Category Archives: US House of Representatives

Hillary Clinton 2003 – 2004 Immigration, I am adamantly against illegal immigrants, Acting conservative to run for president?, Or damage control for Clinton Administration policies?, Senator Clinton statement on act passage December 8 then Rosemary Jenks House testimony scrubbed December 9, Citizen Wells exclusive

Hillary Clinton 2003 – 2004 Immigration, I am adamantly against illegal immigrants, Acting conservative to run for president?, Or damage control for Clinton Administration policies?, Senator Clinton statement on act passage December 8 then Rosemary Jenks House testimony scrubbed December 9, Citizen Wells exclusive

“I think the most compelling thing about Hillary is that she will stop at nothing to achieve her end and that she views the public as plebeians easily seduced into believing her point of view.”…Linda Tripp

“The only question that remains today is whether or not Hillary Clinton gets away with another cover-up, like she did in the Vince Foster case, and runs for President in 2016, or will she finally be held accountable, and Americans learn the truth about the Benghazi terrorist attack?”…Canada Free Press December 18, 2012

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

 

 

When I discovered the damning testimony of Rosemary Jenks was scrubbed from the House Judiciary website on December 9, 2004, I smelled a rat.

A big Clinton rat.

After poking around on the internet for a while I finally found it.

One day apart.

The “Rosetta Stone” of investigative journalism.

In a WABC interview in 2003 Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying:

“I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.”

“Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a country, and one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry-and-exit system so that if we’re going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let’s have a system that keeps track of them,”

“People have to stop employing illegal immigrants,”
“I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.”

The Washington Times reports December 13, 2004.

“Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is staking out a position on illegal immigration that is more conservative than President Bush, a strategy that supporters and detractors alike see as a way for the New York Democrat to shake the “liberal” label and appeal to traditionally Republican states.

Mrs. Clinton — who is tagged as a liberal because of her plan for nationalized health care and various remarks during her husband’s presidency — is taking an increasingly vocal and hard-line stance on an issue that ranks among the highest concerns for voters, particularly Republicans.”

“In an interview last month on Fox News, Mrs. Clinton said she does not “think that we have protected our borders or our ports or provided our first responders with the resources they need, so we can do more and we can do better.””

““I think she’s realizing how much this issue has grown since 9/11,” he said. “If you talked about it before then, you were just a flat-out racist. Now it’s this huge issue.”

Moving to the right of even some Republicans, the former first lady told WABC she favors “at least a visa ID, some kind of entry-and-exit ID. And … perhaps, although I’m not a big fan of it, we might have to move towards an ID system even for citizens.”

Jennifer Duffy with the Cook Political Report said a conservative stance on immigration would be wise in the event Mrs. Clinton runs for president in 2008.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/13/20041213-124920-6151r/

On December 8, 2004 Senator Hillary Clinton placed the following on her official website:

“Senator Clinton on the Passage of The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004

Today is an historic day. We are coming to the end of a process that began immediately after the September 11 attacks and is ending with an historic reorganization of the intelligence community. Today’s vote, coming after months of testimony before the 9/11 commission, weeks of hearings on Capitol Hill and tough negotiations in Congress, represents a signal accomplishment in reforming our government to protect our homeland and fighting the War on Terror.

Today’s accomplishment, The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, would not have been possible without the courage, dedication and hard work of the families of the victims of September 11th. It was the persistence and resilience of these brave family members who lost their loved ones on September 11th that led to the creation of the 9/11 Commission. And it was their continued resolve that helped to keep the heat on Congress to insure that those recommendations were put into law. While not every recommendation of the 9/11 Commission is included in this bill, the bill makes historic changes in the way our government will collect and analyze intelligence so that we hopefully never again have to live through a day like September 11th.

In the aftermath of September 11th, and as the 9/11 Commission report so aptly demonstrates, it is clear that our intelligence system isn’t working the way that it should. The Commission report, following on the work of prior commissions that have studied the issue, details how we have 15 different intelligence agencies who are not sharing information, not communicating with one another and missing important linkages. This legislation, through the creation of a Director of National Intelligence (DNI), breaks down the artificial barriers in the intelligence community and insures that there is a high level official, answerable to the President, who is working to insure that our intelligence agencies are sharing information and communicating with one another.

This legislation gives the DNI budget authority over the intelligence community which will allow him or her to exercise proper control over the coordination among agencies. In Washington, budget authority means real authority and strengthening the DNI is a major accomplishment of this bill. He or she will also be responsible for budget execution and have the authority to reprogram funds and transfer personnel. These powers will allow the DNI to establish objectives and priorities for the intelligence community and manage and direct tasking of collection, analysis, production, and dissemination of national intelligence.

This legislation also establishes a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, as the 9/11 Commission recommended. The creation of this Board is intended to ensure that at the same time we enhance our nation’s intelligence and homeland defense capabilities, we also remain vigilant in protecting the civil liberties of Americans. Our civil liberties define us as Americans. As the 9/11 Commission said, “Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend.” The conference report being considered today essentially charges the Board with primary executive branch responsibility for ensuring that privacy and civil liberty concerns will be appropriately considered in the implementation of provisions designed to protect us against terrorism. While the legislation that initially passed the Senate explicitly provided the Board with subpoena powers, the conference report that we are voting on today does not. That omission is unfortunate, and I will work with my colleagues in Congress to address this issue and provide such powers in the future, so that the Board will have the tools it will need to help us maintain the proper balance between our nation’s security and our liberties.

The legislation calls for dramatic improvements in the security of our nation’s transportation infrastructure, including aviation security, air cargo security, and port security. Through this legislation, the security of the Northern Border will also be improved, a goal I have worked toward since 2001. Among many key provisions, the legislation calls for an increase of at least 10,000 border patrol agents from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010, many of whom will be dedicated specifically to our Northern Border. There will also be an increase of at least 4,000 full-time immigration and customs enforcement officers in the next 5 years.

While I look forward to a productive debate on immigration issues in the next Congress, I am pleased that there are a number of key immigration reform provisions in this legislation, including those addressing the process of obtaining U.S. visas.

I am also pleased that the legislation addresses the root causes of terrorism in a proactive manner. This is an issue that I have spent a good deal of time on in the past year because I believe so strongly that we are all more secure when children and adults around the world are taught math and science instead of hate. The bill we are voting on today includes authorization for an International Youth Opportunity Fund, which will provide resources to build schools in Muslim countries. The legislation also acknowledges that the U.S. has a vested interest in committing to a long-term, sustainable investment in education around the globe. Some of this language is modeled on legislation that I introduced in September, The Education for All Act of 2004, and I believe it takes us a small step towards eliminating madrassas and replacing them with schools that provide a real education to all children.

But we are being shortsighted if we limit our educational investments to countries with predominantly Muslim populations, and if we focus solely on expanding the number of U.S.-run schools in these areas, as the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act does. Instead, the U.S. should work with the global community to create strong incentives for developing countries to build universal, public education systems of their own. Only then will our investments have the maximum impact because only then will they result in systemic change.

We do not know where the next Afghanistan will spring up. But we do know that extremism will flourish where educational systems fail.

The 9/11 Commission, and the commissions before it, including the Homeland Security Independent Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations, chaired by former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart (“Hart-Rudman Commission”) and The Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by former Governor James Gilmore III (“Gilmore Commission”), called for dramatic improvements in the sharing of intelligence information. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I worked with a number of my colleagues in the Senate on a bi-partisan basis in focusing on the need for greater sharing of terrorist-related information between and among federal, state, and local government agencies. The sharing of critical intelligence information is vitally important if we are to win the war against terrorism. We need to ensure that our front line solders in the war against terrorism here at home — our local communities and our first responders — are as informed as possible about any possible threat so that they can do the best job possible to protect all Americans. I am pleased that this legislation mandates major improvements in this regard.

Contained in Title VII of the Act are provisions from the “9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004,” legislation introduced by Senators McCain and Lieberman and for which I am proud to have been an original cosponsor. Among its provisions are those that address homeland security preparedness, including a call for a unified incident command system and significantly enhancing interoperable communications between and among first responders and all levels of government. Title VII also speaks to the need for allocation of additional spectrum for first responder needs and to assess strategies that may be used to meet public safety telecommunication needs, an issue that I have focused on intensely as co-chair of the E-911 Caucus.

I am extremely disappointed, however, that this legislation does not specifically mandate an improvement in how the federal government allocates critical homeland security funds to states and local communities around the country. As many of my colleagues know, I have repeatedly called upon the Administration and my colleagues to implement threat-based homeland security funding to ensure that the homeland security resources go to the states and areas where they are needed most. I have introduced legislation in this regard and even developed a specific homeland security formula for Administration officials to consider.

But threat-based funding is not only important to me and to the New Yorkers whom I represent; it was also a primary recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Specifically, in its report, the Commission stated: “We understand the contention that every state and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency response. But federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. It should supplement state and local resources based on the risks or vulnerability that merit additional support. Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel.”

The 9/11 Commission also recommended that an advisory committee be established to advise the Secretary on any additional factors the Secretary should consider, such as benchmarks for evaluating community homeland security needs. As to these benchmarks, the Commission stated that “the benchmarks will be imperfect and subjective, they will continually evolve. But hard choices must be made. Those who would allocate money on a different basis should then defend their view of the national interest.” In short, the Commission made unequivocally clear that the current method of allocating the majority of federal homeland security resources, i.e., on a per capita basis alone, must be changed.

Not only did the 9/11 Commission recommend that such changes be made in how federal homeland security funds are allocated, but commissions before it, such as the Rudman Commission, have strongly recommended it as well. Indeed, the Rudman Commission stated more than a year and a half ago that “Congress should establish a system for allocating scarce resources based less on dividing the spoils and more on addressing identified threats and vulnerabilities. . . . To do this, the federal government should consider such factors as population, population density, vulnerability assessment, and presence of critical infrastructure within each state.”

Both the Senate and House-passed intelligence reform bills that were reconciled in this conference report contained language that sought to effectuate this important recommendation but, unfortunately, such language was not included in the conference report. As the 9/11 Commission, Rudman Commission, many other homeland security experts, and I have repeatedly asserted, there are few issues more important to our nation’s homeland defense than homeland security preparedness and the proper allocation of the resources to achieve that preparedness. Therefore, I will continue to work as hard as I can with my colleagues on a bi-partisan basis to make the 9/11 Commission’s call for threat and risk-based funding a reality.

At the end of the day, this legislation has the capacity to improve our security and make us safer. I would especially like to note the dogged persistence of Senators Collins and Lieberman, who were unflinching in their work on this important bill. However, passage of this legislation is just the beginning. We have now given our government the tools to make a difference. But as with anything in our system, success depends on the independence and accountability of those appointed to carry out these reforms. It is critical that the American people, and we in Congress, insist upon accountability from those whom we are asking to implement these reforms. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate in that effort.

Once again, thank you to the 9-11 families, the 9-11 Commission and all those who have worked to make this legislation a reality. Now, the hard work of implementing these reforms begins.

https://web.archive.org/web/20051128080436/http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233911&&

Obviously Hillary Clinton was posturing herself for the 2008 election.

Appearing to care about the immigration problem and national security.

There is even a bigger reason for her to do so.

The record of the Clinton Administration abusing the INS and rapid naturalization of immigrants to secure additional Democrat voters for the 1996 election.

This was exposed by David Schippers in his role as chief counsel to the United States House of Representatives managers for the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, in his subsequent book “Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment” and subsequent articles.

From David Schippers October 2000.

“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 www.house.gov/judiciary/666.htm.

In his new bookSellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment, David P. Schippers, former Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, details his investigation of these same issues. He concludes that were he and his investigators afforded more time, it is likely the abuses of the Citizenship USA program would have been included in the list of impeachable offenses against President Clinton. Below is an excerpt from Schippers’ book, published last month by Regnery.

My staff and I agreed that we needed to focus on the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which appeared to be running out of control. By the time we came to the subject, investigations by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and congressional committees had already indicated that the White House used the INS to further its political agenda. A blatant politicization of the agency took place during the 1996 presidential campaign when the White House pressured the INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program to grant citizenship to thousands of aliens that the White House counted as likely Democratic voters. To ensure maximum impact, the INS concentrated on aliens in key states — California, Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Texas — that hold a combined 181 electoral votes, just 89 short of the total needed to win the election.

The program was placed under the direction of Vice President Al Gore. We received from the GAO a few e-mails indicating Vice President Gore’s role in the plan (which are included in Appendix A at the back of the book). He was responsible for keeping the pressure on, to make sure the aliens were pushed through by September 1, the last day to register for the presidential election.

In our investigation we uncovered a case study evidencing what is pejoratively known in political science circles as “Chicago Politics.”

Back in the early years of the twentieth century, “Hinky Dink” Kenna and “Bathouse” John Coughlin were recognized as the very models of the unsavory Chicago politician. The two once fixed an aldermanic election in Chicago’s First Ward. To do so, they imported thousands of ward heelers, friends, associates, and city workers and had them registered to vote from every building in the ward — from homes (of which there were few) to taverns and cribs (of which there were many). On Election Day the recent arrivals stopped at Hinky Dink’s tavern, picked up fifty cents, ate a free lunch, and went out to vote their consciences. Guess who won that election?

Essentially, the same tactics were used during President Clinton’s reelection in 1996. Only this time the Democrats weren’t handing out sandwiches. Instead, through CUSA, they were circumventing normal procedures for naturalizing aliens — procedures that check backgrounds and weed out criminals — and consequently they were handing out citizenship papers to questionable characters.”

Read more:

http://cis.org/BookReview-InsideStoryClintonImpeachment

Ironically and/or fitting, the link to the Rosemary Jenks House Judiciary testimony above contained the following: “666”.

I clicked on the link and it had been scrubbed.

I next went to the Wayback Machine and after trying different dates for copies, I discovered that the testimony was there for December 9, 2004 but not December 10, 2004.

Isn’t that interesting.

The House Judiciary website.

On December 8, one day before Hillary writes of the passage of  “The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004” and the strengthening of national security and the borders and the next day, House testimony about how the Clinton Administration abused the INS and the system to expedite and procure more Democrat voters for the 1996 election disappears.

Coincidence?

Mathematically highly improbable.

From Rosemary Jenks’ testimony:

“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.”

Read more:

https://www.scribd.com/document/322152630/Rosemary-Jenks-testimony-before-the-Immigration-and-Claims-Subcommittee-of-the-Committee-on-the-Judiciary-of-the-U-S-House-of-Representatives-April-3

From David Schippers and his book:

“Had we been given sufficient time to develop evidence and witnesses, the CUSA matter might have been included in the abuse of power impeachment article.

The 1996 arrest records are still available, and I am sure the FBI is still willing to update all of them. In the meantime, thousands of criminals are now citizens of the United States because it was assumed they would vote for Bill Clinton and Al Gore.”

So, who scrubbed the Rosemary Jenks testimony from the House Judiciary website?

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

David Schippers exposed criminal activity of Bill and Hillary Clinton, No right wing conspiracy, Schippers life long Democrat, Chief investigative counsel for the US House of Representatives’ Committee on the Judiciary, Former chief of Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of US Dept. of Justice

David Schippers exposed criminal activity of Bill and Hillary Clinton, No right wing conspiracy, Schippers life long Democrat, Chief investigative counsel for the US House of Representatives’ Committee on the Judiciary, Former chief of Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of US Dept. of Justice

“Schippers confirms a sickening new detail about Clinton’s attack on Broaddrick, making it clear for the first time why several congressmen were nauseated – and one left in tears – after reviewing secret evidence that remains hidden from the American people to this day.”…NewsMax August 22, 2000

“My staff and I agreed that we needed to focus on the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which appeared to be running out of control. By the time we came to the subject, investigations by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and congressional committees had already indicated that the White House used the INS to further its political agenda. A blatant politicization of the agency took place during the 1996 presidential campaign when the White House pressured the INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program to grant citizenship to thousands of aliens that the White House counted as likely Democratic voters. To ensure maximum impact, the INS concentrated on aliens in key states — California, Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Texas — that hold a combined 181 electoral votes, just 89 short of the total needed to win the election.”…David Schippers

“The amount of criminality I discovered, astounded me.”…David Schippers

 

 

Before I present any more information about the criminal and devious activity of Hillary Clinton before, during and after her tenure at the White House, I want to make one thing perfectly clear.

In what I am about to present soon, there is no “right wing conspiracy” involved or any new psycho babble term that Hillary’s unsecured email buddy Sydney Blumenthal might come up with.

David Schippers was chief investigative counsel for the United States House of Representatives’ Committee on the Judiciary and was charged with reviewing and reporting on the Referral of the Office of Independent Counsel concerning possible impeachment offenses committed by President Clinton.

David Schippers’ background.

From Ashland University.

“David Philip Schippers served as chief counsel to the United States House of Representatives managers for the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in the U.S. Senate from Jan. 1 through Feb. 28, 1999.

Schippers served as chief investigative counsel for the United States House of Representatives’ Committee on the Judiciary during 1998. From April to September he handled the investigative issues and investigations relating to the committee’s oversight investigation of the U.S. Department of Justice and all of its sub-agencies. From September to December 1998, he was charged with reviewing and reporting on the Referral of the Office of Independent Counsel concerning possible impeachment offenses committed by President Clinton. He was then responsible for conducting the impeachment inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives and reporting the results to the Committee on the Judiciary.

An attorney in private practice since 1967, Schippers is the senior partner in the Chicago law firm of Schippers & Bailey. The firm specializes in trust law, labor law, trials and appeals in the state and federal courts of Illinois and throughout the country.

From 1963 to 1967, Schippers served as a member and later the chief of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the U.S. Department of Justice at Chicago. He prepared and tried many major criminal cases in the federal courts and was also involved in a great number of major grand jury investigations. He previously served in the U.S. Attorney’s Office as an assistant United States attorney, trying major criminal cases on behalf of the government and preparing and arguing appeals on behalf of the government.

Schippers earned both his undergraduate and J.D. degree from Loyola University in Chicago. He has served as a teacher of trial advocacy and advanced trial advocacy to senior law students at the Loyola University School of Law. He has also taught trial advocacy at the Williamette University School of Law in Salem, Oregon, and at the United States Air Force Air University in Montgomery, Alabama.

Schippers served as one of five members of the Illinois State Police Merit Board from 1987 to 1993. He is the recipient of the Loyola University Law Alumni Medal of Excellence, the Loyola University Alumni Association citation for distinguished service to the legal profession and the Award of Appreciation from the Federal Criminal Investigators Association.”

David Schippers

From USA Today.

 

“Unlike his counterpart, Abbe Lowell, who is serving as the chief investigative counsel for the Democrats, Schippers is no Washington insider. He also isn’t a screaming partisan. Indeed, though a lifelong Democrat, he was hired in the spring by a Republican, Rep. Henry Hyde of Chicago, the panel’s chairman. The two men have been friends for 30 years. Hyde asked him to review Justice Department operations but to be ready to shift gears if Starr sent an impeachment report.

Now 68, with his salt-and-pepper beard and stocky build, Schippers looks more like the grandfather he is than the hard-charging lawyer who has jailed mobsters, befriended cops and defended some highly unpopular clients. Friends say his easygoing manner masks a toughness and a focus that will enable him to make the right calls in the House inquiry. “Dave is not an SOB,” says James “Bags” Bailey, his partner in a small Chicago law firm. “He will try to be fair with everybody, and if Dave doesn’t think he can really prove his case, I don’t think it will go.” Bailey adds: “He is best on his feet, and he loves to do legal research and write.” “He will call it straight. I’ve never seen him equivocate,” adds Dennis Czurylo, a longtime friend and former criminal investigator for the Internal Revenue Service.

Another friend, Anton Valukas, a former U.S. attorney in Chicago, says Schippers will approach his task in a workmanlike manner. The Judiciary Committee can “count on Schippers to seek out the facts and present them in a fair and nonpartisan manner,” he says. What does Schippers have to say about the president’s conduct and whether it’s impeachable? Not much, at least at this early stage.

A devout Irish Catholic with 10 children and 25 grandchildren, Schippers grew up on Chicago’s northwest side. Family members worked in the Democratic Party. He took a job with the telephone company, worked his way through night school and got a law degree from Chicago’s Loyola University.

Prosecuting was Schippers’ love. He joined the Justice Department in the early 1960s, when Robert Kennedy was attorney general. Kennedy tapped him to head the organized crime strike force in Chicago. It was a heady time. The “Outfit,” as Schippers likes to call the mob, was making headlines every day. Schippers went head-to-head with the infamous crime boss, Sam “Momo” Giancana, and ended up outfoxing the old mobster. He employed what was then an unusual tactic, obtaining court-authorized blanket immunity from prosecution for Giancana. That meant the mobster had to testify before a grand jury. He refused, and a judge jailed him for a year.”

Read more:

http://laborers.org/USA_Schippers.html

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton emails obstruction of justice in Travelgate inquiry, Independent Counsel Robert Ray final report January 5, 2001, Appendix 3 the White House’s non compliance with subpoena requests for electronically maintained documents

Hillary Clinton emails obstruction of justice in Travelgate inquiry, Independent Counsel Robert Ray final report January 5, 2001, Appendix 3 the White House’s non compliance with subpoena requests for electronically maintained documents

“By July 1993, the Clintons and their associates had established
a pattern of concealment with respect to the Clintons’ involvement
with Whitewater and the Madison S&L. Because of the complexity
of the allegations of misdeeds involving these institutions, documents
and files are critical to any inquiries into the matter. Yet,
at every important turn, crucial files and documents ‘‘disappeared’’
or were withheld from scrutiny whenever questions were raised.…Senate Whitewater report June 13, 1996

“Mrs. Clinton personally was involved in the discussions regarding the White House’s handling of documents in Vince
Foster’s office following his death. Mrs. Clinton made known her views that investigators should be denied ‘‘unfettered access’’ to Foster’s office prior to the search of the office on July 22, 1993.”…House Investigation of the White House Travel Office Firings,  September 26, 1996

“The fact that the Secretary exclusively used and maintained a private email server, leaving her with sole and unfettered access to the complete universe of her emails, raises a number of transparency and accountability issues. The fact that the Secretary’s attorneys selfselected the emails to be shared with the State Department raises numerous questions about the completeness of the production of Secretary Clinton’s emails to the Committee, as well as more generally in response to other oversight inquiries by the House with which the Committee has been charged. These questions, which have been raised solely due to the actions of the former Secretary, necessitate a third-party review of the server to ensure that all responsive documents have been produced to the Committee.”…Trey Gowdy, Select Committee on Benghazi update May 8, 2015

 

 

Reported at Citizen Wells on April 29, 2015.

“From the NY Times June 23, 2000.

“Statement on Travel Office Inquiry

WASHINGTON, June 22 — Following is the statement today by the independent counsel Robert W. Ray on his investigation of the firings at the White House travel office in 1993:

The office of the independent counsel has concluded an investigation commonly known as the travel office matter. This matter concerned allegations that David Watkins, former assistant to the president for management and administration, and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton made false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, committed perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621, or obstructed justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503, in connection with their statements and testimony concerning the May 19, 1993, firing of seven employees of the White House travel office. Independent counsel has concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Mr. Watkins or Mrs. Clinton made any knowingly false statements, committed perjury or obstructed justice in this matter.”

“In contrast to the cooperation received from the White House in the F.B.I. files investigation, concluded in March of this year, this office experienced substantial resistance in its efforts to obtain relevant evidence in the travel office matter.

For example, the White House asserted unfounded privileges that were later rejected in court.

White House officials also conducted inadequate searches for documents and failed to make timely production of documents, including relevant e-mails, in their possession.”

https://citizenwells.com/2015/04/29/hillary-clinton-lies-obstruction-of-justice-documented-in-legal-documents-and-ny-times-article-senate-whitewater-report-independent-counsel-robert-w-ray-statement-june-22-2000-ny-times-january-8/

From the Final Report of the Independent Counsel Robert Ray January 5, 2001.

Appendix 3 – White House’s non compliance with subpoena requests for electronically maintained documents.

“I. INTRODUCTION

As of the date of the filing of this Final Report, the White House has failed to produce all documents to which this Office is entitled. Grand juries in the Eastern District of Arkansas and the District of Columbia between March 4, 1994 and December 10, 1998 issued 216 subpoenas to the White House and its affiliates, which required the search of records responsive to those
subpoenas, including all electronic records and e-mails. The Independent Counsel first learned from news accounts in February 2000 that the White House may not have conducted complete searches of records within its custody. It was not until several months later that this Office fully realized the scope of the White House’s lack of compliance with lawfully issued subpoenas.

II. THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL LEARNED IN FEBRUARY 2000
THAT ELECTRONIC RECORDS FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE
ADMINISTRATION MAY NOT HAVE BEEN SEARCHED
IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAWFULLY ISSUED SUBPOENAS.

The Washington Times published a story on February 15, 2000 that first alerted the public and the Independent Counsel that, due to a glitch in the White House’s computer server, over 100,000 e-mails were never searched in response to subpoenas. The Independent Counsel, as well as several Congressional investigations issued these subpoenas to the White House. The Washington Times article reported that Northrop Grumman Corporation (“NGC”) contractors
working at the White House discovered that one of the four White House Lotus Notes e-mail servers handling the e-mail for about 500 computer users had been mislabeled, preventing these e-mails from being properly managed.1 The contractors first discovered the problem in May 1998 and determined that it affected servers dating back to August 1996.2 The problem was not
fixed until November 1998 according to the article.3

The White House Counsel sent a letter to the Independent Counsel on March 15, 2000 detailing the problems with its computer system and its failure to capture certain incoming e-mails for certain periods of time.4 These records had not been reconstructed, and therefore, White House Counsel Beth Nolan was unable to determine whether any responsive documents to grand jury subpoenas had been affected.5 The White House Counsel recently revealed on October 30, 2000 that “incoming e-mail” could include any e-mail not a part of the Executive
Office of the President’s (“EOP”) Automated Records Management System (“ARMS”), such as the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the various units which report to the White House Military Office, the White House Access and Visitor Entry System (“WAVES”), any user of the All-in-One system, and the Quorum system.6

This Office initiated an investigation as a result of the White House’s failure to notify this Office of the problems with its computer system and its inability to certify that all responsive documents to lawfully issued grand jury subpoenas have been produced. The investigation continues at the time of the filing of this Final Report. However, this Office has determined that the White House’s failure to search all records within its care, custody, and control, in response
to lawfully issued subpoenas, could be broken down into seven categories of records:

1. Failure to search reconstructed e-mail for the time period of January 1993 through June 1994;
2. Failure to search incoming e-mails to 526 users for the time period of August
1996 through November 1998;
3. Failure to search incoming e-mails of approximately 200 users for the time period of November 1998 through May 1999;
4. Failure to search over 600 backup tapes of former employees’ hard drives;
5. Failure to search incoming e-mail from the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative, White House Military Office, WAVES system, and any user of
the All-in-One system;
6. Failure to search a correspondence database system known as Quorum; and
7. Failure to search the internal e-mail system in the Executive Residence.”

 

Trey Gowdy house select committee on Benghazi letter to State Dept. May 14, 2015, Failure to produce responsive emails and records, Record must be complete before Hillary Clinton appearance

Trey Gowdy house select committee on Benghazi letter to State Dept. May 14, 2015, Failure to produce responsive emails and records, Record must be complete before Hillary Clinton appearance

“By July 1993, the Clintons and their associates had established
a pattern of concealment with respect to the Clintons’ involvement
with Whitewater and the Madison S&L. Because of the complexity
of the allegations of misdeeds involving these institutions, documents
and files are critical to any inquiries into the matter. Yet,
at every important turn, crucial files and documents ‘‘disappeared’’
or were withheld from scrutiny whenever questions were raised.…Senate Whitewater report June 13, 1996

“Mrs. Clinton personally was involved in the discussions regarding the White House’s handling of documents in Vince
Foster’s office following his death. Mrs. Clinton made known her views that investigators should be denied ‘‘unfettered access’’ to Foster’s office prior to the search of the office on July 22, 1993.”…House Investigation of the White House Travel Office Firings,  September 26, 1996

“the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul.”…Bob Herbert, NY Times February 26, 2001

 

 

From the House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy May 14, 2015.

“Benghazi Committee Releases Letter on State Department Compliance Failure, Clinton

May 14, 2015
Press Release

Washington, DC—Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy today sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry on the Department’s failure to produce responsive emails and records for top State officials more than a half-year after they were first requested.

“Secretary Clinton is insistent she will appear once and only once before the Select Committee,” said Gowdy, R-S.C. “The Committee must be equally insistent that her appearance is thorough and fully productive. This requires the record to be complete so the Members can effectively base their questions on documents and the Secretary can base her answers on those same documents.

“Since last fall, the Committee has consistently said it would talk to Secretary Clinton about Libya and Benghazi within 30 days of the public record being complete. To date, the State Department has not produced one single piece of paper responsive to the Committee’s request for records from the former Secretary’s leadership team.”

Gowdy noted the Benghazi Committee originally requested all Libya- and Benghazi-related documents from the leadership team of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton back in November 2014. He also noted the Committee subpoenaed the same records in March 2015, but as of mid-May, State has failed to produce a single email.

“The pace of State Department document production has become an impediment to the progress of the Committee,” Gowdy said. “Secretary Kerry promised in previous House testimony swift action when it came to producing Department documents, now it is time for his Department to explain why they have failed to keep his word.”

Gowdy further pointed to the former Secretary’s claim she had emailed her staff in a bid to meet record keeping requirements as part of the unusual email arrangement she had with herself.

“The Committee needs these emails to have some sense of the completeness of Secretary Clinton’s self-selected public record and to formulate substantive questions for her on Benghazi,” Gowdy said. “I have no interest in prolonging the time before she appears before the Committee, but I do have an interest in assuring the Committee has access to all the facts.”

Gowdy pointed to the Committee’s record in its determined pursuit to build the most comprehensive account on Benghazi. That includes becoming the first congressional committee to gain access to State Department Accountability Review Board internal documents—two years after a House committee originally subpoenaed the documents; receipt of 15,000 pages of new Benghazi documents never before given to Congress; getting access to 25,000 pages of Benghazi documents with fewer redactions than when they were first given to Congress; and becoming the first and only congressional committee to uncover Secretary Clinton’s exclusive use of private emails to conduct official public business.

The letter to Secretary Kerry can be found at the link.”

http://benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/benghazi-committee-releases-letter-on-state-department-compliance-failure

Here is a link to the letter that works:

 

 

Trey Gowdy must read House investigation of White House travel office Sept. 26, 1996, Bill Hillary Clinton obstruction of Justice, Vince Foster death, Benghazi email coverups history repeat, Persistent pattern of misinformation misuse of executive power and executive privilege

Trey Gowdy must read House investigation of White House travel office Sept. 26, 1996, Bill Hillary Clinton obstruction of Justice, Vince Foster death, Benghazi email coverups history repeat, Persistent pattern of misinformation misuse of executive power and executive privilege

“There has been a very active coverup by the FBI and the Justice Department. It’s very unlikely that he committed suicide. I’ve never written that he was murdered, but it’s hard to see it otherwise,”…Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Sunday Telegraph, on Vince Foster death

“By July 1993, the Clintons and their associates had established
a pattern of concealment with respect to the Clintons’ involvement
with Whitewater and the Madison S&L. Because of the complexity
of the allegations of misdeeds involving these institutions, documents
and files are critical to any inquiries into the matter. Yet,
at every important turn, crucial files and documents ‘‘disappeared’’
or were withheld from scrutiny whenever questions were raised.…Senate Whitewater report June 13, 1996

“the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul.”…Bob Herbert, NY Times February 26, 2001

 

Trey Gowdy and the Select Committee on Benghazi released an update on May 8, 2015.

“Another substantial obstacle to the development of a full and complete record of the facts relating to Benghazi has been the unique arrangement that former Secretary of State Clinton had with herself. In August 2014, the State Department included in its production of documents eight emails to or from former Secretary Clinton. Some of these emails indicated that the Secretary used a private email account to communicate about official government business. Other emails gave no indication whether the email account used was private or a government account.

Since late fall, the Committee has consistently pressed the State Department for the former Secretary’s emails. On February 13, 2015, the State Department produced nearly 850 pages of roughly 300 emails to and from the former Secretary pertaining to Benghazi. The production was significant in that every one of the emails produced came from Secretary Clinton’s private email account.”

“The fact that the Secretary exclusively used and maintained a private email server, leaving her with sole and unfettered access to the complete universe of her emails, raises a number of transparency and accountability issues. The fact that the Secretary’s attorneys selfselected the emails to be shared with the State Department raises numerous questions about the completeness of the production of Secretary Clinton’s emails to the Committee, as well as more generally in response to other oversight inquiries by the House with which the Committee has been charged. These questions, which have been raised solely due to the actions of the former Secretary, necessitate a third-party review of the server to ensure that all responsive documents have been produced to the Committee.

That is why in an April 23, 2015 letter to the former Secretary’s attorney, the Committee reiterated its request for her to turn over the server to a neutral, third party, such as an inspector general. The Committee will call Secretary Clinton to testify once it is satisfied that all the relevant information has been provided by both the State Department and her.”

http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/Interim%20Progress%20Update%2005-08-15.pdf

 

I have to believe that Trey Gowdy has read the September 26, 1996 House

“INVESTIGATION OF THE WHITE HOUSE TRAVEL OFFICE FIRINGS AND RELATED MATTERS”.

If not he certainly should and so should you.

Here are just a few exerpts.

“It is clear that once the ‘‘official’’ story was made public, any movement toward the truth brought the threat of damaging legal and political ramifications that the Clinton White House could not afford to risk.

The extensive documentary record constructed over the past year has dismantled the White House cover story.

The committee sought records of meetings, phone logs, Secret Service logs and White House residence records that were the only way to fill in the missing memories of countless witnesses. While the recollections of witnesses frequently have been implausibly flawed, the documentary record often tells a very different and far more complete story.

Finally, it is the President himself who ultimately must be held accountable for this persistent pattern of White House misinformation and misuse of executive power and executive privilege. Given the alarming turnover of key White House operatives over the past 31⁄2 years, only the President himself could have sustained such a pattern of misbehavior. Why has President Clinton tried to keep the true story from being told? A recurring question arises whether the President is above the law—whether the First Lady is above the law.

The discrepancies, vagaries and omissions between the ‘‘official’’ White House account of these matters and the factual record now properly falls within the scope of the criminal investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, now known as ‘‘Travelgate.’’”
“MRS. CLINTON INSTRUCTED WHITE HOUSE STAFF ON THE HANDLING
OF FOSTER DOCUMENTS AND THE FOSTER NOTE FOUND ON JULY 26,
1993, AND SENIOR WHITE HOUSE STAFF COVERED UP THIS INFORMATION
AND KEPT IT FROM INVESTIGATORS

· Mrs. Clinton personally was involved in the discussions regarding the White House’s handling of documents in Vince
Foster’s office following his death. Mrs. Clinton made known her views that investigators should be denied ‘‘unfettered access’’ to Foster’s office prior to the search of the office on July 22, 1993.

· The White House withheld evidence subsequently discovered among the 2,000 pages over which President Clinton invoked
executive privilege, that senior White House aide Bill Burton spoke with Mrs. Clinton on the evening of Foster’s death (July 20, 1993).

· Mrs. Clinton directed that Mack McLarty and others not inform the President about the discovery of the Foster ‘‘suicide’’ note on July 26, 1993. This note essentially defended Foster’s and the White House’s actions in the Travel Office firings and Mrs. Clinton suggested that executive privilege research be done regarding the note.

· The White House’s delay in turning over the Foster note was due to senior staffers’ deference to Mrs. Clinton’s wishes.
Statements by Mack McLarty and David Gergen that the note was not immediately turned over because of the need to notify
Mrs. Foster and the President are not consistent with the evidence. No one called Mrs. Foster the evening the note was discovered and President Clinton was not told about the note’s existence until after Mrs. Clinton met with Bernard Nussbaum and Steve Neuwirth. Mr. Nussbaum and Mr. Neuwirth had been tasked with studying the executive privilege issue at 2:30 p.m. Susan Thomases and Bob Barnett also were in the residence that afternoon at approximately 3 p.m.

· The Foster note most likely was not a ‘‘suicide’’ note but rather a note in preparation for resigning or in the event that Foster was asked to resign or take the fall for the problems generated by the firings and related matters.43”
“WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS ENGAGED IN A PATTERN OF DELAY, DECEIT
AND OBSTRUCTION OVER THE COURSE OF 3 YEARS OF INVESTIGATIONS
INTO THE TRAVEL OFFICE AND MATTERS RELATED TO VINCENT
FOSTER’S DEATH

· The GAO’s investigation was delayed for months by document production delays. Ultimately GAO did not receive all
documents relevant to its inquiry including: the Vince Foster Travel Office file, the White House Management Review interview notes, documents related to the TRM efforts to obtain GSA contracts and the Watkins ‘‘soul cleansing’’ memo. A GAO representative noted that the level of cooperation that it received from the White House was not conducive to properly
conducting GAO’s work.47

· The ‘‘Watkins memo’’ was responsive to numerous document requests and was inappropriately withheld by David Watkins,
Matthew Moore and Patsy Thomasson. All three had hard copies and/or computer copies of the memo and were made aware
of the various document requests and subpoenas to which it would have been responsive.

· In responding to a Public Integrity request for documents regarding Harry Thomason, Matthew Moore wrote an April 4,
1994 memo to Neil Eggleston stating: ‘‘I know of no documents in my possession, or ever in my possession, responsive to the request.’’ This was false. The Watkins memo clearly was responsive to this request. At or around this time, Moore removed the Watkins memo from his computer and provided a disk copy to Watkins as he left the White House. However,
Moore maintained his own copy of the disk which included several previous drafts of the memo.

· The White House withheld documents from the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility including the
Vince Foster Travel Office file, the White House Management Review interview notes and the Watkins ‘‘soul cleansing
memo.’’ OPR Counsel Michael Shaheen found the White House’s lack of cooperation ‘‘unprecedented’’ in his 20 year
Government career.

· White House stonewalling forced the Public Integrity Section at the Justice Department to acknowledge it had no confidence that the White House had faithfully produced all documents ‘‘relating to the Thomason allegations.’’ While Section Chief Lee Radek noted that the ‘‘integrity of our review is entirely dependent upon securing all relevant documents,’’ he did not obtain all relevant documents: notably the complete Vince Foster Travel Office notebook and the Watkins ‘‘soul cleansing’’ memo, as well as more than 120 items over which the White House claimed executive privilege. The Justice Department quietly acceded to this inappropriate invocation of privilege.
One of the key items that it did not receive was a White House Counsel’s Office memo demonstrating that the Counsel’s office did believe there was a case to be made that Harry Thomason was a special Government employee.48

· Bernard Nussbaum obstructed the FBI investigation into the discovery of the Foster note as well as numerous other investigations, including congressional investigations, by failing to timely inform anyone in law enforcement, the White House, or Congress about the Vince Foster Travel Office notebook that he had secreted in Nussbaum’s office by July 22, 1993.

· An FBI investigation was ordered on July 28, 1993 by Philip Heymann, the day after the note was turned over to the Park
Police after the 30-hour delay in informing law enforcement authorities. Heymann instructed David Margolis to be ‘‘very
aggressive’’ in the investigation.

· Nussbaum failed to inform those tasked with overseeing document production to both the Justice Department and the
GAO that he was secreting a relevant document in his office. Nevertheless, once he informed Neil Eggleston in May 1994,
Eggleston also failed to turn over the documents to the Public Integrity Section in a timely and responsive manner.

· Neil Eggleston and Cliff Sloan, at Nussbaum’s direction, delayed the production of documents relating to the criminal investigation of Harry Thomason and Darnell Martens to the Public Integrity section and ultimately denied all such documents to GAO.

Amnesty puts nail in coffin of US jobs, 75 percent of Obama jobs went to Hispanics Latinos, Percent of white Americans working plummeted since 2006, S.744 hurts the American worker

Amnesty puts nail in coffin of US jobs, 75 percent of Obama jobs went to Hispanics Latinos, Percent of white Americans working plummeted since 2006, S.744 hurts the American worker

“75 percent of the Obama jobs added since Jan. 2009 went to Hispanics and Latinos.”…Citizen Wells February 11, 2015

“Over the last six months, of the net job creation, 97 percent of that is part-time work,”…Keith Hall, former BLS chief

“11.4%: What the U.S. unemployment rate would be if labor force participation were back to January 2008 levels.” …James Pethokoukis, American Enterprise Institute, June 2013

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

From Citizen Wells February 11, 2015.

“75 percent of Obama jobs added since Jan. 2009 have gone to Hispanics and Latinos.

Don’t take my word for it.

Look it up on the BLS website.

Of the total of 6,049,000 more Americans employed since January 2006, 4,511,000 was for Hispanics and Latinos.

Why is this not being reported?”

“From the Center for Immigration Studies June 2014.”

“Government data show that since 2000 all of the net gain in the number of working-age (16 to 65) people holding a job has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal). This is remarkable given that native-born Americans accounted for two-thirds of the growth in the total working-age population. Though there has been some recovery from the Great Recession, there were still fewer working-age natives holding a job in the first quarter of 2014 than in 2000, while the number of immigrants with a job was 5.7 million above the 2000 level.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/75-percent-of-obama-jobs-added-go-to-hispanic-latinos-many-low-paying-part-time-jobs-bls-reveals-6-049-million-jobs-added-since-jan-2009-no-white-american-jobs-added-since-2006-obama-lies-why-amn/

Remember that 4 percent lower percent of the population employed that I clarified for Goldman Sachs chief economist Jan Hatzius?

You know, that baby boomers have nothing to do with the drop.

10 million fewer white Americans were in the labor force in Jan. 2015 than Jan. 2006.

From Five Thirty Eight.

“But the wounds of the recession are far from fully healed. Total payrolls remain more than 400,000 below their prior peak due to deep cuts in the number of government workers, especially at the state and local level. And the adult population (16 years and older) has grown by 14 million since the recession began, meaning the U.S. job market is nowhere close to fully recovered on a per-capita basis. The long-term unemployment crisis drags on, the legacy of what is by some measures the slowest recovery since World War II.”

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/back-to-where-we-started/

From Fair US.

“S.744 does not prioritize the American worker at a time when 22 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed. Instead, S.744 hurts the American worker:

29. S.744 doubles legal immigration within a decade after enactment—and triples it if you include the 12 million amnestied illegal aliens. This is the equivalent of adding the population of Canada – nearly 34 million people, virtually all of whom will need jobs—in a decade. Moreover, this estimate relates to legal permanent residents only, not temporary workers. (See FAIR’s estimate by category of admission)

30. S.744 increases the number of guest workers by 50 percent over the decade after enactment. (See FAIR’s estimate by category of admission)

31. S.744 creates a new unskilled guest worker program, through a new W visa, to bring in up to 200,000 additional workers each year. (Sec. 4703, p. 834)

32. S.744 triples the number of so-called skilled (H-1B) guest workers who may enter the U.S. annually. (Sec. 4101, p. 674)

33. S.744 also grants work authorization to the spouses of H-1B and W visa holders.

34. S.744 exempts immigrants (green card holders) with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and math, also referred to as STEM fields, from the cap on employment-based immigration. This will dramatically increase competition for Americans entering or working in those fields. (Sec. 2307, p. 315-16)”

http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/amnesty_2013_debate/Top_Reasons_to_Oppose_the_Gang_of_Eight_Amnesty_Bill_rev-6-6-13.pdf

From Breitbart today.

“SENATE GOP LEADERS PREPARE TO CAVE ON AMNESTY”

“The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security except for President Obama’s executive amnesty program. Now, the Senate is stonewalling, with Democrats voting repeatedly not to take up the bill, insisting instead that Republicans pass a bill funding the executive amnesty along with the rest of the DHS.

Which means that we’re nearing Republican surrender.”

http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/02/13/senate-gop-leaders-prepare-to-cave-on-amnesty/

 

 

 

 

House Oversight Committee Obamacare letter, What White House wants, Shop for health insurance without registering feature removed, Obamacare will dramatically increase premiums

House Oversight Committee Obamacare letter, What White House wants, Shop for health insurance without registering feature removed, Obamacare will dramatically increase premiums

“We need an educated citizenry that values hard evidence.”…Barack Obama

“If you’ve got health insurance we’re going to work with you to lower your premiums by $2,500 per family per year. We will not wait 20 years from now to do it, or 10 years from now to do it. We will do it by the end of my first term as president.”…Barack Obama

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

 

Below are exerpts from the House Oversight Committee letter to Steve VanRoekel, U.S. Chief Information Officer and Administrator, Office of Electronic Government Office of Management and Budget and Todd Park, U.S. Chief Technology Officer Office of Management and Budget.

The letter paints a disturbing picture of the implementation of the Obamacare website and confirms many of our suspicions.

“Dear Messrs. VanRoekel and Park:

The recent problems associated with ObamaCare’s health insurance exchanges and the colossal failure of healthcare.gov has revealed systemic and pervasive failures within the Administration’s implementation of ObamaCare. Many individuals have demanded accountability for these failures.’ Most notably, on MSNBC, Robert Gibbs, President Obama’s first-term press secretary, stated:
I hope they are working day and night to get this done. When they get it fixed, I hope they fire some people that were in charge of making sure that this thing was supposed to work.2
As the Chief Information Officer and Chief Technology Officer for the Obama Administration, and as leading advocates of the OMB-led TechStat3 vetting and review process, you surely maintained significant involvement in the oversight and development of ObamaCare’s critical information technology (IT) infrastructure. As such, we are writing to ask you for more information about the Administration’s development of the healthcare.gov website and its related components.”

“CGI officials provided a second briefing to Committee staff on October 16, 2013, after the failure of healthcare.gov became obvious to the public. CGI officials told Committee staff that CMS officials and employees constantly mentioned the “White House” when discussing matters with CGI. For example, CMS officials would routinely state: “this is what the White House wants.”I2 Moreover, CGI officials told Committee staff that the ability to shop for health insurance without registering for an account — a central design feature of the health insurance exchange — was removed “in late August or early September.”I3 Although, CGI officials were not able to identify who within the Administration made the decision to disable the anonymous shopping feature, evidence is mounting that political considerations motivated the decision.”

“Many IT experts have suggested that the decision to disable the anonymous shopping feature contributed to the failure of healthcare.gov on October 1, 2013, and in the weeks that have followed.I6 Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a policy and marketplace consulting firm, stated:
I think what happened was when they designed their system they were so paranoid about that that they wanted to make sure people browsing got the lowest price. That required signing in so you could see subsidies. And my theory is that’s why they went to the architecture they did even though the IT systems people wanted to go another way.”
On October 17, 2013, the Washington Examiner reported that there was a lack of testing prior to the roll out of healthcare.gov. It stated:
Federal officials did not permit testing of the Obamacare healthcare.gov website or issue final system requirements until four to six days before its Oct. 1 launch, according to an individual with direct knowledge of the project.
The individual, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described the troubled Obamacare website project as suffering from top-level management disarray, changing systems requirements and recurring delays.
The root cause of the problems was a pivotal decision by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services officials to act as systems integrator, the central coordinator for the entire program. Usually this role is reserved for the prime information technology contractor.
As a result, full testing of the site was delayed until four to six days before the fateful Oct. 1 launch of the health care exchanges, the individual said.

“Normally a system this size would need 4-6 months of testing and performance tuning, not 4-6 days,” the individual said.
The source said there were “ever-changing, conflicting and exceedingly late project directions. The actual system requirements for Oct. 1 were changing up until the week before,” the individual said.I8
ObamaCare will dramatically increase premiums for the groups of individuals the Administration is hoping to enroll in the exchanges. A recent study from the Manhattan Institute found that Obamacare increases premiums for men by an average of 99 percent and premiums for women by an average of 62 percent when comparing the cheapest plan offered in a given state before and after ObamaCare.I9
Given the information gathered by the Committee thus far, we are concerned that the Administration required contractors to change course late in the implementation process to conceal ObamaCare’s effect on increasing health insurance premiums. We believe that the political decision to mask the “sticker shock” of ObamaCare to the American peopleyrevented contractors from using universally accepted and OMB-advocated IT “best practices”” in the development and roll out of this massive federal government IT project. When prudent design and programming decisions are subordinated to politics2I, it is easy to see why chaos would likely ensue.22 Moreover, we are also concerned that the obvious lack of testing means that sensitive consumer information flowing through the data hub and exchanges are vulnerable to security breaches.”

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013-10-21-DEI-Lankford-Jordan-Farenthold-Mica-to-VanRoekel-OMB-re-healthcare.pdf