News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

EU's Juncker must be at the booze again, thinking he can bully President Trump or the 63 million Americans who voted for him. Juncker's drinking habits, cognac for breakfast, have caused concern at highest levels of EU. British officials predicted putting Juncker in top EU job could push Britain to Brexit-UK Telegraph, 6/26/2014

6/26/2014, "Fears over Jean-Claude Juncker's drinking," UK Telegraph, by , and Bruno Waterfield in Brussels

"Concerns about the lifestyle of European Commission's president in waiting raised by EU leaders ahead of key summit."

"Jean Claude-Juncker's drinking habits have been discussed at the highest levels by European leaders, who privately have concerns over the lifestyle of the continent’s president-in-waiting, it has emerged.

With David Cameron facing defeat in his attempt to prevent Mr Juncker being confirmed as president of the European Commission, it can be disclosed that a series of allegations about his alcohol consumption have been the subject of top-level talks.

On Thursday, as Mr Cameron...declared himself “unapologetic” over his attempt to block the former leader of Luxembourg....

Allegations have circulated around Brussels in recent years about Mr Juncker’s drinking. 

One senior diplomatic source has said he “has cognac for breakfast”....

Concerns about Mr Juncker’s lifestyle have been raised in recent meetings of EU leaders.

A European diplomat in Brussels said: “His alcohol consumption has been raised by a number of leaders since the parliament election.” 

A separate European Commission source confirmed the report.

Sources also described how Mr Juncker “chain-smoked” through a series of meetings on Thursday....

British officials indicated that giving Mr Juncker the job could push Britain towards an exit from the EU....

Mr Juncker faced more controversy yesterday after he refused to reveal his lucrative earnings from private speaking engagements after Germany’s Süeddeutsche Zeitung newspaper revealed that he is hired by at least four agencies for speaking engagements."... 

image above via:

6/29/2016, "Still sneering at Britain: Jean-Claude Juncker the boozy bully who sums up all that's rotten about the EU," Daily Mail, Geoffrey Levy


9/14/2016, "Jean-Claude Juncker denies alcohol problem during interview in which he drinks four glasses of champagne," UK Telegraph, Laura Hughes


Pres. Trump must literally pull us out of Paris climate agreement. If he just says, 'I'm not gonna sign it,' then he's fooling us, making what may be an insurmountable mistake-Rush Limbaugh, May 31, 2017

May 31, 2017, "The Treaty on Treaties and the Paris Accord," Rush Limbaugh 

"The issue is not whether President Trump signs it....Obama already has signed it. The task before President Trump is to literally pull us out of it....The treaty on treaties is the equivalent of Senate ratification. Obama’s signature is what triggers the treaty on treaties obligation to follow it, even though it hasn’t been ratified....

Trump must pull us out of it. If he doesn’t, if Trump says, “I’m not gonna sign it,” then he’s fooling us because it’s already signed, it’s already in place. And if Trump does nothing we are still bound not to undermine it as a nation. We must make every effort to accede to it. Trump needs to formally announce that he is withdrawing Obama’s consent.

Now, to withdraw, the president just needs to take an affirmative, “We withdraw Obama’s signature.” He doesn’t have to go to the Senate because we didn’t go to the Senate to have it ratified....
So in summary, the Paris Accord is not a treaty, but yet it could end up being enforced as one because of our own law called the treaty on treaties, which simply says that if we announce support in principle, that if we sign an ancillary document promising to do what we can, that is the same thing as the Senate ratifying it with two-thirds of the Senate voting....


It is a mechanism to commit the United States to things that are drastically, horribly detrimental to us without going through the constitutional process that ratifies such treaties. It substitutes verbal consent of agreement in principle, say, as the equivalent of a signature and two-thirds of the Senate voting to affirm. The American people are being told, “It’s toothless.” In fact, here’s the message that’s being used by the media to try to convince Trump to sign this....

They’re trying to say Trump could actually gain some ground with people that don’t support him by signing on to this ’cause it isn’t gonna hurt him. “It’s not gonna bother his own fans because his voters are gonna understand it’s a nothing burger. So Trump can really score some points with people that oppose him by signing on to this thing and not harm and not break a promise.”

And that is not true. If he signs on to this, it is a huge promise broken. It is a huge violation of trust. It may be something insurmountable for the president and his base to sign on to this. It is not harmless....It’s a direct assault on the U.S. economy disguised as something else.

It penalizes...economic growth, targets improved standards of living as evidence of climate change, evidence of planetary destruction. It’s hideous. The president has no business even thinking about signing this. And anybody in his administration urging him to sign this has a death wish for him. Promise you that."...

Rush Limbaugh "Related Links"


Comment: Why is Trump making a big deal about announcing his "decision?" His 63 million voters thought he made his "decision" quite clear during the campaign. We're supposed to accept that after the election, everything's up for grabs again? If that's the case, let's cancel the results of the election and have a new vote. Dragging this issue out for months further humiliates his 63 million voters.



Mr. Brinkbäumer of Der Spiegel is absolutely correct: "The international community" needs to "free itself of its dependence on the is...necessary-and possible."-Der Spiegel Editorial, May 19, 2017

"The proper attitude to any alliance is to keep a tight focus on the business for which it exists, while being ready to dissolve it without illusion or sentiment, never mind rancor, as situations change... Europeans were becoming mere consumers of American provided security." Nov. 17, 2014, "Would George Washington Mourn NATO?" Angelo M. Codevilla


5/19/17, "It's Time to Get Rid of Donald Trump," A Der Spiegel Editorial by  

"Donald Trump has transformed the United States into a laughing stock and he is a danger to the world. He must be removed from the White House before things get even worse."...

(subhead) "Witnessing an American Tragedy"...

"There are five theoretical solutions.... 

Fifth: the international community wakes up and finds a way to circumvent the White House and free itself of its dependence on the U.S. Unlike the preceding four options, the fifth doesn't directly solve the Trump problem, but it is nevertheless necessary - and possible."...


Comment: Absolutely correct, : "The international community" needs to "free itself of its dependence on the is...necessary-and possible."...

This dependency was caused by the US political class which in succeeding generations has never liked average Americans, was happy to hand out US taxpayer dollars like candy all over the world, has even been happy to "volunteer" American lives and limbs to fight and die in endless foreign wars. What has changed is Americans understand they can no longer bear this burden, nor should anyone. Time will tell if Trump himself retains this belief and acts accordingly. 

Why is Germany or Europe only now thinking it's not a good idea to be dependent on struggling US taxpayers? Considering how dangerous Germany and Europe are today, how in the world does anyone at Der Spiegel have the spare time to be obsessed about a country across the Atlantic Ocean that as a result of being sold out to the bare walls by its political class, is beginning to see that serious problems exist in what remains of the United States?
you mention "experts and politicians focused on foreign policy" are in agony. This is their own fault. They chose to make a living as a parasite on the American people. They assumed they'd be part of  a permanent political class--no matter who won elections, they'd still be in business. These people have done very well for several decades. What you only now perceive as a change in the US had been building among US voters for at least 15 years. We realized the entire US political class sold out our country to the bare walls and couldn't care less what we thought about it. Elections became meaningless--2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014--came and went and nothing changed. Voters no longer had the ability to effect change in the country:

"So long as the Uniparty exists, mere voters will have no way of affecting what the government does." 12/15/2013, "Breaking The UniParty," Angelo Codevilla,

Put another way, the US had been converted to a soft dictatorship without voter approval. In 2016, they planned to outsmart us again, whether flooding the field with ridiculous candidates funded by fat cats, or relying on "super delegates" to tip the scale for the corporate candidate. We had two choices. We could accept that we were now slaves, or we could vote for Donald Trump. Mr. what would you have done given that choice? Your article makes no mention of 62,984,825 Trump voters nor what led them to their 2016 vote. Some consider Trump's beating the vicious Republican Establishment an even bigger achievement than beating the Democrat to win the presidency:

"Trump utterly gutted the GOP in the primaries. That was the real landslide of 2016." CNBC, 1/3/2017

Above, banner on NY Times Editorial page, posted Tuesday evening May 3, 2016 for Wed., May 4, 2016 print edition 

Even the NY Times Editorial Board saw that the 2016 Republican voters' message "is testimony to how thoroughly they reject the Republican politicians who betrayed them."... May 3, 2016, By The NY Times Editorial Board  

In my lifetime, the GOP Establishment has been about one thing: preventing Republican voters from getting the candidate they needed. The GOP E has exactly the same agenda as the Democrats, and they didn't want a real second party emerging to mess up their gold mine:

"He (Trump) managed to prevail—to mount the most astonishingly successful insurgent campaign against a party establishment in our lifetimes....He won the GOP’s untapped residue of nationalist voters, in a system where the elites of both parties are, as if by rote, extreme globalists. He won the support of those who favored changing trade and immigration policies, which, it is increasingly obvious, do not favor the tangible interests of the average American....

The core of Trump’s supporters are the political descendants of what had been the backbone of the Democratic New Deal coalition: working-class whites, politically strongest in the South and flyover states. On the triad of trade, immigration, and foreign policy these voters are nationalist, not globalist—they would limit America’s intervention in foreign conflicts
and subject the importation of products and people from the rest of the world to a more rigorous is-it-good-for-us test. (And by “us” they mean themselves, not the Fortune 500.) By nominating Trump, the Republican Party has finally been forced to come to terms with these sentiments, choosing a candidate who is largely disdainful of the globalist consensus of GOP donors, pundits, and think-tank experts. For Trump and his voters, the “Reaganite” basket of so-called “conservative” issues—free trade, high immigration, tax cuts for those with high incomes and entitlement cuts for the middle class—was irrelevant or actually undesirable.... 

He won the backing of those alarmed by a new surge of political correctness, an informal national speech code that seeks to render many legitimate political opinions unsayable. He won the support of white working-class voters whose social and economic position had been declining for a generation."...6/27/16, "Why Trump Wins," "He knows border wars have replaced culture wars." The American Conservative, by Scott McConnell 

, the one-party system may be comforting to you and your friends in the global "security" industry, but it's not to us. We're not going back to being global slaves. We understand Trump is now a politician and won't deliver on all his promises. The nearly 63 million of us who desperately wanted Trump to win are here reminding him of his promises and letting him know how we feel when he forgets about them.  

assuming you didn't vote in the 2016 US election and weren't qualified to do so, how do you now envision going over the heads of  63 million American voters and removing our elected representative? Have you looked around at the living hell Europe has become? It's pompous attitudes of people like you that caused the election of Donald Trump.

Quote referenced above:

"Not quite two weeks ago, a number of experts and politicians focused on foreign policy met in Washington at the invitation of the Munich Security Conference. It wasn't difficult to sense the atmosphere of chaos and agony that has descended upon the city."


Added: Removing sentimentality from NATO:

"The proper attitude to any alliance is to keep a tight focus on the business for which it exists, while being ready to dissolve it without illusion or sentiment, never mind rancor, as situations change... Europeans were becoming mere consumers of American provided security."

Nov. 17, 2014, "Would George Washington Mourn NATO?" Angelo M. Codevilla

Celebrating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy was an obligatory ritual for two generations of American statesmen. As the decades passed however, mention of it and of “our European allies” has come with decreasing conviction and increasing embarrassment. Few dispute that, today, the alliance’s formalities are a pretense likelier to get its members into trouble than to pull anyone out of it. Civilizational changes have emptied it of substance. Readjusting American strategy to take account of those changes makes far more sense than talking about “revitalizing” or “rebuilding” an alliance on bases that no longer exist.
American statesmen who treated NATO as something of an end in itself erected it into a totem. They would have done well to recall George Washington’s common sense teaching about alliances, namely that, by nature, they are expedients for particular purposes in particular situations. This means that the proper attitude to any alliance is to keep a tight focus on the business for which it exists, while being ready to dissolve it without illusion or sentiment, never mind rancor, as situations change.
- See more at:
Would George Washington Mourn NATO?


Tuesday, May 30, 2017

An embarrassment to all Americans, uninvited McCain took the stage in Egypt in 2013 and urged release of Muslim Brotherhood members from jail. Egypt's government called McCain's actions "Unacceptable interference in internal politics"-DW.DE, 8/7/2013

8/7/2013, US Senators McCain and Graham interfere in Egypt's internal affairs, defend Muslim Brotherhood

McCain and Graham defend Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Aug. 2013

8/6/2013, "During their whirlwind tour of Cairo Tuesday, two top GOP senators held the most extensive meeting to date between U.S. officials and senior officials in the embattled Muslim Brotherhood."...Daily Beast, Josh Rogin

8/7/2013, "Egypt dismisses US senators' call for releases," DW.DE

"Two top US senators visiting Egypt have urged the release of detained Muslim Brotherhood members. Egypt’s interim president described their comments as "unacceptable" as foreign mediation efforts begin to be questioned. 

A mediation visit by the two Republican senators appeared to have fallen short of its desired aim on Tuesday, with state newspaper al-Ahram indicating that Cairo was beginning to tire of outside involvement.

During their visit, the senators - John McCain and Lindsey Graham - called for the release of detained members of the Muslim Brotherhood and the beginning of a national dialogue to bring Egypt to democratic rule.

The comments, calling the detainees "political prisoners" and referring to the overthrow of President Mohammed Morsi - who was last year elected to the post - as a "coup" were denounced by interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour. In a brief statement, Mansour described the remarks as "unacceptable interference in internal politics"...

Although the senators were asked to visit Egypt by US President Barack Obama, they did not directly represent the White House, having found themselves at odds with the White House over the response to last month’s transfer of power. A description of the overthrow as a coup is something that the Obama administration has so far avoided.

'Failure' to be announced

After the visit, the state-run al-Ahram newspaper said on Tuesday that Cairo was preparing to announce "the failure of all US, European, Qatari and UAE delegations in convincing the Brotherhood of a peaceful solution to the current crisis."

Al-Ahram also said the government - according to official sources - was preparing to designate ongoing Muslim Brotherhood protests as "non-peaceful." That distinction has been seen as a sign that the government intends to end the protests by pro-Morsi protesters, if necessary by force.

Recent weeks have seen a flurry of diplomatic activity with US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, EU foreign policy head Catherine Ashton and German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle among the visitors to Cairo.

EU envoy Bernardino Leon met Prime Minister Hazem al-Beblawi on Monday after he and Burns met the day before with the Brotherhood's number two, Khairat al-Shater, in prison. [EU's] Ashton last week met Morsi himself, at the place where he was being detained."

"US senators ruffle Egypt"

  image, alliance AP



Comment: In Dec. 2013 Egypt declared Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. So-called "top Senator" McCain's name would rarely be in the news again if he were a democrat. His main function is to make the Republican Party look ridiculous.



Monday, May 29, 2017

Mrs. Merkel: President Trump is only one man. 63 million of us are behind him because he's the only US politician to allow us to conceive of an American interest separate from the 'international community.' We want to be friendly with everyone and help whenever we can, but, as other countries are, we must be allowed to care about our own country first-Julius Krein, Sept. 7, 2015 (Your reaction suggests you thought our bondage to you was permanent)

9/7/2015, "Traitor to His Class," Julius Krein, Weekly Standard 

"Nothing is more terrifying to the elite than Trump’s embrace of a tangible American nationalism....

The critical question, however, is not the source of Trump’s popularity but rather the reason his popularity is so shocking to our political culture. Perhaps Trump’s candidacy threatens a larger consensus that governs our political and social life, and perhaps his popularity signifies a profound challenge to elite opinion....
What differentiates Trump is not what he says, or how he says it, but why he says it. The unifying thread running through his seemingly incoherent policies, what defines him as a candidate and forms the essence of his appeal, is that he seeks to speak for America. He speaks, that is, not for America as an abstraction but for real, living Americans and for their interests as distinct from those of people in other places. He does not apologize for having interests as an American, and he does not apologize for demanding that the American government vigorously prosecute those interests.

What Trump offers is permission to conceive of an American interest as a national interest separate from the “international community” and permission to wish to see that interest triumph."... 


Added from Diana West:

8/18/2015, "Trump: Giving Voice to the American "Subconscious"," Diana West

"To say the Media-Political Complex has really lost its cool over Donald Trump, also every marble, is barest understatement....

Before Trump, the American "subconscious," circa 2015, would never "originally think" a US border was possible, let alone a wall; immigration restriction was possible, let alone a halt; immigration law enforcement was possible; the deportation of illegal families was possible; restoration of American citizenship as a privilege, not a stolen good, was possible; jobs for Americans were possible; and the rest. Donald Trump, bless him, has changed the American subconscious, giving voice to Americans long conditioned into silence by this same Media-Political Complex. And there is nothing, but nothing, they can do about it now."


Germany relies on coal to back up intermittent output of wind and solar. Lignite coal (brown coal) is indigenous to Germany and supplies most of its power. Germany also exports coal to other countries. German CO2 increased by 0.8% in 2015-Institute for Energy Research, Oct. 24, 2016

Oct. 24, 2016, "France and Germany Turn to Coal," Institute for Energy Research

"Many of France’s nuclear units are down for inspection. As a result, coal and natural gas generation has more than doubled. Last month, generation from fossil fuels was the highest in 32 years in France and nuclear generation was the lowest since 1998. As a result, French month-ahead power prices escalated to near the highest levels since 2009.

Germany is replacing its nuclear units with renewable energy (wind and solar) as part of its energy transition, the so-called Energiewende. It is using mainly coal to back-up its intermittent renewable energy and as a result, it has increased its coal-fired generation. Due to the higher cost of wind and solar units, residential electricity prices have escalated and are 3 times that of the United States.


France is heavily dependent on nuclear power for its electricity generation. It generated almost 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy in 2015, followed by hydroelectric power that generated about 10 percent. In 2015, fossil fuels represented only a 7.5 percent share and renewable energy (excluding hydro) had a 6.1 percent share....

But this, year, France’s nuclear regulator ordered safety checks on a number of its reactors, and those safety checks are taking longer than expected. France’s nuclear generation began dropping early this year and took a major decline in April that has continued into September. Its nuclear reactors produced 26.6 terawatt-hours of electricity in September, the lowest amount since August 1998. 

Since April, generation from coal and natural gas increased to compensate for the reactors off-line, and in September, they produced 4,132 gigawatt-hours, or 11 percent of the total.[i]

France has seven fewer reactors available than at the same time last year. France’s nuclear regulator ordered safety checks on 18 of its 58 units to rule out potential anomalies on steam generators. Six reactors, however, are expected to be back on-line this month.

France is also faced with the lowest hydropower output in 10 years, which is exacerbating the tight supply situation. Hydropower levels are down 25 percent so far this October compared to last year.

The change in generation has caused prices to spike. The French next-month contract is trading at a premium of 24.90 euros ($27.42) per megawatt-hour to Germany. The price rose to a seven-year high of 68.15 euros ($74.82) per megawatt-hour on October 7. Day-ahead electricity jumped as much as 18 percent to 77 euros ($84.54) per megawatt-hour–the highest since April 2013.


Unlike France, Germany is much more reliant on renewable energy and fossil fuels for its electricity generation than on nuclear power.

That is because Germany decided to retire its nuclear units and promote renewable energy instead after the tsunami hit Japan’s nuclear reactors in Fukushima. While Germany gets 27.3 percent of its generation from non-hydroelectric renewable energy, it is also heavily dependent on coal and natural gas for base-load power and to back up its intermittent wind and solar power, generating over 50 percent of its power from fossil fuels....

Germany’s plan is to shutter all of its nuclear units by 2022 and to have renewable energy provide 40 to 45 percent of its generation by 2025 and 80 percent by 2050[ii]—up from 30 percent in 2025. 

Replacing nuclear power with renewable energy has proven difficult, however, mainly due to the intermittency of wind and solar power. When wind and solar are not available to generate electricity, German power buyers turn to coal. In fact, Germany opened over 10 gigawatts of new coal fired power plants over the past 5 years.[iii]

Germany has over 20 gigawatts of lignite-fired electric generating capacity operating as of the beginning of 2015,[iv] generating about 25 percent of its electricity last year.[v] Lignite, also called brown coal, has the highest carbon dioxide emissions per ton when burned
a third more than hard coal and three times as much as natural gas.[vi] It is Europe’s most abundant and least-expensive domestic fuel, especially when located close to power plants. Germany also uses hard coal, which generated about 18 percent of its electricity.[vii]

Germany’s coal-fired generation last year declined by just a half percent and because its electricity demand remained essentially flat, the relatively inexpensive coal-fired power not needed domestically was exported–mostly to Austria, the Netherlands, France and Switzerland.[viii] Germany’s plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions includes renewables replacing coal as well as its nuclear power, but its coal-fired generating industry refuses to go away.

Despite the large increase in solar and wind power, Germany is likely to miss its 2020 target to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels.[ix] In fact, its carbon dioxide emissions increased last year by 0.8 percent.[x]


Coal is not going away in France and Germany as both countries need it to keep the lights on when nuclear units in France are down for inspection and as Germany’s energy transition brings in intermittent renewable energy to replace its retiring nuclear units. Coal, particularly lignite coal, is indigenous to Germany and supplies the majority of its power despite the dramatic growth in Germany’s wind and solar power industry."

"[i] Bloomberg, France Burns Coal Like It’s 1984 as Prices Jump on Atomic Woes, October 18, 2016,
[ii] Clean Air, Germany Replaces Nuclear with Coal, GHGs Skyrocket,
[iii] Carbon Counter, Why Germany’s nuclear phase out is leading to more coal burning, June 6, 2015,
[iv] In July 2015, Germany announced that it would mothball 2.7 gigawatts of the oldest lignite-fired capacity to meet its 2020 climate goals.
[v] Energy Information Administration, Germany, August 2016,
[vi] Scientific American, Can Germany Ditch Coal?, January 20, 2016,
[vii] Bloomberg, Germany Gives Dirtiest Coal Plants Six Years for Phase Out, July 2, 2015,
[viii] Energy Post, The German conundrum: renewables break records, coal refuses to go away, March 24, 2016,
[ix] EU Observer, Can Germany phase out coal power?,
[x] BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2016,"


In stunning betrayal of his voters, Trump to double current refugee admissions by June 2017, effectively nullifying his own election. Refugee Act of 1980 should be scrapped-Refugee Resettlement Watch (After being elected by Americans, US presidents demonstrate that their most important constituents are non-Americans)

May 27, 2017, "Stunning news: Trump State Department opens the flood gates, refugee admissions will explode in coming weeks," Refugee Resettlement Watch, Ann Corcoran

"Betraying the voters who elected Donald Trump, the Department of State slipped the news to the contractors on Thursday who then slipped the news to the New York Times just as you were packing up for the beach or getting ready for a family barbecue using the federal government’s favorite holiday weekend trick to bury the news.

Forget everything I said in my post yesterday about Trump’s “average” admissions. If they do as they are now saying they will, Donald Trump will be responsible for one of six highest resettlement years since 9/11 [2001].***

Manchester here we come!

Here is the headline (Hat tip: Julia). Emphasis mine:

[New York Times] "U.S. Quietly Lifts Limit on Number of Refugees Allowed In" 

WASHINGTON — "Despite repeated efforts by President Trump to curtail refugee resettlements, the State Department this week quietly lifted the department’s restriction on the number of refugees allowed to enter the United States. 

The result could be a near doubling of refugees entering the country, from about 830 people a week in the first three weeks of this month to well over 1,500 people per week by next month, according to refugee advocates. Tens of thousands of refugees are waiting to come to the United States. 

The State Department’s decision was conveyed in an email on Thursday to the private agencies in countries around the world that help refugees manage the nearly two-year application process needed to enter the United States. 

In her email, Jennifer L. Smith, a department official, wrote that the refugee groups could begin bringing people to the United States “unconstrained by the weekly quotas that were in place. [….] 

Refugee groups now predict that entries into the United States could increase so rapidly that the total number of refugees admitted by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, could exceed 70,000. [….] 

Refugee advocates were delighted by the State Department’s decision. 

“This is long overdue, but we’re very happy,” said Mark Hetfield, president and chief executive of HIAS, an immigrant aid society." 

Continue reading here as the contractors say they are worried for next year. Oh, sure they are.

Bottomline is that it appears that the REPUBLICAN Congress (never forget they want to keep big business donors happy by providing a steady supply of cheap labor) appropriated gobs of money for refugee resettlement! 

And, the Trump Administration (remember Trump campaigned with talk of a moratorium on refugee resettlement) appears to have no fight left in them on this issue (other issues too!). 

***Here are the refugee admissions since 9/11 (those in red exceed Trump’s projected 70,000). Bush had only 2 years in excess of 70,000 and Obama had 3 of his 8 years higher than 70,000.

2001: 87,259 (this year’s number would have been proposed by Clinton in the fall of 2000)

2002: 45,896

2003: 39,554

2004: 79,158

2005: 69,006

2006: 41,223

2007: 48,282

2008: 60,191

2009: 74,654

2010: 73,311

2011: 56,424

2012: 58,238

2013: 69,926

2014: 69,987

2015: 69,993

2016: 84,994"


"This move signals that the (Trump) Administration has no plans to lead a reform of the program in Congress."...Ann Corcoran 

Added: From LA Times:

May 28, 2017, "Pipeline disruption? LA Times adds a bit more information to the Trump refugee admission reversal," Refugee Resettlement Watch, Ann Corcoran

"Go here to see what the LA Times is reporting about the stunning reversal on Thursday by the Trump State Department on refugee admissions where we learned that by September 30th we could see 70,000 refugees admitted to the US, in a year Trump initially said we would see a MORATORIUM. 70,000 is a number higher than five of Obama’s eight years!

Be sure to take note that it is Congress that is shoving money (your money) for refugees down the throats of the Administration.  I contend that the Administration has the power (but no will!) to reject it and tell Congress to rescind it (but that is a story for another day).

This is the bit of the LA Times story I wanted you to see. The refugee resettlement contractors are complaining that the pipeline” abroad has been so severely interrupted that they might not get even 50,000 in FY18. Only urgent cases are being interviewed! Isn’t that what should be done?  Why are US taxpayers responsible for non-urgent cases?...

This entire system of refugee resettlement set up by the Refugee Act of 1980 should be scrapped. Contractors like Kekic’s Church World Service are worried because they are paid by the head and must build their entire budgets (since it is largely funded by you) around the number of refugee clients in a “pipeline” to America. 

There is never any incentive to moderate the flow when nine contractors are ‘bidding for bodies!’ [9 groups listed after break below] 

My disappointment at the news, that Trump’s State Department has apparently caved to pressure and is opening the spigot wide for the remainder of the fiscal year, is primarily because this move signals that the (Trump) Administration has no plans to lead a reform of the program in Congress. 

Congress is never going to review, in any serious way, the program and change it significantly without leadership from the White House. 

What can the White House do? The White House could have continued on its earlier course. A MORATORIUM placed on the program would be a strong incentive for Congress to finally, after 35 years, review the original law and scrap or re-write it. 

And, remember this in the first EO, see here? It is Section 5 (g): 

(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement. 

There is no longer any mention of impact on communities, states rights, cost to taxpayers, public health concerns, crime, security concerns, transparency, nothing
!—nothing that motivated voters to work their butts off for Trump.

Sadly, we have been dragged into a debate framed solely on numbers. Will it be 50,000, 60,000, 75,000, 100,000, more?"


Added: via 5/28/17, "Burmese biter was headed for New Bern, NC; are we importing mentally ill in refugee program?" (scroll down)

Nine federal resettlement contractors monopolize all (US taxpayer funded) resettlement in the US:

Europe was 'hugged to death' by Goldman Sachs and its alums long ago, thus suspending normal rules of democracy. 'It's impossible to tell the difference between the public interest and the Goldman Sachs interest.' Map of Europe is map of Goldman Sachs faces-Nov. 18, 2011, UK Independent

Europe "hugged" to death by Goldman Sachs:

Nov. 18, 2011, "What price the new democracy? Goldman Sachs conquers Europe," UK Independent, Stephen Foley 

"While ordinary people fret about austerity and jobs, the eurozone's corridors of power have been undergoing a remarkable transformation."

"The ascension of Mario Monti to the Italian prime ministership is remarkable for more reasons than it is possible to count. By replacing the scandal-surfing Silvio Berlusconi, Italy has dislodged the undislodgeable. By imposing rule by unelected technocrats, it has suspended the normal rules of democracy, and maybe democracy itself. And by putting a senior adviser at Goldman Sachs in charge of a Western nation, it has taken to new heights the political power of an investment bank that you might have thought was prohibitively politically toxic.

This is the most remarkable thing of all: a giant leap forward for, or perhaps even the successful culmination of, the Goldman Sachs Project.

It is not just Mr Monti. The European Central Bank, another crucial player in the sovereign debt drama, is under ex-Goldman management, and the investment bank's alumni hold sway in the corridors of power in almost every European nation, as they have done in the US throughout the financial crisis. Until Wednesday, the International Monetary Fund's European division was also run by a Goldman man, Antonio Borges, who just resigned for personal reasons.

Even before the upheaval in Italy, there was no sign of Goldman Sachs living down its nickname as "the Vampire Squid", and now that its tentacles reach to the top of the eurozone, sceptical voices are raising questions over its influence. The political decisions taken in the coming weeks will determine if the eurozone can and will pay its debts – and Goldman's interests are intricately tied up with the answer to that question.

Simon Johnson, the former International Monetary Fund economist, in his book 13 Bankers, argued that Goldman Sachs and the other large banks had become so close to government in the run-up to the financial crisis that the US was effectively an oligarchy. At least European politicians aren't "bought and paid for" by corporations, as in the US, he says. "Instead what you have in Europe is a shared world-view among the policy elite and the bankers, a shared set of goals and mutual reinforcement of illusions."

This is The Goldman Sachs Project. Put simply, it is to hug governments close. Every business wants to advance its interests with the regulators that can stymie them and the politicians who can give them a tax break, but this is no mere lobbying effort. Goldman is there to provide advice for governments and to provide financing, to send its people into public service and to dangle lucrative jobs in front of people coming out of government. The Project is to create such a deep exchange of people and ideas and money that it is impossible to tell the difference between the public interest and the Goldman Sachs interest.

Mr Monti is one of Italy's most eminent economists, and he spent most of his career in academia and thinktankery, but it was when Mr Berlusconi appointed him to the European Commission in 1995 that Goldman Sachs started to get interested in him. First as commissioner for the internal market, and then especially as commissioner for competition, he has made decisions that could make or break the takeover and merger deals that Goldman's bankers were working on or providing the funding for. Mr Monti also later chaired the Italian Treasury's committee on the banking and financial system, which set the country's financial policies.

With these connections, it was natural for Goldman to invite him to join its board of international advisers. The bank's two dozen-strong international advisers act as informal lobbyists for its interests with the politicians that regulate its work. Other advisers include Otmar Issing who, as a board member of the German Bundesbank and then the European Central Bank, was one of the architects of the euro.

Perhaps the most prominent ex-politician inside the bank is Peter Sutherland, Attorney General of Ireland in the 1980s and another former EU Competition Commissioner. He is now non-executive chairman of Goldman's UK-based broker-dealer arm, Goldman Sachs International, and until its collapse and nationalisation he was also a non-executive director of Royal Bank of Scotland. He has been a prominent voice within Ireland on its bailout by the EU, arguing that the terms of emergency loans should be eased, so as not to exacerbate the country's financial woes. The EU agreed to cut Ireland's interest rate this summer.

Picking up well-connected policymakers on their way out of government is only one half of the Project, sending Goldman alumni into government is the other half. Like Mr Monti, Mario Draghi, who took over as President of the ECB on 1 November, has been in and out of government and in and out of Goldman. He was a member of the World Bank and managing director of the Italian Treasury before spending three years as managing director of Goldman Sachs International between 2002 and 2005 – only to return to government as president of the Italian central bank.

Mr Draghi has been dogged by controversy over the accounting tricks conducted by Italy and other nations on the eurozone periphery as they tried to squeeze into the single currency a decade ago. By using complex derivatives, Italy and Greece were able to slim down the apparent size of their government debt, which euro rules mandated shouldn't be above 60 per cent of the size of the economy. And the brains behind several of those derivatives were the men and women of Goldman Sachs....

In one deal, Goldman channelled $1bn of funding to the Greek government in 2002 in a transaction called a cross-currency swap. On the other side of the deal, working in the National Bank of Greece, was Petros Christodoulou, who had begun his career at Goldman, and who has been promoted now to head the office managing government Greek debt....

"My former colleagues at the IMF are running around trying to justify bailouts of €1.5trn-€4trn, but what does that mean?" says Simon Johnson. "It means bailing out the creditors 100 per cent. It is another bank bailout, like in 2008: The mechanism is different, in that this is happening at the sovereign level not the bank level, but the rationale is the same."

So certain is the financial elite that the banks will be bailed out, that some are placing bet-the-company wagers on just such an outcome. Jon Corzine, a former chief executive of Goldman Sachs, returned to Wall Street last year after almost a decade in politics and took control of a historic firm called MF Global. He placed a $6bn bet with the firm's money that Italian government bonds will not default.

When the bet was revealed last month, clients and trading partners decided it was too risky to do business with MF Global and the firm collapsed within days. It was one of the ten biggest bankruptcies in US history....
This is the rationale for the bailouts and the austerity, the reason we are getting more Goldman, not less. The alternative is a second financial crisis, a second economic collapse."...

Image, Goldman Sachs, masters of Eurozone, map from UK Independent




Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.