Saturday, October 31, 2015

Good News: Obama's Global Warming Campaign To Cost $45 Billion A Year In Regulatory Costs

When the United Nation’s conference on global warming begins in Paris come December, American Action Forum has a friendly reminder: we already regulate greenhouse gases and the Obama administration’s regulatory cost in fighting so-called climate change could cost us $45 billion annually:
…[R]egulators have already imposed $26 billion in annual costs to limit GHGs and have proposed an additional $1.7 billion. However, to meet President Obama’s climate goals the nation will have to spend up to $45 billion more each year by 2025.
What are the benefits of these investments? According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates, previous actions will avert a combined 0.0573 degrees Celsius of warming. Meeting the president’s 2025 goals could add reductions up to 0.125 degree Celsius. In other words, full achievement of the president’s climate goals will cost more than $73 billion in annual burdens to alleviate less than two-tenths of one degree of warming.

Of course, the president’s Clean Power Plan is factored into all of this, which aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Already we have studies showing that it will disproportionately impact fixed-income seniors, and most of rural America. Moreover, everyone knows it will increase energy costs. Secretary of State John Kerry is working to make sure the U.S. leaves Paris with something that isn’t a treaty since there’s a slim chance of getting it through a Republican Congress. The administration’s Clean Power Plan already has over half the states opposing it. Both Democratic and Republican attorneys general have joined a lawsuit against the president’s agenda. As of now, states have until September 6, 2016 to submit their blueprints that balances their energy needs with CPP’s goals. Those who fail to submit one will have a federal plan imposed until a state-centered strategy is drafted. Like Obamacare, we have another serious policy fight ahead, one that isn’t being discussed much on the 2016 campaign trail.


Offshoring The Economy: Why The US Is On The Road To The Third World

On January 6, 2004, Senator Charles Schumer and I challenged the erroneous idea that jobs offshoring was free trade in a New York Times op-ed. Our article so astounded economists that within a few days Schumer and I were summoned to a Brookings Institution conference in Washington, DC, to explain our heresy. In the nationally televised conference, I declared that the consequence of jobs offshoring would be that the US would be a Third World country in 20 years.
That was 11 years ago, and the US is on course to descend to Third World status before the remaining nine years of my prediction have expired.
The evidence is everywhere.
In September the US Bureau of the Census released its report on US household income by quintile. Every quintile, as well as the top 5%, has experienced a decline in real household income since their peaks. The bottom quintile (lower 20 percent) has had a 17.1% decline in real income from the 1999 peak (from $14,092 to $11,676). The 4th quintile has had a 10.8% fall in real income since 2000 (from $34,863 to $31,087). The middle quintile has had a 6.9% decline in real income since 2000 (from $58,058 to $54,041). The 2nd quintile has had a 2.8% fall in real income since 2007 (from $90,331 to $87,834). The top quintile has had a decline in real income since 2006 of 1.7% (from $197,466 to $194,053). The top 5% has experienced a 4.8% reduction in real income since 2006 (from $349,215 to $332,347). Only the top One Percent or less (mainly the 0.1%) has experienced growth in income and wealth.
The Census Bureau uses official measures of inflation to arrive at real income. These measures are understated. If more accurate measures of inflation are used (such as those available from shadowstats.com), the declines in real household income are larger and have been declining for a longer period. Some measures show real median annual household income below levels of the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Note that these declines have occurred during an alleged six-year economic recovery from 2009 to the current time, and during a period when the labor force was shrinking due to a sustained decline in the labor force participation rate. On April 3, 2015 the US Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that 93,175,000 Americans of working age are not in the work force, a historical record. Normally, an economic recovery is marked by a rise in the labor force participation rate. John Williams reports that when discouraged workers are included among the measure of the unemployed, the US unemployment rate is currently 23%, not the 5.2% reported figure.
In a recently released report, the Social Security Administration provides annual income data on an individual basis. Are you ready for this?
In 2014 38% of all American workers made less than $20,000; 51% made less than $30,000; 63% made less than $40,000; and 72% made less than $50,000.
The scarcity of jobs and the low pay are direct consequences of jobs offshoring.Under pressure from “shareholder advocates” (Wall Street) and large retailers, US manufacturing companies moved their manufacturing abroad to countries where the rock bottom price of labor results in a rise in corporate profits, executive “performance bonuses,” and stock prices.
The departure of well-paid US manufacturing jobs was soon followed by the departure of software engineering, IT, and other professional service jobs.
Incompetent economic studies by careless economists, such as Michael Porter at Harvard and Matthew Slaughter at Dartmouth, concluded that the gift of vast numbers of US high productivity, high value-added jobs to foreign countries was a great benefit to the US economy.
In articles and books I challenged this absurd conclusion, and all of the economic evidence proves that I am correct. The promised better jobs that the “New Economy” would create to replace the jobs gifted to foreigners have never appeared. Instead, the economy creates lowly-paid part-time jobs, such as waitresses, bartenders, retail clerks, and ambulatory health care services, while full-time jobs with benefits continue to shrink as a percentage of total jobs.
These part-time jobs do not provide enough income to form a household. Consequently, as a Federal Reserve study reports, “Nationally, nearly half of 25-year-olds lived with their parents in 2012-2013, up from just over 25% in 1999.”
When half of 25-year olds cannot form households, the market for houses and home furnishings collapses.
Finance is the only sector of the US economy that is growing. The financial industry’s share of GDP has risen from less than 4% in 1960 to about 8% today. As Michael Hudson has shown, finance is not a productive activity. It is a looting activity (Killing The Host).
Moreover, extraordinary financial concentration and reckless risk and debt leverage have made the financial sector a grave threat to the economy.
The absence of growth in real consumer income means that there is no growth in aggregate demand to drive the economy. Consumer indebtedness limits the ability of consumers to expand their spending with credit. These spending limits on consumers mean that new investment has limited appeal to businesses. The economy simply cannot go anywhere, except down as businesses continue to lower their costs by substituting part-time jobs for full-time jobs and by substituting foreign for domestic workers. Government at every level is over-indebted, and quantitative easing has over-supplied the US currency.
This is not the end of the story. When manufacturing jobs depart, research, development, design, and innovation follow. An economy that doesn’t make things does not innovate. The entire economy is lost, not merely the supply chains.
The economic and social infrastructure is collapsing, including the family itself, the rule of law, and the accountability of government.
When college graduates can’t find employment because their jobs have been offshored or given to foreigners on work visas, the demand for college education declines. To become indebted only to find employment that cannot service student loans becomes a bad economic decision.
We already have the situation where college and university administrations spend 75% of the university’s budget on themselves, hiring adjuncts to teach the classes for a few thousand dollars. The demand for full time faculty with a career before them has collapsed. When the consequences of putting short-term corporate profits before jobs for Americans fully hit, the demand for university education will collapse and with it American science and technology.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst thing that ever happened to the United States. The two main consequences of the Soviet collapse have been devastating. One consequence was the rise of the neoconservative hubris of US world hegemony, which has resulted in 14 years of wars that have cost $6 trillion. The other consequence was a change of mind in socialist India and communist China, large countries that responded to “the end of history” by opening their vast under-utilized labor forces to Western capital, which resulted in the American economic decline that this article describes, leaving a struggling economy to bear the enormous war debt.
It is a reasonable conclusion that a social-political-economic system so incompetently run already is a Third World country.


This Idiot is still lying to the People. This group is responsible for Cop attacks and this Idiot with Holder and Sharpton egged it on.  What a Pig! Someone tells the truth that doesn't go along with Obama's lies he again Lies to cover the lies

The Obama administration is attempting to publicly downplay a rift between President Obama and FBI Director James Comey over The Ferguson Effect; the issue of whether there’s been an impact on violent crime due to the nearly constant criticism of the police led by the Black Lives Matter movement.

The back peddling comes on the heels of a volley of attacks on Comey that came from the media, former Attorney General Eric Holder, and President Obama himself. Obama and Comey had a closed door meeting on Thursday.
The Washington Post reported that “White House officials were privately irritated” about Comey’s remarks in two recent speeches discussing a possible link between soaring violent crime rates and the deluge of activism against law enforcement.
The attacks on law enforcement have been spearheaded by the Black Lives Matter movement, the activist phenomenon that the president publicly recently claimed was not anti-police. The claim that the #BlackLivesMatter movement is not against law enforcement runs counter to the group’s statements and actions, including taunting police after the murder of fellow officers, as well as their lionizing of convicted cop killer Assata Shakur, who is on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist List.
In an attempt at damage control on Friday, White House Press Spokesman Josh Earnest said that President Obama believes “somebody who has the prodigious skills of Director Comey must be involved in grappling with the difficult policy debates that we’re having in this country right now in balancing security and the protection of civil liberties.”
Earlier in the week, however, Earnest had scoffed at the notion of the Ferguson Effects,saying evidence “does not support the notion that law enforcement officers around the country are shying away from fulfilling their responsibilities.”
That official White House comment was just part of a series of attacks on Comey and his statements by the president and his allies.
After Comey’s October 23rd remarks at the University of Chicago Law School, whereComey said, “I do have a strong sense that some part of the explanation is a chill wind that has blown through American law enforcement,” President Obama hit back with thinly veiled comments in a speech on October 27th to the International Association of Chiefs of Police: “What we can’t do is cherry-pick data or use anecdotal evidence to drive policy or to feed political agendas.”
The day before Obama’s speech, protestors had held a #StopTheCops protest outside the international Association of Chiefs of Police conference.
However, Comey’s discussions with police officials were not merely off-the-cuff chit-chat. In fact, the information Comey got from law enforcement officials came in a series of “listening sessions” focused on issues of race and law enforcement.
The same day that the President criticized Comey’s comments, the editorial board of theNew York Times also went on the attack against Comey in an op-ed titled “Political Lies About Police Brutality,” where they accepted the premise that there’s a widespread issue of police brutality and went after Comey, saying:
His formulation implies that for the police to do their jobs, they need to have free rein to be abusive. It also implies that the public would be safer if Americans with cellphones never started circulating videos of officers battering suspects in the first place.
The next day, Eric Holder spoke with reporters and compared the Black Lives Matter movement to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and echoed the criticism of Comey,saying, “I don’t agree with the comments that he’s made about, or the connection he’s drawn, between the so-called ‘Ferguson effect’ and this rise in crime.”
Holder has openly discussed his role in the angry clashes with Columbia University when he attended in the early 1970s, telling students at a 2009 commencement speech, “I was among a large group of students who felt strongly about the way we thought the world should be, and we weren’t afraid to make our opinions heard. I did not take a final exam until my junior year at Columbia — we were on strike every time finals seemed to roll around.”
Patrisse Cullors, one of the co-founders of the Black Lives Matter movement, learned “revolutionary community organizing” under the mentorship of Eric Mann, a Students for a Democratic Society radical who helped organize the 1968 protests at Columbia that received widespread national coverage.
However, even some Democrats admit the existence of the Ferguson Effect. Earlier in October former Obama Chief of Staff and current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said:
We have allowed our police department to get fetal and it is having a direct consequence. They have pulled back from the ability to interdict… they don’t want to be a news story themselves, they don’t want their career ended early, and it’s having an impact.
The attacks on Comey come as President Obama is pushing a criminal justice reform agenda that has been advanced by the radical left for decades and more recently has been the chief policy demand of Black Lives Matter.


AP Photo/Mark Humphrey

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, in an exclusive conversation with Breitbart News, weighs in on the gun control push by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) in Chicago and President Barack Obama’s recent references to Australian-style gun confiscation as a way forward for America.

We first asked Sheriff Clarke about IACP’s new focus, whereby it turned from pushing longer prison sentences for criminals to pushing gun control exclusively, particularly universal background checks. The organization partnered with the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence (NLEPPGV) in this endeavor.
Sheriff Clarke says:
I was extremely disappointed when I heard that my fellow law enforcement executive colleagues had gotten into bed with Obama and his gun confiscation mission. That’s really what it’s about. It’s not about reducing violence, it’s not about reducing mass murder or suicides. The real intent of Obama and these gun groups is gun confiscation and they know they are going to have to do it step by step. They’re not going to be able to go after that today, as there would be fierce blowback. So they are doing it in stealth ways and this IACP meeting is one of those ways.
Clarke indicated the NLEPPGV has embedded itself with the IACP, and that doing so is a “slick” way of not simply getting its message out but of making it look like law enforcement really does support more gun control. Clarke pointed out that funding for groups like NLEPPGV comes from the Ford Foundation, which he described as part of an “anti-Second Amendment crusade.”
He then said, “It is important to understand that the the chiefs who met in Chicago speak for themselves, they do not speak for the law enforcement profession.” Yet he lamented that the chiefs had aligned themselves with the NLEPPGV.
Clarke said:
We, in law enforcement, have an obligation to be on the side of crime victims. Not on the side of the criminal element. Gun control has nothing to do with the crime and violence that these chiefs see in their cities on a daily basis and they know it. But many of them, especially in your large urban centers, are under the thumb of anti-gun, soft on crime, mayors. And they have to sing from the same sheet of music that their mayors are singing from.
But the crime and violence we see in our cities and counties is not the result of a lack of background checks, and these chiefs know that. The research and data are there. Criminals  don’t care about laws in general and they don’t care about gun laws or gun restrictions. They will find a way to get around those.  And that’s why I ultimately say that the chiefs’ push for more gun control has nothing to do with reducing violence. Rather, it has to do with gun confiscation.
Clarke pointed to Obama’s October 27 speech to the chiefs in Chicago, in which he said, “It is easier for young people in this city and [communities around the country] to buy a gun than it is to buy a book.” Clarke said that this is Obama doing his best to continue to soften up the American people; to convince enough of them that we do need more gun control laws and to finally get Congress to agree.
We talked with Clarke about Obama’s not-so-subtle comments on gun confiscation via an Australian-style gun ban, and of the fact that Hillary Clinton also pointed to an Australian-style gun ban on October 16 at Keene State College. So we asked how much more conditioning might be required before the actual confiscation of guns can be pushed on the American people?
Clarke responded:
They won’t be able to it before Obama leaves office. Now, under a Mrs. Bill Clinton presidency, who knows. But even they know it’s down the road. I don’t know how far, but these people are slick, they are stealth in how they go about it. What they do is lay the groundwork, they pave the road approaching their ultimate goal of confiscation.
What Obama will try to do with his remaining time in office is further weaken the Second Amendment and frustrate the ability of people to keep and bear arms and purchase guns without having to jump through unreasonable hoops. Then the next person will take it step further, then the next person, then the next, and suddenly you realize gun confiscation is within reach. And that is their goal.
Between now and then they will go step by step, slowly conditioning the American people to buy into the lie.


BUSTED: Email released today reveals Hillary’s blatant lie under oath

Folks, I know followers of this page are long past being surprised by another blatant lie or misconduct by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. And many of you are even weary hearing about it while watching this woman — who willingly put the lives of Americans at risk and then so callously responds in the wake of their deaths — coast along as the presumptive Democrat nominee for president.
Yet, the damning evidence continues to mount, and we feel compelled to keep you informed as warriors of the truth in a world where our state media fails.
An email released today shows clearly the former Secretary of State’s own embassy in Libya clearly warned her department NOT to blame the Youtube video, the Innocence of Muslims, for the Benghazi terrorist attack. The newly-released email was originally sent two days before Susan Rice went on the Sunday talk show blitz to propagate the video lie central to the administration’s talking points.
The just-released email further calls out as a lie Clinton’s excuse during last week’s Benghazi hearing that contradicting reports about what happened were simply the “fog of war.”
As Breitbart reports:
The House Benghazi Committee released a new email Saturday that a Tripoli embassy official sent to Clinton’s underlings in Washington, D.C., on September 14, 2012, two days before Susan Rice appeared  on Sunday talk shows to use the administration’s “video” talking point.
“Colleagues, I mentioned to [redacted] this morning, and want to share with all of you, our view at Embassy Tripoli that we must be cautious in our local messaging with regard to the inflammatory film trailer, adapting it to Libyan conditions,” the official wrote.
The official added:
“Our monitoring of the Libyan media and conversations with Libyans suggest that the films [sic] not as explosive of an issue here as it appears to be in other countries in the region. The overwhelming majority of the FB comments and tweets we’ve received from Libyans since the Ambassador’s death have expressed deep sympathy, sorrow, and regret. They have expressed anger at the attackers, and emphasized that this attack does not represent Libyans or Islam. Relatively few have even mentioned the inflammatory video. So if we post messaging about the video specifically, we may draw unwanted attention to it.”
“And it is becoming increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence,” the official continued. “It is our opinion that in our messaging, we want to distinguish, not conflate, the events in other countries with this well-planned attack by militant extremists. I have discussed this with [redacted] and he shares PAS’s view.”
We all know that blame the video is exactly what Clinton and her surrogates did — despite Clinton’s own statements in the immediate hours and days following the attack that she KNEW it was a terrorist attack. And even under oath during last week’s Benghazi hearing, Clinton blamed the “fog of war” for conflicting stories emanating from her State Department. How can anyone but those who choose to be blind (e.g., liberal media and die-hard Clintonites) buy that when so much evidence, in black and white, tells us otherwise?
Or are we to believe, perhaps, that this warning never made it to Clinton, who’sadmitted she didn’t really use email all that much to conduct business? Or maybe her staff didn’t have her private email, like Ambassador Chris Stevens — and unlike actor Ben Affleck? Honestly, you can’t make this stuff up. And how tragic it is.
All sarcasm aside, how can anyone possibly promote this woman to be Commander in Chief? At best — if we’re being generous — she failed to show leadership in the “fog of war,” which is a pretty important thing for a Commander in Chief, if you asked me. At worst — and, sadly, the worst is what happened — she chose to blatantly lie to the families of dead Americans and the American people, for political reasons. Regardless of a candidate’s competence or experience (or, hey, gender) on any front, this should be a flat-out deal breaker. What a sad commentary on the state of our republic that it’s not.

Cowardly, Corrupt Senate Sneaks in During the Dark of Night to Pass Budget Buster Deal

This should infuriate every American out there, not just conservatives. What Mitch McConnell just did in league with John McCain and Lindsey Graham is nothing short of treason in my opinion. Under the cover of night, the Senate voted to approve a budget deal that gives Obama unlimited spending power through the end of his term. The legislation will suspend the current $18.1 trillion debt limit through March 2017. The budget portion would increase the current “caps” on total agency spending by $50 billion in 2016 and $30 billion in 2017, offset by savings elsewhere in the budget (that’s a joke). It will also permit about $16 billion to be added on top of that in 2016, classified as war funding, with a comparable boost in 2017 (probably siphoned off to our enemies). We are broke and they are printing money and spending like there is no tomorrow. Maybe there’s not.
From TheBlaze:
The U.S. Senate voted 64-35 early Friday morning to approve a budget deal that would raise the debt ceiling through 2017, effectively ending the threat of a government shutdown until after the 2016 presidential election.
 18 Republicans ultimately joined with the Democrats to push the legislation through Congress and send it to President Barack Obama’s desk for his signature.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) were among the Republican senators who voted in favor of the deal.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) had vowed to filibuster the deal, but was unable to successfully stop it after the same 18 Republicans joined with the Democrats to invoke cloture. Nevertheless, the libertarian firebrand and Republican 2016 contender railed against the deal in a fiery Senate floor speech before the final vote.
“The establishment in Washington is completely and utterly tone-deaf to the way America feels about this,” the Kentucky senator said.

Earlier, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) compared approving the budget compromise to giving Obama a “diamond encrusted glow in the dark AmEx card” that would be paid off by future generations.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) voted against the deal and motion to invoke cloture, but did not deliver a speech on the subject.
The agreement would raise the government debt ceiling until March 2017, removing the threat of an unprecedented national default just days from now. At the same time, it would set the budget of the government through the 2016 and 2017 fiscal years and ease punishing spending caps by providing $80 billion more for military and domestic programs, paid for with a hodgepodge of spending cuts and revenue increases touching areas from tax compliance to spectrum auctions.
The House approved the legislation on Wednesday.
Rand Paul, who I don’t care much for these days, at least had the backbone to filibuster until the Dems closed him out. Ted Cruz was right there too bucking the RINOs and the Marxists (who can tell the difference any more?). At least Rubio voted against this monstrosity. “This deal represents the worst of Washington culture,” said Rep. Rand Paul, who vowed to lead the filibuster, but who saw his efforts fall short to what he called an “unholy compromise between right and left.” Told you so, Rand. President Obama said the deal will “break the cycle of shutdowns and manufactured crises” that he and Congress have been through the last few years. It will indeed do that – it will utterly destroy the system, so they can stop manufacturing crises. A shutdown will be the least of these treasonous bastards’ worries in the end.

Saudi Prince Pledges $32 Billion to Promote Islam/Sharia in America

I wonder if Obama will Kiss his Ass and take the Money

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a senior member of the Saudi monarchy, says he’ll pledge his $32 billion to advance the islamization of America. This is a MOAB (mother of all bombs) in the information battle-space. Looks as if I will be keeping  busy for quite some time.
The Saudis have spent billions already. 80% of the mosques  build in America are Saudi funded. Islamic groups working to impose the sharia are largely funded by the Saudis.
We can look forward to 32 billion more of the “kingdom’s brand of Islam, while censoring criticism of Islam.”
And it’s not just the media that is on the receiving end of this blood money, but also Muslim Brotherhood fronts like CAIR, which spend millions whining about how lucrative the “islamophobia” business is. As if …
The Saudis have been wildly successful so far.
Wikileaks has begun releasing a trove of documents — half a million cables and other documents from the Saudi Foreign Ministry. Wikileaks declares, “Media is not ‘controlled by Jews’ but by Saudi Arabia: media loyalties purchased around the world.”
Notice how this wikileaks release has garnered little press.
The American media is already in the tank for Islam.
al-waleed-bin-talalArab Bill Gates Could Turn ‘Shariah Creep’ Into Full Trot,” IBD, July 8, 2015 (thanks to Religion of Peace.com);

Top Clinton Lawyer Filed Voter Suppression Suit for Group Now Under Investigation for Voter Fraud

These Scumbags will do anything for votes in 2016 even cheatI am for voter Registration.

Ohio group suspected of forging signatures, registering dead people to vote

Marc Elias

A group that had been represented by the top lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign earlier this year is now being investigated by Ohio authorities for fraudulent voter registrations, including the registration of deceased individuals.
Marc Elias, an attorney at Perkins Coie who has become the go-to fixer for Democrats and is now general counsel for Clinton’s presidential campaign, became involved with the Ohio Organizing Collaborative this May when he filed a lawsuit on its behalf to challenge the state’s voter identification laws.
Now the group is being investigated by the Ohio Bureau of Criminal investigation after a local board of elections alleged that 25 to 30 of the voter-registration applications that the group submitted appeared to be fraudulent.
Dave Johnson, vice-chairman of the Columbiana County Board of Elections, said that the board contacted the sheriff’s office once they began noticing frequent problems with the registrations submitted by the Ohio Organizing Collaborative.
“They have turned in roughly 530 voter registrations, of which five of them were dead people,” said Johnson. “They actually had the dead people’s drivers license numbers and Social Security numbers, and of course they forged the signatures of these dead people.”
Adam Booth, the county’s elections chairman, said that a pattern of fraud quickly became evident when processing the forms submitted by the Ohio Organizing Collaborative.
“The forms were riddled with errors and all tied to this group,” said Booth. “You can tell the same person filled out some of the same forms and forged signatures. There are wrong dates of births and wrong addresses on others. It became a pattern.”
Jon Husted, Ohio’s secretary of state, put out a formal advisory on Wednesday to elections boards across the state ordering them “to carefully analyze” any new voter registrations submitted by the Ohio Organizing Collaborative.
“Anytime we receive reports that invalid and fraudulent voter registrations are being submitted we take it seriously and will work to ensure those individuals or groups responsible are held accountable,” said Husted.
The collaborative group is focusing its efforts on “increasing the number of registered voters among students, blacks, Latinos and seniors” in multiple Ohio counties. It sued the state earlier this year to challenge the length of its early voting period and other voter identification laws, arguing that the laws discriminate against black and Hispanic voters.
That lawsuit was brought forth by Elias, who filed similar suits in other states as part of his push to challenge voter identification laws enacted in recent years by Republican-dominated legislatures. The lawsuits were filed independently of the Clinton campaign, although Elias was already working as its legal counsel.
Elias has filed two other lawsuits challenging voter ID laws, one in Wisconsin on June 1 and another in Virginia on June 11. Further suits are expected to follow in other states.
Elias filed the Ohio lawsuit on behalf of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative against Husted and Mike Dewine, the state’s attorney general, on May 8, but the group is no longer the plaintiff in the case.
Elias submitted a motion in August to remove the Ohio Organizing Collaborative as the plaintiff in the case and replace it with the Ohio Democratic Party and other local party organizations. The court granted his motion on Sept. 2.
A source close to Elias says that he has had not been involved with the Ohio Organizing Collaborative since it was replaced as plaintiff.
According to Booth, the Ohio Organizing Collaborative began submitting registration forms shortly after it was removed from the case. The county board of elections received 234 registrations from the group on Sept. 15 and another 291 registrations on Oct. 5.
Perkins Coie, which has already been paid more than $300,000 by the Clinton campaign for legal services, did not respond to requests for comment on Elias’ current involvement with the group.
“This looks like a front-group for Hillary Clinton that is trying to hijack the election in Ohio by registering dead people and forging signatures,” said Johnson, who is also the chairman of the county’s Republican Party.
The Ohio Organizing Collaborative forwarded an email statement to the Washington Free Beaconregarding the current investigation into the group, stating it has fired a canvasser and has turned over all requested documents to the local sheriff’s office.
“Unfortunately, it has come to our attention that a number of voter registration cards filed in Columbiana County appear to have been fabricated. The canvasser suspected of fabricating these cards is no longer employed [by the group] and her supervisor has been placed on administrative leave pending an investigation,” the statement reads.
“We are conducting a thorough internal investigation into the incident and working closely with the Columbiana County Sheriff’s office and the Board of Elections to fully support their investigation,” it continues. “In fewer than 24 hours, we have provided every piece of documentation requested by the Sheriff’s office.”
Christian Adams, an attorney who leads the Public Interest Legal Foundation and is helping states fight the Soros-backed lawsuits, said that voter fraud in Ohio is the reason laws were implemented in the first place.
“Voter registration fraud has infected the last two presidential elections in Ohio—all of it to help Obama,” Adams said. “It’s exactly why the state legislature enacted election integrity reforms and seemingly why Democrats are fighting so hard against them.”

A Few More Facebook Post

Most Illegal Immigrants Crossing Border Believe They Are Eligible for Legal Status. Obama’s Actions Make That No Surprise.

Families caught illegally crossing the border into the United States recently are telling government agencies they did so in part because they thought they would be allowed to stay.
According to data from Customs and Border Protection, which recently interviewed illegal border crossers, families “consistently” believed they were eligible for some sort of legal “permisos,” or passes, to enter and stay in the U.S., claim asylum and/or receive benefits. Of course such beliefs match the reality of falling deportation numbers, President Obama’s executive actions and the failure to ensure that illegal immigrants show up to their court hearings.
The Associated Press, which acquired internal data from Customs and Border Protection, found the agency conducted these interviews to “understand what might be driving a puzzling surge in the numbers of border crossings that started over the summer.”
According to the Associated Press, the number of unaccompanied alien children and families crossing the border fell in 2015 from the spike in 2014, but there has been an increase over the past several months. This recent uptick has confused Department of Homeland Security officials, who thought their campaigns to warn illegal immigrants of the dangers of the journey to the U.S. would be enough.
In other words, illegal border crossers know what the Obama administration does not know or chooses to ignore – lax immigration enforcement encourages more illegal immigration.
The administration correctly argues that problems in Latin America, especially the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, are to blame for driving people to come to the U.S. illegally. These so called “push factors” are serious and the U.S. should be doing more to work with Latin American governments to establish rule of law and economic freedom and to combat drug trafficking organizations that cause so much violence.
But the administration chooses to ignore the “pull factors,” those policies that draw individuals to the U.S. Talk of deferred action, not being turned around at the border but instead sent into the U.S., non-enforcement, sanctuary cities, etc. gives illegal immigrants the impression it is OK to enter the U.S. illegally.
And actions speak louder than words. The U.S. campaign to tell would-be illegal immigrants not to come to the U.S. is undermined and contradicted when our laws are so poorly enforced. The uptick in illegal immigration and the CBP data are not puzzling- they are exactly what should be expected. Unfortunately, this reality is not popular in the Obama administration.