AMERICA'S CONSTITUTION: IGNORED BY THE JUDGES THAT REPRESENT IT!!
WE HAVE A JUDICIAL SYSTEM THAT IS SIDING WITH THE PORGRESSIVE LEFT AND IGNORING AND BYPASSING THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE THAT GIVES TRUMP THE 'SOLE' POWER TO ENACT IMMIGRATION MANDATES!
Within 3 weeks of becoming the 45th President of
the United States, this outsider, non-politician is giving America exactly what
we asked for, the truth! When it comes to ‘Draining the swamp’ it’s not what he
will be able to do on his own, but by exposing the corruption of this
bureaucratic city on hill, will force Americans to stand up and vote these
crooks out of office, and I’m not just talking about the Democrat/Socialist
side of the aisle, but both sides!
You should wonder after this fraud came to light why
all of these tech companies are now joining the list of people against the new
Trump 90-day extreme vetting Executive Order? For a period time, and my
ex-wife for over 10+ years, worked in recruiting in the IT
field, a.k.a. headhunting, and a lot of the time found that a lot of companies, at the time, wouldn’t take H-1B
visas, but as the demand for IT specialists in certain fields increased, these same companies
began to wave that demand. Now this was back in the early 1990’s so you can
imagine with the growth of the IT field over the last 25 years, how that demand
would be off the charts, and with today’s America’s educational system not
turning out the ‘perceived’ nerds of the future that would be needed! You have
to know that an IT specialist in a major American IT company, because of high demand, were looking to fill a seat in their
IT departments, and more than likely willing to cut corners to do it. I would have to believe that the
reason these IT companies are knee deep in illegal immigrants and refugees who
have found a way to bypass the immigration system through fraudulent documents,
are because they are very afraid of the consequences for breaking the law! Do you remember
when……
A popular visa program allegedly was being misused by U.S.
companies to lay off thousands of American workers and replace them with
foreign labor.
And, adding insult to injury, many of the laid-off workers
allegedly have been forced to train their replacements, in what one anonymous
whistleblower called a “humiliating” experience.
“A number of U.S. employers, including some large,
well-known, publicly-traded corporations, have reportedly laid off thousands of
American workers and replaced them with H-1B visa holders,” the senators wrote.
Further, U.S. employers can hire foreign workers for up to
six years and must pay them the same rate they would pay other workers with
similar qualifications, or the prevailing wage for that job and location,
whichever is higher. This is done to prevent foreign workers from depressing
U.S. wages and from being exploited.
But reports have surfaced that the replacements are
happening at an alarming rate. And former Southern California Edison workers
have complained to lawmakers that they were replaced by less-skilled workers at
lower costs.
Anonymous workers who were displaced by the visa holders
also submitted written testimonials to lawmakers detailing their firings.
Several claimed they were forced to train their replacements, and threatened
with losing their severance if they did not.
“We had no choice in this,” one anonymous worker who claimed
to have been one of those let go from Southern California Edison, said in a
letter. The worker described how when the two vendors were picked – Infosys and
TCS, both major Indian companies – SCE employees were told to “sit with, video
chat or do whatever was needed to teach them our systems.”
If they did not cooperate, according to the testimonial, “we
would be fired and not receive a severance package.”
In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, American tech
worker Mike Emmons detailed the untold story of his personal experience with
the office of then-Senator Hillary Clinton and revealed how she abandoned
American workers in favor of fulfilling the desires of corporate donors and
foreign special interests.
A Hillary Clinton administration “would not be government
of, or for, the people, but would, instead, be government against the people,”
Emmons warned.
Emmons, who was one of the nation’s first whistleblowers to
expose the displacement of American workers by foreign nationals brought in on
guest worker visas, is one of thousands of American workers to have lost his
job as a result of the cheap labor practices of the India-based outsourcing
firm, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS)–a Clinton Foundation donor whose
anti-American worker business model has been “enabled” and endorsed by Hillary
Clinton.
Emmons said that his interactions with Clinton in 2003
opened his eyes to the cynical and corrupt pay-for-play tactics of a career
politician, guided and consumed by her desire for self-advancement and personal
enrichment.
As Emmons watched Clinton’s office rebuff his “desperate”
pleas for help–choosing, instead, to stand with a foreign corporation at the
direct expense of the American workers she was elected to represent–that was
the moment, “my naïveté was over,” Emmons said. “That was when I realized exactly
what this was: I realized it’s the government against the people.”
“As naïve as I was then, I now know that politicians like
Hillary are not out to do what’s right for the people of America; they’re out
to do what’s right for the people who donate money to them,” Emmons said.
“Working Americans are the ones that should really care
[about this election],” Emmons said. “If you’re a working American, Trump is
the only person who is going to work for us.” ~~by Julia Hahn, a Friend of
America!
HOW CRAZY IS THIS POLITICIAN IN CA. WHO IS TRYING TO PASS A BILL MAKING CALIFORNIA A SANCTUARY 'STATE,' AND AT THE SAME TIME THROWING HIS OWN FAMILY UNDER THE BUS FOR FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS TO STAY IN AMERICA ILLEGALLY? HE WANTS TO REALEASE ALL ILLEGALS IN PRISON WHO COMMITED CRIMES, AND THEN HAVING A STATE WITH PROBABLY MORE VOTERS THAT ARE ILLEGAL THEN CITIZENS VOTING TO HAVE THIS LAW COME TO FRUITION IN A STATE WHERE 'NO' VOTER ID IS REQUIRED TO VOTE!
California State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Léon, a
Democrat from Los Angeles, expressed his disapproval of President Donald
Trump’s executive order targeting sanctuary cities by confessing that a large
portion of his extended family is in the United States illegally.
“I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for
deportation under Trump’s executive order, because if they got a false Social
Security card, if they got a false identification… anyone who has family
members, you know, who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody
has secured some sort of false identification,” De Léon said.
“That’s what you need to survive, to work. They are eligible
for massive deportation,” he concluded. De Léon made the shocking comments during
a Sacramento hearing on SB54, a bill he introduced to shield undocumented
immigrants by striking provisions that require state and local agencies to
communicate with the feds on matters of illegal immigration.
The next day, De Léon doubled down his defense of illegal
immigrants practicing identity theft and fraud: “Someone simply who received or
purchased a Social Security card down at McArthur Park, or elsewhere in my
district would be eligible immediately for mass deportation,” he told KPCC
89.3.
When pressed on whether purchasing a fake Social Security
card and number should be a deportable offense, De Léon insisted that it should
not be since “the vast majority of immigrants” – including many members of his
own family”—have done just that.
In December, according to the Labor Department’s Bureau of
Labor Statistics, a record 95,102,000 Americans were not in the labor force,
47,000 more than in November; and the labor force participation rate was 62.7
percent, a tenth of a point higher than in November.
The participation rate dropped to a 38-year low of 62.4
percent on Obama's watch, in September 2015. It was only 3-tenths of a point
higher than that last month.
People over age 16 who are no longer working or even looking
for work, for whatever reason (retirement, school, personal preference, or gave
up), are counted as not participating in the labor force.
When President Obama took office in January 2009, 80,529,000
Americans were not in the labor force, the highest number on record. That number
rose steadily during his two terms, reaching a record 95,055,000 in November
2016, then setting another record (95,102,000) in December.
But people who stop looking for a job are no longer counted
as unemployed.
In an interview with a Chicago reporter yesterday, Obama
said he has done "an enormous amount" to create greater economic
opportunity for Americans.
"I took an economy that was about to go into a Great
Depression, and we've now had a little over six years of straight economic job
growth, an unemployment rate that's down below 5 percent, and incomes that have
gone up and poverty that has gone down." ..REALLY??
Republicans Want to Pass A National Right-To-Work Law
Such a law would devastate unions, and it’s closer than ever
to becoming a reality.
House Republicans plan to introduce a bill Wednesday that
would institute right-to-work policies in the entire country if it became law,
delivering a severe blow to the labor movement.
Right-to-work laws give workers the option to stop
supporting unions while still enjoying the benefits of representation. There’s
nothing new about such proposals being made in Washington ― what’s different
now is the political climate, which should alarm labor unions and their allies.
Republicans who back such laws control both chambers of
Congress and the White House for the first time in years. Meanwhile, more and
more states under GOP control continue to pass their own right-to-work
measures, increasingly making them the norm rather than the exception.
Republicans and business groups would still face a
Democratic filibuster in the Senate. But they have all the momentum on this
issue, and there’s no reason to think that will change anytime soon.
A spokeswoman for Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), a sponsor of the
legislation, said as much in a note to reporters Tuesday.
“Similar legislation has been introduced in the past, but we
believe that this year, the legislation could garner more support than ever
before,” Leacy Burke wrote.
Under U.S. labor law, a union must represent all the
employees in a workplace it has unionized, even those who may not want to be in
a union. Unions argue that it’s only fair for all workers to contribute money
to help cover the costs of bargaining.
Republican lawmakers and business groups have had startling
success with right-to-work legislation in the last few years. Indiana,
Michigan, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Kentucky have all gone right-to-work
since 2012; in Kentucky, it was essentially the first order of business last
month when the GOP assumed full control of the statehouse for the first time in
nearly a century.
Twenty-seven states are now right-to-work, and Missouri and
New Hampshire could soon follow suit. Union-dense, Democratic-leaning states on
the coasts are highly unlikely to pass their own right-to-work laws, but a
federal statute could take care of that for them. The passage of national a
right-to-work bill would make it the law of the land in all states, regardless
of their own statutes.
A Democratic filibuster is currently the only sure firewall
against a federal right-to-work law. Although President Donald Trump has tried
to play nice with certain unions, he voiced support for such policies while on
the campaign trail.
“I love the right to work,” he said last February. “It is
better for the people. You are not paying the big fees to the unions.”
Even if Democrats can beat back such proposals in Congress,
right-to-work may spread anyway thanks to the Supreme Court. Unions narrowly
dodged a bullet last year when the case known as Friedrichs died with a split
decision following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. A conservative majority
could have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, a group of public school teachers
in California who argued that workers in public-sector unions should not be
required to pay any union fees.
A ruling against unions would effectively make the entire
public sector right-to-work throughout the country, regardless of state laws.
Although they did not success with Friedrichs, right-to-work backers plan to
try again once a solid conservative majority is in place on the Supreme Court.
By Dave Jamieson, a Friend of America!
Democrats love to talk about rights. They say people have
the "right to affordable health care," the "right to a debt free
college education," the "right to choose," and so on.
But there's one right they apparently want to erase: The
right to work!
Here's how Hillary Clinton put it in a videoconference this
week at the Laborers' International Union of North America: "I will fight
back against so-called right to work. Right to work is wrong for workers and
wrong for America."
Come again? The right to work is wrong for America?
Clinton is referring to state right-to-work laws that give
employees the right to work without being forced to join a union. In states
without these laws, unions can force new and existing employees to join a union
or pay union dues as a condition of employment at unionized companies.
Right to work has become increasingly popular. In fact, 26
states now have right-to-work laws on their books. And among the most recent to
join this movement were Michigan and Wisconsin — two Midwest industrial states
Hillary needs to win election.
As it stands, almost half of the nation's population now
lives in right-to-work states, and the majority of manufacturing jobs are
located in these states.
There are good reasons for this trend.
When Wisconsin was on the cusp of passing its right-to-work
law last year, Gov. Scott Walker said that "This isn't anti-union. It
restores worker rights and brings jobs back to Wisconsin."
He's right about that last part. Between 2004 and 2014,
overall job growth in the U.S. was 6.1%. In states without right-to-work laws,
it was a paltry 3.9%. But in right-to-work states, job growth over those years
was 9.1%.
What's more, people are voting with their feet by moving
into right-to-work states, which saw their populations climb at twice the rate
as forced-union states from 2004 to 2014. And while Clinton would argue that
right-to-work laws depress wages, family incomes climbed faster in
right-to-work states over these years.
These facts raise a question: If Hillary Clinton is so
interested in creating good jobs, why in the world would she be attacking an
idea that is growing in popularity and has clearly resulted in the creation of
more good jobs?
The answer, of course, is that she and her fellow Democrats
are beholden to unions for massive amounts of political donations, and so have
no other choice but to toe the union line. Plus, the more people Democrats can
force to pay union dues, the more money will end up in their campaign coffers.
In other words, what Clinton and her union backers want is the right to rip off
workers to get more Democrats elected.
In that same video, Clinton asks her union friends "why
aren't I 50 points ahead (of Donald Trump)?" Maybe it's because workers
have figured out this union shell game. By John Merline, a Friend of America!
RIGHT TO WORK LAWS
State laws permitted by section 14(b) of the Taft Hartley
act that provide in general that employees are not required to join a union as
a condition of getting or retaining a job.
The ability of states to pass right-to-work laws was
authorized by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, also known as the labor management
relations act (29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq.). Taft-Hartley, which sought to
curtail union power in the workplace, amended the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA) of 1935 (29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.). The NLRA as first passed preempted
state regulation of labor relations in interstate commerce, with the goal of
developing a national Labor Law. Taft-Hartley departed from this goal in
section 14(b) (29 U.S.C.A. § 164[b]), expressly authorizing the states to adopt
right-to-work measures. Organized labor has tried repeatedly, without success,
to secure the repeal of section 14(b). The Federal Railway Labor Act (45
U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.) prevents the application of state right-to-work laws to
the railroad and airline industries.
Section 14(b) works with other provisions of Taft-Hartley to
limit the ability of unions to mandate compulsory union membership. Sections
8(a)(3) and 8(b)(2) prohibit a type of union security clause (a provision that
describes the obligations of employees to support the union) from being
inserted into a collective bargaining agreement. A closed shop clause obligates
the employer to hire only union members and to discharge any employee who drops
union membership. The Closed Shop is forbidden under Taft-Hartley.
Although the act permits the union shop, section 14(b)
allows the states to prohibit it. A union shop clause requires an employee to
become a member of the union in order to retain a job, although no one needs to
be a member in order to be hired; every newly hired person has a prescribed
period of time to become a member.
Therefore, when a state passes a right-to-work law, it
prohibits both mandatory union membership and initiation fees and dues
obligations of agency shops, and permits employees who do not voluntarily pay
dues and initiation fees to receive the benefits the union provides. Unions
call such people "free riders."
Organized labor believes that right-to-work laws allow free
riders at the expense of their fellow workers. Opponents of these laws argue
that everyone should pay a proportionate share of the costs of the union in
negotiating contract benefits that will go to all. Unions also maintain that
the real objective of right-to-work laws is to sow dissension among workers and
thus weaken the labor movement.
With the current threat of Facebook's feckless ability to be bipartisan, feel free to befriend me at 'Jonathan E P Moore' to get direct and instant access, or follow 'While You Were Sleeping' at www.whileyouweredozing.blogspot.com Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, and Google Plus, and PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.
Friends Of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.
Friends Of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.
We must take America back!
ReplyDelete