Wednesday, June 07, 2017

This hearing is a joke.

June 7, 2017
By Greg Myre

In an often contentious hearing on Capitol Hill, (click here) two intelligence chiefs testified Wednesday that they've never felt pressured to take improper actions regarding intelligence matters, including the investigation of Russia's meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

But the two officials, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and the head of the National Security Agency, Adm. Mike Rogers, declined to say whether President Trump ever asked them to downplay the Russia investigation....

The US Senate Committee on Intelligence needs to bring the same witnesses into closed session and take testimony after being sworn in. These witnesses are simply throwing everything to Mueller because they can CYA.

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (click here) authorizes the Intelligence Community to target the communications of non-U.S. persons 
located outside the United States for foreign intelligence purposes. A key 
anti-terror tool that has helped to thwart numerous terror plots including 
the 2009 conspiracy to bomb the New York City subway, Section 702 
operations are subject to multiple layers of oversight by all three branches 
of government.

Section 702 is up for reauthorization and should continue to be sundowned
with reauthorization.

There are a groups of US Senators that are playing politics with Section 702
and what to make them permanent. (click here)

I agree with Senator Lindsey Graham in that investigations are being conducted
to determine who US Intelligence is being leaked. There is a bigger picture
that has to be addressed regarding national security. These issues should not
have political brevity so much as a need for national security.

June 6, 2017

Sen. Lindsey Graham (click here) said Tuesday he won't approve a critical
surveillance provision until politically damaging leaks of classified information
are investigated and brought under control.

Graham said he isn't ready to approve legislation to reauthorize Section 702 of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows the National Security Agency
to monitor telephone communications and Internet data generated by foreign
nationals but can also sweep up Americans....

Closed Session is a bigger joke simply because it is more than obvious all the 

witnesses today have been "coached by Trump and his White House Attorney" 
as to their answers and then they will declare Executive Priviledge. The reason 
Executive Priviledge is a part of the closed session is because it is a closed
session and protects Trumps' political objectives. Once AGAIN the USA people
are toyed with by Trump and his "Yes Men."

I believe the witnesses today have false reasons for withholding their answers

and are in contempt of Congress.

Sri Lanka needs continued relief. The USA sent $2,290,000.

May 28, 2017
By Dharisha Bastian

Colombo, Sri Lanka — The government of Sri Lanka (click here) assessed the damage on Sunday from widespread flooding and devastating mudslides, as the death toll from the twin disasters rose and nearly half a million people were displaced from their homes.

The state-run Disaster Management Center on Sunday announced that 151 people had been killed and 112 others were missing. It said the flooding was the worst since torrential rains soaked the island nation in 2003. The authorities estimate that more than 1,800 homes have been damaged and 442,000 people affected.

Some towns were under 18 feet of water, and the navy sent boats and armored vehicles to search for survivors. They moved about 2,000 residents to safer locations over the weekend.

The authorities have ordered residents to evacuate the banks of three major rivers — the Nilwala in the south, the Gin in the west and the Kelani, which runs through the capital, Colombo — fearing that they will overflow. Even though water levels were receding by Sunday night, disaster management officials were wary as more rain was expected...

7 June 2017

...Some 658,500 people (click here) have been displaced by floods and landslides in 15 districts and 68,734 persons are living temporarily in 355 camps, following May 30 cyclone. With a further 95 missing people dead by the ministry for Public Enterprise Development and the death toll has risen above 300. Sri Lanka's Disaster Management Center (DMC) estimate that over 2,500 houses were destroyed and nearly 15,900 damaged. These numbers could rise as data from damage assessments is compiled in ‎the ‎coming weeks.‎... ‎

Even with short notice about Cyclone Mora, Bangladesh did fairly well in saving lives. The latest understanding coming out of Bangladesh is: 

"A total of 500,000 people managed to move out of coastal areas before the storm made landfall on May 31. A multitude of tropical cyclone warnings and watches were issued for much of southern Bangladesh and the districts of Northeast India. Strong winds and storm surge battered buildings and destroyed farmlands across Chittagong, Cox's Bazar, and Rangamati, with at least 20,000 houses damaged in refugee camps for Rohingya Muslims displaced by conflict in neighbouring Myanmar. As of May 31, nine people were reported to be killed across Bangladesh, mostly due to falling trees."

Bangladesh is a profound worry anytime there is such a storm approaching because of it's low elevation above sea level. The highest elevation of Bangladesh is 344 feet in the north, but, the southern area is 33 feet above sea level.

The people of Bangladesh, especially the southern region, live precarious lives that can be destroyed with a storm or sea level rise.

March 28, 2014
By Gardiner Harris

Dakope, Bangladesh — When a powerful storm (click here) destroyed her riverside home in 2009, Jahanara Khatun lost more than the modest roof over her head. In the aftermath, her husband died and she became so destitute that she sold her son and daughter into bonded servitude. And she may lose yet more....

Given the fact the leaders are finding far fewer dead than Sri Lanka it is safe to say they have a sincere and clear understanding of their people and I congratulate them. However, these people are still refugees and should not be overlooked in their need for help.

The image below was recorded on May 30, 2017. These images are very important to under the dangers other peoples are facing. As the USA we have a very dire responsibility with these people through direct efforts and that of the United Nations.

Cyclone Mora (click here) pummeled Bangladesh with high winds and heavy rain on May 30, 2017. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite captured this natural-color image of the cyclone that day.
Maximum wind speeds reached 120 kilometers (75 miles) per hour, according to the Global Disaster Alert and Coordination System. The organization reported that more than 11 million people were affected by winds equivalent to a category 1 hurricane—strong enough to cause damage to houses, crops, and trees.

Millions of people live in the low-lying coastal regions of Bangladesh, India, and Myanmar. Authorities in Bangladesh oversaw large-scale evacuations as storm winds battered the coast, local news sites reported. Cox’s Bazar, the town where Mora made landfall, was especially hard hit, with damage to thousands of structures, according to news reports.

In its final warning, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center reported that Mora should dissipate as it moves into rough terrain over northeast India.

Choudary should be exiled to Libya.

His invitation of Daesh into the borders of the UK is an act of treason. Daesh is openly interested in destroying governments through carnage of citizens.

His affiliation with Deash is far more than his usual hate speech, it is a open invitation of influence of a foreign terror group that wants to kill citizens of the UK. No wonder the UK has to maintain it's internal security level at "critical." What does Prime Minister May expect? Charged Choudary with treason and hold him for trial or immediately deport him to exile. I would not give him any other alternative. His influence within the UK with citizens is used to inspire the desire to kill for him. This was twice now, when will Choudary be taken into custody?

June 6, 2017
By Lizzie Dearden

The bloody rampage (click here) that left seven people dead and dozens injured on a busy Saturday night in London Bridge is the latest atrocity to be tied to Anjem Choudary’s network of extremists, it has emerged.

Khuram Butt, who wore an Arsenal shirt and hoax suicide vest to carry out the slaughter, had been reported to authorities repeatedly over alarming comments and behaviour.

Experts warn that his transformation from apparently non-violent extremist to terrorist could be echoed by countless British Islamists brought to a “tipping point” by the ideology espoused by hate preachers.

Butt was spotted alongside Choudary, who has subsequently been jailed for inviting support for Isis, at a protest following the murder of Lee Rigby in 2013.

Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of anti-extremism group the Ramadhan Foundation, said Butt flanked Choudary as he defended a murder carried out by one of his own followers.

Mr Shafiq, who was conducting interviews nearby in Westminster’s College Green, went to challenge Choudary, Butt and another supporter.

“I went to confront him and Butt shouted out ‘murtadd’ [apostate from Islam],” he told The Independent....

5 October 2016
By Andy Wells

While rare, acts of treason and high treason are still punishable - although the death penalty is no longer the ultimate sentence after it was scrapped in 1998 under the Crime And Disorder Act.
That is very fortunate for anyone committing acts of treason as the death penalty in the past didn’t mean an injection or gas chamber.
In fact, it was a lot worse as Guy Fawkes and his fellow comparators discovered when they were executed for treason in 1605 by hanging, drawing and quartering.
Nevertheless, guilty parties can expect a maximum term of life behind bars for acts of disloyalty to the Queen....

What happens when a spouse invested in control loses it and is armed with a gun?

December 14, 2015

Top Ten Gun Ownership per capita in the USA 

  1. Wyoming: 195.7 firearms per 1,000 people. (Population 586,107)
  2. District of Columbia: 66.4 firearms per 1,000 people. (672,228)
  3. Arkansas: 41.6 firearms per 1,000 people. (2,978,000)
  4. New Mexico: 40.5 firearms per 1,000 people. (2,085,000)
  5. Virginia: 30.1 firearms per 1,000 people. (8,383,000)
  6. Idaho: 24.2 firearms per 1,000 people. (1,655,000)
  7. Alabama: 20 firearms per 1,000 people. (4,859,000)
  8. Nevada: 19.5 firearms per 1,000 people. (2,891,000)
  9. Alaska: 15.2 firearms per 1,000 people. (738,432)
  10. Louisiana: 15.1 firearms per 1,000 people. (4,671,000)

In the early hours of July 9, 2012, (click here) Korinda Rodriguez and her husband, Jeffrey, prepared to leave their home in Reno to go to work at a local newspaper, where they were both employed. As they got ready, the couple began to argue. They had fought in the past but on this particular morning, Korinda threatened to leave Jeffrey. In separate cars, Jeffrey followed Korinda as she drove to work. When she tried to speed away from him, he became enraged and, on the median of U.S. 395, he used his vehicle to run her off the road.

As she stood beside her car, threatening to call the police, Jeffrey drew his gun.

By the time the police arrived at the scene, it was too late. Jeffrey had shot Korinda twice, killing her, before opening fire at passing vehicles. While there was nothing anyone could do to save Korinda’s life at that point, her murder was not inevitable and represented, among other things, the failure of state gun laws to protect her....

...Preventing abusers from accessing firearms saves women’s lives, and the circumstances of Korinda’s death — shot to death by an intimate partner — are not uncommon in Nevada. To better assess how these crimes occur, Everytown partnered with the Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence to compile a comprehensive database of intimate gun homicides in the state over a five-year period (2010 through 2014). This research — the most in-depth of its kind for the state — gives policymakers the measure of these recurrent crimes:

Women in Nevada are 65 percent more likely to be shot to death by intimate partners than women nationwide, according to an Everytown analysis of FBI data. In fact, Nevada has the fifth highest rate of domestic violence gun murder of any state in the country.1

- Everytown identified 46 domestic violence gun homicides in Nevada over the five-year period. During the shootings the perpetrators also shot 10 additional victims — friends, family members, and children — killing six of them, two of whom were children.

- In addition to those who were killed or injured, at least 20 children witnessed or were present for the shootings. In fact, at least 39 percent of the murders took place in the presence of other individuals, demonstrating the devastating impact these homicides had on the children, families, and community members present during the shootings.

- There were ample indications that the perpetrators posed a risk to their partners. More than one in four shooters had a criminal record that prohibited them from possessing firearms — the majority due to a prior domestic violence crime.

- Of seven homicides committed by people barred from possessing firearms where the source of the gun could be determined, two obtained them in an unlicensed transfer.

- After murdering their intimate partners, nearly two-thirds of the offenders killed themselves, all but one with a firearm.

These murders and the data drawn from them shine a light on fatal domestic violence inNevada—and illuminate solutions that may prevent future abusers from obtaining firearms and causing further deaths. The incidents documented in this report vividly illustrate that Nevada needs an improved approach to addressing the threat gun violence poses for victims of domestic violence....

I thought the Trump sons were running the company. What is Eric Trump doing on Hannity to comment politically?

Eric Trump says his father's critics are 'not even people'

Politics  2 hours ago
During an interview with Sean Hannity, Eric Trump condemned attacks against his father's policies and administration, saying critics (in particular, Democrats) are "not even people." "Morality is just gone," he added.
Not to understand that comment because it has no context to explain it. But, since when do Republicans care about people and the immorality of their party in degrading the American work force, bringing about the new class of Working Poor and enforcing it by oppressing the minimum wage? "Citizen's United" and the lack of action to correct this illegitimate course the USA is on in stating corporations are people too is all that needs to be said about that comment.

Instead of giving informal advise to Americans that may need it, the Trump White House simply wants to dummy down the American interested in migrant and joint employment.

Below is Fact Sheet #35 from the US Department of Labor regarding standards for joint employment under the Fair Labors Standards Act. 

It matters to some Americans to have this available, so here it is. I have also indexed with labels to make it easier to find. I don't usually assign labels, but, this time I did.

This Fact Sheet is from January 2016. Evidently, the Trump Labor Secretary can't get his mind around it to write a new one.

Fact Sheet #35: Joint Employment Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA)

U.S. Department of Labor
Wage and Hour Division
Revised January 2016

Fact Sheet #35: Joint Employment Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA)
Whether an employee has more than one employer is important in ensuring that the employee receives all of the rights and protections afforded by the FLSA and MSPA, and that the employers are aware of and accountable for compliance with their obligations under these Acts. Accordingly, this fact sheet provides general information concerning the meaning and applicability of joint employment under the FLSA and MSPA.

What is Joint Employment?

Joint employment exists when an employee is employed by two (or more) employers such that the employers are responsible, both individually and jointly, to the employee for compliance with a statute.

The FLSA and MSPA share the same definition of employment. This definition, which includes “to suffer or permit to work,” was written to have as broad an application as possible.

Under these laws, it is possible for a worker to be employed by two (or more) joint employers who are both responsible for compliance. Joint employment is included in the laws’ definition of employment – therefore, joint employment is also defined broadly.

WHD considers joint employment in hundreds of investigations every year, including in the construction, agricultural, janitorial, warehouse and logistics, staffing, and hospitality industries.

Determining if Joint Employment Exists

The most likely scenarios for joint employment are

1)Where the employee has two (or more) technically separate but related or associated employers, or

2)Where one employer provides labor to another employer and the workers are economicallydependent on both employers.

An FLSA regulation, 29 CFR 791.2, provides guidance regarding the first scenario for joint employment, and a MSPA regulation, 29 CFR 500.20(h)(5), provides guidance regarding the second scenario. Because the FLSA and MSPA share the same definition of employment, both types of joint employment can exist under either the FLSA or MSPA.

1)Where the employee has two or more technically separate but related or associated employers.

Joint employment exists where two (or more) employers benefit from the employee’s work and they are sufficiently related to or associated with each other. For example:

•The employers have an arrangement to share the employee’s services;

•One employer acts in the interest of the other in relation to the employee; or

•The employers share control of the employee, directly or indirectly, because one employer controls,is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer.

FS 35

The focus of this type of joint employment is the degree of association between the two (or more) employers, and it is sometimes called horizontal joint employment by the courts. For example, joint employment may exist where an employee works for two restaurants that are technically separate but have the same managers, jointly coordinate the scheduling of the employee’s hours, and both benefit from that employee’s work.

In these cases, it is important to consider facts that shed light on the degree of association between the two (or more) employers and how these employers may jointly control the employee. Although not all or even most of these facts need to be present for there to be joint employment, some facts to consider include:

• Who owns or operates the possible joint employers?

• Do the employers have any overlapping officers, directors, executives, or managers?

• Do the employers share control over operations?

• Are the operations of the employers intermingled?

• Does one employer supervise the work of the other?

• Do the employers share supervisory authority over the employee?

• Do the employers treat the employees as a pool of workers available to both of them?

• Do they share clients or customers?

• Are there any agreements between the employers?

2) Where one employer provides labor to another employer and the workers are economically dependent on both employers.

Joint employment also exists where a worker is, as a matter of economic reality, economically dependent on two employers: an intermediary employer (such as a staffing agency, farm labor contractor (FLC), or other labor provider) and another employer who engages the intermediary to provide workers. The workers are employees of the intermediary, and the issue is whether they are also employed by the employer who engaged the intermediary to provide the labor. This type of joint employment is common not only in agriculture, but also in other industries that use subcontracting, staffing agencies, or other intermediaries, such as construction,warehouse and logistics, and hotels. This type of joint employment exists in both FLSA and MSPA cases.

For example, in agriculture, a grower may contract with an FLC to provide farm workers. In another example, a higher-tier contractor may contract with a subcontractor to provide construction workers for a project. In these types of relationships, the question is whether the employees (farm workers or construction workers) are jointly employed by the other employer (the grower or higher-tier contractor).

The focus of this type of joint employment is the employee’s relationship with the other employer (as opposed to the intermediary employer). This type of joint employment analysis must include an examination of the economic realities of the relationship to determine the degree of the employee’s economic dependence on the other employer – the potential joint employer. Some courts have called this vertical joint employment.

In these cases, it is important to consider factors that demonstrate whether a worker is economically dependent on, and therefore employed by, the other employer. The MSPA regulation provides the following economic realities factors to consider:

• Does the other employer direct, control, or supervise (even indirectly) the work?

• Does the other employer have the power (even indirectly) to hire or fire the employee, change employment conditions, or determine the rate and method of pay?

• How permanent or lengthy is the relationship between the employee and the other employer?

• Does the employee perform repetitive work or work requiring little skill?

• Is the employee’s work integral to the other employer’s business?

• Is the work performed on the other employer’s premises?

• Does the other employer perform functions for the employee typically performed by employers, such as handling payroll or providing tools, equipment, or workers’ compensation insurance, or, in agriculture, providing housing or transportation?

Any other evidence that indicates economic dependence should be considered as well; these seven factors are not exhaustive. Moreover, there are likely other economic realities factors that, consistent with the broad scope of employment under the FLSA and MSPA, may be considered when determining whether vertical joint employment exists. The analysis, however, cannot focus solely on control. The degree of control is only one consideration, and joint employment can exist even when the other employer exercises little control over the workers.

This joint employment analysis is necessary in cases where the FLC, staffing agency, or intermediary employer is an independent contractor, as opposed to an employee, of the other employer (the potential joint employer). This joint employment analysis is not necessary in cases where the FLC, staffing agency, or intermediary employer is not an independent contractor but is him/herself or itself an employee of the other employer. In that situation, the intermediary and his/her/its employees are all employed by the other employer.
Responsibilities of Joint Employers

Joint employers (whether vertical or horizontal) are responsible, both individually and jointly, for compliance with the FLSA and MSPA.
Under the FLSA, each of the joint employers must ensure that the employee receives all employment-related rights under the FLSA (including payment of at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime pay at not less than one and one-half the regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, unless an exception or exemption applies). Furthermore, joint employers must combine all of the hours worked by the employee in a workweek to determine if the employee worked more than 40 hours and is due overtime pay.

Under MSPA, each of the joint employers must ensure that the employee receives all employment-related rights granted by MSPA, such as accurate and timely disclosure of the terms and conditions of employment, written payroll records, and payment of wages when due.

However, a joint employer is not necessarily responsible for complying with MSPA housing and/or transportation requirements. An employer is responsible for MSPA-covered housing only if it “owns or controls” the housing occupied by a migrant agricultural worker. An employer is responsible for transportation requirements only if it is “using or causing to be used” any vehicle for providing transportation.

The analysis for determining joint employment under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is the same as under the FLSA. For information about how joint employment affects FMLA coverage and eligibility determinations and the FMLA responsibilities of primary and secondary employers, see Fact Sheet 28N.
Where to Obtain Additional Information

For additional information, visit our Wage and Hour Division Website: and/or call our toll-free information and helpline, available 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in your time zone, 1-866-4USWAGE (1-866-487-9243).

This publication is for general information and is not to be considered in the same light as official statements of position contained in the regulations.
U.S. Department of Labor Frances Perkins Building 200 Constitution Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20210