Insurers set to sharply increase Obamacare premiums
By Kate Randall
26 April 2016
US health insurance companies are preparing to seek substantial increases in Obamacare premiums, the Hill reported Monday. Citing big losses on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, many insurers will ask state insurance commissioners to approve double-digit hikes in ACA premiums and some may pull out of the market if they are not approved.The planned premium hikes are a further exposure of the pro-corporate character of Barack Obama’s signature domestic legislation. Both candidates vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, have embraced the ACA as a supposedly progressive health care reform.
In reality, the ACA is designed to funnel increased profits to the private insurance companies. Under the law’s “individual mandate,” those without insurance through a government program or employer must obtain coverage offered by private insurers or pay a penalty. The insurers are demanding a hefty profit as the condition for their participation in the ACA marketplaces.
Many insurers say they have been losing money on Obamacare plans, in part due to setting their premiums too low when they started in 2014. “There are absolutely some carriers that are going to have to come in with some pretty significant price hikes to make up for the underpricing that they did before,” Sabrina Corlette of Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms told the Hill.
Qualified Health Plans (QHPs) under Obamacare must offer coverage regardless of any person’s preexisting health conditions, but are restricted from charging higher premiums based on health status and age. As a result, QHPs are more attractive to older, less healthy people and less attractive to younger, healthier people. With fewer young and healthy people enrolling in the ACA plans, the pool of clients is more costly to insure.
A study released Friday by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University found that insurance company losses from QHPs on the individual market were in excess of $2.2 billion. These losses came despite insurers receiving net reinsurance payments of $6.7 billion from the ACA’s reinsurance program, a program set up under the law to compensate insurers for large claims incurred by “high-risk individuals in the individual market.” That program is set to expire at the end of 2016.
A report from McKinsey & Company found that in the individual insurance market, which includes the ACA marketplaces, insurers were profitable in only nine states and lost money in 41. Larry Levitt, an expert on the ACA at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told the Hill, “Either insurers will drop out or insurers will raise premiums.”
Insurance analysts have warned that if more young, healthy people do not sign up for Obamacare coverage, the individual marketplace may collapse, with insurers pulling out in droves and sending the market into what is known in the insurance industry as a “death spiral.”
UnitedHealthcare, the largest single health carrier in the US, said in November that it was considering leaving Obamacare by 2017 due to financial losses. UnitedHealthcare’s definition of “losses” was the possibility of not seeing the same $1.6 billion in profits that it pocketed in the third quarter of 2015. Last week, the company announced it was dropping its ACA plans in Arkansas and Georgia and that more states could follow.
Blue Cross Blue Shield dropped its ACA plans in New Mexico last year after it lost money and state regulators rejected a proposed 51.6 percent premium increase. Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina now says it may drop out of the ACA marketplace in that state due to losses.
News of the planned premium hikes follows a poll earlier this year showing widespread public dissatisfaction with the Affordable Care Act. Polling by National Public Radio and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that more than a quarter of US adults say they have been personally harmed by the health care law since its passage.
Twenty-six percent of the poll’s 1,002 respondents said that the cost of health care has been a serious strain on their finances over the last two years. About 40 percent of those facing these financial struggles said they have spent all or most of their savings accounts on large bills, while 20 percent said they hadn’t filled prescriptions because they could not afford them.
Insurers seeking the premium hikes claim that the blow will be softened by the tax credit available to some low-income individuals and families who qualify under Obamacare. However, about 15 percent of Obamacare enrollees do not receive these subsidies, so they would bear the full burden of any premium increases.
Even with the subsidies, the overwhelming majority of the least expensive “bronze” Obamacare plans come with deductibles in excess of $5,000. This means that payment for all but certain “essential” services must be made out of pocket before any coverage kicks in. These costs are forcing many people to self-ration and go without needed medical care for themselves and family members.
Many of the bronze plans also offer extremely narrow networks, restricting access to doctors, hospitals and other providers. In an effort to boost their profits, insurers are expected to further restrict their provider networks in addition to raising premiums. The Mercatus Center study cited above found that QHPs in 2014 with narrow provider networks performed better financially than those with broader networks.
Once again, Chelsea Clinton is being used by her mother’s campaign to propose outlandishly expensive proposals in health care and attack other Democrats, while providing deniability for Hillary. Yesterday, Obamacare was characterized by Chelsea...
THE PHONY CLINTON FOUNDATION CHARITY HAS HANDED OUT ONLY ABOUT 9 MILLION TO CHARITIES OF THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS THEY'VE COLLECTED IN BRIBES FROM DICTATORS, MUSLIM DICTATORS, CRIMINAL CRONY BILLIONAIRES AND BANKSTERS.
BUT THEY'VE BOUGHT CHELSEA A $11 MILLION DOLLAR APARTMENT IN NYC.
DO THE MATH. IT'S CALLED OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS!
MORE HERE:
Once again, Chelsea Clinton is being used by her mother
HILLARY CLINTON SAYS MILLIONS MORE VOTING ILLEGAL SHOULD BE HANDED OBAMACARE!
CLINTON'S PLATFORM IS SIMPLE: BUILD THE MEX WELFARE STATE ON AMERICA'S BACK TO BUY THEIR ILLEGAL VOTES.
THEY ALREADY GET MILLIONS OF OUR JOBS AND BILLIONS IN WELFARE!
THE AMERICAN THINKER
MORE HERE
More free stuff for people who violate our immigration laws! Hillary Clinton and her daughter have teed up a ball for the Republican nominee, whether Trump or Cruz, to hit 400 yards down the fairway. Just over a week ago, Hillary reversed her f...
US drug prices doubled since 2011
Drug prices have also been a theme in the presidential campaign. The Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, for example, released a campaign advertisement earlier this month attacking the “predatory pricing” of Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Like the congressional hearing, this is all for show. Of all the presidential candidates, Clinton is the top recipient of donations from the pharmaceutical and health products industry,
By
According to a new report by
the pharmacy benefits manager Express Scripts, the average price of
brand-name drugs increased by 16.2 percent last year. Between 2011 and
2015, branded prescription drug prices have nearly doubled, rising 98.2
percent. Since 2008, the prices have increased by a whopping 164
percent.
Drug spending rose by 5.2 percent in 2015. This was about half the
increase seen in 2014, the year of the largest hike since 2003.
The report is based upon prescription use data for members with drug
coverage provided by Express Scripts plan sponsors. In assessing changes
in plan costs, the report distinguishes between the relative
contributions from changes in patient utilization (e.g. more patients
being prescribed the drug) and changes in the unit price of the drug
(e.g., price hikes).
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, most drug spending was on
traditional drugs (small-molecule, solid drugs) to treat conditions such
as heartburn, depression and diabetes. The recent trend has been a
shift to specialty drugs. Still, within traditional therapy categories
there were significant increases in spending on medications to treat
diabetes, heartburn and ulcers, and skin conditions.
Diabetes medications remain the most expensive of the traditional
drug categories. Drug spending in this category increased by 14 percent,
with the hike being equally influenced by increased utilization of the
drugs and rise in unit cost. Three diabetes treatments—Lantus, Januvia
and Humalog—were among the top five drugs in terms of spending across
all traditional therapy classes.
Although not discussed in the report, an investigation by Bloomberg News last year found evidence
of “shadow pricing” by drug manufacturers, where companies raise their
prices immediately after their competitors do so. The investigation
found that the prices of diabetes drugs Lantus and Lemivir had increased
in tandem 13 times since 2009, and evidence of similar shadow pricing
for the drugs Humalog and Novolog.
Heartburn and ulcer drugs saw a 35.6 percent increase in spending,
almost solely due to the rise in unit cost. Although 92.3 percent of the
medications filled in this category were generic, the price unit trend
was heavily influenced by the increase in prices of branded drugs such
as Nexium, Dexilant and Prevacid.
Treatments for skin conditions also saw a significant increase of
27.8 percent in spending, again due almost completely to rises in the
unit costs of the medications. The report notes that these increases
occurred for both generic and branded therapies, largely due to industry
consolidation through mergers and acquisitions leading to less
competition in the market. While 86.3 percent of the drugs filled were
generic, many of the generic versions saw sharp increases in unit cost,
including the two most widely used corticosteroids, clobetasol (96.2
percent) and triamcinolone (28 percent).
While the overall spending increase for traditional therapy classes
was nominal (0.6 percent), the primary factor for the increase in
spending came from specialty medications. Specialty medications require
special education and close patient monitoring, such as drugs to treat
cancer, multiple sclerosis or cystic fibrosis. Spending on specialty
drugs rose by 17.8 percent in 2015. The report found that 37.7 percent
of drug spending was for specialty drugs in 2015, and the figure is
expected to rise to 50 percent by 2018.
Spending in this category was topped by inflammatory conditions—such
as rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel diseases and psoriasis—which
rose by 25 percent, driven by a 10.3 percent increase in utilization
and 14.7 percent rise in unit cost. The average cost per prescription in
2015 was $3,035.95. The medications Humira Pen and Enbrel, which
captured more than 66 percent of the market share for this class, saw
unit cost increases of more than 17 percent.
Spending on oncology therapies increased by 23.7 percent, due to both
increased use (9.3 percent) and increased unit cost (14.4 percent). New
cancer therapies average $8,000 per prescription and the average cancer
regimen is around $150,000 per patient. Between 2005 and 2015, the
anti-cancer drug Gleevec, manufactured exclusively by Novartis, has seen
its price more than triple, with an annual cost of $92,000. In 2015,
the year prior to the drug’s patent expiration, Novartis increased the
unit cost of the drug by 19.3 percent. This is a common practice for
companies facing patent expiration.
Drug spending on cystic fibrosis treatments rose by a significant
53.4 percent, largely based on increases in unit cost (40.9 percent vs.
13.3 percent from patient utilization). This rise was largely due to use
of the new oral combination therapy, Orkambi, which became available in
mid-2015. The drug costs more than $20,000 per month.
The report forecasts that between 2016 and 2018 spending will
increase annually by 7-8 percent for traditional drugs and around 17
percent for specialty drugs.
The prices of generic drugs have on average decreased, although there
are notable exceptions. Pharmaceutical companies like Horizon Pharma,
Turing Pharmaceuticals, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals have purchased
generic drugs and then significantly hiked their prices.
The report notes the emergence of “captive pharmacies” in 2015 as
another factor responsible for higher drug spending. Captive pharmacies
are owned or operated by pharmaceutical manufacturers and tend to
promote their manufacturer’s drugs, rather than generic or other
low-cost alternatives. The report gives as examples the arrangements
between Valeant Pharmaceuticals and Philidor Rx Services, and between
Horizon Pharma and Linden Care Pharmacy.
The Express Scripts data matches the findings released earlier this
year by the Truveris OneRx National Drug Index, which found that branded
drugs rose by 14.8 percent in 2015.
Despite the widespread media publicity of the notorious drug price
hikes by companies like Turing and Valeant, pharmaceutical companies
have continued to inflate prices in 2016, with Pfizer leading the way with an average price hike of 10.6 percent for 60 of its branded drugs.
Workers are rightly outraged at the skyrocketing price of drugs. A
Kaiser Family Foundation poll conducted last year found that 74 percent
of respondents felt that the drug companies put profits before people.
The political establishment, however, has sought both to exploit this
anger for electoral support and to direct it into safe channels that do
not disrupt the status quo.
A congressional hearing held in January placed a spotlight on the price-gouging practices of
HYPERLINK Valeant Pharmaceuticals and Turing Pharmaceuticals, whose dubious activities were highlighted in a pair of congressional memos.
The purpose of the hearing, however, was not probe the underlying
causes of the sharp rise in drug prices. Instead, legislators sought to
safeguard the profits of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole through a
verbal lambasting of the industry’s most notorious culprits.
Drug prices have also been a theme in the presidential campaign. The Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, for example, released a campaign advertisement earlier this month attacking the “predatory pricing” of Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Like the congressional hearing, this is all for show. Of all the presidential candidates, Clinton is the top recipient
of donations from the pharmaceutical and health products industry, taking in $410,460 according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
Clinton’s rival, Bernie Sanders, who has stated that he will support Clinton if he loses the Democratic nomination, received $82,094 in
donations from the industry. Sanders has proposed a series of minor reforms to address drug prices, such as the re-importation of drugs from
Canada, allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with drug manufacturers, and decreasing the patent life of branded drugs.
None of the candidates, including the “democratic socialist” Sanders,
challenge the private ownership of the pharmaceutical industry in which
everything from research and development and clinical testing to drug
pricing and promotion are subordinated to the profit interests of
corporations.
NO ONE SERVES HIS PAYMASTERS ON WALL STREET MORE THAN BARACK OBAMA!
HE SMELLS THOSE SPEECH FEE BRIBES ALREADY!
AND HILLARY IS OBAMA'S CLONE!
Drug prices have also been a theme in the presidential campaign. The Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, for example, released a campaign advertisement earlier this month attacking the “predatory pricing” of Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Like the congressional hearing, this is all for show. Of all the presidential candidates, Clinton is the top recipient of donations from the pharmaceutical and health products industry,
taking in $410,460 according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
US drug prices doubled since 2011
By
Brad Dixon
18 March 2016
According to a new report bythe pharmacy benefits manager Express Scripts, the average price of
brand-name drugs increased by 16.2 percent last year. Between 2011 and
2015, branded prescription drug prices have nearly doubled, rising 98.2
percent. Since 2008, the prices have increased by a whopping 164
percent.
Drug spending rose by 5.2 percent in 2015. This was about half the
increase seen in 2014, the year of the largest hike since 2003.
The report is based upon prescription use data for members with drug
coverage provided by Express Scripts plan sponsors. In assessing changes
in plan costs, the report distinguishes between the relative
contributions from changes in patient utilization (e.g. more patients
being prescribed the drug) and changes in the unit price of the drug
(e.g., price hikes).
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, most drug spending was on
traditional drugs (small-molecule, solid drugs) to treat conditions such
as heartburn, depression and diabetes. The recent trend has been a
shift to specialty drugs. Still, within traditional therapy categories
there were significant increases in spending on medications to treat
diabetes, heartburn and ulcers, and skin conditions.
Diabetes medications remain the most expensive of the traditional
drug categories. Drug spending in this category increased by 14 percent,
with the hike being equally influenced by increased utilization of the
drugs and rise in unit cost. Three diabetes treatments—Lantus, Januvia
and Humalog—were among the top five drugs in terms of spending across
all traditional therapy classes.
Although not discussed in the report, an investigation by Bloomberg News last year found evidence
of “shadow pricing” by drug manufacturers, where companies raise their
prices immediately after their competitors do so. The investigation
found that the prices of diabetes drugs Lantus and Lemivir had increased
in tandem 13 times since 2009, and evidence of similar shadow pricing
for the drugs Humalog and Novolog.
Heartburn and ulcer drugs saw a 35.6 percent increase in spending,
almost solely due to the rise in unit cost. Although 92.3 percent of the
medications filled in this category were generic, the price unit trend
was heavily influenced by the increase in prices of branded drugs such
as Nexium, Dexilant and Prevacid.
Treatments for skin conditions also saw a significant increase of
27.8 percent in spending, again due almost completely to rises in the
unit costs of the medications. The report notes that these increases
occurred for both generic and branded therapies, largely due to industry
consolidation through mergers and acquisitions leading to less
competition in the market. While 86.3 percent of the drugs filled were
generic, many of the generic versions saw sharp increases in unit cost,
including the two most widely used corticosteroids, clobetasol (96.2
percent) and triamcinolone (28 percent).
While the overall spending increase for traditional therapy classes
was nominal (0.6 percent), the primary factor for the increase in
spending came from specialty medications. Specialty medications require
special education and close patient monitoring, such as drugs to treat
cancer, multiple sclerosis or cystic fibrosis. Spending on specialty
drugs rose by 17.8 percent in 2015. The report found that 37.7 percent
of drug spending was for specialty drugs in 2015, and the figure is
expected to rise to 50 percent by 2018.
Spending in this category was topped by inflammatory conditions—such
as rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel diseases and psoriasis—which
rose by 25 percent, driven by a 10.3 percent increase in utilization
and 14.7 percent rise in unit cost. The average cost per prescription in
2015 was $3,035.95. The medications Humira Pen and Enbrel, which
captured more than 66 percent of the market share for this class, saw
unit cost increases of more than 17 percent.
Spending on oncology therapies increased by 23.7 percent, due to both
increased use (9.3 percent) and increased unit cost (14.4 percent). New
cancer therapies average $8,000 per prescription and the average cancer
regimen is around $150,000 per patient. Between 2005 and 2015, the
anti-cancer drug Gleevec, manufactured exclusively by Novartis, has seen
its price more than triple, with an annual cost of $92,000. In 2015,
the year prior to the drug’s patent expiration, Novartis increased the
unit cost of the drug by 19.3 percent. This is a common practice for
companies facing patent expiration.
Drug spending on cystic fibrosis treatments rose by a significant
53.4 percent, largely based on increases in unit cost (40.9 percent vs.
13.3 percent from patient utilization). This rise was largely due to use
of the new oral combination therapy, Orkambi, which became available in
mid-2015. The drug costs more than $20,000 per month.
The report forecasts that between 2016 and 2018 spending will
increase annually by 7-8 percent for traditional drugs and around 17
percent for specialty drugs.
The prices of generic drugs have on average decreased, although there
are notable exceptions. Pharmaceutical companies like Horizon Pharma,
Turing Pharmaceuticals, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals have purchased
generic drugs and then significantly hiked their prices.
The report notes the emergence of “captive pharmacies” in 2015 as
another factor responsible for higher drug spending. Captive pharmacies
are owned or operated by pharmaceutical manufacturers and tend to
promote their manufacturer’s drugs, rather than generic or other
low-cost alternatives. The report gives as examples the arrangements
between Valeant Pharmaceuticals and Philidor Rx Services, and between
Horizon Pharma and Linden Care Pharmacy.
The Express Scripts data matches the findings released earlier this
year by the Truveris OneRx National Drug Index, which found that branded
drugs rose by 14.8 percent in 2015.
Despite the widespread media publicity of the notorious drug price
hikes by companies like Turing and Valeant, pharmaceutical companies
have continued to inflate prices in 2016, with Pfizer leading the way with an average price hike of 10.6 percent for 60 of its branded drugs.
Workers are rightly outraged at the skyrocketing price of drugs. A
Kaiser Family Foundation poll conducted last year found that 74 percent
of respondents felt that the drug companies put profits before people.
The political establishment, however, has sought both to exploit this
anger for electoral support and to direct it into safe channels that do
not disrupt the status quo.
A congressional hearing held in January placed a spotlight on the price-gouging practices of
HYPERLINK Valeant Pharmaceuticals and Turing Pharmaceuticals, whose dubious activities were highlighted in a pair of congressional memos.
The purpose of the hearing, however, was not probe the underlying
causes of the sharp rise in drug prices. Instead, legislators sought to
safeguard the profits of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole through a
verbal lambasting of the industry’s most notorious culprits.
Drug prices have also been a theme in the presidential campaign. The Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, for example, released a campaign advertisement earlier this month attacking the “predatory pricing” of Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Like the congressional hearing, this is all for show. Of all the presidential candidates, Clinton is the top recipient
of donations from the pharmaceutical and health products industry, taking in $410,460 according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
Clinton’s rival, Bernie Sanders, who has stated that he will support Clinton if he loses the Democratic nomination, received $82,094 in
donations from the industry. Sanders has proposed a series of minor reforms to address drug prices, such as the re-importation of drugs from
Canada, allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with drug manufacturers, and decreasing the patent life of branded drugs.
None of the candidates, including the “democratic socialist” Sanders,
challenge the private ownership of the pharmaceutical industry in which
everything from research and development and clinical testing to drug
pricing and promotion are subordinated to the profit interests of
corporations.
THE PHONY CLINTON FOUNDATION HAS SUCKED IN MORE THAN $500,000 IN BRIBES FROM THE RICHEST MAN IN THE WORLD, MEXICAN CARLOS SLIM. WHAT WAS HE BUYING? OBAMA AMNESTY FOR 40 MILLION LOOTING MEXICANS!
Do a search for THE CLINTONS AND THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA "The Race"
Clinton has also held several fundraisers in Mexico. One of the co-hosts of a February fundraising dinner was Wal-Mart lobbyist Ivan Zapien, who relocated to Mexico with the company in 2015. Clinton served on the board of Wal-Mart from 1986-1992.
Clinton rakes in cash overseas
Greg Nash
By Jonathan Swan - 03/20/16 10:30 AM EDT
Hillary Clinton's campaign has held more fundraisers on foreign soil than any other candidate running for president in 2016.
The Clinton campaign has held at least 13 fundraisers overseas so far, involving celebrities such as jazz singer Tony Bennett and fashion editor Anna Wintour, according to tracking of political fundraising invitations by the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation.
Clinton’s offshore fundraisers, which tap wealthy U.S. citizens and permanent resident living abroad, have spanned from London, where the campaign has held at least eight fundraisers, to Munich, Mexico City, and Durban, South Africa. None of the Clinton campaign's foreign events, so far as the invitations suggest, have featured the candidate herself, though surrogates including her daughter Chelsea, have hosted the high-priced gatherings.
No other candidate running for president this cycle has done anything remotely approaching the amount of overseas fundraising as Clinton's campaign has done to date.
The former secretary of State has dwarfed her rivals in expatriate cash, raised at least $495,000 so far from Americans living abroad, according to The Hill's analysis of federal election records.
Clinton's rival in the Democratic primary race, Bernie Sanders, has raised less than a quarter of that, and the three Republicans still in the race have raised relatively miniscule amounts from Americans abroad.
Ted Cruz has raised just $23,000 overseas; Donald Trump — who has a “donate” button on his website but doesn’t hold fundraisers — took in $1100; and John Kasich has raised only $50 from overseas donors, according to figures disclosed in the most recent reporting period.
Even Jeb Bush, who has a wide political network overseas through his family’s connections, only raised slightly more than $200,000 from Americans living abroad.
No foreign fundraising invitations could be found by the Sunlight Foundation for any other candidate besides Clinton. One of the rare examples of a foreign fundraiser for a 2016 presidential candidate found on the public record is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who went to Israel last year in part to raise money for his campaign.
While overseas fundraisers are hardly a new practice for well-known establishment candidates; the Clinton campaign is on pace to exceed even what the sitting President Barack Obama managed in 2012, assuming she becomes the Democratic nominee.
Throughout the two years of the 2012 presidential cycle, President Obama's campaign held at least 13 fundraising events on foreign soil in countries as far-reaching as China and Egypt, according to the Sunlight Foundation. Republican nominee Mitt Romney's campaign held at least four fundraisers in London and Jerusalem.
Long-time Democratic fundraiser Kenneth Christensen, whose D.C.-based consulting firm Christensen & Associates helps candidates set up their finance operations, says he's not surprised that the Clinton campaign has established a more powerful offshore finance machine than any other candidate.
"Obviously with the Clintons they have a lot of experience in doing that. They give lots of speeches overseas, and they run into a lot of people," Christensen told The Hill in a telephone interview Friday. "A lot of that fundraising overseas are relationships they already have."
Christensen, who is focusing on Democratic congressional races this cycle, indicated it would be professionally negligent not to take full advantage of Clinton's relationships to finance what is becoming an expensive primary race against a well-funded Bernie Sanders campaign. The Clinton advantages include her global connections as a former secretary of State, her family's foundation, and above all, the unparalleled donor network established by both Bill and Hillary Clinton over several decades.
Clinton's offshore fundraisers so far this cycle have included a post-concert reception at London's Royal Albert Hall with Tony Bennett, a "discussion" between Chelsea Clinton and Anna Wintour, and a Munich Fashion Week event with former ambassador Melanne V
Clinton has also held several fundraisers in Mexico. One of the co-hosts of a February fundraising dinner was Wal-Mart lobbyist Ivan Zapien, who relocated to Mexico with the company in 2015. Clinton served on the board of Wal-Mart from 1986-1992.
The Federal Election Commission, which regulates campaign fundraising, stipulates that "foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S." But the FEC allows that both U.S. citizens and "green card" holders living abroad (individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) "are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute."
"I would expect a professional campaign to take advantage of all their fundraising opportunities," Christensen said. "She's capitalizing on it now to make sure she's running an aggressive and professional fundraising operation."
The Clinton campaign has held at least 13 fundraisers overseas so far, involving celebrities such as jazz singer Tony Bennett and fashion editor Anna Wintour, according to tracking of political fundraising invitations by the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation.
No other candidate running for president this cycle has done anything remotely approaching the amount of overseas fundraising as Clinton's campaign has done to date.
The former secretary of State has dwarfed her rivals in expatriate cash, raised at least $495,000 so far from Americans living abroad, according to The Hill's analysis of federal election records.
Clinton's rival in the Democratic primary race, Bernie Sanders, has raised less than a quarter of that, and the three Republicans still in the race have raised relatively miniscule amounts from Americans abroad.
Ted Cruz has raised just $23,000 overseas; Donald Trump — who has a “donate” button on his website but doesn’t hold fundraisers — took in $1100; and John Kasich has raised only $50 from overseas donors, according to figures disclosed in the most recent reporting period.
Even Jeb Bush, who has a wide political network overseas through his family’s connections, only raised slightly more than $200,000 from Americans living abroad.
No foreign fundraising invitations could be found by the Sunlight Foundation for any other candidate besides Clinton. One of the rare examples of a foreign fundraiser for a 2016 presidential candidate found on the public record is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who went to Israel last year in part to raise money for his campaign.
While overseas fundraisers are hardly a new practice for well-known establishment candidates; the Clinton campaign is on pace to exceed even what the sitting President Barack Obama managed in 2012, assuming she becomes the Democratic nominee.
Throughout the two years of the 2012 presidential cycle, President Obama's campaign held at least 13 fundraising events on foreign soil in countries as far-reaching as China and Egypt, according to the Sunlight Foundation. Republican nominee Mitt Romney's campaign held at least four fundraisers in London and Jerusalem.
Long-time Democratic fundraiser Kenneth Christensen, whose D.C.-based consulting firm Christensen & Associates helps candidates set up their finance operations, says he's not surprised that the Clinton campaign has established a more powerful offshore finance machine than any other candidate.
"Obviously with the Clintons they have a lot of experience in doing that. They give lots of speeches overseas, and they run into a lot of people," Christensen told The Hill in a telephone interview Friday. "A lot of that fundraising overseas are relationships they already have."
Christensen, who is focusing on Democratic congressional races this cycle, indicated it would be professionally negligent not to take full advantage of Clinton's relationships to finance what is becoming an expensive primary race against a well-funded Bernie Sanders campaign. The Clinton advantages include her global connections as a former secretary of State, her family's foundation, and above all, the unparalleled donor network established by both Bill and Hillary Clinton over several decades.
Clinton's offshore fundraisers so far this cycle have included a post-concert reception at London's Royal Albert Hall with Tony Bennett, a "discussion" between Chelsea Clinton and Anna Wintour, and a Munich Fashion Week event with former ambassador Melanne V
Clinton has also held several fundraisers in Mexico. One of the co-hosts of a February fundraising dinner was Wal-Mart lobbyist Ivan Zapien, who relocated to Mexico with the company in 2015. Clinton served on the board of Wal-Mart from 1986-1992.
The Federal Election Commission, which regulates campaign fundraising, stipulates that "foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S." But the FEC allows that both U.S. citizens and "green card" holders living abroad (individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) "are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute."
"I would expect a professional campaign to take advantage of all their fundraising opportunities," Christensen said. "She's capitalizing on it now to make sure she's running an aggressive and professional fundraising operation."
California Democrats, unions announce deal on $15 minimum wage
OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS: TRANSFERRING THE ECONOMY TO THE RICHEST, KEEPING THE BORDERS WIDE OPEN TO FOR ENDLESS FLOODS OF ILLEGALS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED AND ENDLESS CORPORATE WELFARE AND BAILOUT FOR THEIR CRONIES ON WALL STREET.
"Under the Obama administration, the Democrats have spearheaded the attack on wages and benefits for higher paid workers as part of an overall transfer of wealth to the financial elite."
By Marc Wells
On Monday, California Governor Jerry Brown praised a tentative agreement reached two days earlier between state legislators and trade union leaders that, if finalized by the state assembly, would gradually increase California’s minimum wage to $15 by 2022.
The deal, which has many loopholes and conditions, is aimed at containing deep opposition to poverty-level wages. Its basic political purpose is to bolster support for the Democratic Party in the run-up to November’s elections. Under the Obama administration, the Democrats have spearheaded the attack on wages and benefits for higher paid workers as part of an overall transfer of wealth to the financial elite.
The agreement in California would raise the state-wide minimum wage from its current level of $10 an hour to $10.50 in 2017, $11 in 2018, and one dollar more per year through 2022. Businesses with fewer than 25 employees would have an additional year to comply.
Stressing the conditional character of the proposed measure, Brown said on Monday, “This plan raises the minimum wage in a careful and responsible way and provides some flexibility if economic and budgetary conditions change.” The governor can suspend any wage increase in the
event of a recession, an increase in the state budget deficit or higher official unemployment.
In other words, the measure would be subordinated to “the vagaries of the capitalist economy,” as Brown put it. This includes no guarantee that workers currently making minimum wage will not be fired by the companies they work for.
If adopted, the deal would likely be followed by the suspension of two ballot initiatives sponsored by different sections of the union apparatus, particularly the Service Employees International Union
(SEIU), for the November elections. These measures would have increased the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2021 or 2022. By removing the issue from the ballot, legislators can ensure that the details can becarefully crafted behind closed doors in consultation with businesses.
BLOG: CA HANDS ILLEGALS $30 BILLION IN SOCIAL SERVICES ON THE STATE LEVEL ALONE. COUNTIES PAY OUT EVEN MORE.
HALF THE POPULATION OF CA IS MEXICAN AND LA RAZA NOW CONTROLS BOTH HOUSES OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE.
Poverty-level wages are pervasive throughout California and nationally, and the current minimum wage is grossly inadequate to meet basic necessities.
According to Rainmaker Insights, average monthly housing costs in San Francisco are $3,770, and in Los Angeles $2,094. That is, average housing costs in these two cities are the equivalent of a full-time job paying $21.75 and $12.08 an hour, respectively, before taxes.
California’s cost of living is 151 percent of the national average, making it the fifth most expensive state. More than 40 percent of the state’s population lives either in poverty (earning less than about
$24,000 per year for a family of four) or near poverty, according to Census data released in 2013. Children are worse off: nearly 50 percent were poor or near poor in 2013.
Under these conditions, the trade unions—closely allied with the Democratic Party and supported by various organizations that operate in its orbit—have advanced campaigns like “Fight for $15” and “Raise the Wage” to keep opposition within a framework acceptable to the ruling class.
In the presidential elections, Democratic Party candidate Bernie Sanders has backed a $15 nationwide minimum wage, while Clinton has supported raising the national rate to $12 an hour. Sanders’ role in
particular has been to appeal to sections of youth and poorer workers in an effort to bolster the Democratic Party, after more than seven years of the Obama administration presiding over continuing austerity for the working class.
The Obama administration and the Democrats, no less than the Republicans, have supported the overall assault on wages for the working class as a whole. Tellingly, in California the median wage earner saw a decline of 6.2 percent in their annual income between 2006 and 2011, triple the national average. This included the years of Obama’s so-called economic recovery.
Nationally, the White House sounded the signal for a nationwide attack on wages through the restructuring of the auto industry in 2009, crafting a deal that halved wages for new hires and relieved companies of their health care obligations to retirees. This has been combined with the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, which have encouraged companies to eliminate health care plans and force workers to purchase insurance from private companies.
Increasingly, $15 is seen by the ruling class not so much as a minimum but as a maximum. What were formerly higher paying jobs, including in manufacturing, are now paying rates equivalent to low-wage service work.
In the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis, moreover, low-wage employment has been replacing jobs that once paid a decent salary. In an earlier period, minimum wage jobs were mostly reserved for those initially entering the workforce. Recent data from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, however, shows that now only 12 percent of minimum wage workers are teenagers.
From the standpoint of the unions, a major aim is not only to promote the Democratic Party but also to ensure their own position as junior partners benefiting from the exploitation of the working class. In the last few years, the unions have negotiated agreements with companies that contain “escape clauses” relating to the minimum wage. Through these contractual or legal mechanisms, the unions have been able to bypass minimum wage requirements, thus leaving unionized workers earning
less than the minimum wage.
The process is so effective that even the US Chamber of Commerce admitted its advantages for employers. In a recent report, it noted that the escape clause “is often designed to encourage unionization by making a labor union the potential ‘low-cost’ alternative to new wage mandates, and it raises serious questions about whom these minimum wage laws are actually intended to benefit.”
Lastly, an increase in wages to above poverty levels is seen as beneficial by sections of the ruling class insofar as it will force reduce eligibility for social programs such as Medi-Cal, the medical program for the poor, whose threshold is set to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. Workers not qualifying for Medi-Cal would then be subject to the requirements of Obama’s Affordable Care Act that they purchase insurance from private companies on state-run exchanges.
Michigan Kids Count report shows drastic rise in child poverty over last decade
PEW: MEXICO BREEDS AN ANCHOR BABIES FOR WELFARE OCCUPATION OF AMERICA
more here:
In late 2015, the Pew Research Center came out with a population projection that "non-Hispanic whites are projected to become less than half of the US population by 2055." Similarly, during 2014, researchers working with U.S. Census Bure...
"More evidence that illegal immigrants are both taking jobs away from legal Americans and undercutting their wage bargaining power."
March 26, 2016
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/study_employment_rate_of_illegal_immigrant_men_far_higher_than_for_legal_immigrants_and_natives.html#ixzz442MOR82B
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS: TRANSFERRING THE ECONOMY TO THE RICHEST, KEEPING THE BORDERS WIDE OPEN TO FOR ENDLESS FLOODS OF ILLEGALS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED AND ENDLESS CORPORATE WELFARE AND BAILOUT FOR THEIR CRONIES ON WALL STREET.
"Under the Obama administration, the Democrats have spearheaded the attack on wages and benefits for higher paid workers as part of an overall transfer of wealth to the financial elite."
California Democrats, unions announce deal on $15 minimum wage
By Marc Wells
30 March 2016
On Monday, California Governor Jerry Brown praised a tentative agreement reached two days earlier between state legislators and trade union leaders that, if finalized by the state assembly, would gradually increase California’s minimum wage to $15 by 2022.The deal, which has many loopholes and conditions, is aimed at containing deep opposition to poverty-level wages. Its basic political purpose is to bolster support for the Democratic Party in the run-up to November’s elections. Under the Obama administration, the Democrats have spearheaded the attack on wages and benefits for higher paid workers as part of an overall transfer of wealth to the financial elite.
The agreement in California would raise the state-wide minimum wage from its current level of $10 an hour to $10.50 in 2017, $11 in 2018, and one dollar more per year through 2022. Businesses with fewer than 25 employees would have an additional year to comply.
Stressing the conditional character of the proposed measure, Brown said on Monday, “This plan raises the minimum wage in a careful and responsible way and provides some flexibility if economic and budgetary conditions change.” The governor can suspend any wage increase in the
event of a recession, an increase in the state budget deficit or higher official unemployment.
In other words, the measure would be subordinated to “the vagaries of the capitalist economy,” as Brown put it. This includes no guarantee that workers currently making minimum wage will not be fired by the companies they work for.
If adopted, the deal would likely be followed by the suspension of two ballot initiatives sponsored by different sections of the union apparatus, particularly the Service Employees International Union
(SEIU), for the November elections. These measures would have increased the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2021 or 2022. By removing the issue from the ballot, legislators can ensure that the details can becarefully crafted behind closed doors in consultation with businesses.
BLOG: CA HANDS ILLEGALS $30 BILLION IN SOCIAL SERVICES ON THE STATE LEVEL ALONE. COUNTIES PAY OUT EVEN MORE.
HALF THE POPULATION OF CA IS MEXICAN AND LA RAZA NOW CONTROLS BOTH HOUSES OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE.
Poverty-level wages are pervasive throughout California and nationally, and the current minimum wage is grossly inadequate to meet basic necessities.
According to Rainmaker Insights, average monthly housing costs in San Francisco are $3,770, and in Los Angeles $2,094. That is, average housing costs in these two cities are the equivalent of a full-time job paying $21.75 and $12.08 an hour, respectively, before taxes.
California’s cost of living is 151 percent of the national average, making it the fifth most expensive state. More than 40 percent of the state’s population lives either in poverty (earning less than about
$24,000 per year for a family of four) or near poverty, according to Census data released in 2013. Children are worse off: nearly 50 percent were poor or near poor in 2013.
Under these conditions, the trade unions—closely allied with the Democratic Party and supported by various organizations that operate in its orbit—have advanced campaigns like “Fight for $15” and “Raise the Wage” to keep opposition within a framework acceptable to the ruling class.
In the presidential elections, Democratic Party candidate Bernie Sanders has backed a $15 nationwide minimum wage, while Clinton has supported raising the national rate to $12 an hour. Sanders’ role in
particular has been to appeal to sections of youth and poorer workers in an effort to bolster the Democratic Party, after more than seven years of the Obama administration presiding over continuing austerity for the working class.
The Obama administration and the Democrats, no less than the Republicans, have supported the overall assault on wages for the working class as a whole. Tellingly, in California the median wage earner saw a decline of 6.2 percent in their annual income between 2006 and 2011, triple the national average. This included the years of Obama’s so-called economic recovery.
Nationally, the White House sounded the signal for a nationwide attack on wages through the restructuring of the auto industry in 2009, crafting a deal that halved wages for new hires and relieved companies of their health care obligations to retirees. This has been combined with the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, which have encouraged companies to eliminate health care plans and force workers to purchase insurance from private companies.
Increasingly, $15 is seen by the ruling class not so much as a minimum but as a maximum. What were formerly higher paying jobs, including in manufacturing, are now paying rates equivalent to low-wage service work.
In the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis, moreover, low-wage employment has been replacing jobs that once paid a decent salary. In an earlier period, minimum wage jobs were mostly reserved for those initially entering the workforce. Recent data from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, however, shows that now only 12 percent of minimum wage workers are teenagers.
From the standpoint of the unions, a major aim is not only to promote the Democratic Party but also to ensure their own position as junior partners benefiting from the exploitation of the working class. In the last few years, the unions have negotiated agreements with companies that contain “escape clauses” relating to the minimum wage. Through these contractual or legal mechanisms, the unions have been able to bypass minimum wage requirements, thus leaving unionized workers earning
less than the minimum wage.
The process is so effective that even the US Chamber of Commerce admitted its advantages for employers. In a recent report, it noted that the escape clause “is often designed to encourage unionization by making a labor union the potential ‘low-cost’ alternative to new wage mandates, and it raises serious questions about whom these minimum wage laws are actually intended to benefit.”
Lastly, an increase in wages to above poverty levels is seen as beneficial by sections of the ruling class insofar as it will force reduce eligibility for social programs such as Medi-Cal, the medical program for the poor, whose threshold is set to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. Workers not qualifying for Medi-Cal would then be subject to the requirements of Obama’s Affordable Care Act that they purchase insurance from private companies on state-run exchanges.
Michigan Kids Count report shows drastic rise in child poverty over last decade
PEW: MEXICO BREEDS AN ANCHOR BABIES FOR WELFARE OCCUPATION OF AMERICA
more here:
In late 2015, the Pew Research Center came out with a population projection that "non-Hispanic whites are projected to become less than half of the US population by 2055." Similarly, during 2014, researchers working with U.S. Census Bure...
"More evidence that illegal immigrants are both taking jobs away from legal Americans and undercutting their wage bargaining power."
March 26, 2016
Study: Employment rate of illegal immigrant men far higher than for legal immigrants and natives
A new study by George Borjas from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University reveals what many have long been concerned about when it comes to illegal immigration into the United States.
According to Borjas' paper, the "employment rate of undocumented men is 86.6%, as compared to 73.9% for natives and 77.8% for legal immigrants," and this gap has been widening since the mid-1990s.
The study shows that about 10% of all persons in their early 30s are undocumented. In addition, 23% of illegal immigrants live in California, 7% reside in New York, and 15% live in Texas.
Borjas reached the following conclusions:
In late 2015, the Pew Research Center came out with a population projection that "non-Hispanic whites are projected to become less than half of the US population by 2055."
Similarly, during 2014, researchers working with U.S. Census Bure...
........................... Will Mexico elect America's next President? Didn't LA RAZA FASCIST PARTY, which is funded by Barack Obama and operates out of the Obama white house under Cecilia Munoz, reelect Obama???
DON'T BELIEVE THE LIES! IT'S ALL LA RAZA PROPAGANDA TO EXPAND MEXICO'S OCCUPATION!
MILLIONS OF MEXICANS HAVE MILLIONS OF AMERICAN JOBS WITH STOLEN IDENTITIES. THEY ALSO DRIVE ILLEGALLY, CONTRACT ILLEGALLY AND SEND BACK TENS OF BILLIONS IN DRUG PROFITS TO NARCOMEX.
“If we would follow the law for starters, that would go a long way toward solving a lot of the problems,” Brat said.
While Brat and Salmon voiced concern over the security of the nation’s southern border, Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., told reporters that the country needs to focus on collecting intelligence on the ground in order to prevent terror attacks from occurring on U.S. soil.
“With regard to ISIS, I think around the world we do need to embed more into the communities that are hotbeds or breeding grounds of these radicals and try to nip it in the bud as early as possible,” she said. “I think on the ground, intelligence that’s gathered nationwide is going to have to be an ongoing source of information, and it’s not going to be inexpensive, and it’s not going to happen overnight.”
Fears surrounding U.S. security risks mounted further Tuesday after deadly bombings occurred in Brussels, killing at least 30 people and injuring more than 200. The terror attacks took place at the city’s international airport and a subway station, and ISIS later claimed responsibility for the attacks.
The bombings in Brussels came four days after Belgian authorities captured Salah Abdeslam, a suspect in November’s terror attacks, in the capital city. Abdeslam was one of 10 men police believe were directly involved in terror attacks carried out by ISIS in Paris late last year, which left 130 dead.
The terror attacks in Paris sparked a debate among lawmakers about how the U.S. should address Syrian refugees entering the country, as well as whether Congress should alter the visa waiver program.
The House of Representatives passed a bill in November toughening the screenings of Syrians looking to come to the U.S. through the refugee program. The legislation failed in the Senate.
The Republican-controlled Congress, though, ultimately passed a measure through an omnibus spending bill, signed into law by President Barack Obama, that tightened the program’s requirements and required anyone who visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan or Syria after March 1, 2011, to apply for a visa.
Following Tuesday’s terror attacks in Brussels, GOP lawmakers once again called into question the process by which people come to the U.S.
Sens. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., Tim Scott, R-S.C., and David Vitter, R-La., separately called on their colleagues and the Obama administration to reexamine both the refugee program and visa system.
Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., meanwhile, said it’s inevitable that terrorists will try to enter the country through the refugee program.
“You have to take ISIS at their word,” Huelskamp told The Daily Signal. “They are going to infiltrate [the refugee program], and if we had anybody else as president, even some Democrats have said we need to take a time out to understand what’s going on here. They have made it very clear they’re going to misuse our immigrant refugee system in order to infiltrate.”
The Kansas Republican, though, said it’s unlikely the president would sign legislation halting the program or lessening the number of Syrian refugees coming into the U.S. this year.
“It’s hard to imagine a situation where he would actually want to do something,” Huelskamp said.
Border Surge Solution: Send ‘Em to Camp David!
By Michelle Malkin
Human Events Online, February 17, 2016
. . .
As Brandon Judd of the National Border Patrol Council testified on Capitol Hill recently: “The cartels understood that the unaccompanied minors would force the Border Patrol to deploy Agents to these crossing areas in order to take the minors into custody. I want to stress this point because it has been completely overlooked by the press,” he told the House Judiciary Committee. The unaccompanied minors could have walked right up to the port of entry and requested asylum if they were truly escaping political persecution or violence. “Why did the cartels drive them to the middle of the desert and then have them cross over the Rio Grande only to surrender to the first Border Patrol Agent they came across?” Judd challenged.
“The reason is that it completely tied up our manpower and allowed the cartels to smuggle whatever they wanted across our border.”
This is just another maddening example of Obama’s warped priorities at work. Instead of building effective walls and enforcing our borders to prevent the coming illegal immigration waves manufactured by criminal racketeers, this administration rushes to build welcome center magnets that shelter the next generation of Democrat voters.
http://humanevents.com/2016/02/17/border-surge-solution-send-em-to-camp-david/
U.S. Failed Three Times to Deport Illegal Alien Who Murdered Woman
Judicial Watch Corruption Chronicles, February 18, 2016
. . .
Here’s what we already know from local media reports in Norwich, the city of about 40,000 residents where the murder occurred; the DHS agency responsible for deporting illegal immigrants, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), failed to remove Jacques at least three times dating back to 2002. As if this weren’t atrocious enough, Jacques spent 17 years in prison for attempted murder before authorities released him—instead of deporting him—in January of 2015, the Norwich Bulletin reports. Six months later the 41-year-old illegal alien convict stabbed 25-year-old Casey Chadwick to death. Police said Chadwick died of sharp forced injuries to the head and neck. Jacques is being held on a $1 million bond.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. In the last few years illegal immigrants with lengthy criminal histories have been allowed to remain in the U.S. despite being repeat offenders. Judicial Watch has investigated several of the cases and obtained public records from the government. For instance, back in 2008 JW launched a California public records request with the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department to obtain he arrest and booking information on Edwin Ramos, an illegal alien from El Salvador who murdered three innocent American citizens. Ramos was a member of a renowned violent street gang and had been convicted of two felonies as a juvenile (a gang-related assault on a bus passenger and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman) yet he was allowed to remain in the country.
. . .
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/02/u-s-failed-3-times-to-deport-illegal-alien-who-murdered-woman/
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY HAS LONG BEEN SABOTAGING STATES' ATTEMPT TO CURB LA RAZA FASCIST FROM VOTING.
MEXICO KNOWS THAT THE 40 MILLION LOOTING MEXICANS DON'T HAVE TO BE "PERMANENT RESIDENTS" TO GO VOTE FOR MORE!
HILLARY CLINTON HAS ALREADY PROMISED THE MEX OCCUPIERS 49 MORE MEXIFORNIAS!
March 21, 2016
According to Borjas' paper, the "employment rate of undocumented men is 86.6%, as compared to 73.9% for natives and 77.8% for legal immigrants," and this gap has been widening since the mid-1990s.
The study shows that about 10% of all persons in their early 30s are undocumented. In addition, 23% of illegal immigrants live in California, 7% reside in New York, and 15% live in Texas.
Borjas reached the following conclusions:
Even after the regression exhaustively controls for... skill differences -- and adjusts for the possibility that economic conditions varied dramatically over time for each of the narrowly defined skill groups, as well as for the possibility that economic conditions varied dramatically among the different geographic regions where the three groups tend to settle -- it is still the case that the employment rate of immigrants, and particularly that of undocumented immigrant men, increased dramatically relative to that of native-born persons.More evidence that illegal immigrants are both taking jobs away from legal Americans and undercutting their wage bargaining power.
In late 2015, the Pew Research Center came out with a population projection that "non-Hispanic whites are projected to become less than half of the US population by 2055."
Similarly, during 2014, researchers working with U.S. Census Bure...
........................... Will Mexico elect America's next President? Didn't LA RAZA FASCIST PARTY, which is funded by Barack Obama and operates out of the Obama white house under Cecilia Munoz, reelect Obama???
DON'T BELIEVE THE LIES! IT'S ALL LA RAZA PROPAGANDA TO EXPAND MEXICO'S OCCUPATION!
MILLIONS OF MEXICANS HAVE MILLIONS OF AMERICAN JOBS WITH STOLEN IDENTITIES. THEY ALSO DRIVE ILLEGALLY, CONTRACT ILLEGALLY AND SEND BACK TENS OF BILLIONS IN DRUG PROFITS TO NARCOMEX.
"Three Illegal Alien Convicted Rapists Arrested Sneaking Back into Texas."
BLOG: WHO ELSE SNEAKS ACROSS OUR OPEN AND UNDEFENDED BORDERS?
"Sheriff Joe: 39 Percent of Illegals Turned Over to ICE Return Back to Maricopa Co Jails."
SecurityNews
BLOG: WHO ELSE SNEAKS ACROSS OUR OPEN AND UNDEFENDED BORDERS?
"Sheriff Joe: 39 Percent of Illegals Turned Over to ICE Return Back to Maricopa Co Jails."
SecurityNews
In Aftermath of Brussels Attacks, Conservatives Call for Border Security
In the aftermath of Tuesday’s terror attacks in Brussels that left at least 30 dead, conservatives in Congress say that addressing border security is the key to ensuring terrorists don’t end up in the United States.
In response to a question about how the country can improve its intelligence capabilities, lawmakers attending the monthly event Conversations with Conservatives pointed to securing the border as a way to stop terrorists from striking or entering the United States.
“We’ve been saying over and over this isn’t about dealing with Mexico. This is dealing with national security,” Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., told reporters Tuesday. “This dialogue about immigration and all the people that are coming across the border, it doesn’t do justice to the fact that it is a serious security breach, and if we’re going to take seriously dealing with ISIS and other terrorist groups across the globe, then we have to secure the border.”
Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., criticized Immigration and Customs Enforcement, specifically, for failing to enforce the laws on the books, particularly when it comes to illegal immigrants who appear in court, are released, and don’t show up again.
In response to a question about how the country can improve its intelligence capabilities, lawmakers attending the monthly event Conversations with Conservatives pointed to securing the border as a way to stop terrorists from striking or entering the United States.
“We’ve been saying over and over this isn’t about dealing with Mexico. This is dealing with national security,” Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., told reporters Tuesday. “This dialogue about immigration and all the people that are coming across the border, it doesn’t do justice to the fact that it is a serious security breach, and if we’re going to take seriously dealing with ISIS and other terrorist groups across the globe, then we have to secure the border.”
Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., criticized Immigration and Customs Enforcement, specifically, for failing to enforce the laws on the books, particularly when it comes to illegal immigrants who appear in court, are released, and don’t show up again.
While Brat and Salmon voiced concern over the security of the nation’s southern border, Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., told reporters that the country needs to focus on collecting intelligence on the ground in order to prevent terror attacks from occurring on U.S. soil.
“With regard to ISIS, I think around the world we do need to embed more into the communities that are hotbeds or breeding grounds of these radicals and try to nip it in the bud as early as possible,” she said. “I think on the ground, intelligence that’s gathered nationwide is going to have to be an ongoing source of information, and it’s not going to be inexpensive, and it’s not going to happen overnight.”
Fears surrounding U.S. security risks mounted further Tuesday after deadly bombings occurred in Brussels, killing at least 30 people and injuring more than 200. The terror attacks took place at the city’s international airport and a subway station, and ISIS later claimed responsibility for the attacks.
The bombings in Brussels came four days after Belgian authorities captured Salah Abdeslam, a suspect in November’s terror attacks, in the capital city. Abdeslam was one of 10 men police believe were directly involved in terror attacks carried out by ISIS in Paris late last year, which left 130 dead.
The terror attacks in Paris sparked a debate among lawmakers about how the U.S. should address Syrian refugees entering the country, as well as whether Congress should alter the visa waiver program.
The House of Representatives passed a bill in November toughening the screenings of Syrians looking to come to the U.S. through the refugee program. The legislation failed in the Senate.
The Republican-controlled Congress, though, ultimately passed a measure through an omnibus spending bill, signed into law by President Barack Obama, that tightened the program’s requirements and required anyone who visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan or Syria after March 1, 2011, to apply for a visa.
Following Tuesday’s terror attacks in Brussels, GOP lawmakers once again called into question the process by which people come to the U.S.
Sens. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., Tim Scott, R-S.C., and David Vitter, R-La., separately called on their colleagues and the Obama administration to reexamine both the refugee program and visa system.
Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., meanwhile, said it’s inevitable that terrorists will try to enter the country through the refugee program.
“You have to take ISIS at their word,” Huelskamp told The Daily Signal. “They are going to infiltrate [the refugee program], and if we had anybody else as president, even some Democrats have said we need to take a time out to understand what’s going on here. They have made it very clear they’re going to misuse our immigrant refugee system in order to infiltrate.”
The Kansas Republican, though, said it’s unlikely the president would sign legislation halting the program or lessening the number of Syrian refugees coming into the U.S. this year.
“It’s hard to imagine a situation where he would actually want to do something,” Huelskamp said.
Border Surge Solution: Send ‘Em to Camp David!
By Michelle Malkin
Human Events Online, February 17, 2016
. . .
As Brandon Judd of the National Border Patrol Council testified on Capitol Hill recently: “The cartels understood that the unaccompanied minors would force the Border Patrol to deploy Agents to these crossing areas in order to take the minors into custody. I want to stress this point because it has been completely overlooked by the press,” he told the House Judiciary Committee. The unaccompanied minors could have walked right up to the port of entry and requested asylum if they were truly escaping political persecution or violence. “Why did the cartels drive them to the middle of the desert and then have them cross over the Rio Grande only to surrender to the first Border Patrol Agent they came across?” Judd challenged.
“The reason is that it completely tied up our manpower and allowed the cartels to smuggle whatever they wanted across our border.”
This is just another maddening example of Obama’s warped priorities at work. Instead of building effective walls and enforcing our borders to prevent the coming illegal immigration waves manufactured by criminal racketeers, this administration rushes to build welcome center magnets that shelter the next generation of Democrat voters.
http://humanevents.com/2016/02/17/border-surge-solution-send-em-to-camp-david/
U.S. Failed Three Times to Deport Illegal Alien Who Murdered Woman
Judicial Watch Corruption Chronicles, February 18, 2016
. . .
Here’s what we already know from local media reports in Norwich, the city of about 40,000 residents where the murder occurred; the DHS agency responsible for deporting illegal immigrants, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), failed to remove Jacques at least three times dating back to 2002. As if this weren’t atrocious enough, Jacques spent 17 years in prison for attempted murder before authorities released him—instead of deporting him—in January of 2015, the Norwich Bulletin reports. Six months later the 41-year-old illegal alien convict stabbed 25-year-old Casey Chadwick to death. Police said Chadwick died of sharp forced injuries to the head and neck. Jacques is being held on a $1 million bond.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. In the last few years illegal immigrants with lengthy criminal histories have been allowed to remain in the U.S. despite being repeat offenders. Judicial Watch has investigated several of the cases and obtained public records from the government. For instance, back in 2008 JW launched a California public records request with the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department to obtain he arrest and booking information on Edwin Ramos, an illegal alien from El Salvador who murdered three innocent American citizens. Ramos was a member of a renowned violent street gang and had been convicted of two felonies as a juvenile (a gang-related assault on a bus passenger and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman) yet he was allowed to remain in the country.
. . .
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/02/u-s-failed-3-times-to-deport-illegal-alien-who-murdered-woman/
March 22, 2016
DHS says administration has 'no intention' of deporting most illegals
They're not even trying to hide their lack of enforcement of immigration law.
The president of the National Border Control Council testified before Congress that a top Homeland Security official told agents that the Obama administration has "no intention of deporting" most illegal aliens.
This "catch and release" policy amounts to a de facto amnesty for the tens of thousands of illegals who jump the border every year.
DHS claims that the policy is in place because immigration courts are clogged up. So instead of expanding the number of judges and courts, they simply give up and allow the illegals to disappear into the underground.
Washington Times:
President Obama's policies have made it only more difficult to fix this broken system. Adding to the problem by increasing the number of illegals is irresponsible governance – which just about sums up the president's terms in office.
The president of the National Border Control Council testified before Congress that a top Homeland Security official told agents that the Obama administration has "no intention of deporting" most illegal aliens.
This "catch and release" policy amounts to a de facto amnesty for the tens of thousands of illegals who jump the border every year.
DHS claims that the policy is in place because immigration courts are clogged up. So instead of expanding the number of judges and courts, they simply give up and allow the illegals to disappear into the underground.
Washington Times:
Mr. Judd provided his testimony in written answers released Monday by the House Judiciary Committee, saying that even in some criminal cases, agents are ordered to let illegal immigrants go without ever issuing them a Notice to Appear, or NTA, which is what puts them into deportation proceedings.
Mr. Judd said they took their case directly to Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who told them not to bother.
“Deputy Secretary Mayorkas told us that the Border Patrol needs to focus its resources towards the worst of the worst. He said that by prioritizing those we choose to deport, we will help alleviate the burden on an already overburdened court system,” Mr. Judd recalled.
“He further stated, ‘Why would we NTA those we have no intention of deporting?’ He also stated, ‘We should not place someone in deportation proceedings, when the courts already have a 3-6 year backlog,’” Mr. Juddrecounted. “Since the day of this meeting, we have seen no improvements in our enforcement efforts and the morale of the Border Patrol agents is one of, if not the lowest in the entire federal government.”
Immigration agents have complained for several years that Mr. Obama has tied their hands, forcing them to release illegal immigrants who should have been easy deportation cases.
Customs and Border Protection, the agency that oversees the Border Patrol, declined to comment on Mr. Judd’s testimony.
But CBP Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske, testifying to Congress earlier this month, brushed aside Mr. Judd’s comments, saying he didn’t believe agents were releasing people without putting them through the full process.
Mr. Kerlikowske said Mr. Judd was “probably not the most knowledgeable organization about what’s actually going on” in the field with Border Patrol agents, and he said agents that object to Mr. Obama’s policies should quit.The backog of immigration court cases is meaningless. Seventy-five percent of illegals fail to show up for their hearings anyway. And DHS has no way to keep track of those they release under this policy.
President Obama's policies have made it only more difficult to fix this broken system. Adding to the problem by increasing the number of illegals is irresponsible governance – which just about sums up the president's terms in office.
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY HAS LONG BEEN SABOTAGING STATES' ATTEMPT TO CURB LA RAZA FASCIST FROM VOTING.
MEXICO KNOWS THAT THE 40 MILLION LOOTING MEXICANS DON'T HAVE TO BE "PERMANENT RESIDENTS" TO GO VOTE FOR MORE!
HILLARY CLINTON HAS ALREADY PROMISED THE MEX OCCUPIERS 49 MORE MEXIFORNIAS!
March 21, 2016
Mexican government urging US immigrants to become citizens and vote
Mexican consulates in the U.S. are hosting citizenship clinics across the country, hoping to convince permanent residents from Mexico to become U.S. citizens so they can vote against Donald Trump.
The pious declaration from the Mexican government that they are not "interfering" in the U.S. election fails the smell test.
Bloomberg:
Not even trying to persuade Hispanics that the GOP's agenda would be better for them than the Democrats will continue to make any national election and uphill climb for the Republican candidate.
The pious declaration from the Mexican government that they are not "interfering" in the U.S. election fails the smell test.
Bloomberg:
Joel Diaz doesn’t want to wait to see how it all turns out. The Mexican-American, who has been a permanent resident of the U.S. for six years, arrived at the Mexican consulate in Chicago on Saturday with his wife and four adult sons to register all of them as U.S. citizens in order to vote against Trump.
"We’re very worried," Diaz, 47, an evangelical pastor, said. "If he wins there will be a lot of damage against a lot of people here, and to us as Hispanics, as Mexicans."
Laura Espinosa, deputy consul in Mexico’s consulate in Las Vegas, said the main goal of the program is citizenship, and while that includes the right to vote, the government doesn’t press people to do so. "Those who use this to vote, that’s up to each individual," said Espinosa, who confirmed that most consulates have begun citizenship campaigns. "We don’t have any opinion on that, because that would be totally interfering in internal affairs of the country."
The government in Mexico City is holding off on engaging the Trump campaign directly until he becomes the nominee, said Francisco Guzman, chief of staff to Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto. Speaking with reporters on March 1, Guzman said the government plans to communicate with the campaigns of the nominees once they’re chosen and try to dispel what it considers misinformation about Mexico and Mexicans.
The public-relations offensive now under way includes using news outlets and social media to highlight the strides Mexicans have made in business, the arts and academia in the U.S., said Paulo Carreno, the former spokesman of Citigroup Inc.’s Mexico unit who oversees the country’s international branding strategy.
Promoting Mexico in the U.S., from its scholars to artists, is meant "not to influence an election, but a whole generation and those that follow," Carreno said in an e-mailed response to questions. "The strategy will be an important anchor in our consular network in the country."It should be noted that the chances of the Mexican government succeeding in getting enough of their people to become U.S. citizens so that they can make a difference in the 2016 election are low. But over a period of years, that could change – especially if the Republicans continue to refuse to compete for the Hispanic vote. Immigration issues are not the end-all and be-all for Hispanics in the U.S. They have the same concerns as any American about the economy and the culture.
Not even trying to persuade Hispanics that the GOP's agenda would be better for them than the Democrats will continue to make any national election and uphill climb for the Republican candidate.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/study_employment_rate_of_illegal_immigrant_men_far_higher_than_for_legal_immigrants_and_natives.html#ixzz442MOR82B
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment