AMERICA'S CONSTITUTION: IGNORED BY THE JUDGES THAT REPRESENT IT!!

By Jonathan E.P. Moore, and Friends of America!
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 45^th 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!

With just one stroke of the pen Trump's forced people to come out from behind the curtain and expose themselves for creating and buying ‘fake’ green cards, visa’s, birth certificates, Social Security cards, driver licenses, and anything else that will assist them in breaking the law to stay illegally in America!

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.

The H-1B program is supposed to be used to bring in, on a temporary basis, skilled workers with highly specialized skills not readily available in the U.S. They are often used in the technology sector to bring in engineers and computer programmers.

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.”

Obama’s administration looked the other way for 8 years, and now we know why Hillary received so much corporate backing…..  ~~

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.

“Hillary Clinton does not care about American working families. I don’t believe she cares for any American,” Emmons added. “Even with all the issues regarding Trump’s personal life, his stance on American workers is a thousand-fold better than Clinton’s. … Without a doubt, Donald Trump is the first presidential candidate that made me feel heard–that paid attention to working people.”

“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.

RECORD 95,102,000 AMERICAN NOT IN LABOR FORCE; NUMBER GREW 18% SINCE OBAMA TOOK OFFICE IN 2009!

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??

TRUMP WANTS TO GET AMERICA BACK TO WORK, AND SO DO THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED FOR HIM! SO, WHY ARE, ACCORDING TO THE ‘PAID TO REPORT’ MEDIA BELIEVE, THROUGH THEIR FALSE POLLS, THAT CLOSE TO 50% OF AMERICANS DON’T WANT JOBS OR GO BACK TO WORK?

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.

But right-to-work laws make such arrangements illegal, allowing workers to opt out of paying fees to a union that will have to represent them anyway. Unions call the phenomenon “free riding.” Supporters of right-to-work laws argue that no worker should be required to support a union, regardless of whether it bargains on his behalf.

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!

HERE’S A REALLY GOOD REASON WHY ‘RIGHT TO WORK’ IS A GREAT IDEA FOR AMERICA: HILLARY CLINTON DECLARES WAR ON ‘RIGHT TO WORK!’

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.

Not only that, but a study published in the Cato Journal found that productivity in non-right-to-work states was just 57% — to 64% of right-to-work states.

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.

Right-to-work laws forbid unions and employers to enter into agreements requiring employees to join a union and pay dues and fees to it in order to get or keep a job. Twenty-one states, mostly in the South and West, have right-to-work laws.

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.

Section 14(b) also allows states to prohibit the agency shop. An agency shop clause requires every company employee to pay to the union an amount equal to the union's customary initiation fees and monthly dues. It does not require the employee to become a formal member of the union, be a member before being hired, take an oath of obligation, or observe any internal rules and regulations of the union except with regard to dues. The U.S. Supreme Court, in National Labor Relations Board v. General Motors Corp., 373 U.S. 734, 83 S. Ct. 1453, 10 L. Ed. 2d 670 (1963), held that an employer does not violate the NLRA by agreeing to include an agency shop clause in a bargaining agreement.

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."

Right-to-work advocates argue that no person should be forced to become a union member or to provide financial support for a labor organization as a condition of employment. Such compulsion is said to be contrary to the U.S. concept of individual rights and freedom of association. It is also alleged that compulsory unionism enables large labor organizations to exert excessive power in the workplace and in the political arena.

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.

The bitter controversy over right-to-work laws peaked in the 1950s, when almost every state legislature considered the issue. Some scholars suggest the importance of the issue has been exaggerated. Studies have indicated that where unions are well established, employees tend to enroll without regard to right-to-work statutes. Such laws may be more a symptom than a cause of union weakness in certain industries and geographical areas.

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.