Manipulating the stock market

Rudolf E. Havenstein (@RudyHavenstein) tweeted at 2:04 PM on Tue, Apr 21, 2015:
If they're arresting people for manipulating the stock market, these 4 need to move somewhere with no US extradition.

Thursday, April 09, 2015

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

PROS: Strong economy mixed with big city amenities and elements of college town (Carnegie Mellon University, University of Pittsburgh, Duquesne University, Chatham University). Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra. Cost of living 16% below national average, median home price $133,000. High doctors per capita. Good ratings for bicycling, walkability and volunteerism. CONS: Cold winters, high crime rate. NOTED: Average tax climate. Population 306,000. Returnee to list. TRIVIA: River-laced city has 446 bridges.

Verbal Jujitsu : Beat the Press

Well said!

Dear GOP Candidates: Beat the Press

Jon Gabriel, Ed.

This new generation of GOP hopefuls understands what only Newt Gingrich knew in 2012. If you want a chance at the White House, you need to beat the other candidates and you need to beat the press.

Mitt Romney, decent fellow that he is, tacitly accepted the press' claims of objectivity, even if he didn't believe it in his heart. Romney grinned and nodded at reporters from CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC, even though their initials could have been DNC.

Right-leaning partisans watched moderator George Stephanopoulos concoct the fictional "War on Women" and moderator Candy Crowley actively support Obama during live debates. Many of us spent 2012 yelling at our TVs and laptop screens, "the press isn't neutral. They're on the other side!"

Coming of age during the Obama years, the 2016 candidates know all too well that the press is as much of an opponent as the rival campaigns. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Scott Walker all know that the mainstream media despises them. This new breed acts accordingly by questioning the press and their flawed premises.

After Planned Parenthood spent all yesterday attacking Sen. Paul, two reporters coincidentally asked him if he would accept any exemptions on abortion. Come on, senator: is there no limit to your cruel oppression of women? Paul knew the fix was in and responded accordingly.

"Here's the deal — we always seem to have the debate waaaaay over here on what are the exact details of exemptions, or when it starts," Paul said, moving his hand to one side. "Why don't we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus? You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman-Schultz if she's okay with killing a seven-pound baby that is not born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when it's okay to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, get back to me."

Paul knows that Democrats rarely get questions about whether they support partial-birth abortion, if gender selection is acceptable, or if parental consent should be required. The press naturally doesn't want to put their candidates on the hot seat, so why ask them hot-button questions? Instead, just let the Republicans sweat and damage their chances among low-info voters. To his credit, Paul didn't play along with this old game; he questioned the premise and threw it back in the reporters' faces.

Instead of waiting for her newsroom allies, Wasserman-Schultz released a huffy statement. "Here's an answer," the DNC Chair wrote. "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story."

She forgot to mention that Obamacare ensures government is intimately involved with this life-or-death decision, but I appreciate the clarity. To use Paul's phrasing, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the Democratic National Committee are okay with killing a seven-pound baby in the uterus. She doesn't care when life begins and has no intention of protecting the life of any baby in the womb, even if it's a minute from being delivered. The baby can be killed anytime and for any reason. Period. End of story.

I hope the other GOP candidates are taking notes. They need to stop trying to placate the reporters who hate them and go on offense for a change. Like Gingrich and Paul, use a little verbal jujitsu to trip up the Democrat-Media Complex. Beltway liberals are wildly out-of-touch with the average voter's values and concerns. Use that to our advantage.

In two minutes, I came up with several questions to ask of Hillary Clinton and her supporters. It's only fair that moderate voters know her answers:

"Should we increase immigration while African-American unemployment is at record highs?"
Have at it, press corps; prove your neutrality. And Republicans, prove that you'll be able to handle the hostile press if and when you get to the Oval Office.

Wednesday, April 08, 2015

The Secret Republicans of Silicon Valley

The Secret Republicans of Silicon Valley -

In an industry where only liberal ideas are "allowed," many libertarians and conservatives keep their political views secret.

April 8, 2015 Deep in Silicon Valley, where the free market reigns and the exchange of ideas is celebrated, a subset of tech workers are hiding their true selves. Working as programmers and software engineers, they don't want the stigma that comes with revealing who they really are.

They're the tech company employees, startup founders, and CEOs who vote for and donate to Republican candidates, bucking the Bay Area's liberal supremacy. Fearing the repercussions of associating with a much-maligned minority, they keep their political views fiercely hidden.

"It's a liberal echo chamber," Garrett Johnson, a co-founder of Lincoln Labs, which was started in 2013 to connect the right-of-center outsiders in Silicon Valley, told National Journal. "People have been convinced that Silicon Valley is reflexively liberal or progressive. And so their response is to conform."

Silicon Valley has long been a bastion of liberalism. Since George H.W. Bush won Napa County in 1988, Republican presidential nominees have lost every county in the Bay Area. In 2012, President Obama won 84 percent of the vote in San Francisco to Mitt Romney's 13 percent and raised more for his reelection campaign from Bay Area donors than from those in New York or Hollywood. Political donations specifically from tech workers follow that trend: Google employees collectively gave $720,000 to Obama in 2012, versus $25,000 for Romney. Crowdpac, a nonpartisan political analytics firm, found that between 1979 and 2012, tech companies have overwhelmingly favored liberal candidates.

(RELATED: Is Washington Ready for the Internet of Things?)

read more

White House Easter Prayer Breakfast

This happened during 0bama's speech at the White House Easter Prayer Breakfast...

"On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian, I am supposed to love," 0bama said. "And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less-than-loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned." As the crowd began to murmur, the president backed off, saying, "But that's a topic for another day."

"I was about to veer off," he explained. "I'm pulling it back."

"Where there is injustice we defend the oppressed," 0bama said, returning to his prepared remarks. "Where there is disagreement, we treat each other with compassion and respect. Where there are differences, we find strength in our common humanity, knowing that we are all children of God."

Friday, March 27, 2015

Here Are The Words Hillary Supporters Won't Let You Say

The pro-Hillary group "HRC Super Volunteers" warned The New York Times Amy Chozick Wednesday, never to use these words to describe Hillary Clinton...

- polarizing

- calculating

- disingenuous

- insincere

- ambitious

- inevitable

- entitled

- over confident

- secretive

- will do anything to win

- represents the past

- out of touch


Prrsented without comment

Monday, March 23, 2015

Silenced workers who lost jobs to H-1B visa abuse (quietly) speak out

Thank you Democrats...

But in the case of H-1Bs, the federal government is expressly giving a special permit to foreign workers — actually, to large outsourcing firms that use H-1Bs to bring those workers to the U.S. — in order to displace American workers. And now many lawmakers in both parties — their task made simpler by the enforced silence of fired and angry workers — want even more H-1Bs. Is that something the government should do?

Silenced workers who lost jobs to H-1B visa abuse (quietly) speak out |

read more

Silenced workers who lost jobs to H-1B visa abuse (quietly) speak out

BY: Byron York March 22, 2015 | 8:37

Many fired workers are required to sign non-disparagement agreements as a condition of their severance.
The Senate Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing into abuses of the H-1B skilled guest worker visa program. Lawmakers heard experts describe how the use of foreign workers has come to dominate the IT industry, with many tech giants using the program to fire well-paid current workers and replace them with workers from abroad at significantly lower pay.

"The current system to bring in high-skill guest workers ... has become primarily a process for supplying lower-cost labor to the IT industry," two experts who testified at the hearing, Howard University's Ron Hira and Rutgers' Hal Salzman, wrote recently. "Although a small number of workers and students are brought in as the 'best and brightest,' most high-skill guest workers are here to fill ordinary tech jobs at lower wages."

Exhibit A in the abuse of H-1Bs was the case of Southern California Edison, which recently got rid of between 400 and 500 IT employees and replaced them with a smaller force of lower-paid workers brought in from overseas through the H-1B program. The original employees were making an average of about $110,000 a year, the committee heard; the replacements were brought to Southern California Edison by outsourcing firms that pay an average of between $65,000 and $75,000.

"Simply put, the H-1B program has become a cheap labor program," Hira, author of the book Outsourcing America, testified. "To add insult to injury, Southern California Edison forced its American workers to train their H-1B replacements as a condition of receiving their severance packages."

It was a powerful presentation, especially in light of the fact that many Republicans and Democrats in Congress do not want to address abuses of the H-1B problem but rather want to greatly increase the number of H-1B visa workers allowed into the United States.

But one voice was missing from the hearing, and that was the voice of laid-off workers. That was no accident. In addition to losing their jobs and being forced to train their foreign replacements, many fired workers are required to sign non-disparagement agreements as a condition of their severance. They are workers with families and bills to pay, and they are told that if they do not agree to remain silent, they will be terminated with cause, meaning they will receive no severance pay or other benefits and will face an even tougher search for a new job and a continued career. So they remain silent.

A longtime feature of the Capitol Hill hearing into this or that unfair practice is to hear from the victims of this or that unfair practice. The IT industry has worked to make sure that does not happen in the case of H-1B visa abuse. Still, the Judiciary Committee managed to receive testimonials from four laid-off workers, three from Southern California Edison and one from another company. So to flesh out the H-1B story with the perspective of those who are actually paying the price when H-1B visas are used to displace American workers, here are their anonymous testimonials:

Worker One:
My former company, a large utility company, replaced 220 American IT workers with H-1Bs…we would have to train them in order to receive our severance packages. This was one of the most humiliating situations that I have ever been in as an IT professional.
The whole IT department was going through the same fate as myself. Those were the longest and hardest five months of my life. Not only did I lose a work family, but I lost my job and my self-esteem. We had constant emails sent by HR that we could not talk about this situation to anyone or make posts to social media. If we did, we would be fired immediately and not get our severance.
We had jobs and there was no shortage of skilled labor that would make it necessary to bring in H-1Bs. We were let go and replaced by foreign workers who certainly weren't skilled to take our positions.
Worker Two:
I am an IT professional and worked for Southern California Edison for over two decades. I was a loyal employee and always received outstanding reviews. A foreign worker with a H-1B visa recently replaced me.
I am the sole provider of my children. Due to a disability, finding employment at the same wage and with a work modification will be very difficult…It is an ominous possibility that in five years or less I may have no assets, suffer from severe pain and will need to go on full disability with a catastrophic decrease in income. The loss of my job may rob me of a secure retirement.
My layoff has made my children fearful of their future and the security of their home. If I stay in the IT field I run a high risk of again being replaced by a foreign worker.
It's a farce teaching our kids STEM when the government is permitting U.S. companies to abuse the H-1B visa program, which allows foreigners to take these future jobs from them.
I voted for President Obama and was appalled that he implemented a rule change, which allows work permits to H-1B spouses. My future votes will only go to candidates that support reforms to the H-1B visa program that preserve the American worker.
Worker Three:
I started working at Southern California Edison several decades ago. SCE was a company that many people started with at a young age, could work there through their lifetimes, and retire with a good pension and benefits. That was my plan. And I would have been able to do exactly that -- until an executive announced a couple years ago that my department was going to be outsourced.
We were forced to train the less qualified foreign workers hired to take our jobs.
Over 400 hardworking, intelligent people have lost their jobs due to the H-1B visa program. Many of us, and countless more like us, face enormous hurdles to find new jobs -- why would companies want to hire us when they can hire cheaper workers on the H-1B visa to do our jobs for us?
Worker Four:
As longtime employees we loved the work we were doing and the people we were working with. We did a great job. Our work mattered. The work we performed was instrumental in building a world-class business unit.
Through no fault of my own my job was just given to someone else with a lot less experience, knowledge and skills, lowering my standard of living and raising theirs so Edison could save a few dollars and reward stockholders with a few more pennies on their dividends.
I and most of my co-workers are completely disgusted that Edison can fire us and replace us with foreign workers, abusing the H1-B program. We cannot understand how the CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission), Governor and Congress, President and media can all ignore this abuse and just pretend it doesn't matter. It's as if we no longer matter or have value as human beings or American citizens.
It's certainly true that other workers in other industries have lost jobs because companies wanted to cut costs. Highly-paid middle-aged workers have been replaced by younger employees working for less. That can be an unhappy fact of life in today's economy. But in the case of H-1Bs, the federal government is expressly giving a special permit to foreign workers — actually, to large outsourcing firms that use H-1Bs to bring those workers to the U.S. — in order to displace American workers. And now many lawmakers in both parties — their task made simpler by the enforced silence of fired and angry workers — want even more H-1Bs. Is that something the government should do?


Copyright 2015 Washington Examiner

Saturday, March 21, 2015

List of Obama’s Constitutional Violations

A List of Obama's Constitutional Violations
> Updated 03/10/15   "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."  Barrack Hussein Obama.  Obama took the Presidential Oath, swearing to ".. preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" but has:

Used Executive Action in direct opposition to the law, and unilaterally changes the law for at least five million illegal aliens; Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Article II Section 3;  Article I Section 8

In direct violation of ACA Law ( Section 36B ) ordered subsidies be paid under Federal Exchange.  Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.

*Entered Treaty Agreement with Iran without Advice & Consent of the Senate.  No agreement (including with UN) is valid without 2/3 Senate approval.  Article II Section 2.
Operation Choke Point program – Direct infringement on 2nd Amendment.

Violated statute on "Material Support of Terrorism" by returning top terrorists back to terrorist organizations. Article II Section 3; Dereliction of Duty Article II Section 4
Violated Appropriations Act (DOD Section 8111) – GAO report; Article II Section 3

Ignored law that requires Congress be notified prior to any detainees being moved from Guantanamo. "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Article II Section 3

Appointed 24+ Federal agency czars without advice and consent of the Senate; Violation of Article II Section 2

Used Executive Privilege in regards to Fast & Furious gun running scandal. When Government misconduct is the concern Executive privilege is negated.

23 Executive Orders on gun control – infringement of the 2nd Amendment
Exposed identity and methods of operation of a Navy SEALs team – Illegal for a President to reveal classified military secrets. Article II Section 3

2 Executive actions mandating private health information on patients be turned over to NICS – Violation of HIPPA law.

Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; Article II Section 3;  Article I Section 8

Unilaterally issued new exemptions to immigration restrictions law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided "limited material support" to t errorists. – Article 1 Section 1; Article I Section 8  Congress shall have the establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

Issued directive instructing ICE to NOT enforce immigration laws in certain cases. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Article II Section 3;  Article I Section 8

Release of convicted illegal aliens ordered in direct opposition to law-Article II Section 3

Expanded executive action for amnesty to illegal immigrant relatives of DREAM Act beneficiaries. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Article II Section 3;  Article I Section 8

Executive action directing DHS that almost all immigration offenses were unenforceable absent a separate criminal conviction. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Article II Section 3;  Article I Section 8

Ignoring Law (2006 Secure Fence Act) "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Article II Section 3

Used DOJ to ignore section 8 of the Voting Rights Act. " he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Article II Section 3

Used DOJ to prevent Arizona and Alabama from enforcing immigration laws. – 10th Amendment

Information memorandum telling states that they can waive the work requirement for welfare recipients, thereby altering the 1996 welfare reform law. – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress.
Used NLRB to dictate to a business where they can do business. (Boeing Dreamliner Plant). No Constitutional authority to do so.

NDAA – Section 1021. Due process Rights negated.  Violation of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments.

Executive Order 13603 NDRP – Government can seize anything
Executive Order 13524 – Gives INTERPOL jurisdiction on American soil beyond law enforcement agencies, including the FBI.

Executive Order 13636 Infrastructure Cybersecurity – Bypassing Congress Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress
Attempt to tax political contributions – 1st Amendment

DOMA Law – Obama directed DOJ to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law. " he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Article II Section 3

Dodd-Frank – Due process and separation of powers. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau writing and interpreting law. Article. I. Section. 1

Drone strikes on American Citizens – 5th Amendment Due process Rights negated

Bypassed Congress and gave EPA power to advance Cap-n-Trade
Attempt for Graphic tobacco warnings (under appeal) – 1st Amendment

Four Exec. appointments – Senate was NOT in recess (Court has ruled unconstitutional yet the appointees still remain)

Obama took Chairmanship of UN Security Council – Violation of Section 9.

ACA (Obamacare) mandate – SCOTUS rewrote legislation and made it a tax because there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to force Americans to engage in commerce. SCOTUS has no authority to Legislate or lay taxes. Article I Section 1 & 8.
Contraceptive, abortifacients mandate violation of First Ammendment

Healthcare waivers – No president has dispensing powers
Refuses to acknowledge state's 10th Amendment rights to nullify Obamacare

Going after states (AZ lawsuit) for upholding Federal law (immigration) -10th Amendment.

Chrysler Bailout -TARP – violated creditors rights and bankruptcy law, as well as Takings and Due Process Clauses – 5th Amendment (G.W. Bush also illegally used TARP funds for bailouts)

The Independent Payment Advisory Board (appointees by the president). Any decisions by IPAB will instantly become law starting in 2014 – Separation of Powers, Article 1 Section 1.

Congress did not approve Obama's war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4; War Powers Act – Article II Section 3.

Obama falsely claims UN can usurp Congressional war powers.
Obama has acted outside the constitutional power given him – this in itself is unconstitutional.

Bribery of Senator Ben Nelson  and Senator Mary Landrey. (Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase) Article II, Section 4.

With the approval of Obama, the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the servers of 9 internet companies to gain access to emails, video/audio, photos, documents, etc. This program is code named PRISM. NSA also collecting data on all phone calls in U.S. – Violation of 4th Amendment.
Directed signing of U.N. Firearms treaty – 2nd Amendment.

The Senate/Obama immigration bill (approved by both) raises revenue – Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

Obama altered law – (A president has no authority to alter law) Delayed upholding the Employer Mandate Law (ACA) until 2015 – Individual Mandate will be enforced.

A President does not have that authority – Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States; The president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed" -Article II, Section 3;  Equal Protection Clause -14th Amendment.

Obama altered law – ACA Medicare cuts delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.

Obama altered law – Enforcement of eligibility requirements for ACA delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.

Obama wavered ACA Income Verification Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.

Obama altered law – Delayed ACA caps on out of pocket expenses until 2015. (when implemented premiums will skyrocket) Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.

Obama ignored judicial order to fulfill legal obligation regarding Yucca Mountain waste. Article II, Section 3

Waived Federal provision that prevents U.S. From arming terrorist groups – Article I. Section 1; Impeachable under Article III, Section 3.

Directed State Department HS to ignore law barring entry to U.S. those giving political or charitable aid to known terrorist groups. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.

Obama shelves part of the ACA Law for Insurers, extending the life of non-qualifying (according to ACA) plans until Jan. 1, 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.

Obama waved ACA individual mandate for those that lost their insurance. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.

Obama alters ACA law and exempts companies employing between 50-100 full-time workers from business mandate until 2016. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
In total, Obama has unilaterally altered ACA 24 times.  Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.

A Constitutional law professor (even their students) should know better.

 The TRUTH is Obama was not a Constitutional law professor: "under no circumstances would an offer to Obama be tenured." "The thought that the law school could have made a tenure offer to a person with no academic writing was out of the question." Former University of Chicago Law School Dean Richard Epstein.

Clearly Obama has not respected or protected the Constitution. Obama has broken his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Article II, Section 1. 

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Hillary Server

Hillary's Server
and her staff...

Monday, March 09, 2015

I didn't know, I just found out, just like you, HA!


It's a remarkable irony: the same U.S. president whose administration has gone to great lengths to monitor journalists, whistleblowers and the public, claims to be oddly in the dark regarding basic information on some of his biggest controversies.

Here are eight instances in which President Obama said he heard it on the news—or way after-the-fact—just like ordinary Americans.

1. Controversial Air Force One Photo Op Flyover

Perhaps the first time we heard President Obama say he didn't know about a major national event before the rest of us was when an Air Force One plane (not carrying the president at the time) made an unannounced pass over the Statue of Liberty on April 27, 2009. It turned out to be a White House-approved photo op, but panicked New Yorkers feared it might be some sort of terrorist attack. The next day, President Obama told reporters,

"It was something that, uh, we found out about, uh, along with all of you."

Air Force One over Mt. Rushmore

Air Force One over Mt. Rushmore

2. Fast and Furious Cross-Border Operation Supplying Guns to Cartels

Fast and Furious was a cross-border operation under the Justice Department in which federal agents let thousands of weapons be trafficked to Mexico's killer drug cartels. Though illegal immigrants used Fast and Furious guns to murder a U.S. Border Patrol Agent in Dec. of 2010, President Obama says he remained in the dark about the whole thing until it was on the news weeks later.

On Oct. 12, 2011 Obama told reporters,

"I heard on the news about this story, that, uh, Fast and Furious."

For good measure, Attorney General Eric Holder—who had been sent regular briefings on Fast and Furious, a case approved by his criminal division—also said he was clueless about the case.

3. Gen. Petraeus' Sex Scandal

White House officials said President Obama was kept in the dark for months as the FBI investigated his CIA Director, Gen. David Petraeus, in a sex scandal. Meantime, Obama could have been hit with a surprise question about the scandal at any time on the campaign trail, in the midst of his 2012 bid for re-election. White House officials have refused to answer the question as to when, exactly, Obama was finally briefed.

Gen. David Petraeus, former Director of the CIA

4. The IRS Using Nixonian Tactics Against Conservative Groups

President Obama said he was likewise unaware of the nation's tax agency targeting conservative groups.

In May of 2013, a reporter asked the president: "When did you first learn that the IRS was targeting conservative political groups?"

Obama answered:

"I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday."

5. The Secret Seizure of AP News Reporters' Phone Records

When it became public that the Obama administration had secretly seized phone records of AP news reporters, the White House said President Obama hadn't known about it.

Obama spokesman Jay Carney told reporters in May of 2013,

"We don't have any independent knowledge of that, [President Obama] found out about the news reports uh yesterday on the road."

6. NSA Spying on Foreign Leaders

President Obama said he had no idea his government was spying on foreign leaders as outlined in an Inspector's General report—until it was leaked to the news. On Oct. 28, 2013 he said,

"I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press."

7. Veterans Affairs Scandal

In May of 2014, White House spokesman Carney said that the President was clueless about the waiting list scandal and coverup involving medical care for military veterans.

Carney told reporters, "You mean the specific allegations that I think were reported first by your news network out of Phoenix, I believe. We learned about them through the reports. I will double check if that is not the case. But that is when we learned about them and that is when I understand [V.A.] Secretary Shinseki learned about them, and he immediately took the action that he has taken."

8. Hillary Clinton's Email Arrangement

President Obama says he didn't know about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email address and server for official business until the New York Times published it in a story. The president told CBS News' Bill Plante that he found out "the same time everybody else learned it through news reports."

Earlier, White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters, "I have no idea when the president first learned" about it. But he foreshadowed the eventual explanation stating,

"I wouldn't be surprised, however, if he had learned about that by reading the newspaper."


Sharyl Attkisson

Sharyl Attkisson

Investigative Journalist who tries to give you information others don't want you to have. What you do with it is your own business. Do your own research. Seek advice from those you trust. Make up your own mind.

Click here for Bio

Thursday, February 26, 2015

FCC Votes In Favor Of Obama's Net Neutrality - Has The Slippery Slope To Web Censorship Begun?

FCC Votes In Favor Of Obama's Net Neutrality - Has The Slippery Slope To Web Censorship Begun?

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/26/2015 13:00 -0500

"An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life," according to President Obama and it appears his perspective on the heavy hand of government regulation inserting itself into the last bastion of freedom and dynamism in the US economy, is how best to achieve "openness." Having pressured FCC's Tom Wheeler, the vote just came down: U.S. FCC APPROVES NET NEUTRALITY INTERNET RULES IN 3-2 VOTE. While potentially good for a consumer's pocketbook, the handing over of "fair-use" decision to the government, as we previously noted, could be the first step on a slippery slope to increased censorship.

FCC Votes...


*  *  *

*  *  *

As Mike Krieger so eloquently noted previously, this could permit discrimination of web content...

The concept of "net neutrality" is not an easy one to wrap your head around. Particularly if you aren't an expert in how the internet works and if you don't work for an ISP (internet service provider). In fact, I think that lobbyists and special interest groups make the concept intentionally difficult and convoluted so that the average person's eyes glaze over and they move on to the next topic. I am by no means an expert in this area; however, in this post I will try to explain in as simple terms as possible what "net neutrality" means and what is at risk with the latest FCC proposal. I also highlight a wide variety of articles on the subject, so I hope this post can serve as a one-stop-shop on the issue.

The concept of "net neutrality" describes how broadband access across the internet currently works. Essentially, the ISPs are not allowed to discriminate amongst the content being delivered to the consumer. A small site like Liberty Blitzkrieg, will be delivered in the same manner as content from a huge site like CNN that has massive traffic and a major budget. This is precisely why the internet has become such a huge force for free speech. It has allowed the "little guy" with no budget to compete equally in the "market of ideas" with the largest media behemoths on the planet. It has allowed for a quantum leap in the democratization and decentralization in the flow of information like nothing since the invention and proliferation of the printing press itself. It is one of the most powerful tools ever created by humanity, and must be guarded as the treasure it is.

People have been worried about internet censorship in the USA for a long time. What people need to understand is that censorship in so-called "first world" countries cannot be implemented in the same manner as in societies used to authoritarian rule. The status quo in the U.S. understands that the illusion of freedom must be maintained even as civil liberties are eroded to zero. In the UK, the approach to internet censorship has been the creation of "internet filters." The guise is fighting porn, but in the end you get censorship. This is something I highlighted in my post: How Internet in the UK is "Sleepwalking into Censorship."

In the U.S., it appears the tactic might take the form of new FCC rules on "net neutrality," which the Wall Street Journal first broke earlier this week. While the exact rules won't become public until May 15th, what we know now is that the FCC intends to allow ISPs to create a "fast lane" for internet content, which established content providers with big bucks can pay for in order to gain preferred access to consumers on the other end.

This is truly the American way of censorship. Figure out how those with the deepest pockets can smother the free speech of those with little or no voice on the one medium in which information flow is still treated equally. The nightmare scenario here would be that status quo companies use their funds to price out everyone else. It would kill innovation on the web before it starts. It's just another example of the status quo attempting to build a moat around itself that we have already seen in so many other areas of the economy. The internet really is the last bastion of freedom and dynamism in the U.S. economy and this proposal could put that at serious risk. Oh, and to make matters worse, the current FCC is filled to the brim with revolving door industry lobbyists. More on this later.

So that's my two cents. Now I will provide excerpts from some of the many articles that have been written on the topic in recent days.

First, from the article that started it all in the Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON—Regulators are proposing new rules on Internet traffic that would allow broadband providers to charge companies a premium for access to their fastest lanes.


If the rule is adopted, winners would be the major broadband providers that would be able to charge both consumers and content providers for access to their networks. Companies like Google Inc. or Netflix Inc. that offer voice or video services that rely on broadband could take advantage of such arrangements by paying to ensure that their traffic reaches consumers without disruption. Those companies could pay for preferential treatment on the "last mile" of broadband networks that connects directly to consumers' homes.


Startups and other small companies not capable of paying for preferential treatment are likely to suffer under the proposal, say net neutrality supporters, along with content companies that might have to pay a toll to guarantee optimal service.


In Silicon Valley, there has been a long-standing unease with owners of broadband pipes treating some content as more equal than others. Large companies have been mostly silent about the FCC's moves regarding broadband service, but some smaller firms or investors in startups have said the FCC needs to tread carefully so Internet policies don't disadvantage young companies that can't afford tolls to the Web.


"For technologists and entrepreneurs alike this is a worst-case scenario," said Eric Klinker, chief executive of BitTorrent Inc., a popular Internet technology for people to swap digital movies or other content. "Creating a fast lane for those that can afford it is by its very definition discrimination."


Some consumer advocacy groups reacted strongly against the proposal. The American Civil Liberties Union said, "If the FCC embraces this reported reversal in its stance toward net neutrality, barriers to innovation will rise, the marketplace of ideas on the Internet will be constrained, and consumers will ultimately pay the price." Free Press, a nonpartisan organization that is a frequent critic of the FCC, said, "With this proposal, the FCC is aiding and abetting the largest ISPs in their efforts to destroy the open Internet."

The New York Times also covered the story:

Still, the regulations could radically reshape how Internet content is delivered to consumers. For example, if a gaming company cannot afford the fast track to players, customers could lose interest and its product could fail.


Consumer groups immediately attacked the proposal, saying that not only would costs rise, but also that big, rich companies with the money to pay large fees to Internet service providers would be favored over small start-ups with innovative business models — stifling the birth of the next Facebook or Twitter.


"If it goes forward, this capitulation will represent Washington at its worst," said Todd O'Boyle, program director of Common Cause's Media and Democracy Reform Initiative. "Americans were promised, and deserve, an Internet that is free of toll roads, fast lanes and censorship — corporate or governmental."

Let's not forget that Comcast is attempting to take over Time Warner (I wrote my opinion on that here). So this whole thing seems like a gigantic, status quo consolidation cluster fuck.

Also, Comcast is asking for government permission to take over Time Warner Cable, the third-largest broadband provider, and opponents of the merger say that expanding its reach as a broadband company will give Comcast more incentive to favor its own content over that of unaffiliated programmers.


"The very essence of a 'commercial reasonableness' standard is discrimination," Michael Weinberg, a vice president at Public Knowledge, a consumer advocacy group, said in a statement. "And the core of net neutrality is nondiscrimination."


"This standard allows Internet service providers to impose a new price of entry for innovation on the Internet," he said.

Now from TechCrunch's article, The FCC's New Net Neutrality Rules Will Brutalize The Internet:

The FCC will propose new net neutrality rules that at once protect content from discrimination, but also allow content companies to pay for preferential treatment. The news, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, would in fact create a two-tiered system in which wealthy companies can "better serve the market" at the expense of younger, less well-capitalized firms.


The above is only "net neutrality" in that it protects all content from having its delivery degraded on a whim. The rubric reported doesn't actually force neutrality at all, but instead carves out a way for extant potentates to crowd out the next generation of players by leaning on their cash advantage.


In practice this puts new companies and new ideas at a disadvantage, as they come into the market with a larger disadvantage than they otherwise might have. Any cost that we introduce that a large company can afford, and a startup can't, either makes the startup poorer should it pay or degrades its service by comparison if it doesn't.


This will slow innovation and enrich the status quo. That's a shame.

So given the potential disastrous consequences noted above, why is the FCC pushing this through? After all, "net neutrality" was one of candidate Barack Obama's key campaign promises (just the latest in a series of completely broken promises and lies).

As usual, you can simply follow the money. While FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is hiding behind a recent court decision that seemingly struck down net neutrality, the court gave him the option to declare the internet a public utility, which would have prevented this outcome. Yet, he didn't go that route. Why? The revolving door of course!

An article by Lee Fang at Vice sheds a great deal of light on the issue:

Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal dropped something of a bombshell with leaked news that the Federal Communications Commission is planning to abandon so-called "net neutrality" regulations—rules to ensure that Internet providers are prevented from discriminating based on content. Under the new proposed system, companies such as Comcast or Verizon will be able to create a tiered Internet, in which websites will have to pay more money for faster speeds, a change that observers predict will curb free speech, stifle innovation and increase costs for consumers.


Like so many problems in American government, the policy shift may relate to the pernicious corruption of the revolving door. The FCC is stocked with staffers who have recently worked for Internet Service Providers (ISP) that stand to benefit tremendously from the defeat of net neutrality.

The American way.

Take Daniel Alvarez, an attorney who has long represented Comcast through the law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. In 2010, Alvarez wrote a letter to the FCC on behalf of Comcast protesting net neutrality rules, arguing that regulators failed to appreciate "socially beneficial discrimination." The proposed rules, Alvarez wrote in the letter co-authored with a top Comcast lobbyist named Joe Waz, should be reconsidered.

Today, someone in Comcast's Philadelphia headquarters is probably smiling. Alvarez is now on the other side, working among a small group of legal advisors hired directly under Tom Wheeler, the new FCC Commissioner who began his job in November.


As soon as Wheeler came into office, he also announced the hiring of former Ambassador Philip Verveer as his senior counselor. A records request reveals that Verveer also worked for Comcast in the last year. In addition, he was retained by two industry groups that have worked to block net neutrality, the Wireless Association (CTIA) and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.


In February, Matthew DelNero was brought into the agency to work specifically on net neutrality. DelNero has previously worked as an attorney for TDS Telecom, an Internet service provider that has lobbied on net neutrality, according to filings.


In his first term, Obama's administration proposed net neutrality rules, but in January of this year, a federal court tossed the regulations in a case brought by Verizon. The decision left open the possibility of new rules, but only if the FCC were to reclassify the Internet as a utility. The Wall Street Journal story with details about the FCC's leaked plans claims the agency will not be reclassifying the web as a utility. The revised rules to be announced by the FCC will allow ISPs to "give preferential treatment to traffic from some content providers, as long as such arrangements are available on 'commercially reasonable' terms," reports journalist Gautham Nagesh.

Well how about chairman Wheeler himself?

Critics have been quick to highlight the fact that chairman Wheeler, the new head of the FCC, is a former lobbyist with close ties to the telecommunications industry. In March, telecom companies—including Comcast, Verizon, and the US Telecom Association—filled the sponsor list for a reception to toast Wheeler and other commissioners. Many of these companies have been furiously lobbying Wheeler and other FCC officials on the expected rule since the Verizon ruling.


But overall, the FCC is one of many agencies that have fallen victim to regulatory capture. Beyond campaign contributions and other more visible aspects of the influence trade in Washington, moneyed special interest groups control the regulatory process by placing their representatives into public office, while dangling lucrative salaries to those in office who are considering retirement. The incentives, with pay often rising to seven and eight figure salaries on K Street, are enough to give large corporations effective control over the rule-making process.

Ars Technica also covered the revolving door angle in its article:

The CTIA Wireless Association today announced that Meredith Attwell Baker—a former FCC Commissioner and former Comcast employee—will become its president and CEO on June 2, replacing Steve Largent, a former member of Congress (and former NFL player).


Largent himself became the cellular lobby's leader when he replaced Tom Wheeler—who is now the chairman of the FCC. Wheeler is also the former president and CEO of the NCTA (National Cable & Telecommunications Association), which… wait for it… is now led by former FCC Chairman Michael Powell.


To sum up, the top cable and wireless lobby groups in the US are led by a former FCC chairman and former FCC commissioner, while the FCC itself is led by a man who formerly led both the cable and wireless lobby groups.

I mean, you can't make this stuff up.

But wait, it gets worse.

Among current FCC commissioners, Republican Ajit Pai previously served as associate general counsel for Verizon and held numerous government positions before becoming a commissioner in 2012.

It is extraordinarily tragic that the greed of a small group of crony crooks revolving between the corridors of corporate America and Washington D.C. may be about to ruin the open internet as we know it.