Monthly Archives: February 2016

Blagojevich US Supreme Court appeal opposition brief filed by Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli Jr. former Obama Deputy Counsel, Brief filed Feb 19 but does not show up on site, Fox guarding the hen house

Blagojevich US Supreme Court appeal opposition brief filed by Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli Jr. former Obama Deputy Counsel, Brief filed Feb 19 but does not show up on site, Fox guarding the hen house

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

 

More mysterious goin ons in the Rod Blagojevich prosecution and incarceration.

I don’t expect efficiency or accountability from government.

I see it on the local and national level.

If you follow Citizen Wells, you know that we follow closely the Blagojevich cases.

Friday, February 19, 2016 was the extended deadline for a response.

There was none listed on Friday or over the weekend.

Just checked this morning and found:

No. 15-664
Title:
Rod Blagojevich, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: November 19, 2015
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  Case Nos.: (11-3853)
  Decision Date: July 21, 2015
  Rehearing Denied: August 19, 2015

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 17 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 21, 2015)
Dec 16 2015 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 20, 2016.
Dec 21 2015 Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Elected Officials, et al. filed.
Jan 7 2016 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 19, 2016.
Feb 19 2016 Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.

The brief is no where to be found.

http://www.justice.gov/osg/supreme-court-briefs

By the way, the US Solicitor General is Donald B. Verrilli Jr. former Obama Deputy Counsel.

Think that might be a problem?

The fox guarding the hen house.

Ted Cruz Vermont eligibility lawsuit update, February 19, 2016, Plaintiff H. Brooke Paige, Cruz not natural born citizen, Cruz born in Canada in 1970, Canadian Citizenship Act of 1976 Cruz born a Canadian Citizen AND a British Subject

Ted Cruz Vermont eligibility lawsuit update, February 19, 2016, Plaintiff H. Brooke Paige, Cruz not natural born citizen, Cruz born in Canada in 1970, Canadian Citizenship Act of 1976 Cruz born a Canadian Citizen AND a British Subject

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

 

Just in from Mr. H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in the Vermont Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio eligibility challenge:

“UPDATE – Paige v. State of Vermont, et al (Secretary of State, Jim Condos,
Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz and Marco Antonio Rubio)

Citizen Wells,

February 18, 2016 – All parties, the Vermont State Defendants, Cruz and
Rubio,  have responded each   with their own Motions to Dismiss, the first
effort of a disingenuous and desperate lawyer who wants to shield his
client from having to face the music.

It is exciting to have defendants who, because of their divergent
political leanings refuse to cooperate in developing a unified strategy to
extinguish the humble, tenacious plaintiff. Unfortunately, the attorneys
for Rubio and Cruz seem amazingly unfamiliar with the “natural born
citizen(ship)” subject matter – regurgitating the tripe and drivel
regularly posted on “obot” websites; while Daloz, the state’s Asst. A/G,
appears to be doing a “cut and paste” job from his 2012 effort. Truly sad
to see such vacuous “work product” for these high priced “Blackstone
Lawyers.” (Thomas Jefferson complained that “many a law student finds
Blackstone’s writings – a smattering of everything, and his indolence
easily persuades him that if he understands Blackstone , he is a master of
the whole body of law.”)

I have filed separate Opposition Briefs for each of the defendants’
Motions to Dismiss as each develops a differing approach to defend their
favorites particular “flavor” of natural born citizenship.

•       Vermont Assistant Attorney General Todd Daloz offering “born in country
with at least one citizen parent” to defend the democratic darling, Mr.
Obama.

•       “K’ Street Mouthpiece (D.C.) Brady Toensing, representing Rubio, arguing
that “native birth” (14th Amendment citizenship) alone is sufficient to
qualify his “son of Cuban parents” to serve as President.

•       Lastly, Gregory D. Cote, Esq., the Beantown Lawyer (“Redacted”) makes a
valiant attempt to convince anyone who will give him “the time of day”
that his Canadian Citizen client, Cruz,   is somehow more than merely a
“citizen of the United States” a condition granted to him by Congress, not
by his birth circumstances alone the condition necessary to be a Natural
born citizen (i.e. born in country to two citizen parents – Vattel, 1758).

Further it has come to light that since Cruz was born in Canada in 1970,
prior to the Canadian “Citizenship Act of 1976,” he was born a “Canadian
Citizen AND a “British Subject”  having “the right of abode” whereby he
could moved to the “British Isles” and gotten a job and taken up permanent
residence without needing to take any further action .
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/cit/overview/hist.asp

The Vermont Primary Election is held on Town Meeting Day, March  1st, and,
since the defendants have argued that the issues are not “ripe” until the
passing of the election,  our next move will be to ask the court to
prevent the Secretary of State from releasing the results of that election
until the court determines the qualification of candidates Cruz and Rubio
AND  whether their names appearing on the ballot has cause damage to the
other candidates, sufficient to alter the results of the election.”

Ted Cruz Illinois court eligibility appeal, Lawrence Joyce plaintiff, Cruz not natural born citizen, Judge Maureen Ward Kirby will hear arguments at Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago, Cruz born in Canada

Ted Cruz Illinois court eligibility appeal, Lawrence Joyce plaintiff, Cruz not natural born citizen, Judge Maureen Ward Kirby will hear arguments at Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago, Cruz born in Canada

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

 

From New York Magazine February 18, 2016.

“Lawsuit Over Ted Cruz’s Eligibility to Run for President Heads to Court”

“During Wednesday night’s CNN town hall, Ted Cruz dismissed the latest legal threat from Donald Trump, assuring a voter that he’s definitely eligible to run for president. “Under the law the question is clear,” he said. “There will still be some who try to work political mischief on it, but as a legal matter this is clear and straightforward.” Unlike Cruz’s right to air old footage of Trump on Meet the Press in a campaign ad, the issue raised by Cruz’s birth in Canada to an American mother actually isn’t settled — but now it looks like we may finally get an answer. CNN reports that an Illinois judge has agreed to hear arguments in a lawsuit challenging Cruz’s eligibility on Friday.

The lawsuit in question actually has nothing to do with Trump (though, it’s unlikely we’d be debating the obscure legal arguments over whether Cruz is a “natural born citizen” if it weren’t for the ex–reality star). Suburban lawyer Lawrence Joyce initially filed an objection to Cruz’s placement on the primary ballot with the Illinois Board of Elections, but it was dismissed earlier this month. Now the Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago has agreed to hear the case.

Legal challenges over Cruz’s eligibility have been filed in at least three states. Joyce seems primarily concerned about the political fallout from the questions surrounding Cruz’s candidacy, rather than the possibility of a secret Canadian infiltrating the U.S. government. He told Chicago’s WLS that he’s concerned about what would happen if the challenge came from a Democrat in the fall after Cruz secured the GOP nomination. “At that point, all of his fundraising would dry up. And his support in the polls would drop dramatically. He may be forced at that point to resign the nomination,” he said.”

Read more:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/ted-cruz-eligibility-case-heads-to-court.html

Scalia dead with pillow over head, No autopsy, Blagojevich appeal before conference Feb 19, Ted Cruz eligibility ruling likely which affects Obama, Obama has been eager to appoint SCOTUS justice, Strongest constitutional justice gone, Reason for conspiracy theories?

Scalia dead with pillow over head, No autopsy, Blagojevich appeal before conference Feb 19, Ted Cruz eligibility ruling likely which affects Obama, Obama has been eager to appoint SCOTUS justice, Strongest constitutional justice gone, Reason for conspiracy theories?

“We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled,”…John Poindexter, owner of ranch

“Who benefited most from the suicide/murder of Orlando Jones?
Who benefited most from the murder of Donald Young?
Who benefited most from the murder of Lt. Quarles Harris Jr.?
Who benefited most from the suicide/murder of Christopher Kelly?
Who benefited most from the murder of Bill Gwatney?
Who benefited most from the death/murder of Andrew Breitbart?
And now
Loretta Fuddy?”…Citizen Wells

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

 

Justice Scalia was found dead with a pillow over his head.

There was no autopsy.

This Friday, February 19, 2016, the Blagojevich appeal is scheduled for conference.

The US Supreme Court will likely be called on to rule on Ted Cruz’s eligibility as a natural born citizen. This of course affects Obama too.

The SCOTUS justice with the strongest record of adhering to the US Constitution is gone.

Obama has been eager to appoint another liberal justice to add to his left wing legacy.

Any reason for conspiracy theories?

Nah.

Read more about how Justice Scalia was found here:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-ranch-owner-recalls-Scalia-s-last-hours-6830372.php

Read more about the Blagojevich appeal and associated Amicus Brief:

https://citizenwells.com/2016/02/15/justice-scalia-blagojevich-obama-blagojevich-appeal-response-due-by-february-19-in-us-supreme-court-no-scalia-to-respond-has-protecting-obama-reached-a-new-high/

Justice Scalia Blagojevich Obama, Blagojevich appeal response due by February 19 in US Supreme Court, No Scalia to respond, Has protecting Obama reached a new high?

Justice Scalia Blagojevich Obama, Blagojevich appeal response due by February 19 in US Supreme Court, No Scalia to respond, Has protecting Obama reached a new high?

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

 

As reported at Citizen Wells, a response from the US Supreme Court on the Rod Blagojevich appeal is due February 19, 2016.

“The US Supreme Court website reveals the following status of the Rod Blagojevich appeal:

No. 15-664
Title:
Rod Blagojevich, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: November 19, 2015
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  Case Nos.: (11-3853)
  Decision Date: July 21, 2015
  Rehearing Denied: August 19, 2015

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 17 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 21, 2015)
Dec 16 2015 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 20, 2016.
Dec 21 2015 Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Elected Officials, et al. filed.
Jan 7 2016 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 19, 2016.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-664.htm

An amicus brief was filed on December 21, 2015 by attorney Alan R. Friedman on behalf of Current and Former Elected Officials, et al.”

“From the brief:

“Summary of Argument

Amici urge the Court to grant the writ on the first
question presented by Petitioner in order to address an
issue of national importance. Although amici take no
position on Mr. Blagojevich’s innocence or guilt on any
of the counts of conviction, they submit that this Court’s
guidance is needed to distinguish the lawful solicitation of
campaign contributions from criminal violations of federal
extortion, bribery, and fraud laws.”

https://citizenwells.com/2016/01/18/blagojevich-amicus-brief-urges-supreme-court-to-hear-case-blagojevich-scotus-appeal-update-january-18-2016-time-to-file-response-to-petition-extended-twice-brief-amici-curiae-of-current-and-former/

A Justice Scalia position in 1998 affected the Blagojevich trial.

From the American Spectator.
“BLAGOJEVICH AND SCALIA”

“A federal jury convicted Governor Rod Blagojevich yesterday of one single count, remaining undecided on the other 23. And for that one guilty charge, we can thank Justice Scalia.

No, Justice Scalia had nothing to do with the Blagojevich case. But in a way, he had everything to do with it.

Governor Blagojevich was convicted of making false statements to federal agents. He told the FBI that he did not track campaign contributions and kept a “firewall” between his campaign and his official duties as Governor. In other words, federal agents asked him if he broke the law — and just like any child who is caught with his hand in the cookie jar — he said “no.”

Before 1998, this decision might have been different. Until then, federal courts routinely excused people for what they called the “exculpatory no.” If a federal agent came to your house and asked if you did something illegal, and you said “no,” you were off the hook for making false statements.”

“Brogan argued that a defendant had to be excused for his denial to federal agents because the spirit of the Fifth Amendment would be violated when someone is “cornered” and given a “cruel trilemma”: tell the truth (and admit guilt), remain silent, or lie (and falsely deny guilt).

Scalia snapped back, saying lying is not an option. An innocent person, after all, would not face the same trilemma. The innocent person only has two options: tell the truth or remain silent.”

Read more:

http://spectator.org/articles/39072/blagojevich-and-scalia

From the Washington Post December 7, 2009.

“Supreme Court to take up corruption law”

“At issue is the law’s language that it is illegal for public or private employees to “deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” The flexible standard has been part of the law for more than 20 years, but lately it has been subject to a slew of contradictory lower-court rulings and criticism, not the least of which has come from Justice Antonin Scalia.

Last term, in dissenting from his colleagues’ decision not to review the law, Scalia said the provision “invites abuse by headline-grabbing prosecutors in pursuit of local officials, state legislators and corporate C.E.O.’s who engage in any manner of unappealing or ethically questionable conduct.”

He said the assertion that “officeholders and employees owe a duty to act only in the best interests of their constituents and employers” was so loose it could be construed to “cover a salaried employee’s phoning in sick to go to a ballgame.”

Apparently, the court took Scalia’s alert to heart, accepting appeals for two high-profile convictions in the corporate world and the case of an obscure Alaska lawmaker.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/06/AR2009120602390.html

And now we have a decision affecting the prison sentence of Blagojevich and ultimately Obama, and no Justice Scalia to speak up.

What a curious time for Justice Scalia to die of “natural causes.”

NH voters cast vote for ineligible candidate Cruz?, New Hampshire ballot commission rejected efforts to remove Ted Cruz, Law of eligibility murky, Neither US Supreme Court nor any authority has explicitly ruled on natural born citizen

NH voters cast vote for ineligible candidate Cruz?, New Hampshire ballot commission rejected efforts to remove Ted Cruz, Law of eligibility murky, Neither US Supreme Court nor any authority has explicitly ruled on natural born citizen

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

 

Two state ballot entities recently ruled on Ted Cruz remaining on their ballots.

The Illinois state board of elections ruled that Ted Cruz is eligible as a natural born citizen.  IL is consistently listed as one of the most corrupt states in the US and the home of Obama, another non natural born citizen.

No surprise.

The New Hampshire ballot commission took a more honest approach.

“If there is a clear ruling on some issues that somebody clearly doesn’t meet, we would apply it. If there is a constitutional uncertainty about the meaning of something – which from my research and from all the stuff that was thrown at us at the commission there certainly is about the natural born citizen thing — we don’t undertake to make that decision,”

I was disappointed to find what I consider to be the most inaccurate article I have uncovered at American Thinker, February 5, 2016.

“Illinois and New Hampshire Agree Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen”

“Trump persists that Cruz’s citizenship is still an open question. It is not, and the election boards of two states, New Hampshire and Illinois, have now ruled, in response to complaints, that Sen. Ted Cruz is indeed, under the laws and Constitution of the United States, a “natural born citizen” fully eligible to be President of the United States. As the Washington Examiner reported:”

“A ballot commission in New Hampshire also ruled in favor of Cruz in January, but the language in Monday’s decision by the Illinois board took a stronger tone than the previous ruling, warning other skeptics, “Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary.””

“Indeed, it is unnecessary. The question of Cruz’s citizenship has been asked and answered. Is Trump saying that a baby born in Paris to a vacationing American family is not eligible to run for president and must be “naturalized” like some illegal alien from Guadalajara?

Some noted legal scholars would beg to differ from Trump’s concern that Cruz is not in fact a “natural born” citizen.

Jonathan Adler, who teaches courses in constitutional, administrative, and environmental law at Case Western University School of Law, writes in the Washington Post:

Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was a U.S. citizen. His father, a Cuban, was not. Under U.S. law, the fact that Cruz was born to a U.S. citizen mother makes him a citizen from birth. In other words, he is a “natural born citizen” (as opposed to a naturalized citizen) and is constitutionally eligible.”

“Also agreeing with Cruz’s eligibility are two constitutional scholars who have argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Washington Post reported:

Writing in the Harvard Law Review, two former top Supreme Court litigators, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, said: “All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.”

“Now two state boards of election have certified Cruz’s eligibility, which is beyond dispute, no matter how much Trump whines, pouts, and throws out groundless accusations.”

Read more:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/illinois_and_new_hampshire_agree_cruz_is_a_natural_born_citizen.html

Aside from being wrong on the definition of natural born citizen, this article is blatantly inaccurate:

New Hampshire did not rule that Cruz is a natural born citizen.

It omitted the opinion of constitutional expert Laurence Tribe of Harvard:

“Cruz says this is all settled law, but Harvard’s Laurence Tribe disagrees.

“It clearly is not settled law,” Tribe said in recent an interview.”

“That’s because Tribe says Cruz is a constitutional “originalist,” who believes the document should be followed to the letter. Tribe says jurists who share such a view might well conclude that Cruz is not eligible to be president — because he was not born in America.

According to Tribe, this shows that Cruz is trying to have it both ways.”

http://www.wbur.org/2016/01/15/donald-trump-ted-cruz-laurence-tribe-citizenship

From The Dallas Morning News November 24, 2015.

“The New Hampshire ballot commission today rejected efforts to kick Canada-born Sen. Ted Cruz off the primary ballot based on his birth outside the United States.

That clears a key legal and political obstacle as the Texas Republican seeks the GOP nomination for president. But it’s not a clear win on the question of eligibility.

Rather, the panel found that with the law of eligibility so murky, it can’t second-guess the senator’s own claims that he passes constitutional muster. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any other authority has explicitly ruled that someone like Cruz — born on foreign soil, with one American parent – can or cannot be president.

“It would be really nice if somebody would get this issue of law decided who has authority to decide constitutional issues, so every four years we don’t have this come up again,” said Manchester attorney Brad Cook, a Republican who chairs the 5-member New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission.”

Read more:

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/11/regardless-of-canadian-birth-ted-cruz-survives-ballot-challenge-in-new-hampshire.html/

AMERICAN THINKER OWES THE PUBLIC AN APOLOGY.

Obama White House media boast 4.9 percent unemployment rate, Record job growth? not if you are white, White labor force participation dropped 3.2 % under Obama, White Civilian noninstitutional population dropped 1.5 million Hispanic rose almost 8 million

Obama White House media boast 4.9 percent unemployment rate, Record job growth? not if you are white, White labor force participation dropped 3.2 % under Obama, White Civilian noninstitutional population dropped 1.5 million Hispanic rose almost 8 million

“In December 2014 there were 18 million immigrants (legal and illegal) living in the country who had arrived since January 2000. But job growth over this period was just 9.3 million — half of new immigration.”…Center for Immigration Studies February 2015

“There’s no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.”…Gallup CEO Jim Clifton 

“the Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today’s issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston’s job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones.”…George Orwell, “1984”

 

 

Citizen Wells began warning you in 2008. The signs were all around. Obama and the Obama camp were spewing lies, Orwellian lies and the masses were entranced, captivated, brainwashed.

Obama’s promises of jobs, improved and cheaper healthcare, all lies.

And the lies continue and the Obama Ministry of Truth, the mainstream media keeps helping him.

From WhiteHouse.gov, aka Big Brother, February 5, 2016.

“Summary:
In January, the unemployment rate fell below 5 percent for the first time in eight years as the longest streak of private-sector job growth on record continued.”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/02/05/employment-situation-january

From Obama, the liar in chief, February 5, 2016.

“THE PRESIDENT:  TGIF, everybody.  I wanted to stop by, because as you’re aware by now, America’s businesses created another 158,000 jobs last month.  After reaching 10 percent in 2009, the unemployment rate has now fallen to 4.9 percent — even as more Americans joined the job market last month.  So this is the first time that the unemployment rate has dipped below 5 percent in almost eight years.  Americans are working.

All told, over the past six years, our businesses have added 14 million new jobs.  Seventy-one straight months of private-sector job growth extends the longest streak on record.  Over the past two years, 2014 and 2015, our businesses added more jobs than any time since the 1990s.”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/05/statement-president-economy

NOT IF YOU ARE A WHITE AMERICAN!

From the US Labor Dept.:

From January 2009 to January 2016.

Civilian noninstitutional population (potential employees)

White:  1,459,000 decrease.

Hispanic:   7,798,000  increase.

Labor force participation rate

White: 3.2 % decrease.

Hispanic: 2.1 % decrease.

Employed

White:  2,166,000 increase.

Hispanic: 5,099,000  increase.

Not in labor force

White: 8,873,000 increase.

Hispanic: 3,361,000 increase.

Square these numbers with what Obama, the White House and the mainstream media are telling you.

Now you can understand why over 30 percent of millennials live with family members and hunger is rampant in this country.