If there is any surprise with this vote it would have to be concerning time; actual time. The measure was approved on a 385-23 vote, and goes next to the Senate. With Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) at the helm in the Senate who knows how long this bill could sit there.
The Obama administration announced the energy and aid package on Tuesday, when Secretary of State John Kerry landed in Kiev for talks with the new government.
The White House said the $1 billion loan guarantee was aimed at helping insulate Ukraine from reductions in energy subsidies. Russia provides a substantial portion of Ukraine’s natural gas and U.S. officials said they are prepared to work with Kiev to reduce its dependence on those imports.
The assistance is also meant to supplement a broader aid package from the International Monetary Fund.
Former Congressman Ron Paul had some startling trepidations, he said, “I’ve always argued that foreign aid is a process where you take money from poor people in this country and give it to rich people in other countries, because the people never seem to be helped. […] It’s government to government.” And so right he is with that statement.
In an interview with FOX News, Paul furthermore noted that the U.S. has given over $7 billion in aid to Libya, Egypt, and Syria – all of which remain unstable.
And with remittances going to Iraq, Afghanistan, and who else knows where, I believe the United States has established a rather ugly precedence with what seem like automatic money.
Congressman Paul did make a couple of points however, mentioning the notion of there may be unintended consequences to America’s good intentions. And of course we believe he is right. (Please see any consequences tag in Categories.)
He used the following narrative for his example — “[Ukraine] is behind on their payments to Russia for their natural gas. So maybe if we send money to their new government, they will pay Russia the money for their gas.”
Paul called the aid package wasteful, especially given that the U.S. is in so much debt. He also speculated that there are ulterior motives behind U.S. interventions overseas. Yet we would like to add that by stating, “If the U.S. really believes that sending the money is ‘a waste’ as Ron Paul alleges, we feel that one would or should weigh in their own hearts – is the Ukraine and the people’s well-being also ‘a waste.’”
Yet for some silver lining Paul also stated that, “he believes in helping people around the world, he thinks we should start with allowing Americans to “keep their own money… and if they want to donate to these countries, fine and dandy.”
And finally for this offering we do have a couple of issues that are upsetting us, therefore we will tag them, Accountability and Responsibility.
We are just going to make mention here of what topic one could expect to see. There are growing calls to follow the money on ObamaCare. Republican lawmaker Peter Roskam (IL) is planning to introduce a bill today that is aimed at keeping track of the $1.8 trillion taxpayer dollars expected to be spent on ObamaCare over the next decade.
Now let us add the $300 million that appears to be lost or somehow, someone in the Obama administration does not have those two precious traits needed for creating an effective government.
Sometimes lesser is better…and I should be sticking more to blogosphere format. Early on when my primary profession as a journalist, syndicated author, with contributions for text books and the international press issues began to subside I ventured into the blogosphere to espouse some of my own experiences as well as write in such a manner that what I was concerned about was easier to understand.
Thank you for the “other informative web site.” This is definitely the place where I could I get that kind of information written in such a perfect way? Where else could I go to obtain high quality information in such a perfect and easy to read way? I have a challenge that I’m just now running on, and I’ve been on the lookout for such info.
When I first started out – I was impetuous with other writers and especially bloggers. How long should my material be? At what point did a “normal” reader get tired of my stories? Ad nauseum and more.
What I gained in answers to my question was about as practical as I would have thought. “Three hundred and fifty words maximum; keep to one to one and a half sentence length per paragraph; make sure to cite your sources, but above all, keep it short and simple.
As time advanced I noticed that my writing was managing to get longer and longer – oh sheee—it! What I found out was in order to make my writing unique, in demand, and interesting naturally used more words. But was that necessary?
How about digging through my books, tapes, cd’s, and so on to remember a notion I refer to as “economy writing.” Economy writing is exactly as the name implies – use less words to make the same point. The most difficult part is aligning words, or, finding a word that means the same and look to cut approximately on a 12 to one ration. That is cutting out 12 words and replacing them with one single word.
That ideal is the reason why my posts are getting shorter or receiving less verbiage with far more links – therefore, it inevitably comes down to YOU…by letting me know what you prefer.
Fireworks in the House!
How many out there was able to catch the idiot of the state, Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the representative from Maryland who also because of tenure is the ranking democrat in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform today during the Committee’s investigation or the Internal Revenue Service and former officer Ms. Lois Lerner?
During a hearing of the House Oversight Committee into allegations that the Internal Revenue Service scrutinized conservative groups’ tax-exempt status filings unduly, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) exploded at Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (D-CA). Cummings charged that the way in which the proceedings were being conducted were “Un-American.”
Unbeknownst to Cummings apparently Rep. Issa had already adjourned the Committee’s meeting. While making a statement before the committee, Issa stood up and asked Cummings to yield, actually quite civilly and respectful.
Whilst screaming, “If you will sit down and allow me to ask a question,” Cummings insisted. “I am a member of a Congress of the United States of America.” Great is precisely what I was thinking.
However this time the clearly maniacal Cummings blurted out, “I am tired of this,” he continued. “You cannot just have a one-sided investigation. There is absolutely something wrong with that, and it is absolutely un-American.”
“We had a hearing. It was adjourned,” Issa replied. “I gave you an opportunity to ask your questions. You had no questions.”
Before anymore credit goes to Rep. Elijah Cummings for what was clearly unprofessional conduct, not to mention borderline rage, I believe that there are some issues that should be mentioned.
First it was Rush Limbaugh who pointed out that he believed Rep. Cummings was grandstanding. I am in full agreement with Mr. Limbaugh; however, I would more likely say, “Cummings looks like the typical Democrat when not getting his way…whatever that is…”
My main point is this Elijah Cummings rage saga is this…GOOD, GREAT!! With the frustration he seems to be experiencing or even his “I’ve had it!” blurting out, maybe now he can understand how most of us feel about the job he and his organization is doing.
Continuing from our earlier blog article, Economic Theory and Illegal Immigration, it is again noted that according to many renown economists, is the notion that they believe in studying individual behavior to assess and draw conclusions for a group of people to be most effective in reducing crime.
Again most economic theory begins with the assumption that the best model of how the world works rests on the idea of [important] of a rational, self-interested individual who act with purpose to achieve the highest level of satisfaction possible knowing that they will be confronted with certain circumstances.
In most disciplines and/or professions define rationality as consistent thinking. However economists take a small but different approach. Economists define rationality as “choosing the option that one believes will increase his satisfaction the most when presented with a constrained choice.”
When one looks at the variance of definitions there is not that much whatsoever. In fact the only inferences that I am able to draw is that economists use “choice” whilst others use “certain circumstances.” Either way we have a definition of rationality from both stating it is consistent thinking. We do not have any difficulty with either’s definition.
What do these theories mean about self-interest? One thing that hit me straight up was in the notion that self-interest does not mean or even remotely equate to selfishness. In fact let all of us remember that the decision involves choice, rational thinking, and purpose to achieve gaining the greater satisfaction or improvement of life. It is important to note that this decision can come from buying a new shirt or by giving away the shirt off one’s back. Again it should be noted that in a market economy people act to improve their well-being, not necessarily their wealth or number of possessions.
If we assume that individuals are rational and self-interested, then we can think of a simple rule that will lead us to maximize our satisfaction/improvement given any option. That rule is to compare the added benefit from an action to what the added costs will be. If the added benefits exceed the added costs, then most often people will undertake the action.
Now back to the example of criminal activity. According to the economist’s, they would look at a criminal and say that if she commits a crime it is because she has made a rational choice. Essentially therefore, the person weighed the benefits from the crime against the added costs and determined that the added benefits of the crime outweighed the added costs and therefore, with purpose committed the crime. The practical implication of this concerning public policy is that if one wanted to reduce criminal activity, then one must reduce the benefits of committing the crime and one must increase the costs.
Now that is about as basic as it comes. It is just like saying if there is enough demand for something then people will just about find the costs. How anything as simple as this basic assumption could somehow go wrong is I believe something only humans are able to engineer.
Back to the criminal data assessment. We have mentioned that given the age characteristics as well as educational level, family status as children and adults, race, and of course psychological profiles all are characteristics of humankind; regardless, of having anything to do with crime. But if only for the moment I would like to introduce the rationale of why people do the things they do – or better still is as to what limits will people go to make themselves satisfied with their dispositions?
We can all agree that educational level can assist when time to look for a new position, right. So let us assume our newly paroled lady did not get the opportunity to finish high school. Ut oh! She is there filling out applications when to sudden the question comes up – have you ever been arrested, or convicted of a crime? Now there is an altogether set of circumstances. Most people might allude to the notion of “okay let’s see, we have a high school dropout that has done a short stint in the big house, what gives with that…”
Who stated anything about criminal activity being a rational choice? Tomorrow we will begin to look at policies, and what should we do with somewhere between 14 to 30 million illegal immigrants who were given choices and for some reason applied some economics theories without or even with rational thought.
ECONOMIC THEORIES AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
I am sure we have all heard the expression, “We want it all, and we want it now.” We let us start by linking in some economics, social sciences, religion, and pure fantasy for this article.
On the religious level or for Christians we are instructed that although we may think we all have needs and wants, yet furthermore in copious quantities we are outright told not to worry about such little things; moreover, we are told all of our needs and most of our wants are known to our Creator. Furthermore, and what I find amazing lies within the notion that we will be provided with both our needs and our wants.
Just one step further, we are even instructed to ask, yes ask for our needs and wants and they will be rendered. Notice how I do not want to give even a sign that I may know the answer, therefore, I openly admit to all my religious friends who subscribe to a different name, could you write in or comment how and particularly where the same notion is taught in your religion. Thanking you in advance.
Now on to social sciences. Would you say that your focus is on an individual – or – a group level? Some social sciences make the individual the focus of their research while other disciplines may focus on the groups of individuals in which to maximize their research potential. It is a good thing that this article is not about the benefits of individual versus group behavior.
Yet this article is going to use (at times) both individuals and groups especially with relationship to crime and the activity of being an illegal immigrant residing in the United States. This is definitely where we employ simple economic strategies to give us a way to define why a person would enter the realm of illegal living.
A very distinctive characteristic in the field of economics is its focus on the individual. While other social scientists, often examine the characteristics of groups and use group behavior to explain or predict individual behavior in our experience can and does solidify false claims by its nature. We cannot even infer that anything that happens within a group (let alone what group) can or does parallel that of an individual. Economists do exactly the opposite. They gather data on individual behavior to discuss the behavior of potentially those who are in groups.
Examining criminal behavior is a classic example and a good one too. One method of looking at such behaviors starts with criminals as a group. We could try to find criminal characteristics such as age, educational level, family status as children and adults, race, and various psychological profiles. Then we would draw inferences from these characteristics and try to change criminals as a group.
Suppose we find that 60 percent of convicted robbers are twenty-five year old urban males with an eighth-grade education who have been convicted of a crime before the age of fifteen, come from a single parent family and are unmarried. From this information, we might try to explain how each of these characteristics contributes to criminal activity, and then as most politicians do begin to initiate policies to reduce crime.
We could initiate a policy that offers people within a group the opportunity to increase their education level of …urban males. Economists instead use theories of individual behavior to draw conclusions about what sorts of policies would be effective in reducing crime.
Next within our policy making group of economists move into their own assumptions such as a staunch belief that our world works because of an idea that people – for the most part – are rational, self-interested folks who acts purposefully to achieve the highest level of satisfaction possible while operating under certain circumstances…to be taken up in detail at the start of the next blog entry. Until then…
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S “POLICY INITIATIVES” ARE A FAILURE…
Just as our title implies, it will be years perhaps even decades before the chaotic menagerie of Obama’s sometimes held close to the breast pocket, without very many people in Washington D.C, or clearly elsewhere having even the slightest bit of knowledge of what this man has been capable of doing.
Far be it from me, who says that everything done on domestic improvements within the Nation should as a matter of due-diligence be directed toward the American people if, for nothing else, the very feedback the president’s advisors, policy experts, and need based function people (perhaps even unknown) can render their reasons for public policy enhancements or how about “shovel ready jobs.”
I will admittedly agree that if as in the 1970s one was being charged $95.00 per toilet seat when the real cost was $1.50 and so forth with nails, and just about every government contract, without proper checking either through one’s “people” or making sure the matters are well in control. There can be only a few words that can simply identify that incompetence, and corruption is the first that comes to mind.
I also openly admit that through The Heritage Foundation and their distinguished blog, The Foundry, information is now being released. As for me I am not sure if this man and those he surrounds himself with are really as stupid as they have proven they are, it just seems to me that imagine that you are the President. And you have worked for months coming up with the name which was The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that he knew well in advance he would be needing the funds. I am only able to cover a portion of these findings, however, I will post another page if you care to see what this person has done.
As a follow up to the Green Graveyard overview, this post provides additional information concerning the funding for each of the now-bankrupt green energy companies. In one of the most extensive compilations to date, Heritage has identified 19 bankrupt green energy companies that were unable to succeed even with the government’s promise to provide generous financial assistance totaling a whopping $2.6 billion.
1. Abound Solar: George W. Bush’s Administration first offered this Colorado-based company federal assistance in 2007 to the tune of $3 million as well as a $400 million loan guarantee. Before announcing bankruptcy in June 2012, Abound was promised an additional $374.6 million from the Obama Administration. The company was also offered $12.6 million in federal tax credits. During its short-lived heyday, Abound received the distinction of ranking 17th out of “100 Recovery Act Projects That Are Changing America.”
Government’s Bad Bet: $ 790.3 million
2. Solyndra: Despite the fact that Vice President Joe Biden once hailed this now-infamous company and its $535 million loan guarantee as an “unprecedented investment this Administration is making in renewable energy and exactly what the Recovery Act is all about,” Solyndra succumbed to Chapter 11 status in September 2011. That’s two short years after being offered federal financial assistance. Despite supportive statements and visits from top Obama Administration officials, Solyndra was unable to avoid its fate in the Green Graveyard.
Government’s Bad Bet: $570 million (includes federal loans and state tax breaks not listed)
3. A123 Systems: Having been showered with visits from a host of elected and government officials during the Obama Administration (then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), to name only a few), government funding for A123 actually began in 2001 during the Bush Administration. The company declared bankruptcy in October 2012, a little over one year from the date that President Obama offered this encouraging remark: “There is A123, a clean energy manufacturer in Michigan that just hired its 1000th worker as demand has soared for its vehicle components. Companies like these are taking root and putting people to work in every corner of the country.” And this isn’t the only form of praise A123 received. Secretary Chu called A123 “a great example of how we are working with industries to create jobs, strengthen our manufacturing industry, and help our auto companies compete in the global market.” In fact, A123 is also still listed as a “Hall of Fame” company on the Small Business Innovation Research website.
Now how can these alleged experts, advisors, and policy analyst be making the unabashed biggest mistakes in the totality of their professional careers. Again if you were president – wouldn’t you at least find out who the best most accountable accountant there was to hire. No kidding here gang, I sit and read reports of the staff at Heritage Foundation, it is simply amazing how often one of their scholars get it ALL right.
Please read on by clicking here.
As most of us will attest (those over 30 years of age) perhaps the biggest barrier to entry of birth-control pills was in the notion of brainwashing elementary school students, middle school students, and those who were in high school. Some people today would have disclaimed, “oh my gosh, they’re brainwashing my children…” At any rate the idea was not well-accepted and considered mind boggling.
Unfortunately in those days it seemed as though the parents were definitely on the governments side and did not find it brainwashing whatsoever. Nope, in my running circles it was far more that the parents supported birth-control over the other side, meaning the unplanned, underage, and public humiliation over the unwanted pregnancy.
Just for a moment allow one to realize that all of this was during a time when federal politicians were far more interested in their constituents and human rights than today’s congressional staffs, church clergy and advisors, and the list is endless.
However why the generated huge public push by on-set television anchormen as smoke slowly drifted up from their open ashtrays. What it is that we were told is that with the population in China and India if it kept on as it was then the earth would soon run out of room to accommodate all of the people?
Therefore a nation or group of nations needed to make sure that their women were not getting pregnant. And this is perhaps one of the more indelible times in American history. America began sending trained personnel all over the world particularly most African nations, Middle East as well as southwest Asia to literally insert and place any number of inter-uterine devices, IUD’s into the waiting lines of women who had been given the same story as we were told.
Yet what was never explained to the people of the United States is that these women were paid to have this device inserted. So what? So many of the doctors and nurses began to realize that they were seeing the same faced individuals that only a day before were implanted.
The alarm was that these women were to have the IUD’s in place for 30 days before seeing the doctors again. Well it was soon found out that the women who had been patiently waiting in line, once upon having the IUD implanted immediately went about the process of removing them to receive another and of course the money often during the same day and visit.
Even now this process continues albeit to somehow distort the ethnic rise that will undo a community quicker than almost everything known will. It is still normally the first act of legislation that the new incoming president will sign.
However, we ask anyone to write out some kind of response, comment, or answer to this following question:
If the US government went to the point to produce literature, films, and recordings for the educational environment as well as the evening news programs, and public service announcements warning of population control issues…
What then makes it so easy for them to say oh, what 11 to 20 million more people going to do? I have not witnessed the land mass of the USA getting any bigger, however I have witnessed it getting smaller. Furthermore, what will 11 million or more illegal immigrants going to do to the environment of this portion of the planet we live on?
These are just two of many questions that I have based on an unforgettable time during my life.
The Inter-Academy Panel Statement on Population Growth, circa 1994, has stated that many environmental problems, such as rising levels of atmospheric carbon oxide, global warming, and pollution, are aggravated by the population expansion. Other problems associated with overpopulation include the increased demand for resources such as fresh water and food, starvation and malnutrition, consumption of natural resources (such as fossil fuels) faster than the rate of regeneration, and deterioration in living conditions. However, some believe that waste and over-consumption, especially by wealthy nations, is putting more strain on the environment than overpopulation.
Someone, anyone has got to tell our fabulous elected Congressional officials to think — CRITICALLY — before making unpopular and unwanted decisions.
We believe that the behavior within the government structure have a direct and concurrent influence on our society today. As discussed earlier during the week here, on this blog, years ago our means of communication is so much faster than in earlier times. Therefore, people who are out demonstrating their violent tendencies, responsibilities, and the general state of mind are heard about often times quicker than any news media has even been dispatched.
We think that is something akin to the idea of “Citizen Reporting” but I will still maintain the quintessential integrity of our staff and pose the question to you folks. How many of you have efficacy? The notion that what you have to say and/or do that will make an effect in whatever you decide to put your hard work.
People are asking all the time – “What is it with the blogosphere…so many people are writing these days.” Being as open (honest) as I can possibly be on this point is why the bureaucracy in Washington does not entertain and look to accommodate those who utilize this massive means of communication. We think we can answer that and not in the Sen. Dianne Feinstein way.
For one stymied Congressional official, are you looking at the quality of the medium? A pleasant surprise is when an old-time student sends you an email to alert you on their new IP address for their writing space. And the feeling of accomplishment that one experiences knowing that “oh, I taught him and her Grammar, Writing, and certainly how to read literature.”
Ah but come on dude! That was when they were in the sixth grade – well we say, everybody has their starting point and some individuals look at what they are being taught as the way of life.
The point I am trying to make here is that nothing happens over night. We look at some (or most) of the issues in Washington unfortunately for the voting public these issues did not spring up over night, in the last decade, generation, half or full century. The various and often times ridiculous efforts an elected Congress has with special interest groups, lesser than honorable people, and the entire executive branch, as the list gets longer and deeply entrenched year after year when it comes to fixing it, we would like to experience a brand new IRS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, especially a high quality “Mr. Clean” job done within the Justice department.
Now in an attempt to describe how the branches of government have waited and procrastinated, and then waited some more and procrastinated longer, all the while knowing that there are individuals and groups that use a variety of tactics and tools to advance their aims. Together with advocating their positions publicly, attempting to educate supporters and opponents, and mobilizing allies on a particular issue. Special interest groups and some advocacy organizations can control an unhealthy situation.
This alone reminds me of an exchange of dialog between two of our favorite commentators from earlier in the week. In the spirit of joking with each other (to cover the obvious) one
commentator says to the host of the show, “What do you think…more than four years in this town to make $30 million dollars!” The host immediately became the focus of attention with his sorted and uncontrollable laughter. What these two were obviously discussing was the notion of going to Washington D.C, and a little time wasted here and procrastination there – it does not take long to make a lot of money.
I will never forget the day when President Barack Obama in a public news conference stated, “…the U.S. federal government is inactive with the failed Immigration policy…” meaning of course that immigration reform once again had laid him out. So just as in the State of the Union Address, he instructed Congress to get me an immigration policy or “I’ll use my pen and my phone… and I’ll make one.”
Principles of America’s Founders must be restored…
Understanding our political heritage is a vital part of building a stronger America for the next generation. The principles of America’s Founders must be restored to their proper role in the public and political discourse, influencing public policy and reforming government to reflect constitutional limits.
Recently, law professor Jonathan Turley took to the pages of The Washington Post to warn about the growth of the administrative state. “The growing dominance of the federal government over the states has obscured more fundamental changes within the federal government itself,” Turley wrote. “Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.”
Predictably, some career bureaucrats did not like Turley’s message and registered their protests with letters to the Post. “If Mr. Turley were to check the beginning of regulations published in the Federal Register, he would see that these civil servants also have phone numbers where they can be reached,” one wrote. “Agencies like mine go to great pains to be open about our efforts and are subject to vigorous scrutiny by Congress and the courts,” added another. “They end up knowing just about everything but our shirt size. How much more transparent can we get?”
The complaints miss the point. Certainly many bureaucrats are nice people, and certainly they can be reached by phone, fax, or e-mail. The problem is not the people in the government; it is that those people do not have the constitutional authority to be making public policy.
As Heritage’s Joe Postell puts it, there are four major constitutional problems today:
The administrative state combines the powers of government in the hands of the same officials in violation of the separation of powers principle.
It is based on unconstitutional delegations of legislative power from Congress to bureaucrats and administrators.
It violates the principle of republican government, which requires that power—especially legislative power—be derived from the consent of the governed, expressed directly or indirectly through elections.
The administrative process it follows to adjudicate disputes is fundamentally opposed to the protections offered by the rule of law in the traditional judicial process.
The Founders gave us a system carefully crafted to divide power, but we have allowed bureaucrats to expand their reach. “Do we want to be governed by the rule of law as hammered out in open legislative debate, carried on by our elected representatives, directly accountable to us? Or do we wish to be governed by the expanding rule of regulation, the rule of administrators who are most certainly not accountable to us?” asks Heritage’s Bob Moffit. “The rule of regulation is the rule of regulators. But today, the rule of regulators is arbitrary and unaccountable government.”
For additional in-depth reading on the importance of understanding America’s political government, please click here.
ILLEGAL ALIENS TO ATTEND STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS“
For a guy that pretends to be a Constitutional lawyer, Barack Obama sure doesn’t seem to understand the Constitution or the law. The latest “lack of understanding” has the President inviting illegal aliens to attend the State Of The Union Address next Tuesday. Sadly, this is the second year in a row that Scofflaw-in-chief has decided to throw his disdain for the law into America’s face.
Even though his is supposed to represent the American people, he frequently shows his allegiance to foreign nationals and law-breakers. The President has vowed to use his speech to push for immigration reform and put together a group that looks like a who’s who of the amnesty movement including all of his Illinois Democrat stoolies.
“This year, we joined together to invite people whose stories illustrate the importance of immigration reform and to make clear that passing comprehensive immigration reform should be at the top of the to-do list,” said the group in a joint statement.
And with that, Estefania Garcia and Maria Torres, a couple of illegal aliens will be in attendance next Tuesday. But you see, those two aren’t just ordinary law-breakers, they are the so-called “dreamers”: illegal aliens brought to this country by their illegal parents when they were young. If you remember, Obama, with the stroke of his pen, created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which completely halted the deportation process for millions of people who shouldn’t be in this country.
In case you haven’t noticed, Obama likes to give speeches where he surrounds himself with people that have sad stories. He uses these tragic bits of anecdotal evidence to sell his unpopular, and often, unconstitutional initiatives to the American people. Sure, illegal immigration costs this country billions of dollars and keeps millions of Americans from being gainfully employed, but look at these two poor girls who came to this country through no fault of their own. They just want a better life.
Americans want a better life too and Obama’s tired old song and dance is running thin with the people. Bob Dane of the Federation for American Immigration Reform is livid over the message that inviting illegals to the speech sends.
“It reinforces the one message that for this president is unambiguous: Violating immigration laws is just entirely inconsequential. The laws aren’t being enforced, and here you go, the public needs to get used to it. They can sit and stand anywhere they want, including next to me in the U.S. Capitol,” said Dane.
The number of illegal invitees is way down from last year’s State of the Union, which saw nearly 200 dreamers and schemers in the peanut gallery. By the way, just to show
you what a bunch of ingrates these people looking for a better life are, they actually booed Obama because he hasn’t done enough for them. I bet he’s a little more selective with this year’s invitations.
I am a hardworking, taxpaying, natural-born American citizen. Do you think I’ll ever get invited to sit in the House of Representatives to watch a speech? Do you think the president gives a crap about my concerns? The fact that Obama is catering to the needs of foreign nationals over American citizens is criminal. That he’s doing it while the people that he’s supposed to represent are suffering is just plain disgusting. Special hat-tip and thanks to tomfernandez28 for his remarkable touch.
What’s up with this so-called income inequality…
As a worsening jobs picture appeared last week, Barack Obama sought to hit the reset button.
His strategy? Lie. (Anyone out there surprised.)
“If you like your plan, you can keep it.”
“You can keep your doctor, period.”
“The Affordable Care Act will reduce the deficit and save money for the economy.”
“The Benghazi attack was a result of an anti-Muslim video.”
“Al Qaeda has been decimated.”
“Republicans don’t care about people.”
But this time, it’s different.
Instead of a little lie, the president jumped right to a demagogue-level fabrication. (I guess Obama has become more comfortable in office during his second term.)
The lie was captured during a speech on income inequality…
“We’ve also seen how government action, time and again, can make an enormous difference in increasing opportunity and bolstering ladders into the middle class. Investments in education, laws establishing collective bargaining and a minimum wage – these all contributed to rising standards of living for massive numbers of Americans.”
Like it or not ladies and gentlemen since I have been on this planet there has always been a problem with what people want. We really could go on for hours simply with gender equality alone. No, I am sorry but I did not start the Women’s Liberation Front; moreover, having maintained my support of human dignity as well as my “ut-oh something is not correct in this situation” for me it all began with this trumped up notion of Comparative worth.
During the 1960s through the 1990s (hey…that is only one generation) women wanted everything, which altogether they originally kept a soaring accountability on. I really hope beyond all hope I will be able to address accountability again. But be it for now, in the early going women were trailblazers in form and control.
They knew what they wanted, got the think tanks involved, and put together one of the most worthy presentations that regardless of being male or female one walked away feeling molested and rightfully so.
About getting and maintaining an erstwhile form of income makes today look just too easy. Furthermore, trying to adjust in a discriminatory, male dominated work force was difficult to say the least. Yet there are those of us who believe in human rights what is good for one must be good for the other in its entirety.
Then we all hit the collegiate experience. What started out as some decent placements, comparative worth, successful legislation especially within the “sex” aspects of the law, we were brouha-ha-ing all over campus. It was very obvious that we could see our hard earned debating, protesting, and fight for human rights coming together nicely.
Then on an open forum night insofar as women in combat, heck, women in the military was one of the issues for debate when there was a sudden overflow of what is equal and what is not equal that most of my female colleagues did not care for whatsoever.
This was only after we had put out the responsible notion of Comparative worth.
Comparative worth is a concept that the searching a Rolodex, doing dictation from supervisors, or even finishing a letter – all matters that had been agreed upon at hiring saw some very sensitive men feeling betrayed. Imagine if you can – the time spent for getting a number or address or having a predesigned closure of written correspondence.
The Women’s Liberation Front felt as though they should be paid the exact amount that the principle – often times a founder, or at the very least a partner and above all the person who paid for all attorney’s fees for a very specified altruistic act of human rights.
I do NOT have a problem with these arrangements. Yet, who is kidding whom? Where is the equality in that fiasco? I do NOT believe that there will ever be an X-Ray technician who will receive the same as the doctor who has ordered it. Remember folks, this is capitalism in the United States of America.