Wealthy CEOs Lecture Americans To Show ‘Courage’ by Submitting to Diversity and Amnesty

by NEIL MUNRO 14 Dec 2017

Americans should have the courage to ignore their written laws, to amnesty DACA illegals and accept an open-borders world, says an op-ed by two wealthy CEOs who stand to gain more wealth in a labor market flooded by low-wage migrants.

The op-ed by Tim Cook (CEO of Apple, wealth $800 million and growing) and Charles Koch (Koch Industries, $49 billion and growing) was posted in the Washington Postnewspaper owned by Jeff Bezos (owner of Amazon, $98 billion and growing). Under the headline “Congress must act on the ‘dreamers,’” it declared:

We must do better. The United States is at its best when all people are free to pursue their dreams. Our country has enjoyed unparalleled success by welcoming people from around the world who seek to make a better life for themselves and their families, no matter what their backgrounds … each successive generation — including, today, our own — must show the courage to embrace that diversity and to do what is right.

For the Union-breaking billionaires, the 690,000 illegal immigrants are not the migrant citizens of a foreign country; they are “our neighbors, colleagues and friends.”

Moreover, the law demands that the immigration laws must be subordinated to a former president’s campaign-trail promise, regardless of the voters’ opinions, the billionaires declare:

Another foundation of our country’s success is our consistent and equal application of the law. In a free nation, individuals must be able to trust that when our government makes a promise, it is kept. Having laws that are reliable is what gives people the confidence to plan their futures and to invest in their businesses, their communities and themselves.

The United States should not hold hard-working, patriotic people hostage to the debate over immigration — or, worse, expel them because we have yet to resolve a complex national argument.

The illegals “have done their part,” so Americans have a moral obligation to submit, the billionaires insist to their non-billionaire readers:

Dreamers are doing their part. They have shown great faith in the United States by coming forward, subjecting themselves to background checks, and submitting personal and biometric data. Now, the rest of us need to do our part. Congress should act quickly, ideally before year’s end, to ensure that these decent people can work and stay and dream in the United States.

In fact, the illegals are vital to the economy, says the op-ed, which ignores the contributions made by Americans and their children, and the fact that a huge number of Americans don’t even have $400 in their savings accounts:

No society can truly flourish when a significant portion of its people feel threatened or unable to fulfill their potential. Nor can it prosper by excluding those who want to make positive contributions. This isn’t just a noble principle; it’s a basic fact, borne out through our national history.

Koch and Cook seem to be unaware of a recent admission by the Migration Policy Institute that DACA illegals graduate from college at one-quarter the rate of Americans. But they likely know that the Congressional Budget Office reported in 2014 that the proposed ‘Gang of Eight” amnesty would have shifted a huge amount of income from wage-earners to wealthy investors over 20 years, simply because more amnesty means more cheap workers and more welfare-aided customers.

Voters tend to think that lower wages are bad for them and their kids. The Atlantic.com reported in 2016:

The [Federal Reserve Board] asked respondents how they would pay for a $400 emergency. The answer: 47 percent of respondents said that either they would cover the expense by borrowing or selling something, or they would not be able to come up with the $400 at all. Four hundred dollars! Who knew?

Well, I knew. I knew because I am in that 47 percent.

I know what it is like to have to juggle creditors to make it through a week. I know what it is like to have to swallow my pride and constantly dun people to pay me so that I can pay others. I know what it is like to have liens slapped on me and to have my bank account levied by creditors. I know what it is like to be down to my last $5—literally—while I wait for a paycheck to arrive, and I know what it is like to subsist for days on a diet of eggs

In contrast, President Donald Trump was elected in 2016 to curb migration and to help ordinary Americans. His immigration priorities are listed here.

Many polls show that the Democrats’ calls for amnesty are unpopular because they contradict Americans’ sense of fairness to other Americans.

Business groups and Democrats embrace the misleading, industry-funded “nation of immigrants” polls which pressure Americans to say they welcome migrants. The alternative “fairness” polls show that voters put a much higher priority on helping their families, neighbors, and fellow nationals get decent jobs in a high-tech, high-immigration, low-wage economy. The political power of the voters’ fairness priorities was made clear during the GOP primaries and again in November 2016.

Four million Americans turn 18 each year and begin looking for good jobs in the free market.

But the federal government inflates the supply of new labor by annually accepting 1 million new legal immigrants, by providing work-permits to roughly 3 million resident foreigners, and by doing little to block the employment of roughly 8 million illegal immigrants.

The Washington-imposed economic policy of mass-immigration floods the market with foreign laborspikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.

The cheap-labor policy has also reduced investment and job creation in many interior states because the coastal cities have a surplus of imported labor. For example, almost 27 percent of zip codes in Missouri had fewer jobs or businesses in 2015 than in 2000, according to a new report by the Economic Innovation Group. In Kansas, almost 29 percent of zip codes had fewer jobs and businesses in 2015 compared to 2000, which was a two-decade period of massive cheap-labor immigration.

Because of the successful cheap-labor strategy, wages for men have remained flat since 1973, and a large percentage of the nation’s annual income has shifted to investors and away from employees.

Read it all here.

Mark Levin Show: Robert Mueller’s investigation is tainted beyond repair (audio from 12-13-2017)

Published on Dec 14, 2017

Rod Rosenstein knows about the obvious bias in Mueller’s investigation and Rosenstein is ultimately in charge of Mueller. If the purpose of this Special Counsel investigation was to be independent, it is certainly not independent of the left. This operation is absolutely poisoned by politics and shows that the left or those sympathetic to them or in control of the upper echelons of the FBI.


Head of Congressional Ethics Office Sued for Abusing Position, Accused of Assaulting Women

Omar Ashmawy, staff director at the Office of Congressional Ethics. (Chris Maddaloni/CQ Roll Call) 



A top congressional ethics official who oversees investigations into misconduct by lawmakers is accused in a federal lawsuit of verbally abusing and physically assaulting women and using his federal position to influence local law enforcement, according to a complaint filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania last month.

The ongoing lawsuit against Omar Ashmawy, staff director and chief counsel of the Office of Congressional Ethics, stems from his involvement in a late-night brawl in 2015 in Milford, Pennsylvania, and includes a range of allegations relating to his behavior that evening and in the following two-and-half years.

Ashmawy’s office conducts the preliminary investigations into allegations of misconduct in the House of Representatives, deciding which cases to pursue or refer to the Committee on Ethics. He is named in congressional documents as the official who presented one of the investigations into John Conyers, the Democratic lawmaker from Michigan accused of sexual harassment, to the ethics committee for further action.

Among other allegations, Ashmawy is accused in the lawsuit of “threatening to use his position as staff director and chief counsel of the Office of Congressional Ethics to induce a criminal proceeding to be brought against Plaintiff and/or others,” according to the federal lawsuit filed against him.

In court filings and in statements to Foreign Policy, Ashmawy denied the allegations laid out in the lawsuit.

“To be clear, I did not harass anyone that evening, physically or verbally,” he wrote in a statement to FP. “To the contrary, I was the victim of a wholly unprovoked assault for which those responsible were investigated, arrested and charged. Any allegation to the contrary is unequivocally false.”

The lawsuit, previously unreported, stems from Feb. 14, 2015 — Valentine’s Day. The evening appeared to start off well for Ashmawy: a nearly $400 dinner with his girlfriend at an upscale restaurant in Milford, followed by late-night drinks at a local bar.

It ended, however, with him bruised and bloody in the back of a police car.

Two months later, three men were arrested for assaulting Ashmawy. One of those men, Greg Martucci, is now suing Ashmawy in federal court in Pennsylvania in connection to the events of that night.

What exactly led to the physical altercation is in dispute, but in police statements reviewed by FP, three women at the bar that night, including the bartender, accuse Ashmawy of harassing and physically assaulting them.

A former Air Force officer who prosecuted two of the early post-9/11 military tribunal cases, Ashmawy has been a rising star on Capitol Hill in recent years. He was profiled in the Washington Post, which described his job overseeing “the first independent office in history charged with overseeing the ethics of the House of Representatives.” He was also featured earlier this year in Politico’s “birthday of the day,” where he describes his job as helping the “House of Representatives uphold ethical standards by investigating allegations of misconduct by members, staff or officers of the House.”

Ashmawy’s office sits at the center of multiple ongoing, high-profile congressional investigations. Its recent work includes a probe into California Republican Rep. Devin Nunes’s midnight trip to the White House in March. The investigation led to Nunes stepping down from the committee investigating Russian influence on the 2016 presidential election, according to Office of Congressional Ethics website and news reports. (Earlier this month, the full ethics committee cleared Nunes of misconduct.)

According to the website of the Office of Congressional Ethics, it has pursued investigations into Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) and Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam), whose cases, like that of Conyers, began under Ashmawy and were referred to the ethics committee for further investigation. The New York Times this week reported that Republicans are citing a 2015 decision by the Office of Congressional Ethics clearing Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), who has also been accused of sexual harassment.

Ashmawy has also, according to travel disclosures, visited Ukraine, Kosovo, and Georgia to assist governments there in setting up their own ethics and government oversight bodies. He gives talks overseas and in the United States on investigating lawmaker misconduct and on the importance of ethical behavior in and after government service.

Yet the complaint filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Ashmawy, as well as documents related to the case and police and witness statements, raise questions about Ashmawy’s conduct.

According to the complaint, Martucci on the night of Feb. 14, 2015, witnessed “an extremely violent and belligerent” Ashmawy become verbally abusive toward two women at Milford’s Dimmick Inn, Dawn Jorgenson — the wife of John Jorgenson, the owner of the bar — and Joey Lynn Smith, a bartender there.

Martucci also said he saw Ashmawy physically assaulting Dawn Jorgenson and Christina Floyd, another woman at the bar, a claim echoed in police statements given by the women and reviewed by FP.

According to a three-page statement dated March 12, 2015, Dawn Jorgenson said she witnessed Ashmawy “clearly sexually harassing” the bartender throughout the course of the evening and saw his behavior spiral toward physical violence. “You’ll give me drinks, but you won’t fuck me,” Ashmawy allegedly said to the bartender, according to Dawn Jorgenson’s written statement.

She said she then saw Ashmawy block the bartender with his body and curse at her, and grab her by the wrists. Dawn Jorgenson said when she tried to intervene, Ashmawy turned against her. “He’s holding my wrist so tightly that he falls down to the ground landing to the left of me,” she wrote in her statement.

She said her husband, John Jorgenson, came over to help and pulled Ashmawy away, taking him outside.

In statements given to police, the third woman, Christina Floyd, provided a similar account. “I watched each time Omar would come down and verbally sexually harass the bartender as he ordered drinks,” Floyd wrote in her statement, describing an increasingly angry Ashmawy confronting the bartender.

“I am a 5 foot 3 woman who never knew this man. I was very scared of him and was afraid he’d come back around for weeks after,” Floyd wrote of Ashmawy in her statement to police dated March 14, 2015. “I have never had a man physically harm me or scare me in that matter. He was sexually harassing, abusing and I feared for my life.”

According to Floyd, Ashmawy was “sexually harassing and verbally abusive” to the bartender. She also said Ashmawy was “very intoxicated,” an allegation that is backed up by the police report.

The two other women described abuse at the hands of Ashmawy that same night, providing similar details. Ashmawy did not respond to FP’s follow-up email with additional questions, including if he was intoxicated that evening.

Two other people at the bar that night, however, said they saw only the men drag out Ashmawy—and did not witness his alleged attacks on the women.

One of those witnesses is referenced in Ashmawy’s Dec. 6 brief in support of his motion to dismiss. The brief says the witness “called 911 after witnessing Defendant Ashmawy be attacked by three men and then one of the men involved in the attack dragging him outside” and it “seemed like the men set up Defendant Ashmawy ‘to get jumped.’” (A police report reviewed by FP confirms that the witness who called police was concerned “it wasn’t a fair fight.”)

What all sides appeared to agree on is that, at the end of the evening, Ashmawy was injured.

Months after the incident, three men were charged with assaulting Ashmawy, including Martucci. Ashmawy was never arrested or charged with a crime (a police report from the evening says Ashmawy was the only one at the scene with visible injuries).

Martucci is now suing Ashmawy in a Pennsylvania federal court, accusing him of a range of unethical and possibly criminal conduct tied to the 2015 bar fight and subsequent legal proceedings. Also named in the suit is Milford’s police chief and the borough of Milford.

In his lawsuit, Martucci accuses Ashmawy of using his political power and position with the Office of Congressional Ethics to pressure the police and the district attorney into not arresting him for assaulting the women. Martucci also alleges that Ashmawy threatened federal investigation of local government and police if they did not press charges against those accusing him of assault.

An email reviewed by FP from Ashmawy, using his congressional affiliation, to the police chief and officials at the district attorney’s office accuses them of not handling the case properly.

“As of today it has been over five weeks since I was assaulted. To date, the police department’s investigation is not complete and charges have not been filed. I am deeply concerned,” he wrote in the email, which is signed with his congressional title and work mail address.

Ashmawy cites his injuries, which he said included a facial fracture and a “bruised and bloodied” eye.

In the same email, Ashmawy references his own work conducting investigations, and indicates that if charges aren’t filed the case might attract high-level attention in the capital.

“There is no hiding what happened to me from the people I interact with on a day to day basis,” he wrote. “As result, there are a growing number of individuals in the Washington, DC community who have taken an interest in this matter and are concerned that one of the reasons this matter has languished is because I’m not a resident of Milford, PA. I’ve assured them that isn’t true. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that my ethnicity, as an Arab-American and Muslim, might also be a factor in the delayed investigation and the charging of the individuals responsible. I’ve explained that is unlikely.”

An attorney representing the town and police chief in the lawsuit declined to comment on why charges weren’t filed against Ashmawy in light of the women’s statements to police.

“Please be advised that the official response on behalf of Milford Borough and Chief DaSilva is ‘No comment during the course of pending litigation,’” Sheryl L. Brown, an attorney with the firm Siana Bellwoar, wrote FP in response to queries.

She noted that a motion to dismiss the case was pending with the court, and then threatened legal action against FP. “We reserve the right to subpoena unprivileged portions of your files considering you assert you are in possession of ‘police statements from witnesses…,’” she wrote.

Ashmawy’s version of events from that evening is markedly different. In his statement to police that night, Ashmawy wrote there was a conflict with women at the bar, but it stemmed from “a previous altercation” between his girlfriend and the bartender.

The bartender “spoke fighting words to me,” he wrote, adding that the two other women “abruptly came up to me.”

At that point, Ashmawy said, three men assaulted him, choked him, and threw him to the ground. “My handwriting is affected by the fact that I have only the sight of one eye and I’m bleeding from multiple wounds to include my eye and my lip,” he wrote in his statement to police.

“This matter was fully investigated. I was the victim, and the men responsible were arrested and charged,” he wrote in a statement to FP. “The three assailants attacked me without any provocation whatsoever, and any suggestion to contrary is nothing but an exercise in slander.”

The three men eventually charged in the assault were John Jorgenson, the bar owner, Tim Reilly, and Martucci. Each was charged with three counts relating to the alleged assault. The first two pled guilty to one misdemeanor charge, but the prosecutors eventually dropped the charges against Martucci, a federal air marshal, and the case against him was expunged in October 2016.

While the case proceeded, however, Martucci was suspended from his federal air marshal job without pay and then later fired. In response to a request for comment about Martucci, the Transportation Security Administration, which oversees the Federal Air Marshal Service, said that Martucci was no longer employed with the agency and refused to answer questions about the incident or internal investigation.

Martucci filed the lawsuit against Ashmawy in September.

On Dec. 6, Ashmawy filed a brief in support of his earlier motion to dismiss, saying he was acting as an “individual who was a victim of an assault and pursued his legal remedies to their established conclusion.”

The police chief and borough of Milford have filed similar motions to dismiss. A case management conference with all parties’ attorneys before the presiding judge is scheduled for Jan. 5, 2018.

“These criminal charges, which Mr. Martucci successfully had dismissed, derailed my client’s career and affected his livelihood,” Martucci’s lawyer, Ryan Lockman, told FP. “Mr. Martucci eagerly awaits the opportunity to proceed with his claims.”

New Footage Suggests North Korea Might Have an H-Bomb (PHOTOS)

A 30-minute video showing a December 12 conference in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang may have revealed more than intended about the extent of North Korea’s military might.


The video shows, hanging on a wall of North Korean achievements in weapons production, a picture of the late Kim Jong-il probing some large sphere or cylinder. While the video is too grainy to determine whether Kim Jong-il was, in fact, inspecting a nuclear weapon, that didn’t stop social media users from a frenzy of speculation.


“Is this an A-bomb or [something]?” one netizen wondered.

For what it’s worth, the weapon in the picture appears to bear a number of a similarities to the hydrogen bomb Kim Jong-un allegedly posed next to this year. But according to the BBC, there aren’t any publicly available images of the late Kim photographed next to a nuclear weapon.


According to the Korea Central News Agency, the conference reviewed “the achievements and gains in the work to implement the party’s policy on the munitions industry” and was intended to give “full play to the invincible might of socialist Korea.”

“Kim Jong-il carried out the regime’s first two tests so they definitely had [atomic weapons] during his time and they probably were about that size,” Shea Cotton of the James Martin Centre for Nonproliferation Studies told news.com.au.

“I don’t believe this was accidentally released as part of some slip-up, but neither do I think this was a purposeful act. I think in many ways, the regime doesn’t care if we [the US] know they have these weapons,” Cotton said.


Spirits were high inside the House chamber on Thursday, November 16, when, in the early afternoon, the gavel fell and a measure to rewrite the American tax code passed on a partisan tally of 227 to 205. As the deciding votes were cast—recorded in green on the black digital scoreboard suspended above the floor—the speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, threw his head back and slammed his hands together. Soon he was engulfed in a sea of dark suits, every Republican lawmaker wanting to slap him on the shoulder and be a part of his moment.

Ryan was the man of the hour. Having spent a quarter-century in Washington—as an intern, waiter, junior think-tanker, Hill staffer and, since 1999, as a member of Congress—he had never wavered in his obsession with fixing what he viewed as the nation’s two fundamental weaknesses: its Byzantine tax system and ballooning entitlement state. Now, with House Republicans celebrating the once-in-a-generation achievement of a tax overhaul, Ryan was feeling both jubilant and relieved—and a little bit greedy. Reveling in the afterglow, Ryan remarked to several colleagues how this day had proven they could accomplish difficult things—and that next year, they should set their sights on an even tougher challenge: entitlement reform. The speaker has since gone public with this aspiration, suggesting that 2018 should be the year Washington finally tackles what he sees as the systemic problems with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Tinkering with the social safety net is a bold undertaking, particularly in an election year. But Ryan has good reason for throwing caution to the wind: His time in Congress is running short.

Despite several landmark legislative wins this year, and a better-than-expected relationship with President Donald Trump, Ryan has made it known to some of his closest confidants that this will be his final term as speaker. He consults a small crew of family, friends and staff for career advice, and is always cautious not to telegraph his political maneuvers. But the expectation of his impending departure has escaped the hushed confines of Ryan’s inner circle and permeated the upper-most echelons of the GOP. In recent interviews with three dozen people who know the speaker—fellow lawmakers, congressional and administration aides, conservative intellectuals and Republican lobbyists—not a single person believed Ryan will stay in Congress past 2018.

Ryan was tiring of D.C. even before reluctantly accepting the speakership. He told his predecessor, John Boehner, that it would be his last job in politics—and that it wasn’t a long-term proposition. In the months following Trump’s victory, he began contemplating the scenarios of his departure. More recently, over closely held conversations with his kitchen cabinet, Ryan’s preference has become clear: He would like to serve through Election Day 2018 and retire ahead of the next Congress. This would give Ryan a final legislative year to chase his second white whale, entitlement reform, while using his unrivaled fundraising prowess to help protect the House majority—all with the benefit of averting an ugly internecine power struggle during election season. Ryan has never loved the job; he oozes aggravation when discussing intra-party debates over “micro-tactics,” and friends say he feels like he’s running a daycare center. On a personal level, going home at the end of next year would allow Ryan, who turns 48 next month, to keep promises to family; his three children are in or entering their teenage years, and Ryan, whose father died at 55, wants desperately to live at home with them full-time before they begin flying the nest. The best part of this scenario, people close to the speaker emphasize: He wouldn’t have to share the ballot with Trump again in 2020.

And yet speculation is building that, Ryan, even fresh off his tax-reform triumph, might not be able to leave on his own terms. He now faces a massive pileup of cannot-fail bills in January and February. It’s an outrageous legislative lift: Congress must, in the coming weeks, fund the government, raise the debt ceiling, modify spending caps, address the continuation of health-care subsidies, shell out additional funds for disaster relief and deal with the millions of undocumented young immigrants whose protected status has been thrown into limbo. It represents the most menacing stretch of Ryan’s speakership—one that will almost certainly require him to break promises made to his conference and give significant concessions to Democrats in exchange for their votes. To meet key deadlines, he’ll have to approve sizable spending increases and legal status for minors who came to the U.S. illegally—two things that could raise the ire of the GOP base and embolden his conservative rivals on Capitol Hill. There is no great outcome available, Ryan has conceded to some trusted associates—only survival. “Win the day. Win the next day. And then win the week,” Ryan has been preaching to his leadership team.

The speaker can’t afford to admit he’s a lame-duck—his fundraising capacity and dealmaking leverage would be vastly diminished, making the House all the more difficult to govern. When asked at the end of a Thursday morning press conference if he was leaving soon, Ryan shot a quick “no” over his shoulder as he walked out of the room.