(freedomsback.com) - You’ve heard it from Big Government lobbyists. You’ve heard it from Big Business lackeys in both political parties. And you’ve heard it from journalists, pundits and think-tankers ad nauseam:

     The H-1B foreign guest worker program, they claim, requires American employers to first show that they searched for and tried to recruit American workers before tapping an ever-growing government-rigged pipeline of cheap foreign workers.

     The foot soldiers of the open-borders brigade are lying, deluded, ignorant or bought-off.

     On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee brought top independent academics and informed whistleblowers to Washington to expose the truth. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, hosted Howard University associate professor of public policy Ron Hira, Rutgers University professor Hal Salzman, Infosys whistleblower Jay Palmer and former computer programmer-turned-lawyer John Miano, who brought much-needed reality checks on the systemic betrayal of American workers to the Beltway table.

     Miano’s testimony was particularly important because he explained how the little known “OPT” (Optical Training Program) for foreign students is being used to circumvent H-1B and supply large corporations with cheap foreign labor. President nObama has expanded this regulatory program by unfettered administrative fiat. As Miano noted: “OPT has no labor protections of any kind. Aliens on OPT do not even have to be paid at all. While DHS requires aliens to work in an area related to their major area of study, DHS has no ability to ensure that this happens. Under OPT, over 125,000 foreign workers a year are simply turned loose in America with no supervision or restrictions.”

     Also on hand at the hearing: a few Big Tech shills toeing the Zuckerberg/Gates/Chamber of Commerce line that there’s a catastrophic American tech worker shortage, even as thousands upon thousands of American workers are being laid off in favor of underpaid, easily exploited H-1Bs. (Just use H-1B-promoter Google’s search engine and type in “Southern California Edison” and “layoffs.”)

     Grassley put it plainly: “Most people believe that employers are supposed to recruit Americans before they petition for an H-1B worker. Yet, under the law, most employers are not required to prove to the Department of Labor that they tried to find an American to fill the job first.”

     He added, “And, if there is an equally or even better qualified U.S. worker available, the company does not have to offer him or her the job. Over the years, the program has become a government-assisted way for employers to bring in cheaper foreign labor, and now it appears these foreign workers take over — rather than complement — the U.S. workforce.”

     Hira affirmed: “It’s absolutely not true” that employers seeking H-1Bs must put American workers first, either by “law or regulations.”

     How did this myth gain such traction? Many commentators and journalists confuse the labor certification process required for companies applying to obtain green cards (lawful permanent residency status) for H-1B workers with the Labor Condition Application (LCA) process for H-1Bs. Labor certification in the green card process “exists to protect U.S. workers and the U.S. labor market by ensuring that foreign workers seeking immigrant visa classifications are not displacing equally qualified U.S. workers.” Only in extremely narrow and exceptional circumstances do these nominal protections exist in the H-1B LCA process. (Companies must be classified as “H-1B dependent” for the requirements to apply. Big Tech giants like Facebook have been lobbying mightily to avoid the classification.) And even those narrow exceptions are easily and often circumvented by H-1B foreign worker traffickers.

     Conservative journalist W. James Antle gets to the heart of the matter: “If the government has discretion in how it exercises its legitimate authority over who comes and who goes, a prerequisite for national sovereignty, then shouldn’t it exercise such discretion in a way that minimizes the impoverishment of Americans?”

     For a very brief window, Grassley and, yes, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., a small group of H-1B-employing banks and other financial institutions that accepted federal bailout money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) did have to demonstrate that they had taken “good-faith steps to recruit U.S. workers” and offer them wages “at least as high” as those offered to H-1B workers. In addition, the targeted employers had to show that they “must not have laid off, and will not lay off, any U.S. worker in a job essentially equivalent to the H-1B position in the area of intended employment of the H-1B worker” within a narrow time frame.

     But this American worker-first provision, vociferously opposed by Big Business and Big Government, expired in 2011. The refusal of the vast majority of politicians and the White House to embrace these protections for all U.S. workers tells you everything you need to know about H-1B’s big, fat lies.

http://freedomsback.com/michelle-malkin/the-big-fat-american-worker-recruitment-first-lie-of-h-1b/

     (peggynoonan.com) - Doesn’t the latest Hilly Clinton scandal make you want to throw up your hands and say: Do we really have to do this again? Do we have to go back there? People assume she is our next president. We are defining political deviancy down.

     The scandal this week is that we have belatedly found out, more than two years after she left the office of secretary of state, that throughout Mrs. Clinton’s four-year tenure she did not conduct official business through the State Department email system. She had her own private email addresses and her own private Internet domain, on her own private server at one of her own private homes, in Chappaqua, N.Y. Which means she had, and has, complete control of the emails. If a journalist filed a Freedom of Information Act request asking to see emails of the secretary of state, the State Department had nothing to show. If Congress asked to see them, State could say there was nothing to see. (Two months ago, on the request of State, Mrs. Clinton turned over a reported 55,000 pages of her emails. She and her private aides apparently got to pick which ones.)

     Is it too much to imagine that Mrs. Clinton wanted to conceal the record of her communications as America’s top diplomat because she might have been doing a great deal of interesting work in those emails, not only with respect to immediate and unfolding international events but with respect to those who would like to make a positive impression on the American secretary of state by making contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which not only funds many noble causes but is the seat of operations of Clinton Inc. and its numerous offices, operatives, hangers-on and campaign-in-waiting?

     What a low and embarrassing question. It is prompted by last week’s scandal—that the Clinton Foundation accepted foreign contributions during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. It is uncomfortable to ask such questions, but that’s the thing with the Clintons, they always make you go there.

     The mainstream press is all over the story now that it has blown. It’s odd that it took so long. Everyone at State, the White House, and the rest of the government who received an email from the secretary of state would have seen where it was coming from—a nongovernmental address. You’d think someone would have noticed.

     With the exception of the moment Wednesday when a hardy reporter from TMZ actually went to an airport and shouted a query at Mrs. Clinton—it was just like the old days of journalism, with a stakeout and shouted queries—Mrs. Clinton hasn’t been subjected to any questions from the press. She’ll slide, she’ll glide, she’ll skate. (With TMZ she just walked on, smiling.)

     Why would she ignore regulations to opt out of the State email system? We probably see the answer in a video clip posted this week on Buzzfeed. Mrs. Clinton, chatting with a supporter at a fundraiser for her 2000 Senate campaign, said: “As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I . . . ever want to do email?”

     But when you’re secretary of state you have to. So she did it her way, with complete control. It will make it harder, if not impossible, for investigators.

     The press is painting all this as a story about how Mrs. Clinton, in her love for secrecy and control, has given ammunition to her enemies. But that’s not the story. The story is that this is what she does, and always has. The rules apply to others, not her. She’s special, entitled, exempt from the rules—the rules under which, as the Federalist reports, the State Department in 2012 forced the resignation of a U.S. ambassador, “in part for setting up an unsanctioned private e-mail system.”

     Why doesn’t the legacy press swarm her on this? Because she is political royalty. They are used to seeing her as a regal, queenly figure. They’ve been habituated to understand that Mrs. Clinton is not to be harried, not to be subjected to gotcha questions or impertinent grilling. She is a Democrat, a star, not some grubby Republican governor from nowhere. And they don’t want to be muscled by her spokesmen. The wildly belligerent Philippe Reines sends reporters insulting, demeaning emails if they get out of line. He did it again this week. It is effective in two ways. One is that it diverts attention from his boss, makes Mr. Reines the story, and in the process makes her look comparatively sane. The other is that reporters don’t want a hissing match with someone who implies he will damage them. They can’t afford to be frozen out. She’s probably the next president: Their careers depend on access.

But how will such smash-mouth tactics play the next four, five years?

Back to the questions at the top of the column.

     Sixteen years ago, when she was first running for the Senate, I wrote a book called “The Case Against Hilly Clinton.” I waded through it all—cattle futures, Travelgate, the lost Rose law firm records, women slimed as bimbos, foreign campaign cash, the stealth and secrecy that marked the creation of the health-care plan, Monica, the vast right-wing conspiracy. As I researched I remembered why, four years into the Clinton administration, the New York Times columnist William Safire called Hilly “a congenital liar . . . compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.”

Do we have to go through all that again?

     In 1992 the Clintons were new and golden. Now, so many years later, their reputation for rule breaking and corruption is so deep, so assumed, that it really has become old news. And old news isn’t news.

     An aspect of the story goes beyond criticism of Mrs. Clinton and gets to criticism of us. A generation or two ago, a person so encrusted in a reputation for scandal would not be considered a possible presidential contender. She would be ineligible. Now she is inevitable.

What happened? Why is her party so in her thrall?

     She’s famous? The run itself makes you famous. America didn’t know who Jack Kennedy was in 1959; in 1961 he was king of the world. The same for nObama in ’08.

     Money? Sure she’s the superblitz shock-and-awe queen of fundraising, but pretty much any Democrat in a 50/50 country would be able to raise what needs to be raised.

She’s a woman? There are other women in the Democratic Party.

     She’s inevitable? She was inevitable in 2008. Then, suddenly, she was evitable.

     Her talent is for survival. This on its own terms is admirable and takes grit. But others have grit. As for leadership, she has a sharp tactical sense but no vision, no overall strategic sense of where we are and where we must go.

     What is freezing the Democrats is her mystique. But mystique can be broken. A nobody called nObama broke hers in 2008.

     Do we really have to return to Scandal Land? It’s what she brings wherever she goes. And it’s not going to stop.

http://www.peggynoonan.com/stuck-in-scandal-land/

      Contrary to the implications of Netanyahu's statement, the increased turnout of Arab voters is a good thing for the country. Israeli Arabs should be invested in their country and take advantage of its democratic system. But the small gains by the Joint Arab List — which seems to have won 13 seats over the 11 won by the elements of its coalition, previously — won't make much of a difference because the new Knesset members will remain in the minority. It is also a near certainty that the three factions will split once the dust settles from the election.

      Even some of Israel's friends in the United States may be asking themselves how is it possible for the Jewish state's voters to give a majority to parties that are unlikely to agree to a two-state solution with the Palestinians. The answer is that unlike most Americans, Israel's voters have been paying attention to the history of the conflict over the past 20 years and know that Herzog was no more likely to create a Palestinian state than Netanyahu.

     Nor is it fair to brand Netanyahu, who did not denigrate the right of Arabs to vote, a racist.

     There is no comparison between the efforts of minorities to vote in Western democracies or the United States and the desire of the Arab parties to destroy Israel. That's because the Palestinian leadership, split between Hamas and Fatah, has consistently refused peace offers that would have given them independence.

     Most Israelis would like a two-state solution to happen but they know that under the current circumstances any withdrawal from the West Bank might duplicate the disastrous retreat from Gaza in 2005. Though Western journalists mocked Netanyahu's comments about wanting to prevent a "Hamasistan" in the West Bank, the voters in Israel largely agreed.

     That doesn't make them racist or extreme. It means they are, like most Americans, realists. They may not like Netanyahu but Tuesday's results demonstrates that there is little support for a government that would make the sort of concessions to the Palestinians that President nObama would like. They rightly believe that even if Israel did make more concessions it would only lead to more violence, not peace.

     Israel's foreign critics and friends need to understand that in the end, it was those convictions have, for all intents and purposes, re-elected Netanyahu.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0315/tobin031815.php3

     One glaring example was the cowardly behavior of the so-called Tea Party favorite Congressman Republican Mike Kelly of the Pennsylvania 3rd district:

Our research on Malik nObama in which Congressman Kelly requested to review directly from us, but never followed through. On a radio town hall Congressman Kelly admitted that the Malik nObama scandal was worse than the IRS scandal, yet he punted stating that “My job is not to make the job of the President harder”.

You can hear the shocking interview here.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH_c9WMBH5U

     Hilly Clinton and her husband have and always had a rule for us little people, but have another rule for how they conduct themselves. The media at this moment focus on the silence of the Clintons and lack of criticism of countries who are very weak on human rights including women’s rights, coincidently these countries all give millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. What the media is not focusing on, which is a much bigger story is the Muslim brotherhood connection of Hilly Clinton which has compromised the security of the United States. The Muslim Brotherhood is the foundation of all Islamic terror groups including Al Qaeda and ISIS yet the Clintons and President nObama launched the war against Libya to give the Islamists power in that country, as well as to undermine our ally Mubarak and now El Sisi in Egypt which has alienated one of our best Arab allies in the region.

     Then we have the soft fascism that has now taken over our whole federal government. The FCC pass a rule to take over the internet, Why? simple, to control free speech. The EPA another out of control agency has done its utmost to stifle oil and coal exploration and punishes people and businesses with regulations that circumvent Congressional laws. It seems Congress has usurped its obligation to set laws and by default has allowed the EPA and the Energy department to regulate people out of business, with regulations and rules that are all unconstitutional interference on the rights of WE The People.

     We have experienced the intrusion of our rights in health care which has been a disaster, as well as now the new Common Core education program. One can argue the benefits of the new Education program called Common Core, but I do not care whether it is a good plan or a bad plan, the Federal government has no business in the education of my kids and each individual state should be responsible for their citizens to have access to education. In fact, if our country is to return to a federal system that worked fine for the first hundred years of the Republic then the EPA, the Energy Department, the Health and Social Services Department, the Department of Education should be completely abolished just to start. These departments are responsible for a soft tyranny stiffing our economic growth as well as the freedom of our citizenry. Over the last 50 years we have created a monster, which not only has led to our freedom being impaired, but has also contributed to trillions of dollars in debt, both in the cost of running these bureaucracies, and the loss of major economic growth caused by onerous business killing regulations.

     Our federal government has become the tyranny the founding fathers warned us against, the states need to demand a constitutional convention to take back our freedom by removing the yoke of the various federal government bureaucracies. Until this is done, corruption, fascism will be the order of the day.

     The American people has to decide urgently whether we are a nation of free individuals or are we to become dependent on our government for help for our every need.

The Words of Ronald Reagan Apply Today.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA

http://shoebat.com/2015/03/11/corruption-and-fascism-is-the-order-of-the-day-in-the-united-states-of-america/