Friday, June 03, 2016

5 Times Hillary Clinton Blatantly Lied About Her Emails By Tom Cahill

Source: http://usuncut.com/politics/5-times-hillary-clinton-lied-emails/
May 26, 2016

The State Department Inspector General’s report about Hillary Clinton’s emails and private server proves Clinton has been blatantly lying to the American people for over a year.

While Bernie Sanders, her only remaining primary opponent, has refused to touch the email issue, opting instead to debate policy, the former Secretary of State is expected to be questioned soon by the FBI as it finishes its investigation into whether or not Clinton’s use of a private email server in her home compromised national security.

Even if national security was never jeopardized, Clinton could still be indicted for “gross negligence” if the Department of Justice concludes that Clinton’s cavalier attitude about the sensitive materials in her server constitutes negligence. Even a former U.S. Attorney General has said the Clinton investigation should result in indictment, claiming she broke at least four different laws.

A Clinton indictment would almost certainly cost the former First Lady the Democratic nomination if it comes before the Democratic National Convention in late July, or even hand the presidency to Donald Trump if Clinton is the Democratic nominee and the FBI hands down an indictment between then and November. The release of the Inspector General’s report makes an indictment much more likely, as it proves Clinton has consistently lied to the public about the issue in at least five different instances:

Lie #1: The State Department signed off on Clinton’s use of a private server

At the 30-second mark of the below video, Clinton is seen telling NBC’s Andrea Mitchell in a 2015 interview that her private email server was “allowed by the State Department,” and again reiterating that same point in the October 2015 Democratic Debate on CNN.

However, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) wrote that Clinton not only ignored proper protocol for recordkeeping, but actively circumvented it by using a private home server to conduct State Department business:

“The Department’s current policy, implemented in 2005, is that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System (AIS), which “has the proper level of security control to … ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information.”

As of this writing, Clinton’s own website parrots the lie that the State Department allowed her to use a private server to conduct State Department business.

Lie #2: Other Secretaries of State did the same thing

In response to the OIG report, Hillary for America national press secretary Brian Fallon tweeted that Clinton’s use of a private server was “not unique,” and Clinton later said that her predecessors had similar recordkeeping practices (a claim PolitiFact debunked with a “mostly false” rating):

According to the New York Times, Albright and Rice didn’t use private email accounts to conduct government business. And while Clinton would like to use Colin Powell as an example of a predecessor who adopted similar recordkeeping practices, he used his private email sparingly, whereas Clinton used it exclusively. As Bloomberg View’s Megan McArdle wrote, Powell’s use of a private account was completely transparent. Clinton, on the other hand, told those asking about her private server to stop asking about it immediately.

Powell had an outside line set up in his office, into which he plugged a laptop, which he used alongside his State Department computer. The IT department was, in other words, aware that this was going on, and it seems to have come up in discussions of his drive to get everyone at State access to the Internet at their desk.

While former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice agreed to be interviewed by the OIG for the report, Clinton did not.

Lie #3: Clinton’s private server was never hacked

44-year-old Romanian hacker Marcel Lehel Lazar, also known as Guccifer, claims that he not only successfully hacked into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, but that up to 10 hackers from multiple countries had access to the server at one point, and that hacking into the server was “easy.” In 2015, Politico reported that Clinton’s server had hacking attempts from South Korea, China, and Germany.

Guccifer recently pleaded guilty to hacking the social media and email accounts of approximately 100 senior government officials, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and is likely to do serious time on charges of unauthorized access to a protected computer and aggravated identity theft. Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon cast doubt on Guccifer’s claims, saying there’s no definitive proof that the server was ever hacked.

However, the OIG report reveals that Bryan Pagliano, who set up Clinton’s server, had to shut down the server at one point to prevent hackers from accessing its contents. And the New York Times reports that Clinton blatantly ignored multiple briefings and in-person training sessions on cybersecurity:

The department issued numerous warnings dating back a decade about the cybersecurity risks of using personal emails accounts for government business, the report said. Mrs. Clinton was personally sent a memo in 2011 warnings of hackers trying to target unclassified, personal email accounts. She was also given a classified, in-person briefing on the dangers, the report said.

Lie #4: Clinton and her staff cooperated with every step of the investigation

In a March interview with CBS’ Face the Nation, Clinton congratulated Bryan Pagliano for cooperating with the FBI investigation into the use of her private server, calling the investigation a “security review” and saying “everyone else has” cooperated with investigators along the way. But the OIG report reveals that neither Clinton nor her top aides, like Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan, and Cheryl Mills, agreed to be interviewed for the report.

Additionally, the OIG found that not only was Team Clinton unwilling to cooperate, but that Clinton wasn’t alone in her use of private email for government business. The Washington Post discovered a section buried in the report that names “four immediate staff members” as having some 72,000 pages of government business archived in their private accounts:

emails1

And while Clinton eventually agreed to turn over tens of thousands of emails to the public as part of a Freedom of Information Act request, the OIG found that Clinton sent an incomplete package, with months of emails missing from Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State:

emails2

Lie #5: Clinton sent no classified material over her private server

On Hillary Clinton’s website, she defends her use of the private server, arguing that no classified emails were ever sent on her home server, claiming she only used her home account for unclassified material. But a Washington Post analysis of Clinton’s email records found that over 100 emails Clinton sent from her home server contained classified information:

In roughly three-quarters of those cases, officials have determined that material Clinton herself wrote in the body of email messages is classified. Clinton sometimes initiated the conversations but more often replied to aides or other officials with brief reactions to ongoing discussions.

The analysis also showed that the practice of using non-secure email systems to send sensitive information was widespread at the department and elsewhere in government.

Additionally, 22 of the emails on Clinton’s server, amounting to seven email chains and 37 pages of hard copy, were later given “top secret” classification by the State Department, meaning they could cause “exceptionally grave” damage to national security if made public. Brian Fallon blasted the categorization of those emails, calling it “overclassification run amok.” At one point, Clinton even instructed aide Jake Sullivan to strip a set of talking points of its classified status, and then send the document through a “non-secure” channel after Sullivan told his superior that there were “issues” with sending the document through a secure fax line.

Certainly, the OIG report leaves many questions unanswered, as the Democratic presidential front-runner has now been caught lying in at least five public statements about her emails. The only questions remaining now are whether or not the FBI will question the former Secretary of State before the Democratic National Convention in July, and whether or not she’ll be charged with a crime.

 

Tom Cahill is a writer for US Uncut based in the Pacific Northwest. He specializes in coverage of political, economic, and environmental news. You can contact him via email at tom.v.cahill@gmail.com

#NeverClinton

I’m Voting Trump, Warts and All: I stand by all my criticisms of the New Yorker, but the stakes for the country are too great to elect Clinton. By Bobby Jindal

Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/im-voting-trump-warts-and-all-1462739009

May 8, 2016

Some of my fellow Republicans have declared they will never, under any circumstances, vote for Donald Trump. They are pessimistic about the party’s chances in November and seem more motivated by long-term considerations. They think devotion to the “anybody but Trump” movement is a principled and courageous stance that will help preserve a remnant of the conservative movement and its credibility, which can then serve as a foundation for renewal.

I sympathize with this perspective, but I am planning to vote for Donald Trump. Why? Because the stakes for my country, not merely my party, are simply too high.

I was one of the earliest and loudest critics of Mr. Trump. I mocked his appearance, demeanor, ideology and ego in the strongest language I have ever used to publicly criticize anyone in politics. I worked harder than most, with little apparent effect, to stop his ascendancy. I have not experienced a sudden epiphany and am not here to detail an evolution in my perspective.

I believe this presidential election cycle favors Republicans, due more to President Obama’s shortcomings than to any of our virtues or cleverness. I also believe that Donald Trump will have the hardest time of any of the Republican candidates in winning. He has stubbornly stuck to the same outlandish behavior and tactics that have served him so well to date. Mr. Trump continues to have the last laugh at the expense of his critics and competitors, myself included.

I think electing Donald Trump would be the second-worst thing we could do this November, better only than electing Hillary Clinton to serve as the third term for the Obama administration’s radical policies. I am not pretending that Mr. Trump has suddenly become a conservative champion or even a reliable Republican: He is completely unpredictable. The problem is that Hillary is predictably liberal.

There will be none of her husband’s triangulation. Republicans are fooling themselves if they think this President Clinton would sign into law policies like Nafta, the crime bill, welfare reform, or the deficit reduction packages that marked Bill’s tenure. While Bill felt compelled to confront Sister Souljah—and less directly Jesse Jackson—to appeal to moderate voters, Hillary is more responsive to pressure from Black Lives Matter and the far left. I have no idea what Mr. Trump might do, while Mrs. Clinton is predictable. Both are scary, the former less so.

The next president will make a critical appointment to the Supreme Court, who will cast the tiebreaking vote in important cases that will set precedents for years to come. Issues like the sanctity of innocent human life, constitutional protections for religious liberty and Second Amendment rights, and limits on the unelected federal bureaucracy hang in the balance.

In my lifetime, no Democrat in the White House has ever appointed a Supreme Court justice who surprised the nation by becoming more conservative, while the opposite certainly cannot be said for Republican appointments. Mr. Trump might not support a constitutionalist conservative focused on original intent and limits on the court’s powers. He may be more likely to appoint Judge Judy. However, there is only a chance that a President Trump would nominate a bad justice, while Mrs. Clinton certainly would.

The current president has abused his executive powers to implement ObamaCare and to grant de facto amnesty for illegal immigrants, in defiance of Congress and the courts. The next president will make critical decisions on whether to renew these executive orders or issue new ones repealing past abuses, and will make key appointments who will decide whether to continue bending the law to prop up ObamaCare.

Repealing and replacing ObamaCare will require congressional action. But President Obama has proven how much can be done by a determined executive. I admire his tenacity, though not his goals or disregard for constitutional limits. Mr. Trump has had a decidedly mixed record of both supporting and opposing more government involvement in health care. Mrs. Clinton has been much more consistent in favor of a big-government approach, dating to her own failed efforts in the 1990s.

If elected, Mrs. Clinton will continue hindering affordable domestic energy, increasing dependence on government and the growth of welfare programs, growing the nation’s debt and weakening America abroad. She will more firmly establish a culture of victimhood and identity politics, further dividing Americans rather than uniting us, and will continue promoting redistribution and government interference rather than growth and freedom.

I do not pretend Donald Trump is the Reaganesque leader we so desperately need, but he is certainly the better of two bad choices. Hardly an inspiring slogan, I know. It would be better to vote for a candidate rather than simply against one. If current trends hold, I will be among the many complaining this fall about my choices.

I understand why so many of my Republican friends are in denial, while many of my Democratic friends gleefully anticipate and applaud defections. The media is poised to reward those “courageous” Republicans ready to do the “right thing” and endorse Hillary. Count me out.

Mr. Jindal is a former governor of Louisiana (2008-16), a former U.S. congressman (2005-08) and a former chairman of the Republican Governors Association.

Donald Trump can help make reality of bold House policy agenda By Rep. Paul Ryan

Source: http://www.gazettextra.com/20160602/paul_ryan_donald_trump_can_help_make_reality_of_bold_house_policy_agenda

June 2, 2016

When Donald Trump became the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee for president one month ago, many Republicans like me faced a big question.

Six months earlier, in October, as I was taking the job as House speaker, my colleagues and I were discussing an equally important question: What could House Republicans do to give Americans a clear choice about the future of the country?

Sure, count us among the majority of Americans upset with the direction our country is headed. But that’s not enough. We agreed that we must focus less on what we’re against and more on what we’re for. So, long before we knew who our nominee would be, we decided we would present the country a policy agenda that offers a better way forward. We know what we believe in, so let’s bring it to the country.

That’s how I’ve always looked at it. I’ve spent most of my adult life pursuing ways to help protect the “American Idea”—the notion that the condition of one’s birth does not determine the outcome of one’s life. The first step is always putting it on paper and having a real debate. And with the Obama presidency nearing an end, we have a real opportunity to get big things done the next four years.

That’s why next week my colleagues and I will start introducing a series of policy proposals that address the American people’s top priorities. These plans are the result of months of work by House Republicans.

The concept from the start was simple: If we had a Republican president ready to sign bills into law, what would we do?

This month, we’ll show the country what a better tax code looks like. We’ll outline a plan not just for repealing Obamacare but replacing it with a better system, more focused on patients, choices and lower costs. We’ll offer a plan to restore the Constitution and the separation of powers that decades of executive overreach have eroded. We’ll present the ideal national security and foreign policy to keep Americans safe. We’ll show how we can reform rules and regulations so they’re spurring the economy and creating jobs, not destroying them. And we’ll offer a better way to help lift people out of poverty and into lives of self-determination.

It will be a positive, optimistic vision for a more confident America.

It’s short of all that’s required to save the country, but the goal was to focus on issues that unite Republicans. It’s a bold agenda but one that can bring together all wings of the Republican Party as well as appeal to most Americans.

One person who we know won’t support it is Hillary Clinton. A Clinton White House would mean four more years of liberal cronyism and a government more out for itself than the people it serves. Quite simply, she represents all that our agenda aims to fix.

To enact these ideas, we need a Republican president willing to sign them into law. That’s why, when he sealed the nomination, I could not offer my support for Donald Trump before discussing policies and basic principles.

As I said from the start, my goal has been to unite the party so we can win in the fall. And if we’re going to unite, it has to be over ideas.

Donald Trump and I have talked at great length about things such as the proper role of the executive and fundamental principles such as the protection of life. The list of potential Supreme Court nominees he released after our first meeting was very encouraging.

But the House policy agenda has been the main focus of our dialogue. We’ve talked about the common ground this agenda can represent. We’ve discussed how the House can be a driver of policy ideas. We’ve talked about how important these reforms are to saving our country. And we’ve talked about how, by focusing on issues that unite Republicans, we can work together to heal the fissures developed through the primary.

Through these conversations, I feel confident he would help us turn the ideas in this agenda into laws to help improve people’s lives. That’s why I’ll be voting for him this fall.

It’s no secret that he and I have our differences. I won’t pretend otherwise. And when I feel the need to, I’ll continue to speak my mind. But the reality is, on the issues that make up our agenda, we have more common ground than disagreement.

For me, it’s a question of how to move ahead on the ideas that I—and my House colleagues—have invested so much in through the years. It’s not just a choice of two people, but of two visions for America. And House Republicans are helping shape that Republican vision by offering a bold policy agenda, by offering a better way ahead.

Donald Trump can help us make it a reality.

Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Janesville represents Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District and serves as speaker of the House. Readers can send mail to him at the Janesville Constituent Services Center, 20 S. Main St., Suite 10, Janesville, WI 53545; Washington, D.C., phone 202-225-3031. Send email through www.paulryan.house.gov.

Thursday, May 05, 2016

At least 2,079 Clinton emails contain classified material By Anita Kumar

Source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article63218372.html#!

February 29, 2016

State Department says none was marked classified during Clinton’s tenure

261 of the newly released emails contained classified information

Monday’s release marks the 14th and final batch of Clinton emails

WASHINGTON At least 2,079 emails that Hillary Clinton sent or received contained classified material, according to the State Department’s final update from its review of more than 30,000 emails.

The State Department released a new batch of 3,871 pages of Clinton’s emails Monday evening in response to a court order. Of those, 261 contain classified information. Most were at the confidential level, which is the lowest level of classification. Twenty-three of them were at the Secret level.

None of Clinton’s emails was marked as classified during her tenure, State Department officials say, but intelligence officials say some material was clearly classified at the time. Her aides also sent and received classified information.

Clinton, running a tough race for the Democratic nomination for president, has been under fire for months for exclusively using personal email routed through a private server while serving as the nation’s top diplomat. The FBI launched an inquiry into the handling of sensitive information after classified information was found in some.

In response to a public records lawsuit, the State Department is releasing Clinton’s emails monthly after partially or entirely redacting any containing sensitive U.S. or foreign government information. It has released 52,402 pages of emails.

According to the Republican National Committee, 2,063 emails were found to contain classified information on “foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;” 1,478 were found to contain classified “foreign government information” and 28 emails were found to contain classified information on “intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;” and 4 emails were found to contain classified information on “vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security.”

Three weeks ago, the State Department designated 22 of previously reviewed emails “top secret” – the first time it has deemed any of Clinton’s emails to be classified at a level that can cause “exceptionally grave” damage to national security if disclosed. The 22 emails will not be released to the public. The department is releasing other classified emails with some redactions.

Clinton’s campaign has refuted the “top secret” designation and demanded that all of Clinton’s emails be released to the public.

The State Department inspector general said recently he had discovered that former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Secretary Condoleezza Rice’s aides had classified information in their personal emails. Powell has rejected those allegations.

The State Department had been ordered by a federal judge to release all of Clinton’s emails in January in response to a public records lawsuit. But the State Department said it would be unable to meet that deadline. Monday’s release was the 14th and final release.


Smoking Gun: Email Suggests Hillary Broke Law


Source: http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/smoking-gun-email-suggests-hillary-committed-a-crime/

Clinton instructed an aide to remove the classification marking from information, a federal offense

The latest batch of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department early Friday contain what may be the smoking gun that forces the Justice Department to charge the former secretary of state with a crime, according to former federal prosecutor Joseph diGenova.

“This is gigantic,” said diGenova. “She caused to be removed a classified marking and then had it transmitted in an unencrypted manner. That is a felony. The removal of the classified marking is a federal crime. It is the same thing to order someone to do it as if she had done it herself.”

On the June 17, 2011, email chain with senior State Department adviser Jake Sullivan, Clinton apparently asked Sullivan to change the marking on classified information so that it is no longer flagged as classified.

Clinton, using her private email server, asks for “the TPs,” apparently a reference to talking points being prepared for her. Sullivan, who is using his official State Department email, responds, “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it.” Clinton responds, “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w[ith] no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”

It’s not clear if Sullivan actually followed through on Clinton’s orders. But if he did, it may expose Clinton to serious legal jeopardy.

“This makes it impossible for the bureau not to recommend charges,” diGenova said of the FBI. “This makes it impossible not to go forward, and it certainly ties the hand of the attorney general.”

Some have speculated that while the FBI may recommend charges, Attorney General Loretta Lynch might try to avoid doing so for political reasons.

Related: The Pallid Prince: Bill Can’t Rescue Hillary

The revelation also appears to put the lie to Clinton’s claim that she never handled classified information on her server.

“I did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time,” she has claimed. By instructing her aide to send her material marked classified, it is clear that she not only may have received classified information, but that it was indeed “classified at the time.”

“This means that when she said, ‘I never received anything marked classified,’ she in fact did,” diGenova said.

David Bossie, president of the watchdog group Citizens United, said the email could become the emblem of Hillary’s email scandal.

“It proves that Hillary Clinton affirmatively instructed senior staff to send classified data to an unsecured server,” he said. “With that, it cements into history, much like the famous Bill Clinton finger wag.”


Eight Laws Hillary Clinton Could Be Indicted For Breaking

Source: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/21/eight-laws-hillary-clinton-could-be-indicted-for-breaking/

September 21, 2015

As a former Justice Department official, I have, of late, been asked by both Democratic and Republican friends whether Hillary Clinton could be indicted for her email related actions. The simple answer is yes — she, and perhaps some of her senior staff, could be indicted for violating a number of federal criminal statutes. But for reasons that will be discussed later, it is unlikely that she will be.

Nevertheless, it is well worth discussing the various criminal provisions of federal law that she and others may have been violated based on mainstream news reports. Remember that news reporting can be incorrect or incomplete — and that Hillary Clinton, and anyone else involved, deserves every presumption of innocence. Also keep in mind that an indictment is not a conviction but rather the informed opinion of a grand jury that probable cause exists to believe one or more violations of federal criminal statutes have transpired.

This intellectual and legal research exercise should commence with a brief review of the basics of criminal jurisprudence: There are two elements of a criminal offense: the prohibited conduct as defined in statute; and the mens rea or mental intent of the individual or individuals engaging in the prohibited conduct. Thus, to gain a conviction on a criminal count in an indictment, a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the prohibited conduct occurred, (2) the prohibited conduct was undertaken by the defendant, and (3) the defendant had the requisite mens rea or intent at the time.

1.) 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information

A federal prosecutor would naturally focus first on the most serious allegations: willfully transmitting or willfully retaining Top Secret and Compartmented (TS/SCI) material using a private server system. The individual who transmits and the individual who receives and retains TS/SCI information on a private server jointly share the culpability for risking the compromise and exploitation of the information by hostile intelligence services. The prosecutor’s charging document would likely include felony counts under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and under 18 U.S. Code § 798 against each transmitting individual as well as separate counts against each receiving and retaining individual. Violation of either provision of the U.S. Code cited above is a felony with a maximum prison term of ten years.

The prohibited conduct is the insecure transmission of highly classified information, as well as the receipt and retention of highly classified information in an unapproved manner. The requisite mens rea is the willful commission of the prohibited conduct and the knowledge that compromised information could result in prejudice or injury to the United States or advantage to any foreign nation. Proof of intent to disclose the classified information is not required.

2.) U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

If the federal prosecutors are of a charitable disposition and an accused person has been cooperative, the felony charges under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and 18 U.S. Code § 798 may be “pled-down” to a single or to multiple misdemeanor counts under 18 U.S. Code § 1924. A misdemeanor conviction would probably result in a period of probation and a less significant fine. The prohibited conduct is the unauthorized removal of classified information from government control or its retention in an unauthorized location. The mens rea required is the intent to remove from government control or the intent to store the classified information in an unauthorized location.

3.) 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

To sustain a charge under 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b), a federal prosecutor need only prove that the accused transferred and held the only copies of official government records (whether classified or not), the very existence of which was concealed from government records custodians. The mens rea required is that an accused knows that official government records were transferred or removed from the control of government records custodians. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) is a felony with a maximum prison term of three years.

4.) 18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records

Again, if the federal prosecutors are of a charitable disposition and accused has been cooperative, the felony charges under 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) can be “pled down” to a misdemeanor under 18 U.S. Code § 641. The prohibited conduct is the conversion of official records (whether classified or not) to the accused’s exclusive use and the mens rea is simply the intent to do so. Conviction on the lesser misdemeanor charge would likely result in a period of probation and the imposition of a fine.

5.) 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

If it can be proven that an accused destroyed, withheld, or concealed the existence of official records being sought under subpoena by a committee of Congress, the accused can be convicted of obstruction under 18 U.S. Code § 1505. The prohibited conduct includes destruction, concealment and withholding of documents, thereby impeding or obstructing the committee’s rightful pursuit of information. The mens rea is knowledge of the committee’s interest in obtaining the official records in the accused’s custody or control. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1505 is a felony with a maximum prison term of five years.

6.) 18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations

If it can be proven that an accused knowingly concealed the existence of official records being sought by the Department of State Inspector General (DOS/IG) or by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), such accused can be convicted of obstruction. The prohibited conduct is the concealment and withholding of documents that impede or obstruct an investigation. The mens rea is the intent to conceal or withhold. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1519 is a felony with a maximum prison term of twenty years.

7.) 18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States
18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States

If it can be proven that an accused arranged for the Department of State to hire an Information Technology (IT) specialist to primarily administer and maintain a private server system owned by the accused, then the accused can be convicted of conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and probably wire fraud. The prohibited conduct is having the United States pay an employee salary and/or official travel funds for performing private services on behalf of accused. The mens rea is simply the knowledge of the employee’s status as a public servant and that the government was not fully reimbursed for the costs to the government of such services. The wire fraud conviction can be sought if it can be proven that accused used electronic means of communication in undertaking such scheme or artifice to defraud.

8.) 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense

If any accused and any third party can be proven to have colluded in any violation of federal, criminal law, then all involved can be charged with criminal conspiracy as well as being charged with the underlying offense.

Indictment?

The old adage, that a good prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted, is bad news for any public servant who risks the compromise of classified information or otherwise violates any of the other federal criminal statutes listed above. Specifically, this Administration has a history of vigorously prosecuting and winning convictions in the mishandling of classified information and other criminal violations of the public trust.

However, Hillary Clinton is anything but a ham sandwich; and she knows it. She and her senior aides will not even be formally investigated by this Justice Department, much less indicted. The president will allow Hillary Clinton and her aides to “tough it out” for as long it is politically possible. However, if and when the political and public opinion costs of a “tough it out” tactic become too great, President Obama will simply use that famous pen of his to issue a succinct pardon and make formal mockery of the concept of equal justice.

Kenneth Bergquist served as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the United States Department of Justice during the Reagan Administration and serves now as pro bono legal counsel to the Special Operations Education Fund (OPSEC).

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Books Recommended About The American South


Source: http://thesga.org/2010/04/must-have-book-hudsons-southeastern-indians/

April 9, 2010

Must-have book: Hudson’s Southeastern Indians

Submitted by Sammy Smith (sammy@thesga.org)

Ethnohistorian Charles Hudson’s book The Southeastern Indians is still in print.

That’s saying something; it was originally published in 1976. Mostly, it indicates that this readable, data-filled volume remains relevant and important.

In other words: save your pennies and get your own copy!

Yes, archaeologists and historians have gathered significant new information since this book was published, but what’s between the covers means this title is worth having in your own library.

Hudson’s writing is both lyrical and factual. Consider the initial paragraph:

The native people of the American South—the Southeastern Indians—possessed the richest culture of any of the native people north of Mexico. It was richest by almost any measure. At the time Europeans first came to the New World, the Southeastern Indians lived on the fruits of an economy which combined farming with hunting and gathering; they organized themselves into relatively complex political units; they built large towns and monumental ceremonial centers; and they possessed a rich symbolism and an expressive art style. But hardly any of this has left an impression on our historical memory. The average American has some notion of the Powhatan Indians of Virginia and of the role they played in our early colonial history; he has a clear but stereotyped concept of the Indians who lived on the Great Plains; he may know something about the Navajo and Pueblo Indians of the Southwest; but he knows little or nothing about the Southeastern Indians.

Remember, Dr. Hudson wrote this in 1976. Still, many “average Americans” know little about the native peoples who lived in Georgia. If you want to learn about them, this book, with its maps and black-and-white photographic plates, is an excellent place to start. It remains available in paperback at a reasonable cost.

What other volumes do you consider must-have for your own library on Georgia archaeology? Log in and comment!

Charles M. Hudson, 1976, “The Southeastern Indians,” University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 573 pages. ISBN-13: 978-0870492488.





Cracker Culture is a provocative study of social life in the Old South that probes the origin of cultural differences between the South and the North throughout American history. Among Scotch-Irish settlers the term “Cracker” initially designated a person who boasted, but in American usage the word has come to designate poor whites. McWhiney uses the term to define culture rather than to signify an economic condition. Although all poor whites were Crackers, not all Crackers were poor whites; both, however, were Southerners.

The author insists that Southerners and Northerners were never alike. American colonists who settled south and west of Pennsylvania during the 17th and 18th centuries were mainly from the “Celtic fringe” of the British Isles. The culture that these people retained in the New World accounts in considerable measure for the difference between them and the Yankees of New England, most of whom originated in the lowlands of the southeastern half of the island of Britain. From their solid base in the southern backcountry, Celts and their “Cracker” descendants swept westward throughout the antebellum period until they had established themselves and their practices across the Old South. Basic among those practices that determined their traditional folkways, values, norms, and attitudes was the herding of livestock on the open range, in contrast to the mixed agriculture that was the norm both in southeastern Britain and in New England. The Celts brought to the Old South leisurely ways that fostered idleness and gaiety. Like their Celtic ancestors, Southerners were characteristically violent; they scorned pacifism; they considered fights and duels honorable and consistently ignored laws designed to control their actions. In addition, family and kinship were much more important in Celtic Britain and the antebellum South than in England and the Northern United States. Fundamental differences between Southerners and Northerners shaped the course of antebellum American history; their conflict in the 1860s was not so much brother against brother as culture against culture.


Source: http://personal.tcu.edu/swoodworth/McWhineyCracker.html

Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South.  By Grady McWhiney. (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1988)

According to Grady McWhiney, the North and the South were destined to develop incompatible lifestyles because of each regions’ unique ethnic roots.  Whereas the North came from the stock of industrious hard working Englishmen, the South spawned from the pastoral and primitive society of the British Isle’s Celtic people. Written in 1988, Cracker Culture presented the broadest attempt at surveying the common white man of the Old South since Frank Owsley’s Plain Folk of the Old South published almost forty years before.

The book examines the culinary, agricultural, herding, and entertainment activities of the Old South and compares them to McWhiney’s understanding of pre-capitalistic Celtic society.  He continually asserts that these practices made Southern lifestyle incompatible with the more Anglo oriented activities of the North, and that the Civil War was almost preordained to happen because the societies must eventually come into “mortal combat” to solve their differences (269).

            McWhiney formulaically arranges his book into comparisons between Northern and Southern lifestyles and then English and Celtic.  The book does rely heavily on primary sources to further McWhiney’s thesis, but he fails to engage the numerous critics that arose to argue against him when he stated his “Celtic Thesis” in 1984 with the book Attack and Die.  He also never expands his argument to examine other pre-capitalist agriculture societies to see if the activities of McWhiney’s “Celts” are actually unique to that ethnic groups at all, or rather a function of being a pre-capitalist society in general.  The other major issue with the book that McWhiney fails to address by sticking so close to the primary sources is just how he is defining who a Celt is.  Even by the time of American Revolution, significant integration had begun to occur between English and “Celts” in numbers that would have made a pure distinction possible.  Ironically, McWhiney has as hard a time defining “Celts” in the Old World as much as some southern urban centers had defining “Blacks” in the Old South. 

            The book does contain a number of enlightening observations on the Old South though, despite its controversial thesis.  One of the most important is the emphasis on cattle and swine herding.  Previously, historians of open range ranching in the United States have written about that agricultural pursuit’s development in the Southwestern United States following the Mexican-American War and especially after the American Civil War.  They argued that it was rural Anglo-American’s interactions with Mexican vaqueros that helped develop open range ranching in the United States, but McWhiney skillfully highlights that there was a longstanding tradition already in the South and that it was that tradition that moved out west with Southerners as they emigrated. 

            Cracker Culture’s thesis will invite argument and debate for years to come, but it does have some features that recommend it for use in the existing historiography.  There are specific sections that historians of the Old South can use as a springboard for further investigation, and the overall narrative of the book would be useful for sparking heated intellectual debate at the graduate level.  Unfortunately, the controversial nature of the book’s thesis would tend to detract from its use at the undergraduate level.  The book is an important addition to the historiography of the Old South in a unique way.

Joe Stoltz

 

Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South.  By Grady McWhiney.  Tuscaloosa:  University of Alabama Press, 1988.

Dr. McWhiney is a retired Texas Christian University History Professor who held the Lyndon Baines Johnson chair for several years.  In his work, he puts forth the argument that the cultural lifestyle of antebellum southerners in the United States had a strong similarity to the cultures of Ireland, Scotland, Cornwall, and Wales regions of the British Empire.  The author details these similarities in chapters noting settlement patterns, heritage, herding styles, tendency towards hospitality, pleasures, violence, morals, education progress and, worth.

In this work, Dr. McWhiney argues that the markedly distinctive characteristics of Southern culture is an extension of Celtic traits transplanted to the United States during the migration of that populace in the eighteenth century. McWhiney contends that while the South became the receptacle of the Celtic traditional society, the North became home to the more urbane, worldly, strict, White Anglo Saxon Protestant English who followed the Protestant work ethic. 

This continuation of the habits morals and, values from the two disparate cultures allowed the propagation of certain conceived bias, prejudices and resentments to carry over into the newly settled lands.  McWhiney states, “This Cultural conflict between English and Celt not only continued in British North America, it shaped the history of the United States” (p. 7).  In this argument, he also states that the Celtic southerners openly despised hard work and felt that the more important aspects of life revolved around the leisurely pursuits of drinking, gambling, fighting, hunting and all types of sports.  While in the North, more traits that are useful came to the front such as hard work, attention to detail, thriftiness, education, and civilized behavior to one another. 

Most of the book details the similarities of the Celtic culture and the Southern populace by extensively using personal accounts of travelers from the North and foreign countries.  The points that Dr. McWhiney makes about the Southern culture involve the issues of the laziness of Anglos, also known as Crackers.  In his book, McWhiney states, “Nobody seems to have worked very hard in the Old South” (p. 47).  This statement also pertained to slaves who, according to the author, also had a tendency towards idleness (p. 45-6).    Would the slaves feel differently if they could state their own case on labor and work ethics?

There are some problems with the author’s work; the attempt to deny the importance of wealth and status among the southerners is laughable.  The remarks of slaves also becoming lazy and insolent appear false; after all, slave owners would not have tolerated such insolence and after working in the cotton fields all day, would slaves feel the same way? Dr. McWhiney also leaves out the very important voice of the slaves in the Southern culture.  He also states that the Native Indians were lazy, slothful and lacking in work ethic while not truly exploring or understanding the native culture that they come from.

While interesting to the average reader, the book has flaws tend to detract from the effort that Dr. McWhiney devoted to his book.  His arguments on the surface are plausible and many readers will chuckle when specific examples are familiar to the reader; however the lack of a bibliographical section and the extensive use of long footnotes also detract from an otherwise interesting book.

Texas Christian University
Thomas Walker


Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South. By Gradey McWhiney.

This book argues that a Celtic culture developed and existed in the antebellum south.  Author, Gradey McWhiney, affirms that Celtic natives brought their culture to southern colonies in British North America, and that their decedents (Crackers) passed on ancestral ways and daily traditions that became rooted in the south.  According to the author, this Celtic culture was anti English and developed into anti Yankee sentiment before and during the Civil War.  His thesis explores and describes similarities between Celts and Crackers.  By exploring the accounts of southern travelers, the author denotes their characterizations of these Celtic culture’s attitudes and he classifies them as Scottish, Irish, and Welsh culture characteristics.  He will note how both Celts and Crackers held similarities in values of hospitality, education, wealth, and most importantly violence.

The author will claim that these southerners were lazy, idle, illiterate herders, who would rather fight, chew tobacco, hunt, play music, and loaf rather than toil in agricultural pursuits.  The rural attitudes that developed in the south from these Crackers were not shared by their northern counterparts and McWhiney will claim that, “Celts and Southerners were simply too lazy, too unstable, too migratory, and too committed to sensual pleasures to be yeomen.”  This thesis based solely on the accounts of traveling observers is a bold claim and its debate continues today.

McWhiney’s evidence is disputed in several ways, for example his claims that a people could not change after several migrations, technological advances, wars, and economic influences seems weak and unsubstantiated.  It appears that the author is creating a romantic idea of southerners and their culture in the nineteenth century and does so without referring to the anthropological scholarship.  However, by exploring the cultural heritage of southerners and their ancestors, he paints an interpretive snapshot of those middle class travelers in the antebellum south.  It looks as if McWhiney defines this culture as completely unchanging and with it their ideals of daily life.  The authors’ denial of the importance of wealth by these southern Crackers and Celts seems absurd.  Surely many white males desired the dollar, even among the Cracker Culture. By surveying travelers’ accounts and perceptions of the southern people, one must question their accuracy and definitions of the accounts or expressions of the Cracker Culture.   McWhiney interprets these travelers’ accounts well in order to support his thesis and it only demonstrates a biased view rather than a multifaceted historical account.

This book is very entertaining reading although the evidence seems weak at times.  The author seems to dismiss those southern gentry who did not follow the Cracker or Celtic influences.  While reading the book one is easily swayed that, all southerners who established themselves in the south were Celts or Crackers and such was not the case.  It is a significant historical account of a unique culture because it tries to define a exclusive class of southern white men – the Cracker.  The important debate of this cultures’ attitude on violence, slavery, religion, racism, paternalism, and daily cultural lifestyles that according to McWhiney, always resisted human and environmental influences is worthy of the historical exploration.

Jeff Tucker


Cracker Culture:  Celtic Ways in the Old South. By Grady McWhiney with Forrest McDonald. (Tuscaloosa:  University of Alabama Press, 1988) Pp. 290.

In a very controversial but undeniably interesting book, Grady McWhiney takes a hand at explaining why the north and south differed so much before the Civil War.  In short, he points to the settlement patterns of the Old South.  Predominately, he claims, Celts from the fringes of Britain settled the southern colonies, while the more puritanical English settled the northern ones.  Each side carried with it their culture, and the same oppositions that existed in the Old Country took root in the new.  Historians should look to Celtic culture, rather than slavery or cotton, to explain what made the south southern.

The book is mainly a comparison between southern "cracker" culture and that of the Celts in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.  McWhiney hold the two up side by side intending for his readers to be shocked by the similarities between them.  He follows a single basic formula throughout the book, using a topical approach.  He deals first with settlement patterns to prove that Celts did indeed make up a majority of southern settlers.  He also employs surname analysis to this end.  Next, he examines the Celtic culture as a whole to show exactly what sort of culture the settlers took with them.  Here, he shows the Celts to be lazy, illiterate, warm-hearted drunken shepherds who loved poetry, song, fighting, hunting, gambling, etc.

Succeeding chapters take each area separately and make the thrilling discovery that southerners seemed to like all those things too.  There was a basic underpinning that allowed southerners to live as they liked:  the vast majority of them engaged in free range herding.  This in itself might be one of the more controversial points of his book, as it denies the knee-jerk stereotype of the south and king cotton.  Still, crackers put a premium on spare time for leisure, and herding allowed them just that.  They simply turned their cows or hogs loose into common pasturage and picked them back up when they needed them.

As for hospitality, McWhiney argues that they certainly had more than their share of it, like the Celts themselves.  Yet, it sometimes seemed less so to northerners, who often seemed less impressed with the spirit of the moment than they did repulsed by the fare that accompanied it.  Like the Celts from whom they inherited their generosity, southern hospitality was more spontaneous than planned, and usually did not plan for guest ahead of time.  Not surprisingly, McWhiney also argues that the southern population also inherited its love for certain pleasures, such as hunting.

His chapter on violence is of the most interesting.  Visitors to the South often declared its inhabitant's love for violent play simply barbaric.  To southerners, however, flirting with danger was an enthralling pastime.  Also, like the Celts, would duel at the drop of a hat.  Some managed to get particularly gruesome, and the law rarely intervened.  In fact, in both areas, in order to be fully accepted as a man in society, a boy must prove himself in a fight with another.  Yet, strangely, theft was not a real issue.  This is partially explained by Celtic culture once again, as they considered thievery lower than low, while violence, committed honorably, just another fact of life.  McWhiney finishes out his book with chapters comparing Southern and Celtic views on education, morals, progress, and various methods of judging value and worth.

Quite a few historians turned their guns to bear on this book after it appeared in 1988.  Their criticisms are, in some part, deserved.  The idea that the South's Celtic origins are the panacea to all that ails antebellum historians seems more than a bit simplistic, to say the least.  McWhiney also needs to do more than simply point to a series of amazing similarities in order to prove his point.  They could, after all, be mainly gigantic coincidences; surely Celts and Southerners are not the only people groups to act in the manner he describes.

Other attacks miss their mark by a country mile.  In a review for the Journal of American History, Elliot J. Gorn of Miami University takes issue with the idea that a culture can remain static enough to have the kinds of effects that McWhiney wants to ascribe to it.  This may be true to a certain point, cultures do indeed change, but it is not at all evident that McWhiney literally intends to argue that Celtic culture remained unaltered for over the centuries.  Rather, he alleges the Southerners inherited their cultural forms from their ancestors, proving it by showing their similarities to their forefathers.  Another odd assault comes from Michael P. Johnson of the University of California, Irvine.  Here, he complains that McWhiney fails to focus sufficiently on women and blacks.  Though he might have spent more time on women, he does make clear that they tended to fall into line with the men, liking the same things and looking at them in largely the same way.  As to the latter half of his objection, from the very beginning it is abundantly clear that this is a book on cracker culture.  McWhiney simply stayed on topic by focusing mainly on whites.  Though he may criticize the book as "malarkey", Johnson seems to be spinning a few half-baked yarns of his own if he actually means to suggest that significant numbers of blacks should be grouped as crackers, and therefore included (1).

Though the ultimate utility of the book may be open to question, it is still an interesting and informative read.  The similarities between the two cultures seem to be too strong to simply dismiss off hand, but whether McWhiney's conclusions are fully correct remains to be seen.
Texas Christian University

Brian C. Melton

Why I Write On LinkedIn And How Blogging Can Boost Your Career By Karthik Rajan

Source: http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-i-write-linkedin-how-blogging-can-boost-your-career-karthik-rajan?trk=mp-reader-card
January 6, 2016

I have a secret to share.

Many people write to spread their thoughts, some want to make a difference, some great ones build tribes. My intentions were neither as noble nor as chivalrous.

Instead, I was propelled by these words, “Why don’t you write? You are a good writer.” I found it uplifting that my correspondences - personal letters/emails, going back in time, cast a thought on a family member whose writing skills I hold in high regard.

Until then, I never fancied myself as a writer. The closest – I loved words.

Early Days: The Challenge

Encouraged and inspired, I wrote my first few blogs with gusto and sent it to publications like HBR (they used to have a separate blog section). My blogs were politely rejected. I was like a college student looking for the first believer who would extend him a credit card.

Late 2014, LinkedIn Pulse happened – the doors opened. I decided to start afresh with a different first question, “How to orient my blogs?”

  • I chuckled when I first read, “If you would not be forgotten, as soon as you are dead and rotten, either write things worth reading, or do things worth the writing.” - ounces of truth by Ben Franklin.

All the cajoling and inspiration were great. Except, I could not make up my mind on what to write. So, I just started writing on an impulse giving my left brain a reprieve.  I never imagined “a go with the flow” feel would create awesome experiences. Few below.

1)  The Less Obvious: On Content

LinkedIn offered my first “publishing” credit card.  Readers like you provided me something even more valuable – lively interactions in the comments section that refined my writing. In Pulse, I found a hybrid between a professional social platform and a publication. The quick feedback loop benefited me immensely in iterating what you found worth reading.

2) The Nuanced: Aha on writing style

When I started, I had implicitly assumed the same qualifier word before "writing style" and topics - professional. As I interacted with you all more, I had an aha moment - my constraint on the writing style was self- induced. You warmly embraced a first person writing style for professional topics – littered with personal experiences.

Encouraged, I looked for a guiding light for personal writing style. I found it in Wu Qiao’s words,  "When you write in prose, you cook the rice. When you write poetry, you turn rice into rice wine….. Cooked rice makes one full so one can live out one's life span . . . wine, on the other hand…. Its effect is sublimely beyond explanation."

“What happens if we merge the two? Poetry of words as prose. That thought became my aspiration.

 3) The Unexpected: What blogging could mean for your career

I started to blog for purely personal reasons. G S Seda’s comment in another blog best illustrates #whyIwrite (why I started to write), “It is a given certainty that we see our own worth when it is reflected back to us in the eyes of another loving, caring person.”

Yet, blogging brought new vistas I never contemplated - interviews with firms that were not in my area of technical expertise! We hear about portable skills, writing can create the visibility to make it happen.

Steve Jobs, in his formative years, entered a calligraphy class on an impulse. Little did he know that it would become integral to the first Macintosh.

If you are on the cusp of penning your thoughts, here is my biggest aha, the dots I connected after the fact:

"What Apple is for products, a blog is to your career. Both employ a pull strategy – drawing people to what you have to offer. 
A resume is a push strategy. Think different by writing." 

4) The Absolute Best For Last

Family, work and commitments - life can roll by fast.   As I wrote, I came to realize that the blogs can do something that I often wait for a better day - share a heartfelt thanks with context. That provided me the drive to write regularly. 

Beyond my family, blogs became my conduit to share my deep-seated regard for my teachers, friends, fellow bloggers, colleagues, well wishers, “sheepdogs” who rally when trolls surface and many more. 

It is often said, “A tribute is a high form of gratitude.” I share this blog as a tribute to worldwide LinkedIn readers – for every single comment, for every single share, for every single like.

Your time has made a world of difference to me, personally and professionally,
Thank you.

Sincerely,
Karthik Rajan

More about blogging on LinkedIn: One for right brain and one for left brain
How LinkedIn Can Change Your (Professional) Life: A village experience
Want to have a Pulse? What data tells you about blogging on LinkedIn Pulse

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Salary And Benefit Discussions Among Employees By Texas Workforce Commission

Source: http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/salary_discussions.html

How many businesses have a policy like the one below?

Confidentiality of Salary and Benefit Information

Employees are prohibited from discussing their salary or wage levels and company benefits with other employees. Such information is confidential and may not be discussed in the workplace. Any employee violating this policy will be considered to have committed a breach of confidentiality and will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and possibly including termination of employment.

Look familiar? Chances are good that most companies have either a formal policy similar to the one above, or else have a tradition or practice of responding to pay and benefit discussions with disciplinary action. Those same companies would likely be surprised to learn that such policies generally violate federal labor law. Indeed, the National Labor Relations Act contains a provision, Section 7 (29 U.S.C. § 157), that gives all employees the right to "engage in concerted activities", including the right to discuss their terms and conditions of employment with each other. Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA (29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1)) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to deny or limit the Section 7 rights of employees. Based upon those two provisions, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has taken the position for decades now that employers may not prohibit employees from discussing their pay and benefits, and that any attempts to do so actually violate the NLRA. Courts have basically uniformly supported that position. Moreover, those particular sections of the NLRA apply to both union and non-union employees, so there is no exception made for companies where the employees are non-unionized.

Despite the seeming inflexibility of the NLRB's position regarding policies against pay and benefit discussions, there are some limits, as explained below.

One limit involves the manner in which employees exercise their rights to discuss wages or benefits. The law entitles employees to have such discussions, but does not require employers to allow employees to do so during times they are supposed to be working. However, singling pay discussions out for prohibition, while allowing other types of conversations unrelated to work, might be evidence of intent to violate employees' Section 7 rights, so employers should be careful in that regard.

Another limit would concern the content of such discussions. Certain employees may have benefits that could potentially involve privacy issues under other laws, such as the ADA or HIPAA. Discussing such benefits in a way that involves releasing information that should be confidential under such laws, particularly in the case of two employees talking about an uninvolved third party's medical conditions, could potentially lose the gossiping employees the protection otherwise afforded under the NLRA. The NLRB would consider whether employees were on notice that releasing such information violates company policy and the law, and also the extent to which the employer actually keeps such information confidential.

Finally, it is clear that it makes a difference under the law as to how employees obtain the salary and benefit information they are discussing. Employees discussing their own information are protected, as are employees discussing the pay and benefits of others if they obtained that information through ordinary conversations with others. However, if in order to get the pay and benefit information they discuss with others, they access offices or files known to be off-limits to them, or cause others to break access restrictions and give them confidential information, and the company has clearly taken steps to restrict the information and uphold its confidentiality, then they may well find themselves unprotected by the NLRA if they are disciplined, even discharged, for participating in the access violation. A major case on point is that of N.L.R.B. v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 919 F.2d 359 (5th Cir. 1990).

Practical Tips

As an alternative to flatly prohibiting employees from discussing their pay and benefits, consider the following:

  1. In the context of a general discussion about the importance of devoting oneself to work during work hours, counsel employees that it is all right to discuss various things at work (keep it general - do not single out pay and benefits as topics), but that as in most things, moderation usually works best, and there is a fine line between being informative or conversational and being a busybody, a time-waster, or perceived as self-important. In discussing such a thing, take care not to do it in a threatening manner, such as implying that anyone who talks too much about their job conditions will be shunned by coworkers. That could easily be perceived as promoting a chilling effect on employees exercising their Section 7 rights.

  2. Do not be afraid to promote what is right in your company. Make it easy for employees to know that your pay and benefit practices are competitive with other companies within your industry, and promote your company's practices regarding advancement opportunities, merit increases in pay, and open-door policies. The more that employees know where they stand, and the more they feel that they have a stake in the company and its success, the less need they will feel to spend time talking about their pay and benefits.

Use Caution!

Many employers use sample policies that they have found on the Internet or in collections of policies in popular office software, and some employers simply draft their own policies. With some areas of employee relations, that can work. Concerning pay and benefit discussion policies, though, it is not a good idea at all to "roll your own". This area of the law is so little-known by most employers and employees and so fraught with potential problems that any employer considering writing or enforcement of a policy restricting discussion of pay and benefits should definitely consult an employment law specialist who is knowledgeable about NLRA issues before taking any actions.

Monday, April 18, 2016

Garden State of Mind [New Jersey] (MP3s) By WFMU Station Manager Ken


Map Source

Source: http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2006/11/songs_from_the_.html

November 11, 2006

These come from former WFMU DJ KBC's compilation A Garden State of Mind.

(All links are MP3s - right-click to download)

The Chordblenders - I'm From New Jersey   |   Billy Murray - My Old New Jersey Home

Gabrielle - New Jersey   |   Stan Gilmer - Atlantic City (That Big Time Town)

The Treniers - Everything's Wild in Wildwood   |   Al Alberts - On The Way To Cape May

Billy Murray - Over On The Jersey Side   |   NJ X-Cops - Welcome To New Jersey

Junior Demus - New Jersey Drive   |   John Gorka - I'm From New Jersey

Edie From Ohio - No Left Turns In Jersey   |   JC O'Connor - Space Ace From Jersey City

Tiffany & Rocco - I'm A Jersey Girl   |   Johnny Marvin - Jersey Walk

Tommy Facenda - High School USA   |   Cliff Eberhardt - Summers In New Jersey

Bob D'Fano - New Jersey   |   "Robert" - New Jersey

John Pizzarelli, Jr. - I Like Jersey Best   |   Jim Albertson - Jersey Devil

John Linnell - New Jersey   |   Dave Van Ronk - Garden State Stomp

A long drive for the N.J. song

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20150920044139/http://articles.philly.com/2014-09-03/news/53484681_1_red-mascara-official-state-song-brill-building

September 3, 2014

He has worked for years to get it OKd. A new film may help.

By Kevin Riordan, Inquirer Columnist


Red Mascara, 92, with his music sheet. He has campaigned for 54 years to have his song made the official state song. (AKIRA SUWA / Staff)

After Red Mascara, 92, wrote "I'm From New Jersey" in 1960, he started campaigning for it to become the official state song.

After 54 years, the effort "needs a spark," says Red, who was born Joseph Rocco Mascari in Phillipsburg, Warren County, where he still lives.

"Maybe this is the spark."

"This" is an almost-finished documentary by Daniel Goodman. His film also is called I'm From New Jersey, and its hero is a gentlemanly, self-taught tunesmith who refuses to give up.

I'm from New Jersey / and I'm proud about it / I love the Garden State

"I realized that his song really is all about what I was trying to talk about in my film," says Goodman, 30, who's raised $48,000 for the project through the Kickstarter online funding platform.

Goodman grew up in Teaneck, Bergen County. He's inspired by the power of his state's pugnacious image - and by Red's homespun, seemingly quixotic quest. New Jersey's would-be anthem has had to fight for respect, just like the state it celebrates.

I'm from New Jersey / and I want to shout it / I think it's simply great

Red got part of his nickname - which sounds like it might belong to a RuPaul Drag Race contestant - because "I used to have red hair."

Later, a secretary in the Brill Building, that legendary locus of midcentury Manhattan song publishing, wrote "Mascara" instead of "Mascari" when she took down his name.

Thus was born a moniker that comes in handy when Red drives to Trenton to lobby lawmakers.

"You've got to give the guy credit for perseverance," says state Sen. Richard Codey (D., Essex). "I've been [in Trenton] 41 years. He was here when I got here."

A retired chemical factory worker and great-grandfather of two, Red regularly makes the rounds of the Statehouse, giving out CD copies of the song, receiving smiles of support that don't amount to much. Legislation making the song official did reach Gov. William Cahill's desk in 1972, but he declined to sign it into law.

"I'm actually helping" Red's campaign, says Goodman. "This is an activist documentary."

I meet the two collaborators at Red's apartment, where the piano in the living room displays sheet music for "I'm From New Jersey." Frank Sinatra - Red's idol - is on the cover; a company owned by the singer published the song.

Red arranged to get it recorded by the Chordblenders in 1961 with the help of a $2,000 loan from his father. A variety of versions, some with lyrics customized for the state's cities (Camden included), are available on njstatesong.com, his website, for free.

"I've never made a dime from the song," Red says.

All of the other states throughout the nation / may mean a lot to some

Imagine a marching band song sung by a glee club. That's "I'm From New Jersey," which was retro when it was first recorded.

"It does sound a little bit old. But I really like it," says Christopher Matera, 16.

He's among the students in Lauren Schreiner's Delran High School English class who since 2012 have gotten behind "I'm From New Jersey" in a big way - and whose efforts are included in the film's trailer (imfromnewjersey.com).

Delran students wrote letters to legislators, and last spring, they hand-delivered petitions signed by more than 500 people supporting the song to Gov. Christie's office.

"The kids have put their heart and souls into it," says Schreiner, a veteran teacher who lives in Mount Laurel.

Red hopes Goodman's project will put him over the top. He feels great, and has no plans to quit.

"When you have a dream and a goal, you don't give up. It sounds cliched, but Red is the living embodiment of that to me," Goodman says.

Prospects of state anthemhood for "I"m From New Jersey" remain uncertain, however.

"I can't wave a wand and say, 'This is the song.' I can't guarantee this will get done," Codey says. "But I sure hope and pray it can, for his sake. Because the spirit and class he's shown is a tribute to him. And to our state."

But I wouldn't want another / Jersey is like no other / I'm glad that's where I'm from.

kriordan@phillynews.com

856-779-3845 @inqkriordan


Thursday, April 14, 2016

Why the Minimum Wage Is Bad at Reducing Poverty: It's Badly Targeted and Hurts as Much as It Helps By Chris Edwards

Source: https://fee.org/articles/why-the-minimum-wage-is-bad-at-reducing-poverty/
April 13, 2016

California and New York have approved bills to increase their state minimum wages over time to $15 an hour. Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders favor raising the federal minimum wage. But such mandated increases do more harm than good, and they hurt the exact groups of people that policymakers say that they want to help.

Labor economist Joseph Sabia of San Diego State University summarized the academic evidence on minimum wages in this 2014 bulletin for Cato.

Sabia’s own statistical research with economist Richard Burkhauser “found no evidence that minimum wage increases were effective at reducing overall poverty rates or poverty rates among workers.” And a study by economists David Neumark and William Wascher “found that while some poor workers who kept their jobs after minimum wage increases were lifted out of poverty, others lost their jobs and fell into poverty.”

Sabia said that there are two key reasons why the minimum wage does not alleviate overall poverty the way that supporters believe that it will. The first reason is that minimum wages reduce the work available for low-skill workers:

Many firms respond to minimum wage increases by substituting away from low-skilled labor and toward other inputs. For example, grocery stores may substitute away from cashiers and toward self-checkout systems or toward higher-skilled labor. If some near-poor, low-skilled workers lose their jobs or have their hours cut as a result of minimum wage increases, then their incomes may fall, resulting in a rise in poverty among these households.

The vast majority of credible empirical evidence produced by labor economists … suggests that minimum wage increases reduce low-skilled employment. Estimates of the employment elasticity with respect to the minimum wage for low-skilled individuals generally range from -0.1 to as large as -0.3, suggesting that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage reduces low-skilled employment by 1 to 3 percent.

The second reason that minimum wages do not alleviate poverty is that few beneficiaries of minimum wage increases live in poor households. This fact surprised me when I first read about it, but that is what the data shows. Sabia notes:

Advocates of minimum wage increases paint a vivid portrait of what they see as the typical minimum wage worker: a working single mother struggling to keep her family above the poverty line. But is this portrait accurate? Are most minimum wage workers poor or near poor?

In fact, relatively few minimum wage workers live in poor households. In a new study, Burkhauser and I examine Census data, and find that workers earning between $7.25 and $10.10 per hour—workers who would be directly affected by [a] proposed federal minimum wage increase—overwhelmingly live in non-poor households. We find that only 13 percent of workers who would be affected live in poor households, while nearly two-thirds live in households with incomes over twice the poverty line, and over 40 percent live in households with incomes over three times the poverty line. Other research suggests that poor single-female headed households make up less than 5 percent of all affected workers.

Sabia concluded his Cato bulletin: “While alleviating poverty is a widely shared goal, raising the minimum wage is unlikely to achieve that end. In reality, it is more likely to result in making many low-skilled workers worse off. The minimum wage fails to reduce net poverty because of its adverse effects on employment and poor ability to target workers living in households below the poverty threshold.”

Economist Milton Friedman said that “one of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” Alas, that is the mistake that continues to drive the minimum wage debate in the United States.

This post first appeared at Cato.org.

Chris Edwards Chris Edwards

Chris Edwards is the director of tax policy studies at Cato and editor of DownsizingGovernment.org.

Why Not Deregulate Labor? By John A. Davenport

Source: https://fee.org/articles/why-not-deregulate-labor/

October 01, 1983

A former editor of Barron’s and Fortune, Mr. Davenport is author of The U.S. Economy and a frequent lecturer on political economy.

Despite the tendency of economists to create more problems than they solve, there seems to be a growing consensus that the American economy will gain as we lift strangling governmental regulations from industry as in the case of oil and transportation. But just below the surface, students of the business scene are beginning to ask a more far-reaching question. If deregulation is good for business, why should it not be extended to the biggest and most important market in the country, namely the labor market which today is cluttered up by minimum wage laws, over-elaborate safety and health rules, and the laws affecting so- called collective bargaining? Says Manuel Johnson, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, “Maybe here is an idea whose time has come.”

Mr. Johnson, to be sure, is not an entirely disinterested observer. Two years ago while still teaching at George Mason University he joined hands with two academic colleagues, James T. Bennett and Dan Heldman, to publish a small book entitled Deregulating Labor Relations (Fisher Institute, $12.95).* The book has received passing attention from some learned journals but so far only a yawn from the public press. Which is too bad because this little volume puts the labor problem and the labor cost problem into a new perspective—the perspective of over-regulation.

In making good this thesis the authors assume that despite much loose talk to the contrary, a man’s work and skill is the most precious commodity he possesses and should sell in the market like any other commodity. Their second thesis is that employers questing for profit are simply middlemen between consumers on the one hand and workers on the other, and that freedom of contract is essential to human liberty. Their third thesis is that over-regulation of labor markets is becoming an extraordinarily expensive operation not only in terms of sacrifice of principle but in terms of unemployment and of loss of productivity and national output. Indeed the authors calculate that total deregulation of the labor market might produce benefits to our society amounting to a stunning one hundred and seventy billion dollars per year.

This is an amazing figure but as the authors themselves indicate, it must be handled with great care, for it includes many disparate elements. By far the largest cost of regulation, amounting to two-thirds of the total, is attributed to OSHA—the Occupational Safety and Health Administration—set up in 1973 with the best of intentions but by now transmuted into what Murray Weidenbaum has dubbed a “growth industry,” involving a huge bureaucracy and concerning itself with such minute matters as the grain and slant of ladders in our mines and factories. Here the authors argue that much of what OSHA attempts to do might better be accomplished by giving free play to market forces. Hazardous occupations will always command higher than average wage rates. Faced by such costs employers will, in the long run, be led by self-interest to put in safety equipment.

I am frankly somewhat dubious of pushing this particular argument to an extreme since, in the long run, as Keynes cynically remarked, we shall all be dead. From the Industrial Revolution forward, governments have in fact tried to lay down general rules for enterprise. The real case against OSHA is that its rules are not general but specific and have produced a veritable mare’s-nest of regulations that have not on the record diminished industrial acci dents and in fact bear hardest on intermediate firms seeking to enter the competitive race. The way out may not lie in the total decapitation of OSHA but in step-by-step reduction of its manifold and often preposterous activities.

Outrageous Unemployment

While OSHA is by far the most expensive of our experiments in regulation, it is by no means the only one making for unemployment and lost output. Hours of work and minimum wage laws are a case in point. Here the heavy hand of government not only bears down on employers but actually denies job opportunities to men and women able and willing to work outside the government standards. The evidence is now overwhelming that minimum wages in particular bear hardest on those which government in its wisdom is trying to help—the poor, the disen franchised, and minority groups in general. As Walter Williams and others have shown, the minimum wage today set at $3.35 an hour accounts in no small part for outrageously high unemployment of nearly 50 per cent among black youth. Such laws should be allowed to die on the vine as they become irrelevant due to creeping inflation. Better still, they should be eliminated entirely as an affront to the principles of a free and humane economy.

Unfortunately, as the authors make plain, such principles are negated not just by substantive regulations but by the fact that government has also sought to lay down “procedural” rules for employer-employee relations. Until the Depression Thirties trade unions in particular had to earn their way in organizing industry. The passage of the Norris- LaGuardia Act in 1932 and the subsequent National Labor Relations Act changed matters. Acting under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, Congress granted to unions extraordinary and unique privileges. Under the new rules:

1.) Unions gain exclusive bargaining rights in a plant whenever they can command a bare majority of workers present and voting at a union election.

2.) The employer is bound to bargain with this unit whether or not he thinks it is to his interest or to the interest of his employees.

3.) Except in Right to Work states union shop contracts are tolerated under which employees must at least pay union dues as the price of a job.

4.) All labor disputes are initially thrown into an administrative agency, the NLRB, which in effect makes labor law as it goes along and is by its very nature politically motivated.

Freedom of Contract

In criticizing this form of legislation and in seeking its repeal, the authors make clear that they are not against unions, so long as they are voluntary associations, nor against collective bargaining in so far as it proves a useful tool in determining pay and working conditions. What they consider unwarranted and unjustifiable is the government’s mandating a particular form of such bargaining wherein the union becomes a kind of independent “third party” in labor negotiations, more concerned with its own aggrandizement than with the interests of the workers it purports to represent.

Thus, in so far as unions can push wage rates above the level that would be set by the free market they may temporarily benefit a particular group of workers but at the cost, when times are bad, of widespread unemployment and displacement, as in the case of automobiles and steel. More seriously, present law pre vents workers from direct access to management and ]eaves dissidents in a kind of no man’s land. Collective bargaining as currently enforced is tantamount to the collectivization of labor.

What the authors of this book plead for is a much greater extension of freedom of contract where some workers would no doubt choose to join unions but others would prefer to deal with their bosses directly. It will be argued that this would produce chaos in labor relations. But just here it is well to remember that unions today constitute somewhat less than 20 per cent of the labor force, and a declining share at that. In the great majority of cases employers and employees manage to work out their differences without the help of government-sponsored unions.

The authors are also admirably clear on the point that workers should be allowed to withdraw their services when they find it to their interest to do so. But such voluntary withdrawal which amounts to resignation differs from the conditions that exist today when strikers are almost always sure of retaining their jobs, meanwhile drawing unemployment insurance and welfare payments at public expense. Moreover the aim of the present strike—a military term—is not just to withdraw labor but to close down the employer’s plant and, by violence or threat of violence on the picket line or elsewhere, to prevent others willing and able to work from working. Men have no right to do this and every state in the union has laws against such actions. The tragedy today is that these laws are rarely enforced. The over- regulation of labor in so many particulars has led to an all but total disregard for the common law.

Back in the seventeenth century Sir Henry Maine argued that the progress of civilization might be measured as a society passes from status to contract. With this exponential jump the West threw off the last vestiges of feudalism and serfdom and entered into an era of Liberty under Law. In the past fifty years governments have been rushing pell-mell to reverse such progress. Deregulating Labor Relations is a sustained plea for turning the clock forward again.

* Fisher Institute, 6350 LBJ Freeway, Suite 183E, Dallas 75240.