The start of the 49er gold rush was caused by accident- it was totally unexpected. It happened when James W. Marshall stumbled upon some gold nuggets in the waterwheel at Sutter’s mill in the year of 1848. Word soon got out that there was gold in ” them thar hills.” The gold rush had started.
Today, the economies of the world are fed not by gold but by the ubiquitous paper of reserve banks. As in the Weimar Republic the day of reckoning is one day closer to a catastrophic disaster.
Gold Past $10,000 Gold in 2019 finally burst through the $1,350 ceiling that had been established during the crash of 2013. Gold’s current price of $1,550 may be materially higher than where it has traded over the past six years, and it has returned most gold miners to profitability, but it is nothing compared to where the price of gold is headed. For the benefit of new readers and to jog the memories of long-time followers, let us work through the admittedly circuitous but conceptually simple reasoning behind the reason why the dollar price of gold is heading well above $10,000 per ounce. The first step is to dispense with the quantity theory of money that underlies modern economics. This theory stretches back to the sixteenth century but was given its modern theoretical framework by Irving Fisher, who penned the famous equation that lies at the heart of monetarism: M • V = P • T, where M is the total amount of money in circulation on average, V the average frequency with which a unit of money is spent (its “velocity”), P the price level, and T the number of transactions, or volume of trade. “In short,” wrote Fisher, the quantity theory asserts that (provided velocity of circulation and volume of trade are unchanged) if we increase the number of dollars, whether by renaming coins, or by debasing coins, or by increasing coinage, or by any other means, prices will be increased in the same proportion. It is the number, and not the weight, that is essential. This fact needs great emphasis.* A cursory analysis of Fisher’s equation reveals it to be a tautology: the quantity of money transactions equals the quantity of sales in monetary terms, which is true by definition and thus makes the equation utterly useless.
Also circulating on social media was a video of Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary during President Bill Clinton’s administration, that contradicts Clinton’s claim that Sanders has been ineffective on Capitol Hill.
“He was an effective legislator, in fact one of the most effective legislators,” Reich says, “because the more you work behind the scenes and don’t try to push yourself out there and don’t try to get the limelight, the more effective you can be — which ironically invites the complaint from some people that he was ineffective because he was not in the limelight. He was, behind the scenes, enormously effective.”
Looks like they are all turning on her. Nice person that Hillary. Apparently she wrote the book “On how not to influence your friends and negatively influence people.” Way to go Hillary.
The Department of Justice has reportedly assigned an FBI special agent to work with Immigration and Customs and Enforcement and the Department of Education Inspector General Charge to investigate Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) for alleged criminal violations relating to perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, state and federal tax fraud, federal student loan fraud, and bigamy.
As an immigration lawyer, the very first question that came to mind when I read these reports was what immigration consequences, if any, could attach in the event that any of the above allegations are proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. My analysis, unfortunately, has resulted in more unanswerable questions than definitive answers.
My analysis started with the fact that it is widely known Omar was born in Somalia, and immigrated to the United States as a Somali refugee. At some point after her admission to the country, she obtained U.S. citizenship. The Associated Press reported on November 5, 2009, that Omar fled Somalia to a refugee camp in Kenya with her family in 1991. She ultimately immigrated to the United States as a refugee in 1995.
If this report is correct, the analysis is fairly straightforward. Generally speaking, U.S. immigration law permits refugees to apply for permanent residence, commonly known as a “green card,” one-year after arrival. Five years after holding a green card, refugees may then apply to become a citizen through a process called naturalization.
Naturalization applicants must show they meet residency requirements, and have good moral character. It was reported that Omar became a citizen in 2000, five years after her arrival, at the age of 17.
This last detail is important, and is where things start to get murky. If Omar became a U.S. citizen at the age of 17, she must have obtained it through automatic acquisition after the naturalization of at least one of her parents. Omar would not have been able to apply for citizenship on her own because individuals are ineligible to apply for naturalization until age 18.
Here is where it gets really complicated. The requirements for automatic acquisition have changed several times throughout the last century. The marital status of Omar’s parents would determine whether she could have acquired citizenship. I have no details about their marital status to be able to determine if these legal requirements were fulfilled.
However, if Omar did not have to apply for naturalization, it could eliminate one possible crime that she could be charged with: knowingly giving false information in furtherance of an application for citizenship. A conviction for this crime would lead to her denaturalization, resulting in the loss of citizenship, and the institution of removal proceedings to deport her.
But the analysis doesn’t stop there. For Omar to have automatically acquired citizenship, she must also have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, and there are reports questioning the legality of her admission as a refugee.
David Steinberg has covered the Omar saga for several years and has openly questioned whether she is who she says she is. Steinberg has alleged that Omar assumed her name from an unrelated family that was being granted refugee status. Although I have no way to independently assess the veracity of this report, there is circumstantial evidence that this type of immigration fraud was rampant in the circumstances under which Omar was admitted to the United States.
Specifically, in 2009 the Obama administration assessed the viability of re-employing a Bush-era pilot program that unearthed widespread immigration fraud. It found that as many as 87 percent of applications claiming familial relationship were fraudulent. If the reports are ultimately found true, the immigration consequences would be severe, including loss of citizenship and the institution of removal proceedings. Moreover, there may be no defenses to removal in an immigration court setting to stop her deportation.
Assuming arguendo that it is determined that Omar is not a citizen of the United States, and if she is convicted for any of the crimes she is allegedly being investigated for, there would be bars from most forms of relief from removal. Most crimes relating to fraud constitute a crime involving moral turpitude, which would preclude Omar from applying for cancellation of removal as an immigrant who holds no status in the United States.
If she is convicted for tax evasion where loss to the government exceeds $10,000, she will be removable for having an aggravated felony conviction, which also precludes her from applying for asylum. If she is convicted for marriage fraud, she would be ineligible to be sponsored if she were to marry a U.S. citizen. Needless to say, the worst-case scenario is very bleak.
That said, I have more questions than answers, but my preliminary analysis is that Omar is in need of competent immigration counsel to ensure that there is no threat of her losing her citizenship, or, worse, the prospect of deportation back to a country she fled as a child.Matthew L. Kolken has served as an elected director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s Board of Governors, where he has been a member since 1997. Mr. Kolken has appeared nationally on MSNBC, FOX News, and CNN. You may follow Matthew Kolken on Twitter @mkolken.Photo Lorie Shaull / Flickr
The paper noted that at least 57 young girls are thought to have been exploited by a network of some 100 suspected perpetrators based in south Manchester in the 2000s.
The gang, mainly of Muslim immigrants, hooked victims on drugs and sexually abused them. A 15-year-old girl died after a 50-year-old man injected her with heroin.
A report of a two-year investigation commissioned by Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham concluded vulnerable girls in care were groomed and abused in “plain sight.”
The government report found fears over race relations played a role in how police handled the Muslim gangs, referred to by British government and media as “Asian grooming gangs.”
Officers were aware of “many sensitive community issues” concerning policing in south Manchester in 2002 and 2003, the report said.
A top New York Police Department union official on Friday called on Mayor Bill de Blasio to “own” the consequences of the city’s sanctuary policies — while insisting officers want to be allowed to work with federal immigration enforcement — after an illegal immigrant who was freed in November is alleged to have sexually assaulted and murdered a 92-year-old woman
Pelosi, Schumer and Nadler, three blind rats, are about to be trapped by Trump. Just a side bar here. Hillary, Lock Her Up, Clinton and the DNC broke more laws going into the 2016 election than can ever be counted. Think about the the Steele Dossier paid by Clinton, think about Slick Willie threatening Loretta Lynch on the tarmac, think about it, think about the 33,000 deleted emails, think about the BleachBit wipe of her computer, think of her being allowed to have two attorneys with her during questioning. Those two were witnesses to a crime. Think about her i-phone being crushed to bits. And the Democrats have the balls to Impeach Trump.
So the Demorats have resorted to impeachment because they still can’t get over the beating Clinton suffered at the hands of Trump in 2016. Since day one these rats have beaten the impeachment drums. But we have a word for Senator McConnell, “do what the Democrats have done to you, do to them in Spades.” Tell them one thing, “see you in November RATS.”
President Trump’s legal team on Saturday issued a full-throttled defense to the articles of impeachment, refuting the substance and process of the charges while accusing House Democrats of engaging in a “dangerous attack” on the right of the American people to freely choose their president.
The judgement of history on the Trump impeachment is going to be that a group of scoundrels in control of the U.S. House of Representatives placed partisan interests above the country, undermined the Constitution, weakened America in the world, and lied about the duly elected president of the United States.
