Category Archives: Americans

We were unseen poverty report from News Record, Living among Greensboro’s unseen, Frank McCain and Michael Cottingham, 41 million Americans living in poverty

We were unseen poverty report from News Record, Living among Greensboro’s unseen, Frank McCain and Michael Cottingham, 41 million Americans living in poverty

“And although the slights they felt that day during instances of people who knew them basically looking right past or through them might have momentarily hurt their feelings, they said they felt worse knowing that homeless and needy people are “looked past” every day.

“People don’t admit it, but most people in our community are two to three checks from being in that same position,””…Frank McCain, News Record expose

“Feeding the homeless sounds like you are not the same, that we are not the same community, but if I invite you over and serve you dinner it’s because you are my friend, we are in the same community, we are the same.”…Greensboro’s Amy “The Chicken Lady” Murphy

“He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none. He who has food, let him do likewise.”…Luke 3:11


This morning Zero Hedge reported.

41 Million Americans Are Living In Poverty This Christmas

It is being reported that 41 million people are living in poverty at this moment, and 9 million of them do not receive a single penny of income from anyone.  Once you have been unemployed for long enough, you don’t qualify for unemployment payments any longer, and once you are on the street there is nowhere for other governments programs to send a check to.  I have previously discussed the rising epidemic of homelessness in our nation, but most people don’t want to think about that sort of a thing these days.  Even though New York City has the most homeless since the Great Depression, and even though homelessness in Los Angeles is at an all-time record high, most people want to pretend that everything is just fine.

Read more.
The Greensboro News Record reported Christmas Eve.
“We were unseen”
“Poverty is not unique to the state or to this,

North Carolina’s third-largest city.

It is fueled by the addition of families who have fallen out of the middle class because of layoffs or companies closing or underemployment; of working-class people grappling with loss of benefits or reduced hours or rising prices that have given them less to live on; and of those who can’t find work or have given up on looking for it.

Many of those people and families have ended up in a state of homelessness or near homelessness — either sleeping on the streets, in vehicles or couch-surfing among friends and family. Or struggling to stave off an eviction.

Those who work with the local homeless and needy population say it is difficult for others to fathom the depths of the problem — or even see the people behind the statistics.

Such as the family who found a place at the YWCA’s family shelter after neighbors in an out-of-the-way cul-de-sac noticed a car idling there for hours. When the car’s dome light flipped on, children could be seen moving around inside. The residents called police, who called the shelter.

Also at that shelter was the single dad who had been sleeping on a park bench in a quiet park with his 4-year-old daughter because an old eviction kept him from being able to rent again.

That’s one of the reasons McCain, the vice president of community impact and investment at the United Way of Greater Greensboro, and Cottingham, the vice president of marketing and communications, came up with “GSO Unseen.”

In recent winters the extent of the need for shelter has been so intense that the Interactive Resource Center, a day center for the homeless, has been forced to double as a warming station during brutally cold nights because even those people who try to brave the outdoors in the city’s numerous “tent cities” needed a place to go. The YWCA does the same.

At the same time, the United Way decided to focus more of its resources on a long-term approach to fighting poverty.

McCain was telling a good friend about the work, as a way of moving the whole community forward.

“He said, ‘Well, Franklin, what do you really know about poverty?’ He said you don’t know poverty. I do.”

McCain admits he initially was offended. He had upper-middle-class roots, but growing up he had friends whose families struggled. That was also true in college and in his life as an adult.

“Unless you are blind, you see things,” McCain said. “I went to school with people who had less than they needed — but had I truly experienced it? I said maybe he’s right.”

He said he thought about a story on the nightly news about a woman in Phoenix who had left her young children in the car during a job interview. The woman later was arrested.

“Who could think that’s right?” he said he thought at the time.

But as McCain delved more deeply into the root causes of poverty, it became clearer how she came to that bad decision: The woman didn’t have child care. She took a chance, and it was the wrong one. But the story also shed light for him on the kinds of support low-income people need that other people would assume they had.

“I thought, maybe for me to be more effective in the work that we are doing, maybe I needed to get a better understanding, and he was right,” McCain said.

He looked first at the homeless population.

“I saw them as being those who had the least of all,” McCain said.

He shared his thoughts with Cottingham, who had also grown up in a family that didn’t have any needs there weren’t met. Cottingham, who had worked with needs for Medicaid recipients and people with mental-health issues, substance abuse and developmental disabilities, said he knew McCain was onto something.

“It’s easy to think you understand populations you are serving,” Cottingham said.

But had he ever had to choose between food and heat? No.

The idea was to step into the shoes of someone homeless or nearly homeless.

Cottingham, who grew up in Kernersville and graduated from Mars Hills College, has two children younger than 6. McCain, who grew up in Charlotte and graduated from N.C. A&T, has two children, the youngest of which is in college.

On a Monday morning in November 2016, McCain, dressed in a hoodie and slightly stained pants he wore around the house to do odd jobs, and Cottingham, in a flannel shirt and blue jeans, parked their cars near downtown and mentally closed the doors on their middle class lives.

Stepping into their “characters” would be, invariably, easier than they thought.

Traveling with luggage in the middle of downtown during the day gave them an instant invisibility of sorts.

“We were unseen …,” Cottingham said.

“… Even by people who knew us,” McCain added.

As they navigated downtown, two people — a past and a current board member — walked out of a building on Elm Street and directly in front of them.

“People who know us, work with us …,” McCain said.

“… We had to move out of the way,” Cottingham added.

These people who knew them on a first-name basis quickly moved past without even a glance in their direction.

“I almost said, ‘Hello,’ because it was natural to say,” McCain said.

Instead, McCain and Cottingham just looked at each other and kept walking.

The two found the building on the edge of downtown, on a path familiar to those needing help.

“We knew it was important to start the day off at the IRC,” Cottingham said of the day center for people who are homeless or at risk of being homeless.

The IRC provides showers, a laundry, an address for mail that could come from a potential employer or family states away and access to services, such as mental-health management.

McCain said he had known very little about the IRC up to that point.

Developing similar cover stories — each said he was unmarried with a child and girlfriend who would be coming in the near future — they separately walked into the lobby and signed up for an appointment with a case manager. Each took a seat among tables full of people already there.

Nothing seemed unusual to those around them.

When McCain spotted Michelle Kennedy, the IRC’s executive director, walk through the open area, he pulled a newspaper up to his face, fearing she might recognize him.

People in the nonprofit world tend to know him because he is among the people who they talk to about needs.

He wasn’t worried about anyone else.

“I think that people made the assumption that if you are here with us, it’s because you have to be here,” Cottingham said.

Many of the chairs were filled with regulars, but McCain and Cottingham were not the only ones there for the first time. Some others had suitcases or carried bags of clothes and seemingly, the last of their belongings.

“I was sad because there were just so many people,” McCain said. “Women, children and families. Young and old. People with disabilities.”

McCain and Cottingham took in the faces and conversations going on around them, from sports to the challenges of fighting for custody of children.

“Some of the most basic things that they offer there help make the people who use those services feel like they are human,” McCain said of seeing people stop by the IRC to take showers and change clothes.

Among those who rested or waited for appointments, they found people in khakis and button-down shirts, dressed for the lives they hoped for, and others waiting for the shower, to get out of clothes they had slept in.

“There were some people who seemed really into making positive steps, and there were some people who seemed checked out, who seemed tired, worn out,” Cottingham said.

They asked those around the different tables where they could find food and a place to sleep, even a job.

Someone mentioned a temporary agency that had luck with helping the homeless find work, including on a construction project going on downtown.”

I urge you to read more:


More here:



President Trump inaugural address, Friday January 20, 2017, 45th president, You will never be ignored again, Whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska they look up at the same night sky they fill their heart with the same dreams and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator

President Trump inaugural address, Friday January 20, 2017, 45th president, You will never be ignored again, Whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska they look up at the same night sky they fill their heart with the same dreams and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator

“And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator.”…Donald Trump



From January 20, 2017.

“The Inaugural Address





As Prepared for Delivery –

Chief Justice Roberts, President Carter, President Clinton, President Bush, President Obama, fellow Americans, and people of the world: thank you.

We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and to restore its promise for all of our people.

Together, we will determine the course of America and the world for years to come.

We will face challenges. We will confront hardships. But we will get the job done.

Every four years, we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power, and we are grateful to President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama for their gracious aid throughout this transition. They have been magnificent.

Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.

For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.

Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth.

Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.

The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.

Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.

It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America.

This is your day. This is your celebration.

And this, the United States of America, is your country.

What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.

January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.

The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.

Everyone is listening to you now.

You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement the likes of which the world has never seen before.

At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens.

Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves.

These are the just and reasonable demands of a righteous public.

But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.

This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.

We are one nation – and their pain is our pain.  Their dreams are our dreams; and their success will be our success.  We share one heart, one home, and one glorious destiny.

The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans.

For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry;

Subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military;

We’ve defended other nation’s borders while refusing to defend our own;

And spent trillions of dollars overseas while America’s infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.

We’ve made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon.

One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores, with not even a thought about the millions upon millions of American workers left behind.

The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed across the entire world.

But that is the past. And now we are looking only to the future.

We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power.

From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.

From this moment on, it’s going to be America First.

Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families.

We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs.  Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.

I will fight for you with every breath in my body – and I will never, ever let you down.

America will start winning again, winning like never before.

We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders.  We will bring back our wealth.  And we will bring back our dreams.

We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation.

We will get our people off of welfare and back to work – rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor.

We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and Hire American.

We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.

We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.

We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones – and unite the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.

At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.

When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.

The Bible tells us, “how good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity.”

We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity.

When America is united, America is totally unstoppable.

There should be no fear – we are protected, and we will always be protected.

We will be protected by the great men and women of our military and law enforcement and, most importantly, we are protected by God.

Finally, we must think big and dream even bigger.

In America, we understand that a nation is only living as long as it is striving.

We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action – constantly complaining but never doing anything about it.

The time for empty talk is over.

Now arrives the hour of action.

Do not let anyone tell you it cannot be done.  No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America.

We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again.

We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the Earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow.

A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights, and heal our divisions.

It is time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget: that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag.

And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator.

So to all Americans, in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, and from ocean to ocean, hear these words:

You will never be ignored again.

Your voice, your hopes, and your dreams, will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.

Together, We Will Make America Strong Again.

We Will Make America Wealthy Again.

We Will Make America Proud Again.

We Will Make America Safe Again.

And, Yes, Together, We Will Make America Great Again. Thank you, God Bless You, And God Bless America.”



More here:

Hillary hates Americans, John Podesta Confirms in Wikileak email, Sociopath Clintons “systematically abuse women and others – sexually, physically, and psychologically – in their scramble for power and wealth”, Don’t believe Hillary’s lies about concern for women children and families

Hillary hates Americans, John Podesta Confirms in Wikileak email, Sociopath Clintons “systematically abuse women and others – sexually, physically, and psychologically – in their scramble for power and wealth”, Don’t believe Hillary’s lies about concern for women children and families

“I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans”…John Podesta, Wikileaks email # 4433

“Billy and Hillary Clinton continue to be lying, cheating, manipulative, scratching, clawing, ruthlessly aggressive, insatiably ambitious politicians who are giving public service a bad name – and nothing about them has changed in the past forty-plus years, except that they have deluded more and more people,”…Dolly Kyle Browning

“The devil’s in that woman.”…Miss Emma, Clinton’s cook, governor’s mansion


John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, stated the following in Wikileaks email # 4433:

“I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans”

The email is dated Apr 19, 2015.

There is only one problem with that statement.

She began hating Americans decades ago.

I will prove it.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing that Hillary, the sociopath has said is this.

From WND May 15, 2016.

“Hillary horror! ‘Get those f-ing retards out of here’”

““When are they going to get those f—ing ree-tards out of here?!”

Those are said to be the infamous words of Hillary Clinton – also known as Arkansas’ “Mother of the Year” in 1984 – when Hillary reportedly grew frustrated that handicapped children weren’t collecting their Easter eggs quickly enough on the lawn of the Arkansas governor’s mansion.

“[T]he children were having a wonderful time. But they were having a v-e-r-y, v-e-r-y, v-e-r-y s-l-o-w time of finding and picking up the Easter eggs,” wrote Dolly Kyle – a childhood sweetheart of Bill Clinton who had a 33-year relationship with him – in her new book, “Hillary the Other Woman: A Political Memoir.”

There are a great many Hillary quotes from widely disparate sources.

The book “The Clintons’ War on Women” has some startling ones as well as insights into the kind of people they really are.

2) “Fuck off! It’s enough that I have to see you shit-kickers every day. I’m not going to talk to you, too. Just do your goddamn job and keep your mouth shut.”
—Hillary to her Arkansas state trooper bodyguards, after one of them told her “good morning” (American Evita, p. 90).

5) Former FBI agent stationed to the White House Gary Aldrich said, “[Hillary] had a clear dislike for the agents (US Secret Service), bordering on hatred…. Two Secret Service agents heard Hillary’s daughter Chelsea refer to them as ‘personal, trained pigs.’ … The agent on the detail tried to scold Chelsea for such disrespect. He told her … he believed that her father, the president, would be shocked if he heard what she had just said to her friends. Chelsea’s response? ‘I don’t think so. That’s what my parents call you’” (Unlimited Access, p. 90).

10) “Bimbos,” “sluts,” “trailer trash,” “rednecks,” and “shit-kickers.”
—Terms Hillary commonly used to describe Arkansans (American Evita, p. 139).

11) “Goddamn, L. D., did you see that family right out of Deliverance? Get me the hell out of here.”
—L. D. Brown, Bill’s favorite state trooper, while at a county fair in Arkansas in the early 1980s. They had just spoken to “salt of the earth” country Arkansans who wore bib overalls and cotton dresses. Brown also said that Hillary would reduce grown men state troopers such as Trooper Mark Allen to tears with her vicious attacks (Crossfire, p. 85).

12) “This is the kind of shit I have to put up with.”
—Hillary to a friend after a well-meaning supporter gave her earrings shaped like Arkansas Razorbacks (Blood Sport, p.105).

14) “You goddamn stupid fucking fool.”
—Hillary to Bill while in the presence of Chelsea, then a toddler (Newsmax, July 15, 2000).

26) “That’ll teach them to fuck with us.”
—Hillary said to aides right after her comments to Matt Lauer in January 1998 that a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was out to get the Clintons (The Case Against Hillary Clinton, p. 162).

27) “These women are all trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.”
—Hillary on Bill’s accusers (Bill & Hillary, p. 220).

36) “I want to get this shit over with and get these damn people out of here.”
—Hillary, over the Arkansas governor’s mansion intercom as preschoolers who had been invited to the governor’s mansion were posing on the lawn for a photograph (The First Partner, p. 192).

37) “We have to destroy her.”
—Hillary on Gennifer Flowers (The Final Days, p. 13).

More on the book here:

From the interview of Arkansas State Police bodyguard Larry Patterson.

“You know, for 32 years, Trooper Patterson served with the Arkansas State Police. A highly commended officer, Patterson was assigned to the elite Governor’s Security Detail and for 6 years – day in day out – Patterson guarded Governor Bill Clinton. For 6 years Trooper Patterson lived intimately with Bill and Hillary Clinton. For 6 years, he became knowledgeable of their intimate secrets.”

“GP: You tell of an incident outside Chelsea’s school – it was on parent/teacher’s night – when Bill Clinton went to meet her teachers.

LP: He had me block the street in front of Chelsea’s elementary school while he met a lady there, George, and had a liaison with this lady late at night.

GP: Right there?

LP: Blocked the street – the driveway going into the school, George.

GP: “More Than Sex” paints an intimate portrait of the Clintons at home. Now you say, Larry, that there were a lot of verbal arguments between Hillary and Bill and you claim that they would often make slurs against each other – anti-Semitic slurs, right?

LP: George, if these people were together for more than 3 or 4 hours, they were at each other, they were fighting; and many many times the anti-Semitic slurs were used. The “N” word was often used.

GP: And at one point, Bill Clinton made some shocking comments about a fellow state trooper – one who had died in the line of duty.

LP: George, he was in Southwest Arkansas at this trooper’s funeral and he made the statement in front of two other state policemen, “Well, I don’t know what the big deal is – he was just a ‘G-D-‘ pig…”

GP: Gasped- What!

GP: Larry, I want to stop you for a moment. We haven’t heard any of this in the press. Is this new? Is this all new material? Why haven’t we heard about it before?

LP: George, in 1993 there was a total of 4 Arkansas State policemen who worked on the Governor’s Security Detail who came forward to tell their stories about what they had seen, what they had experienced in Arkansas working for Bill Clinton. And the major news media, they gave it a day, 2 days, play and then that was it, George. Then the Clinton spin doctors got a hold of it and it was to discredit the State Police – to destroy us.”

More Than Sex, TV Interview of Clinton bodyguard Larry Patterson by George Putnam, Arkansas Trooper Patterson lived intimately with Bill and Hillary Clinton, The “N” word was often used, Clinton spin doctors got it to discredit State Police, Newsmax September 14, 1999

“The Real Hillary”

“A just-retired Secret Service agent who spent five years on
Hillary Clinton’s protective detail has told a Newsmax source
that “only one word adequately describes that woman: witch.””

“The Clintons, we are certain to learn, treated the domestic staff
horribly. These are the valets, maids, porters, cooks, drivers,
baggage handlers and other permanent White House personnel who
are assigned to the “Residence”, the living quarters of the
First Family.

The Clintons undoubtedly treated these folks rudely, abruptly and
with contempt.

Hillary’s famous “I could have stayed home and baked cookies”
remark belies her contempt for household chores, and those who
perform them.”

The Real Hillary, Retired secret service agent Hillary Clinton witch, NewsMax March 20, 2001, Boorish rude arrogant condescending and demeaning behavior

From Juanita Broaddrick, Bill Clinton rape victim.

“Hi. I’m Juanita Broaddrick. And I’m here to support Donald Trump. I tweeted recently — and Mr. Trump retweeted it — that actions speak louder than words. Mr. Trump may have said some bad words, but Bill Clinton raped me and Hillary Clinton threatened me. I don’t think there’s any comparison.”

“Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”…Jesus of Nazareth

Hillary, I believe, is still living in the 90’s when her narrative was presented only by the mainstream media.

Thanks to the internet and citizen journalism, that no longer holds.

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”…Jesus of Nazareth

Little did Hillary know that when she was mistreating people years ago it would come back to haunt her.

“Video shows Hillary shunning homeless man”

“We shouldn’t be criminalizing the homeless with mass arrests for those whose only offense is that they have no home,” Mrs. Clinton said last week, in a direct slap at the homeless policy of her expected opponent, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

But after a videotape shot during the Clintons’ 1992 presidential campaign is aired tonight by Fox News Channel, the issue of homelessness may turn out to be yet another exploding cigar for Mrs. Clinton.”

“Next, the tape is said to show Clinton aides hustling the man away from Hillary. He then asks one unnamed Clinton staffer for a dollar. Instead, the female aide gives the homeless man a voter registration card and urges him to vote, “So that people who are in economic harm can elect a president who’ll get this country back on track.”

Video shows Hillary shunning homeless man, Clintons’ 1992 presidential campaign, “My name is Hillary Clinton. You going to vote in the primary?”, He asks Clinton staffer for a dollar. Instead female aide gives homeless man a voter registration card and urges him to vote, Newsmax December 7, 1999

We learned today from Wikileaks how Hillary and the Democrats use blacks for their own agenda.

“Why would you use my dad?” — Erica Garner blasts Clinton campaign over staffers’ discussions in WikiLeaks emails

If you plan to vote for or support Hillary Clinton because you believe she is the lesser of evils, you had better start paying attention!

Donald Trump, with all of his flaws, is a saint compared to Hillary.



More here:











Wikileaks Hillary et al weasel words on Benghazi dead Americans emails technology, Podesta Kendall Mills Abedin and host of others, “I don’t mind the “backs of dead Americans” because we need a bit of moral outrage”, Media “allies”

Wikileaks Hillary et al weasel words on Benghazi dead Americans emails technology, Podesta Kendall Mills Abedin and host of others, “I don’t mind the “backs of dead Americans” because we need a bit of moral outrage”, Media “allies”

“I watched her on countless occasions blatantly lie to the American people and knowingly lie.”…Linda Tripp

“The question that I had in my mind, was why did we not do something to protect our forces?”…Charles Woods, father of slain Navy Seal

“The devil’s in that woman.”…Miss Emma, Clinton’s cook, governor’s mansion



From Wikileaks.

The emails speak for themselves.


“ To:,,,,, more Date: 2015-10-18 16:05 Subject: Re: DRAFT: Opening Statement

I like it. My one question: in the 6th graf, before “At this point . . .”, should the following be inserted–“After previously testifying about this matter in both the Senate and the House,”?

From: Dan Schwerin [] Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 01:40 PM To: Jake Sullivan <>; Turner, Katherine; Mandy Grunwald <>; Jennifer Palmieri <>; Kendall, David; John Podesta <>; Adrienne Elrod <>; Philippe Reines <>; Sara Latham <>; Cheryl Mills <>; Heather Samuelson <>; Brian Fallon <>; Huma Abedin <>; Phil Schiliro <>; Phil Barnett <>; Matt Siegler <> Subject: Re: DRAFT: Opening Statement

Flagging this draft again in hopes folks can take a look. Thanks Dan

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Dan Schwerin <<>> wrote:

Here’s a revised opening statement based on our discussion this morning. Dan

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Jake Sullivan <<>> wrote:

This is a big line of Gowdy questioning. How did you strike balance? Elsewhere you so close up shop when things get dangerous.

On Oct 17, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Turner, Katherine <<>> wrote:

One further thought on the current draft: we might consider softening the “Chris did not believe retreat was an option – and neither do I” line. I don’t think we want to suggest that there was a commitment to be there at any and all costs; but rather, that the known risks were being balanced with the reasons for being there, regular assessments of this balance were made, and that the people on the ground were best-positioned to contribute to those assessments.

Katherine Turner Williams & Connolly LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005 (P) 202-434-5487<tel:202-434-5487> | (F) 202-434-5029<tel:202-434-5029><> |;;

From: Dan Schwerin [] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 8:07 PM To: Mandy Grunwald; Jennifer Palmieri; Kendall, David; Jake Sullivan; John Podesta; Adrienne Elrod; Philippe Reines; Sara Latham; Cheryl Mills; Heather Samuelson; Turner, Katherine; Brian Fallon; Huma Abedin; Phil Schiliro; Phil Barnett; Matt Siegler Subject: Re: DRAFT: Opening Statement

A few more edits after talking with Phil S

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Dan Schwerin <<>> wrote:

Here are some modest revisions. Am going to send this over to HRC so she can start thinking about it as well. Thanks all. Dan

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Dan Schwerin <<>> wrote:

That “backs of dead Americans” line is stolen from Hard Choices, so maybe a good idea to tweak slightly anyhow. I’ll play with some alternatives. If folks have other concerns before I send on to HRC, please let me know.

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mandy Grunwald <<>> wrote:

I also think it’s strong.

I don’t mind the “backs of dead Americans” because we need a bit of moral outrage. I suppose we can dial the language back, but the sense of outrage should remain. Mandy Grunwald Grunwald Communications 202 973-9400<tel:202%20973-9400>

I think it is good. Imagine the clip they will use is the partisan slugfest sentence. I don’t love “backs of dead Americans” in that sentence. I think that is too graphic and splashes back on her as appearing to exploit their deaths. Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 16, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Kendall, David <<>> wrote:

I like it. Just two thoughts. We twice call the ARB “independent”—I’d prefer to call it “non-partisan” as we do once in the draft. Hard Choices did not call it “independent”, and since it’s appointed by and responsible to the Secretary, I think we open an avenue of attack by calling it “independent”. Can we get some more numbers into the early “diplomacy is dangerous” discussion? Sixty-six American diplomatic personnel and over a hundred contractors and locally employed staff killed since the 1970’s (or whatever the numbers are). I recognize we have some numbers on page 3 (Beirut bombing, 1998 attacks).

David E. Kendall Williams & Connolly LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005 (P) 202-434-5145<tel:202-434-5145> | (F) 202-434-5029<tel:202-434-5029><> |;;

From: Dan Schwerin [] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 2:31 PM To: Jake Sullivan; John Podesta; Adrienne Elrod; Mandy Grunwald; Philippe Reines; Sara Latham; Cheryl Mills; Heather Samuelson; Kendall, David; Turner, Katherine; Brian Fallon; Jennifer Palmieri; Huma Abedin; Phil Schiliro; Phil Barnett; Matt Siegler Subject: DRAFT: Opening Statement

Here is a draft of HRC’s opening statement based on our discussion today. As Cheryl mentioned, we’d love to get this to HRC for a first read tonight or tomorrow, so quick feedback would be great. Thanks Dan”

___________________ To: Date: 2015-03-13 11:02 Subject: Re: Statement

He reacted badly when asked on Sunday show. My perspective is that we want the fight to be about Benghazi, not about servers in her basement. This helps move the story back in that direction. JP –Sent from my iPad– For scheduling:

On Mar 13, 2015, at 8:50 AM, Cheryl Mills <> wrote:

Not on board – why poke the bear.


On Mar 13, 2015, at 8:48 AM, John Podesta <> wrote:

Thoughts? I think we are off an aggressive statement saying I’m ready to testify any place any time. Kendall thinks it will take 3 weeks to prepare on emails, which puts us right up against the launch time. The statement below intended to insert ourselves back into the offense without opening up a response of “ok be here Monday.”

David is ok with calling for the release of what’s already been sent to committee as we are trying to do here. Massively opposed to the first idea of “I’m ready to testify” bravado. Thoughts?

–Sent from my iPad–
For scheduling:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Kristina Schake <>
Date: March 12, 2015 at 7:31:32 PM EDT
To: John Podesta <>, Jen Palmieri <>, Robert Mook>
Subject: Statement

John, below is the draft statement that we discussed this morning for your review. After we receive your edits and if you are ok to proceed, we will send this to her in the morning with a note explaining the strategy. Our plan would be to release it mid-day tomorrow to get ahead of Sunday’s shows.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton released the following statement joining the Democrats on the House Select Committee on Benghazi in calling on Chairman Trey Gowdy to publicly release the hundreds of Benghazi-related emails that the State Department has already provided to the Committee.

“The terrorist attacks in Benghazi were a tragedy for our nation and most of all for the families of the brave public servants we lost that day. As Secretary of State, I was ultimately responsible for my people’s safety, and my greatest regret from my time as Secretary is that not all of them returned home to their families. That is why from the start I ordered everyone at the State Department to cooperate fully with every investigation and every attempt to learn lessons from this tragedy that could help better protect our people in the future.

In addition to a comprehensive investigation by an independent Accountability Review Board, nine different Congressional committees have now held hearings on Benghazi and reviewed thousands of pages of documents.

I myself have publicly testified before both the House and Senate and held a classified briefing for members, and the State Department has provided hundreds of relevant documents and emails. I’ve already said that I’m more than happy to testify again. We should all focus on constructive steps that advance our national security, not political posturing.

Today I join Congressman Cummings and the Democrats on the House Select Committee on Benghazi in calling on Chairman Gowdy to immediately release all my emails related to Benghazi, many of which he has had since August. Those emails should be available immediately while the State Department works on my request to release all of my work-related emails to the public – an unprecedented disclosure far beyond any official requirement.

I hope the Committee acts quickly, and that it’s focus going forward is on preventing attacks like this in the future.

___________________ To: Date: 2015-08-08 14:59 Subject: Re: Open Letter


On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 12:54 PM, John Podesta <> wrote:

Sorry, one more edit. I think we should drop the sentence on how
classified info was delivered. It opens the door to “briefed classified
info” ending up in emails.
Otherwise I’m fine.

On Saturday, August 8, 2015, Huma Abedin <> wrote:

if we aim for statement today, avail monday and univision on tuesday, i
like that

On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Jennifer Palmieri> wrote:

Dan – I will send her the statement and press plan so we can present in
one document.

I have a new thought on potential interviewer – Maria Elena Salinas of

I would bill it as an interview on college affordability and she would
ask her a few questions on emails.

As you all know, I had hoped that we could use the “server moment” as an
opportunity for her to be viewed as having take a big step to deal with the
email problem that would best position us for what is ahead. It is clear
that she is not in same place (unless John has a convo with her and gets
her in a different place).

Accepting that, I think Univision is best chance for success. We have
momentum coming out of Jeb’s women’s health comment and their bad debate.
A Univision interview will be viewed as more offense and show that she is
confident and not rattled.

How does that strike folks?

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 8, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Dan Schwerin <>

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 8, 2015, at 12:28 PM, Heather Samuelson> wrote:

I’m fine with “consistent with practice of prior Secretaries..” But
will remove reference to Powell in factsheet so we don’t single him out.

Will send around revisions to factsheet momentarily.

*From:* Dan Schwerin
*Sent:* ‎Saturday‎, ‎August‎ ‎8‎, ‎2015 ‎12‎:‎22‎ ‎PM
*To:* Jennifer Palmieri
*Cc:* Heather Samuelson, Christina Reynolds, Huma Abedin, Nick Merrill, Kendall,
David, Cheryl Mills, Robby Mook, Brian Fallon, Kristina Schake, Jake
Sullivan, Katherine Turner, John Podesta

Revised. Please take another quick look as I think we should get to her
asap. Two questions:
1) What do we do about Powell? Here I’ve mirrored language from the
Q&A, which says “consistent with the practice of prior Secretaries of
State,” but are we comfortable with that?
2) Am i sending her this and the spox statement or Jen, so you want to
do that? Either way, we’ll need to explain the two options.

On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Jennifer Palmieri> wrote:

Plus Reynolds to this chain

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 8, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Heather Samuelson> wrote:

How about this: Dan — will call you.

When I arrived at the State Department in early 2009, I immediately got
to work rebuilding America’s tarnished global reputation and take on
pressing challenges in nearly every region of the world. At the time,
using a personal account seemed convenient. Previous Secretaries of
State had used personal email accounts with no problems.”

Read more:


“One other point is that there is very little in the talking points about the emails. That may make sense, but if you want talking points for allies to use, here would be two possible ones to add:”

More emails involving Attorney David Kendall here:


More here:



Trump debate point September 2016 jobs report, White employment decimated under Obama, Hillary promised NY 200k new jobs and they lost jobs, 10 million more whites not in labor force since 2007, No employment growth, Hispanic employment up 25 percent

Trump debate point September 2016 jobs report, White employment decimated under Obama, Hillary promised NY 200k new jobs and they lost jobs, 10 million more whites not in labor force since 2007, No employment growth, Hispanic employment up 25 percent

“In other words, more than half of the 156K jobs added in September went – once again – to minimum wage workers”…Zero Hedge October 7, 2016

“The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in September at 7.1 million. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.”…US Labor Dept. September 2014

“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



Ok folks, this ain’t rocket science and the mainstream media has not been reporting it.

White employment has been decimated under Obama!

It will be no better under Hillary with her open floodgate immigration policy and history on job creation.

When she was running for senator in NY, she promised 200,000 new jobs and they actually lost jobs.

Why, her lips were moving, a sure sign she was lying.

Donald Trump, Pay attention!

Citizen Wells has been reporting this for years.

Why did I choose white American employment?

It is still approx. two thirds of the population.

It provides a simple apples to apples comparison.

And (drum roll) it highlights the impact of illegal aliens.

Straight from US Labor Dept. tables.

Since September 2007:

There are  10 million more whites not in the labor force ( do not be fooled by media lies about this being due to baby boomers – this has been extensively covered at Citizen Wells ).

There has been zero white American employment growth!

There has been 25 percent employment growth for Hispanics.!

Also, the mass influx of illegals along with Obamacare has impacted the types of jobs available and wages.

From Zero Hedge October 7, 2016.

“Where The September Jobs Were: Secretaries, Waiters, Retail And Social Workers

While we already noted that the headline quantitative print in jobs, which rose by a seasonally adjusted 156K in September, was far weaker when observed from a quality standpoint, as a result of the surge in part-time jobs, the dip in full-time jobs, and the jump in multiple jobholders to the highest since the financial crisis, another question is which industries were hiring, albeit mostly part-time workers.

Here is the answer:

  • The most actively hiring sector was the otherwise stable “Professional and business services” where employment rose by 67,000 in September and has risen by 582,000  over the year. However, a quick look within the number reveals that the most active sub category was that of administrative and support services, which account for more than half, or +35,000, of the increase. In other words, secretaries and clerical staff.
  • Obamacare may be crushing the middle class, but it continues to “create” jobs: Health care added 33,000 jobs in September. Also thank America’s aging population: ambulatory health care services, aka social workers, added 24,000 jobs. Over the past 12 months, health care has added  445,000 jobs.
  • There was the old faithful: waiters and bartenders, aka “Employment in food services and drinking places” which continued to trend up in September (+30,000) and has increased by 300,000 over the year. This group remains one of the strongest, minimum-wage contributors to the Obama “recovery.”
  • Finally, there was minimum wage retail trade workers, where employment continued to trend up over the month (+22,000). Within the industry, job gains occurred in clothing and clothing accessories stores (+14,000) and in gasoline stations (+8,000). Over the year, employment in retail trade has risen by 317,000.

In other words, more than half of the 156K jobs added in September went – once again – to minimum wage workers.”



More here:



Clinton to blame for 9/11, CIA officials reveal what went wrong, E-mail from a recently retired high-ranking CIA official, CIA never recovered from the “Human Rights Scrub” policy, Reported by NewsMax on September 11, 2001

Clinton to blame for 9/11, CIA officials reveal what went wrong, E-mail from a recently retired high-ranking CIA official, CIA never recovered from the “Human Rights Scrub” policy, Reported by NewsMax on September 11, 2001

“August 1998: covert operations limited to a ‘capture operation,’ not kill
As will be shown, Clinton vacillated over signing a memo that would authorize the killing of bin Laden. He first authorized only a capture, then agreed to allow bin Laden’s killing, only to weaken the language later. CIA officials were under the impression they did not have permission to kill the al-Qaeda leader.”…Washington Post February 16, 2016

“I could have killed’ Osama bin Laden in 1998”…Bill Clinton

“Clinton policies reached their zenith under CIA Director John Deutch and his top assistant, Nora Slatkin. The pair ran Clinton’s CIA in the mid-1990s and implemented a “human rights scrub” policy.”
“After that, each asset had to be certified as being ‘clean for human rights violations.’
“What this did was to put off limits, in effect, terrorists, criminals, and anyone else who would have info on these kinds of people.”
Roger says the CIA, even under new leadership, has never recovered from the “Human Rights Scrub” policy.”…NewsMax September 11, 2001



Yesterday Citizen Wells proved proof, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Clinton Administration was most responsible for 9/11.


Reported by NewsMax on September 11, 2001.


“Common sense, in fact, dictates that we need to critically examine the people who are to blame for this incident, both the perpetrators (and if you believe Osama bin Laden was the major mastermind behind this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you) and the people we pay to protect us – that is, our national security agencies.

Without question, these agencies failed miserably in preventing this sophisticated, wide-scale and coordinated attack against America.

Tuesday I received an e-mail from a recently retired high-ranking CIA official. I will identify him as “Harry”:

Here’s what Harry said:

“… Reacting effectively and justly to this [attack] makes us hugely dependent on intell [intelligence] capabilities that failed us miserably. This is an enormous liability, which we shall not be able to fix before we have to react. Payback time for the last eight years!”

He continued: “There were clearly enormous failures here. This operation was ingenious in its simplicity, which would have limited the size (number of people, actions) of the operation and hence detectability. But it could not have been that small for at least a dozen men to hijack four carefully chosen aircraft (routes, fuel load) with carefully coordinated timing. And to get through security with knives big enough to subdue four relatively large crews. If the intell and security systems claim that this challenge is simply too hard for them, they have to be replaced, root and branch. Because this challenge is the challenge. It is now pretty self-evident that claims of reform and adjustment [at the intelligence agencies] to new realities that we’ve heard over the past eight years or so are hollow.”

Of course, it’s obvious why the media doesn’t want any finger pointing.

Guess who ran the U.S. government and was responsible for our national security for the past eight years?

The Clintons were supported vociferously by the media through the worst imaginable scandals.

During that time I was one of the lead reporters opposing the Clintons. I was mocked and vilified by my colleagues for doing so.

I said throughout that period that Bill Clinton’s personal corruption was wholesale and mirrored how he was corrupting America’s national security.

I wrote articles and said repeatedly that America, sadly, may end up paying a heavy price for Bill Clinton and the major media’s complicity.

I don’t believe the worst has passed with the incidents of today.

We remain vulnerable and weak.

Brutally, we witnessed our weakness today.

During eight years, Clinton decimated America’s military. Our forces were cut almost in half under his stewardship.

Research and development on all new weapons systems were brought almost to a halt as other nations continued to build. Clinton destroyed nearly our entire arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. Monsters like Saddam flourished as Clinton bombed aspirin factories, tent cities in Afghanistan and worthless radar stations in the Iraqi desert.

These are open facts, easily verifiable.

But Clinton, the ever clever bastard, was more insidious. Little, systematic changes were undertaken to destroy America’s intelligence agencies.

Let me explain. A regular NewsMax reader, “Roger,” was a CIA spy in the Mideast.

I met him almost two years ago. Roger wanted to tell me why a gung-ho American quit the CIA in disgust.

Roger said the CIA was not interested in recruiting spies.

Clinton and company knew they could not just tell the CIA to stop recruiting spies. That would look stupid and embarrassing.

So they just changed the rules of how spies are recruited, raising the bar on requirements to such a high degree that the most valuable spies could never meet CIA standards and couldn’t work for us.

Previously, I wrote how Clinton effectively stopped the recruitment of Chinese nationals by demanding that only high-ranking embassy officials could be recruited – knowing this is almost impossible. Roger told me that. Roger reminded me again of this today.

He noted that Clinton policies reached their zenith under CIA Director John Deutch and his top assistant, Nora Slatkin. The pair ran Clinton’s CIA in the mid-1990s and implemented a “human rights scrub” policy.

Here’s how Roger described it in an e-mail Tuesday evening: “Deutch and Nora, Clinton’s anti-intelligence plants, implemented a universal ‘human rights scrub’ of all assets, virtually shutting down operations for 6 months to a year. This was after something happened in Central America (there was an American woman involved who was the common law wife of a commie who went missing there) that got a lot of bad press for the agency.

“After that, each asset had to be certified as being ‘clean for human rights violations.’

“What this did was to put off limits, in effect, terrorists, criminals, and anyone else who would have info on these kinds of people.”

Roger says the CIA, even under new leadership, has never recovered from the “Human Rights Scrub” policy.

Perhaps that was the intention.

But we, the American people, Congress, and honest media need to examine all of these issues, now and quickly. If we don’t, we risk even more grave dangers than those that we just lived through.”

Read more:


More here:


Rosemary Jenks testimony before the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee US House of Representatives April 30, 1997, Clinton Gore Citizenship USA CUSA program granted citizenship to likely Democrat voters, 71557 FBI criminal records, Why was this scrubbed on December 9, 2004?

Rosemary Jenks testimony before the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee US House of Representatives April 30, 1997, Clinton Gore Citizenship USA CUSA program granted citizenship to likely Democrat voters, 71557 FBI criminal records, Why was this scrubbed on December 9, 2004?

“In October 1996, in one of the first public accounts of this matter, former Center Senior Fellow Rosemary Jenks testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration about many of the abuses surrounding the Citizenship USA program. Ms. Jenks concluded that due to pressure from the White House, and in particular the Vice President’s office, the Immigration and Naturalization Service disregarded many of the requirements of the naturalization process that ensure that only qualified immigrants with no significant criminal history may become citizens. She subsequently testified before the House immigration subcommittee on the same matter, in April 1997. Her remarks before that committee may be found at;…David Schippers October 2000

“Why did the US House of Representatives website scrub the April 30, 1997 testimony of Rosemary Jenks on December 9, 2004?”…Citizen Wells

“I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigration.”…Hillary Clinton, WABC 2003

Statement of

Rosemary Jenks,

Senior Fellow,

Center for Immigration Studies,

Washington, DC

Before the

Immigration and Claims Subcommittee

of the

Committee on the Judiciary

of the

United States House of Representatives

April 30, 1997

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Rosemary Jenks, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit, non-advocacy research institution. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss an issue that is central to our national identity, the bond that holds us united as one people: United States citizenship. United States citizenship is the most valuable and the most cherished privilege our nation can bestow upon an individual. It is a privilege that is sought by millions around the world. It carries with it the right to travel freely, to hold certain public offices and to petition for the immigration of family members. Most importantly, however, it carries with it the right, and the responsibility, to take part in shaping and securing the future of this country by voting for elected officials at all levels of government.

The requirements for naturalization are set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Among other things, applicants are required to submit an application form, the N-400, a copy of their alien registration card, the “green card,” fingerprints, photographs and a fee of $95 to the INS. In general, they must prove that they are at least 18 years of age; that they have resided in the United States as lawful permanent residents for a minimum of five years (unless they marry a U.S. citizen, in which case it is three years); that they are able to read, write, speak and understand English; that they have at least a minimal knowledge of U.S. history and government; that they are of good moral character; and that they do not have a serious criminal record. Upon receiving the N-400 and the accompanying paper work, INS enters the information into an INS database and forwards the fingerprints to the FBI for a criminal record check. As of November 29, 1996, INS policy is to wait for a definitive response from the FBI regarding the criminal record check before scheduling an interview with the applicant. During the interview, INS examiners (or District Adjudications Officers, DAOs) review the information on the N-400 and test the applicant’s knowledge of English, history and civics, unless he or she presents a certificate from one of the non-government testing entities. If all the requirements are met, the application is approved and the applicant is scheduled for a swearing in ceremony. Otherwise, the application is either denied or continued, depending on the nature of the problem.

Citizenship USA

At the start of FY 1994, when Commissioner Meissner took office, some 270,000 N-400 applications were pending (not including any that had been received, but not been entered into the computer). The number of N-400 applications received in FY 1994 (543,353) surpassed FY 1993 receipts (521,866) by only 21,487. At the beginning of FY 1995, however, the backlog of applications had grown to more than 314,000 and INS expected a surge in new applications because of a combination of factors, including the 2.7 million beneficiaries of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) amnesty becoming eligible based on the five-years residence requirement, the passage of Proposition 187 in California in November 1994, and legislative proposals to bar noncitizens from certain means-tested welfare benefits.

To prepare for this expected surge, an INS working group conducted a survey in June 1994 of ways to streamline the naturalization process. Then, in April of 1995, Commissioner Meissner contracted a management consulting firm, PRC, to work with INS staff to overhaul the naturalization process. PRC and the INS staff conducted a four-week review of the process and produced a “radical redesign” of naturalization. The final report, issued in May 1995, is called Results in 30 Days: Re-Engineering the Naturalization Process. Among other things, it recommends that INS develop strong partnerships with “Service Providers”–community-based organizations (CBOs) and voluntary agencies (VOLAGS)–which would involve “total sharing of information, joint decision making, and aggressive coloration aimed at best meeting the needs of the applicant.” It recommends the introduction of high-tech, fully automated and integrated systems to facilitate data entry and criminal background checks, in addition to automatically triggering “pre-qualified ‘invitations’ to immigrants as they become legally eligible for citizenship.” It adds that “long-standing interpretations of eligibility laws and regulations will be reviewed to…[focus] upon meeting the demands of today’s eligible customers.” Finally, it concludes that processing time from submission “to approval will be reduced to ‘same day service’ for 80% of the applicants.”

In June, 1995, Commissioner Meissner submitted a request that the naturalization program be designated as a “Reinvention Lab” under the auspices of Vice President Gore’s National Performance Review (NPR). Her request letter and subsequent INS documentation make clear that the PRC report was to provide the basis for the “re-engineering” of the naturalization process.

In the meantime, N-400 applications were on the rise and examiners were being overwhelmed. District Offices lacked the equipment they needed to process N-400s efficiently. Many offices did not have access to the Naturalization Automated Case System (NACS) database, and those that did were experiencing problems with it.

Commissioner Meissner unveiled the “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) initiative on August 31, 1995. The stated objective of CUSA, at least initially, was “to become current” on N-400 applications, meaning that applications would be processed from start to citizenship within six months, by the end of FY 1996. INS designated five “CUSA cities,” including Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Miami and Chicago, which had the largest numbers of pending cases when the program started. Resources, including personnel, equipment and building space, were to be funneled into these five cities, which would serve as the “Reinvention Labs.”

The naturalization initiative was approved as an NPR Reinvention Lab on September 5, 1995. On September 11, Commissioner Meissner forwarded to all field offices the executive summary of the PRC report with a memo explaining its origin and asking for comments. She wrote that “wherever possible, we will use validated re-engineering techniques as outlined in the PRC report to attack the caseload.” She added that the report offers “a basic road map for change.”

In January 1996, INS implemented a “Direct Mail” initiative in all the CUSA cities except San Francisco. Under this system, N-400s are mailed directly to one of the four INS Service Centers (Vermont Service Center (VSC), Nebraska Service Center (NSC), Texas Service Center (TSC) and California Service Center (CSC)) instead of being submitted to District Offices. The Service Centers are supposed to enter the application data into NACS and pull the fingerprint cards and submit them daily to the FBI.

The implementation of the Direct Mail initiative resulted in almost immediate chaos. Neither Service Center staff nor District Offices fully understood the new procedures. INS offices around the country were being overwhelmed by the increase in N-400 applications–the largest group of aliens amnestied in 1986 had met the five-year residence requirement by December 1995. CUSA offices, in addition to being inundated with backlogged and new cases, were attempting to adopt the new “re-engineered” and streamlined adjudication process, thus compounding the confusion. Non-CUSA offices had been forced to detail some portion of their resources, mainly personnel, to the CUSA offices, so they, too, were falling behind. The number of N-400 applications pending on October 1, 1995 surpassed 800,000, and new applications were being received in record numbers.

On May 1, 1996, INS Associate Commissioner for Examinations Louis Crocetti announced in a memo to all field offices that the “new ideas and innovative procedures” that were tested at CUSA sites with “remarkable results,” were to be expanded Servicewide to all offices. As the nationwide expansion of these “Streamlining Initiatives” was predicated on the “remarkable results” of the pilots in the CUSA cities, a brief look at those results is warranted.

Adjudication Speed–The five CUSA cities managed to accelerate naturalization processing times from more than one year in many cases to six months. This allowed the INS to meet its goal of adjudicating more than one million naturalization applications in FY 1996, but only at great cost to the integrity of the system.

FBI Fingerprint Checks–A February 1994 report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Justice Department identified three major problems with the INS policy on fingerprint checks: 1) the INS had no way to verify that the fingerprints submitted by an applicant actually belonged to that applicant since the INS was no longer taking the fingerprints itself; 2) some applications were wrongly approved because the FBI had not completed the criminal history check before the interview was scheduled or because the FBI “hit” had not been properly filed; and 3) INS often did not resubmit new fingerprint cards when the FBI rejected the original set as illegible. OIG found that 5.4 percent of aliens submitting applications for benefits had an arrest record. The top reasons for arrest were immigration violations/deportation proceedings (32%), assault/battery/rape (19%), theft/robbery/burglary (18%) and drug possession/distribution (10%). A December 1994 General Accounting Office (GAO) report identified the same problems with the INS fingerprint policy.

The “streamlined” naturalization process did not address any of these problems, but instead, exacerbated them. The INS still had no way to verify that the fingerprints an applicant submitted actually belonged to the applicant. In May 1995, the INS published a proposed rule to require that all applicants have their fingerprints taken by an INS-certified “designated fingerprint service” (DFS). Personnel at these DFSs would be properly trained to take fingerprints and fill out the necessary paperwork, and they would be required to ask for identification showing that the person named on the fingerprint card was the same person being fingerprinted. The final rule, however, was not published until June 1996, and final implementation was delayed from November 1, 1996 to March 1, 1997 to insure that INS had certified an adequate number of DFSs.

Fingerprint cards were supposed to be mailed by the Service Centers to the FBI on a daily basis to insure that the FBI had adequate time to run the criminal history check. In March 1996, however, the FBI did a sampling of receipts from 20 INS offices. Over 60 percent of the fingerprint cards received from Los Angeles had been at the Los Angeles office for more than 30 days before they were submitted. For the New York City office, 90 percent had been at the office for more than 30 days. At the same time the INS was dramatically increasing the workload of the FBI, it was, in practice, cutting the FBI’s response time.

The preliminary results of the INS internal review of naturalization applications approved during CUSA, as presented to the Subcommittee by Assistant Attorney General for Administration Stephen Colgate clearly show that the problems were severe. Of the 1,049,872 immigrants granted U.S. citizenship under CUSA:

71, 557 were found to have FBI criminal records, including INS administrative actions (e.g., deportation proceedings or other immigration violations), and misdemeanor and felony arrests and convictions;

Of these 71,557, 10,800 had at least one felony arrest, 25,500 had at least one misdemeanor arrest, but no felonies, and 34,700 had only administrative actions initiated against them;

113,126 had only name checks because their fingerprint cards were returned to the INS by the FBI because they were illegible;

66,398 did not have FBI criminal record checks because their fingerprint cards were never submitted to the FBI by the INS; and

2,573 were still being processed by the FBI.

As of late February 1997, 168 of these new citizens had been found to be “presumptively, statutorily ineligible” for naturalization based on their criminal record, and in another 2,800 cases, it could not be determined based on available information whether they were eligible or not.

It is important to note that none of the numbers given above indicates the degree to which applicants for naturalization lied on their applications, thereby committing perjury, which should make them ineligible for naturalization. They also do not indicate the number of applicants who may have submitted someone else’s fingerprints to avoid having their criminal record revealed. Finally, for the 180,000 applicants whose fingerprints were illegible or never submitted, the INS has no way to go back and check because it is not legally allowed to require citizens to resubmit their fingerprints. Thus, unless these new citizens volunteer to have their fingerprints taken, we will never know if they were actually eligible or not.

Personnel–Temporary workers comprised most of the additional personnel for CUSA. Some 900 temporary adjudicators and clerical workers were hired by INS to accomplish the goal of naturalizing over a million people in FY 1996. As of June 1996, the Inspector General was investigating the training standards for these temporary workers, along with those workers who were detailed from other agencies or offices. In August 1996, the INS conducted an evaluation of the CUSA training program and found two major deficiencies in the program: 1) personnel were poorly trained in doing the computer checks that, among other things, tell whether an applicant is in deportation proceedings or has had other administration actions taken against him or her; and 2) training in the procedures to deny an application were inadequate at best.

These results point to a larger problem that has since been confirmed by INS employees and by the recent KPMG Peat Marwick review of the implementation of the November 29, 1996 naturalization policy changes. A training program that teaches personnel good customer relations, but not how to do computer checks or deny applications sends an implicit message that it is more important to keep the applicant happy and approve the application than it is to maintain the integrity of the process and demand compliance with the regulations. This is precisely the message that many INS adjudicators received, not only from their training, but also from their supervisors. A number of INS employees testified, under oath, last fall that adjudicators feel pressured by their supervisors to “approve, approve, approve;” that good moral character standards are being ignored; that representatives of Community Based Organizations (CBOs) complain to supervisors about adjudicators who continue or deny applications, and that sometimes those adjudicators are removed from their duties; that adjudicators who go on outreach interviews have to provide copies of their tally sheets (showing approvals, denials and continueds) to the CBO representatives; that adjudicators have been told by their supervisors that they are not IRS agents and so shouldn’t concern themselves with possible tax fraud, even though it is inconsistent with the good moral character requirement.

Volunteer workers were also utilized by many INS offices. These volunteers included members of CBOs, family members of INS employees, and, in at least one case, legal permanent residents. These volunteers performed clerical duties, including filing, mailed naturalization certificates, and collected Alien Registration Cards and distributed naturalization certificates at citizenship ceremonies, among other things. According to INS employees, this practice continued even after INS Headquarters Counsel notified Regional Directors that it is a violation of Federal law for a government agency to use volunteers to perform duties that are normally performed by agency personnel, as it constitutes an unauthorized augmentation of the agency appropriation.

Testing Fraud

In addition to internal INS problems with the naturalization process, there is well-documented evidence of widespread fraud in the testing of naturalization applicants by outside (i.e., non-government) testing entities (OTEs). In 1991, the INS established criteria under which OTEs, including for-profit businesses, could be authorized to administer standardized tests to determine a naturalization applicant’s ability to read and write in English, along with his or her knowledge of history and civics. The INS criteria do not require that administrators of the tests be U.S. citizens or have criminal history checks in order to be approved.

The tests are comprised mainly of multiple choice questions, but applicants also have to write two simple sentences that are dictated to them. Five OTEs currently are authorized to administer these tests: Educational Testing Service (ETS), Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS), Southeast College, Marich Associates and American College Testing (ACT). (There was a sixth OTE, Naturalization Assistance Services (NAS), until earlier this year when its authorization was terminated after repeated instances of fraud.) These OTEs in turn may license community based organizations (CBOs) and other affiliates to administer the tests on their behalf. However, neither INS, nor the individual OTEs, are able to monitor all the affiliates to ensure that requirements relating to the security of the tests or the integrity of the testing are met.

Reports of testing fraud at affiliates of the OTEs, which first surfaced in 1992, began to increase dramatically in late 1994. INS examiners came across increasing numbers of naturalization applicants who, despite having an OTE test certificate, were unable to communicate in or understand English. Some affiliates were charging as much as $850 to prepare and test immigrants. Examples of documented fraud during the administration of the tests include test proctors pointing to the correct answers on the answer sheet, tests being given in the applicants’ native language instead of English, and the sentences being written on a blackboard so applicants simply have to copy them. Some affiliates guaranteed that, as long as applicants could sign their names in English, they would pass the test. Affiliates were using print media–often ethnic newspapers–radio and television ads to advertise their services. Some ads included false promises and/or blatant lies, but there were no regulations governing the ads’ contents.

In April 1996, INS Headquarters sent instructions to the field offices on procedures to follow to report and initiate investigations of complaints of testing fraud. In May 1996, after it was notified of an investigation into testing fraud by the television show “20/20,” INS Headquarters sent a memo to field offices with guidelines on conducting unannounced on-site inspections of testing sites. The guidelines required each District Office to visit one site per quarter.

During the past couple of months, I have been contacted by the directors of two separate testing affiliates operating in separate regions of the country. Both told me that fraud in the outside testing entities continues, with unauthorized groups administering tests and issuing counterfeit certificates, applicants cheating on the tests, tests being given in the applicants’ native language, and in one case, the director of an authorized affiliate simply filling out the answer forms for the applicants. They also told me about designated fingerprint services (DFSs) selling clean fingerprints to applicants, accepting inadequate identification, such as letters from family members or friends attesting to the person’s identity, and accepting blatantly false identification.

Like the criteria for OTEs, those for DFSs do not require that the person taking the fingerprints be a U.S. citizen or have a criminal record check done. While many of the DFSs are police departments, others raise questions about the judgement of the INS in the selection process. Some of the more interesting DFSs are: Harbor Liquors in Baltimore; Biscayne Haircutters in Miami; and Express Courier Service in Passaic, NJ. Hermandad Mexicana Nacional in Ontario, CA and Pookies Post and Parcel in Pasadena, CA had applications pending at the end of February 1997.

INS Responds

The National Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice Subcommittee of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee held the first hearing on the Citizenship USA program on September 24, 1996, after it had subpoenaed and sorted through thousands of pages of INS documents, memos and e-mails detailing most of the problems described herein. Despite the evidence, CUSA Project Director David Rosenberg testified at that hearing that, as a result of CUSA, the INS had “successfully reduced processing times for citizenship applications nationwide to traditional levels while maintaining the integrity of the citizenship process. We have initiated major improvements to naturalization procedures and operations.”

The Senate Immigration Subcommittee held a hearing on naturalization practices on October 9, 1996, in which the former Executive Associate Commissioner for Programs, Alexander Aleinikoff, testified that, as a result of CUSA, the INS had “reduced processing times for citizenship applications nationwide to traditional levels while maintaining the integrity of the citizenship process, and [had] initiated major improvements to naturalization procedures and operations.”

On October 18, 1996, in an official INS response to Senator Alan Simpson regarding testimony I presented at the October 9 Senate hearing, Commissioner Meissner wrote that, under CUSA, the INS had “made numerous improvements to the [naturalization] process, and [had] addressed this workload with efficiency and integrity.”

Sometime between late October and late November 1996, INS officials realized that the problems with the naturalization process could no longer be ignored. On November 29, 1996, Commissioner Meissner sent a memo to the field offices detailing new “Naturalization Quality Procedures.” The memo outlined seven “key enhancements” to the naturalization process, including: 1) standardization of work process; 2) fingerprint check integrity; 3) enhanced supervisory review; 4) instructions regarding the use of temporary files; 5) implementation of a quality assurance program; 6) guidance regarding revocation procedures; and 7) requirements for increased monitoring of OTEs. The new procedures were effective upon receipt.

In a joint hearing before this Subcommittee and the National Security Subcommittee on March 5, 1997, Commissioner Meissner testified that the new procedures “have eliminated the possibility of naturalization cases being completed without verification of an FBI fingerprint check.” She concluded by saying, “It is very important that Congress and the American people understand the validity of these corrections we have made to the naturalization process….We made mistakes in Citizenship USA…We have corrected those mistakes and have put into place a series of new measures to prevent them in the future.”

The recently-released KPMG Peat Marwick review of the implementation of these new measures brings into question the ability, and the willingness, of INS management to seriously address the problems with the naturalization procedures. The fact that three of the 23 offices surveyed did not even have the correct copy of the new procedures clearly points to a severe lack of communication between INS Headquarters and field offices. It is interesting to note here that, once a draft of the review was given to the INS, Commissioner Meissner called all the District Directors to Washington for a briefing and sent 200 naturalization personnel to a training course. Perhaps if those actions had been taken when the new policies were first implemented, the review would have found better results. Such actions also may have helped to communicate the sense of urgency the reviewers found lacking at the field level.

Despite the fact that field offices had been issued guidelines on monitoring outside testing entities in May 1996, as well as the “enhanced” monitoring procedures in the November 29 memo, the KPMG Peat Marwick review team was “frequently informed that INS Headquarters [not the field offices] was responsible for monitoring all outside testing agencies.”

That three of the service processing centers, along with three field offices, had the wrong FBI address is patently absurd. Most worrisome is the report’s conclusion that “the INS continues to have the most significant control problems with the fingerprint process and the identification of statutorily-barred applicants.”

Recommendations for Improvement

Congress and the American people were assured repeatedly by the INS over the last year that there were no major problems with the naturalization process under Citizenship USA. Then, we were assured that, if there were any problems, they had been fixed. Now, we know that these assurances were unfounded. The Justice Department is correct that the process needs a major overhaul from top to bottom. However, we must be somewhat cautious in our expectations of the re-engineering of the process by Coopers and Lybrand; after all, previous re-engineering efforts got us where we are today.

It is important to recognize that many of the problems with the naturalization process have existed for many years. It is equally important to recognize that any attempt to speed up the adjudication of applications without first addressing the underlying problems will only exacerbate them, as happened under the Citizenship USA program.

The INS was well aware at least as far back as 1993 that naturalization applications would rise dramatically in 1995 simply because the 2.7 million amnestied aliens would become eligible. And yet, all of a sudden in 1995, there was a frantic rush to hire new employees and accelerate an outdated system that had already reached its limits. Had the millions of dollars now being spent on re-engineering, reviewing and auditing the naturalization process been invested in computer equipment, electronic fingerprint scanners and personnel training, we likely would not be having this discussion.

The Coopers and Lybrand review of the process is expected to take 18 months to two years to complete. The naturalization process cannot wait that long. The INS expects 1.8 million new applications this year, and they must not be adjudicated under the conditions described in the KPMG Peat Marwick review. There are a number of areas that need immediate improvement:

In order to process these applications, the INS desperately needs an updated and integrated computer system, just as any business needs to process orders. Scanners, which now have accuracy rates of 90 percent or better, could be used to minimize the data entry workload. Eventually, the INS needs to integrate some of its numerous data bases to facilitate status checks and ensure that immigrants being deported by one branch of the INS are not naturalized by another. Paper files must become a thing of the past. One of the biggest problems throughout the INS is its inability to locate paper files on a timely basis.

The INS also needs to prioritize its electronic fingerprint pilot program. Police departments around the country use electronic fingerprint scanners to identify criminals in a matter of minutes, rather than waiting anywhere from two to six months as the INS does. Electronic scanners could reduce naturalization processing time to a matter of days.

Most importantly, the INS needs to train its personnel adequately. Each adjudicator must know how to use the computer system to check an applicant’s status, to ensure the applicant is not in deportation proceedings, and to update the applicant’s file. Adjudicators must be trained not only in customer relations, but also in the procedures used to deny an application. They should have a clear understanding of what they should be looking for during the interview. Standardized interview guidelines would be helpful. Finally, every adjudicator must understand that the integrity of the naturalization process is always more important than expediency. INS Headquarters should strongly discourage supervisors from rating employees based on the number of applications they process, instead of the way in which they process the applications. A short delay in the process is a much smaller problem for the INS than the granting of citizenship to a child molester.

Crimes that constitute a lack of good moral character, including perjury, should be standardized, rather than being left to the discretion of individual adjudicators.

Both Congress and the INS must recognize that the INS will always have less control over the integrity of those parts of the process that it farms out to other organizations, such as testing and fingerprinting.

– If the INS is going to continue to use OTEs for language, history and civics testing, it must require: 1) that all administrators of the tests be U.S. citizens and undergo criminal background checks; 2) that the OTEs register all testers and insist that they wear photo identification badges while administering tests; and 3) proof from the OTEs that every affiliate has passed at least one undercover inspection each year.

– If the INS is going to continue to use DFSs to take fingerprints, it should certify only law enforcement agencies. INS adjudicators can use the interview to check an applicants knowledge of English, but there is no secondary check if an applicant submits someone else’s fingerprints to avoid having a criminal record uncovered. This is too integral a part of the naturalization process to leave it to those who may have a vested interest, financial or otherwise, in allowing fraud.

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.”


More here: