President George Washington in a letter to Thomas Jefferson (1788) began his noted writings on immigration, asylum, and eventually citizenship. What is specifically noted in his letter was the ideology of “would render this country the asylum of pacific and industrious characters from all parts of Europe…by giving security to property and liberty to its holders.”
It was not as if these founders were an untraveled mob. During this period of time, whilst Jefferson was the Ambassador to France and John Adams spending most of his early Vice Presidential days in England, it should be known that James Madison was putting his final draft of the U.S. Constitution together under the approval of The Committee.
Indeed Washington and most of his colleagues hoped that America might become an “asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they may belong,” and lead him to go out of his way to encourage immigration from the Netherlands.
Furthermore, he had seen a Dutch preacher recently arriving in New York and managed to write a letter to him as well (same citation, Ibid., yet on a different page).
Washington and his founding associates far more than being concerned about the immigrants character, he and many of his founding associates were very concerned about the potential problem created when too many foreigners settle at one time in one location. As such he wrote a letter to Vice President John Adams:
“…the policy of advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body…meaning a specific place) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture without people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws: in a word, soon to become one people.”
Benjamin Franklin had worried about the problem of immigrant numbers as an obstacle to assimilation earlier in the 1750s, when large numbers of German settlers threatened to transform the character of Pennsylvania, writing:[Sidebar note:] Does any of this sound remotely familiar? Let us continue on.
“Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant stupid-sort of their own nation…Not being used to liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it…[In elections] they come in droves, and carry all before them, except in one or two counties…In short, unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies…they will soon so outnumber us, that all the advantages we have will not in my opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious…Yet I am not for refusing entirely to admit them into our colonies; all that seems to be necessary
As it happened, restrictions on immigration from Europe did not become necessary. War between Britain and France greatly reduced the influx, and the German population stabilized at about one-third of Pennsylvania.
Does this situation involving the newly formed country even get bells ringing in your heads?
Franklin again expressed his cautions view of immigration again in “Information to Those Who Would Remove to America” (1784). When Thomas Jefferson was Ambassador to France in the late 1780s, he showed his approval of Franklin’s pamphlet by reprinting and distributing it.
Jefferson and Franklin wanted to discourage would be immigrants who were not prepared to adopt what is now called “the work ethic.”
We find that it is the huge scheming going on in every aspect of American business that is affecting us most. We see/or experience BIG industry try and lead us to believe one thing, whilst they may have a claim for believing what they are seeing the simple fact remains – scheming and moving numbers to solidify profit.
Furthermore we anticipate nothing but sobering news from Facebook, primarily because the mortal truths have come to fruition with Mark Zuckerberg lately. The expression goes something along the lines of give the boy some money and with that he will try and become a man establishing his rights to mingle in everything.
Zuckerberg, a relative newbie to political lobbying, said the aversion to crossing party lines even on issues both sides support “shocked” him.
“We’ve tried to get senior folks from both parties to come together and there have been interesting realities of that I was kind of shocked about,” he said. “A senior Democrat would never want to associate with something funding Republicans.” (Commonly referred to as Party Line or Partisan Politics; a subsequent notion to believing in one’s party before the nation.)
Maybe it is good for the commoner, public/political policy, and homeland awareness; albeit, the strategy was panned as “counterproductive” by liberal groups like Moveon.org and Progressives United, which participated in a boycott of ads on Facebook.
On Tuesday, the chief human resources officers of more than 100 large corporations sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi urging quick passage of a comprehensive immigration reform bill.
The officials represent companies with a vast array of business interests: General Electric, The Walt Disney Company, Marriott International, Hilton Worldwide, Hyatt Hotels Corporation, McDonald’s Corporation, The Wendy’s Company, Coca-Cola, The Cheesecake Factory, Johnson & Johnson, Verizon Communications, Hewlett-Packard, General Mills, and many more.
All want to see increases in immigration levels for low-skill as well as high-skill workers, in addition to a path to citizenship for the millions of immigrants currently in the U.S. illegally.
A new immigration law, the corporate officers say, “would be a long overdue step toward aligning our nation’s immigration policies with its workforce needs at all skill levels to ensure U.S. global competitiveness.”
The officials cite a publication of their trade group, the HR Policy Association, which calls for immigration reform to “address the reality that there is a global war for talent.” The way for the United States to win that war for talent, they say, is more immigration. (This notion is preposterous! “War for talent,”?)
Of course, the U.S. unemployment rate is at 7.3 percent, with millions of American workers at all skill levels out of work, and millions more so discouraged that they have left the work force altogether. In addition, at the same time the corporate officers seek higher numbers of immigrants, both low-skill and high-skill, many of their companies are laying off thousands of workers.
For example, Hewlett-Packard, signed the letter, laid off 29,000 employees in 2012. In August of this year, Cisco Systems, signed the letter, announced plans to lay off 4,000 — in addition to 8,000 cut in the last two years.
Please believe us that these as well as even larger numbers of lay-offs are being planned primarily based on how the vote regarding Comprehensive Immigration Reform pans out.
This is a leveraged affront in relationship to BIG business versus government. How many of us are keeping our ears alert for more minimum wage increases? In the realm of BIG business they are guided by profits; whilst at the same time special interest groups are lobbying for their share.
However and please anyone…it seems what we are witnessing is BIG businesses call for much cheaper labor – regardless of the skill level of the prospective lower paid worker.
According to a recent Reuters report, U.S. employers announced 50,462 layoffs in August, up 34 percent from the previous month and up 57 percent from August 2012.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says that over the past year the Obama Administration has exercised what she calls “prosecutorial discretion” in allowing 430,000 self-declared illegal aliens to stay in the United States without any worry that her department—which is charged by law with enforcing the immigration law—will take action against them.
Napolitano calls this non-enforcement of the law “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA). Under the program, the administration considers anyone who had not yet turned sixteen when they first entered the United States illegally, or first overstayed a visa, to be a “childhood arrival.”
“Because of the action we have undertaken through the DACA process, thousands of hardworking young people who are American in every way but a piece of paper now have the ability to continue their educations and contribute to their communities,” Napolitano said in a written statement marking the first anniversary of the program, which began accepting applications from illegal aliens on Aug. 15, 2012.
Furthermore, I felt a wave of passion that lifted every hair on my body. In regards to her comment – “hardworking young people who are American in every way but a piece of paper now have the ability to continue their educations and contribute to their communities.” Realistically in using the DACA program not one person need worry about deportation or simply not being accepted by DHS’s agencies USCIS, USICE, or anyone in a law enforcement profession.
Additionally, in preparation for this article, actually reading up on Asylum and Refugee acts, I opened my mail and right there was my monthly summation of activities with the Pew Research Center. Pew had been processing their data whilst the Heritage Foundation was doing very similar research and then reporting it.
Then – believe this – I received a letter from someone in the legal profession; albeit, I was not familiar with any names listed. Naturally my first thought was my computer, cell phone, and for the sake of National Security…Ad Nauseam.
“In just its first year, over 500,000 individuals have requested Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and after a thorough review of each of those cases, including a background check, 430,000 requests have already been approved, with others still under review,” Napolitano said.
The U.S. Customs and Immigration Service released new data on the DACA program on the same day that Napolitano made her statement. The data said that as of the end of July DHS had received 573,404 DACA applications. Of these it had accepted 552,918 for review, and rejected 20,486 before reviewing them. (“Over 500,000 requesting [Napolitano] USCIS says 552,000 that is just short of 53,000 people, a discrepancy that should be acknowledged.)
As of the end of July, DHS said it had completed its review of 437,686 of the 552,918 applications it had accepted for review—approving 430,236 of them and denying 7,450.
That means of the DACA applications it has reviewed so far, DHS has approved 98.3 percent and rejected 1.7 percent.
The Homeland Security Department has granted legal status to 99.2 percent of all illegal immigrants who have applied under President Obama’s new non-deportation policy for young adults, according to the latest numbers released Friday.
That’s a slight drop from the 99.5 percent approval rate reported last month. We have decided to not put Pew Research Center’s data up; doing so would only make your eyes go out of focus again. However, although not much different all three agencies have different accountability data for how many people have been made legal. For this reason, if not only for this reason, we suggest shutting down the program until the agencies are within at least 10,000 or less of each other’s count.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act, INS, Act of 1965, Pub.L. 89–236) abolished the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act about the 1920s.
The Act abolished the national origins quota system that was American immigration policy since the 1920s, replacing it with a preference system that focused on immigrants’ skills and family relationships with citizens or U.S. residents. Numerical restrictions on visas were set at 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota, not including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, nor “special immigrants” (including those born in “independent” nations in the Western Hemisphere, former citizens, ministers, and employees of the U.S. government abroad).
The 1965 act marked a radical break from the immigration policies of the past. The law as it stood then excluded Latin Americans, Asians and Africans and preferred northern and western Europeans over southern and eastern ones.
The 1965 act may have tried to curb or have a natural effect on those from Latin America; however, as we shall see it really does not. Furthermore, suffice it to say that after America bombs the bullsquat out of your nation then some of the most stringent refugee and asylum laws go into effect. Therefore, insofar as America had been at war with Vietnam for over ten years, collectively with “the Killing Fields” of Cambodia, and other travesties the multitude of Asian refugees that were granted asylum status was simply phenomenal.
In order to convince the American populace – the majority of whom were opposed to the act – of the legislation’s merits, its proponents assured that passage would not influence America’s culture significantly. President Johnson called the bill “not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions“
Moreover we find the entire situation reckless and full of dishonor. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill. Most of the no votes were from the American South, which was then still strongly Democratic. On October 3, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the legislation into law, saying “This [old] system violates the basic principle of American democracy, the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country.” (Everyone should read the link titled “American South” for a bit of a real history lesson.)
Immigration changed America’s demographics, opening the doors to immigrants from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The Latin American population also dramatically increased since 1965, though this was more due to the various unexpected results of this act rather than due to this act itself.
By the 1990s, America’s population growth was more than one-third driven by legal immigration and substantially augmented by illegal immigration, primarily from Latin America and other parts of the developing world. Before passage of the Act, immigration accounted for only ten percent of population increase in the U.S. Ethnic and racial minorities, as defined by the US Census Bureau, rose from 25 percent of the US population during the year 1990 to 30 percent in the year 2000 and to 36.6 percent as measured by the results from the 2010 census. Similarly, during the same time period the non-Hispanic white population in the United States decreased from 75 percent of the overall US population in 1990 to 70 percent in 2000 and finally to 63.4 percent during the year 2011.
The 1980 Refugee Act established policies for refugees, redefining “refugee” according to United Nations norms. A target for refugees was set at 50,000 and the worldwide ceiling for immigrants was reduced to 270,000 annually.
The United States Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212) was an amendment to the earlier Immigration and Nationality Act and the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, and was created to provide a permanent and systematic procedure for the admission to the United States of refugees of special humanitarian concern to the U.S., and to provide comprehensive and uniform provisions for the effective resettlement and absorption of those refugees who are admitted.
In 1986 the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was passed, creating for the first time penalties for employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants. These penalties are very seldom enforced and forged documents are rampant leading to widespread undocumented immigrant employment. This is commonly referred to as the “First Amnesty Bill.”
This expose covers the time period of 1950 starting from the the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act, INS, Act of 1965) which as politics would have it, the 1965 act was simply codifying the original act from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Therefore, from the years from 1950 until 1968 little, if anything meaningful was done regarding “Reforming” our Immigration and Naturalization Service.
What a Concept..!
During this past weekend we had the opportunity of really sinking our teeth into the Senate’s proposal for immigration “reform” in addition to what has been clearly hidden within the more than necessary 1000 + pages. Yet even more encouraging has been the way in which the House of Representatives has been working – especially using the rule of law and especially before each item goes before committee.
There is much to be thankful here, insofar as it does appear that the House seems to be utilizing the entire membership and not just eight seasoned senators with the rest of their membership saying, if it is good for the goose then we are all in, type of attitude.
Reading from The Foundry – of course produced by the Heritage Foundation, there appeared an article that we felt was encouraging in many aspects. From The Foundry:
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R–VA) and Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte (R–VA) have not yet written bill text for their plan addressing children of illegal immigrants.
Heritage’s David Addington, group vice president of research, wrote yesterday that Cantor and Goodlatte should reveal the text of their much-publicized plan “so the public can examine it.” In response, a Cantor spokesman issued the following statement:
Please bear in mind that we find nothing whatsoever wrong with what the spokesperson said. On the contrary in fact, we respect the notion that appears to be open and appreciating any and all proposals being put forth for consideration.
In his Foundry post, Addington said it is critical for the American people to review the bill to see how it measures up against other proposals. He noted:
This statement by Addington is again significant because we, the American public, do have a right to know what is in a bill prior to voting on it or for a representative who will do the proper matter. Further, we agree with David Addington that there does not exist an amnesty for the parents who brought their children here illegally.
By far Addington hits the nail on the head when he addresses the constitutional law that has been avoided for at least two generations. It is not Congress’s job to select who gains a reward or anything of the sort for those illegal’s who have broken our laws – we believe a problem that has gone on far too long, and has been taken quite for granted.
However, it is Congress’s job to fix America’s broken immigration system and Addington brings something of a nuance: rewarding those who have come to this nation legally.
Washington, D.C. is a town run largely by lawyers. Naturally, this leads to a ton of convoluted and unnecessary legislation. And this overabundance of legality often leads to twisted logic in our nation’s capital – and confusion for us.
Take the two hotly debated (and often misused) words: “coup” and “terrorism.”
You see, when the Egyptian military recently ousted President Morsi, most of the world called that a coup. But for reasons you will see in a moment, the Obama administration does not see it that way.
Then there is Major Nidal Hasan’s attack on Fort Hood, Texas on November 5, 2009 – which left 13 people dead and 30 injured. You would probably file that one under an act of terror. But according to Obama, you would be wrong.
Time to shed some light on this classic Washington head fake. Technically Speaking…
“Coup d’état” is a French word that made its way into the English language. The Oxford Dictionary identifies it as a French expression, meaning a “stroke of state.”
Military historian Edward Luttwak says, “[a] coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder.”
Now by qualifying that definition – which is a true, correct, and honest form of the expression – Coup d’état, it literally means that members of the state’s government, agencies included, colluded and then are used to displace the government from its remaining agencies.
So, when the Egyptian military grabbed power and imprisoned President Mohamed Morsi, headlines across the world (correctly) screamed “Coup in Egypt.”
Our point is that when language is changed to better suit a given situation it is most likely that the given situation will get better because the public is far more accepting knowing that there is a far more moderate word for it.
It is tantamount for our purposes to look and see how the wording has changed to this point. Egypt has suffered a “Coup in Egypt” which evolves into just a Coup (notice how nonthreatening just the word Coup sounds); therefore, it is far less frightening.
Well, the Foreign Assistance Act states that if the “duly elected head of government is deposed by military act or decree,” then the United States must stop providing aid.
But Obama desperately wants to continue pumping $1.55 billion in aid to Egypt. Egypt is collapsing and ungovernable. Without the continued flow of aid, the collapse will accelerate, and Egypt’s government would likely vanish.
This is just another classic example of the Obama team’s complete disregard for the law. And if Obama says it is not a coup, then it is not. Period.
More Than Semantics
A similar twist of words is playing out in the Fort Hood case. Obama’s lawyers insist that Hasan is not a terrorist, and that his attack is “work place violence” rather than an act of terrorism.
Talk about splitting hairs.
According to the FBI, Hasan was an avid reader of Jihadi websites. He worshiped at Jihadi-influenced mosques. Hasan even self-identifies as a “soldier of Allah.” He openly supported suicide attacks against non-Muslims, and received religious and operational inspiration from Anwar Al-Awlaki.
You may remember Al-Awlaki – he was the American citizen and al-Qaeda promoter killed by a U.S. drone because he was deemed a terrorist. Now the administration’s refusal to call the Fort Hood attack a terrorist attack is seriously impacting the lives of the survivors and victims’.
For example, the Pentagon refuses to treat the injured and dead as casualties of war. Consequently, they have been denied the Purple Heart medal that is bestowed on Americans injured in battle.
The U.S. House even passed legislation to force the Pentagon to award the Purple Heart, along with disability and medical benefits associated with the honor, to the Fort Hood victims. Sadly, the legislation was killed by Obama supporters in the U.S. Senate.
Now the soldiers and their families are suing the Pentagon to reverse this decision in court. In the meantime, twisted interpretations by our government keep dollars flowing to Egypt while preventing us from adequately caring for injured Americans.
Unfortunately, laws are no good if the government can interpret their wording at will.
This commentary was originally published at CaptialHillDaily.com, and is reprinted here with permission. Again with compliments to Mr. Floyd Brown the author and the complementary hat-tip.
Does anyone reading this site regularly know where the posture of “political correctness” is coming from…look up.
As we already know the Senate passed 68 to 32 Thursday the “Gang of Eight’s” massive amnesty bill, S. 744. What began as an 844-page bill grew to nearly 1,200 pages in the final days before passage, thanks to a substitute amendment introduced by Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and John Hoeven (R-ND).
We cannot help but reflect upon days gone by when Obama’s Affordable Care Act was passed moreover, the manner in which it was passed. If there are reader’s who have any difficulty recalling the procedural steps let us encourage you to hit the Categories and simply type ‘Corn-Husker” or bribery for further details.
Another two issues come to mind not recently mind you, but throughout the bill’s process through the Senate and those who took responsibility for it. Even now the moniker, “Gang of Eight” is used as if these were the only people driving the bill through. Where were the opinions, likes, or dislikes that other senators wished to express?
Is this fundamentally going to turn into a “he-done it” or a multitude of fingers pointing in every direction. We still wonder what will happen when this bill goes to the House where it is alleged that Representatives are more in tune with their constituents than they are with inside the beltway, Washington D.C.
While touting it as the toughest border security provisions ever passed by the Senate, the deal was nothing more than the same old promises of future border security filled with kickbacks and carve-outs to secure key votes. “[W]e did incorporate some other issues that needed to be dealt with,” Corker told reporters in response to inquiries about the various kickbacks in his amendment (National Review Online, June 24, 2013). Please take your spare time and read these enlightening detailed pieces; (See The Corker-Hoeven Amendment is a Mirage; see also FAIR Legislative Update, June 24, 2013).
Murkowski and Begich’s Crabhusker Kickback. This carve-out to secure the votes of Alaska Senators Lisa Murkowski (R) and Mark Begich (D) classifies seafood processing positions in Alaska as “shortage occupations,” thus allowing the industry to bring in more cheap foreign labor to do those jobs. (Sec. 4701(d)(4), p. 1043) It also allows employers to bring in non-immigrants under a summer program to work in seafood processing positions, overturning a ban the Obama Administration put in place last year to protect foreign exchange students from jobs the U.S. government deems dangerous (Sec. 4408, p. 982).
Sanders’ Surrender. This carve-out for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) creates a slush “Youth Jobs Fund” for FY 2014-2015 funded using $1.5 billion from the U.S. Treasury. Until the Gang of Eight added the kickback, Sen. Sanders was an outspoken critic of the bill for taking jobs away from Americans. He has since been silent (Title V, p. 1169).
Kirk’s Kickback. This carve-out to gain Sen. Mark Kirk’s (R-IL) support allows a person who has served in the military and received an honorable discharge and certain combat medals to become a citizen without meeting key naturalization criteria under current law. This includes waiving the requirement an alien understand the English language, waiving the requirement the alien has knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and of the principles and form of the U.S. government, and waiving the requirement an alien is of good moral character(Sec. 2555, p. 502).
Heller’s Hotels. Tucked away in the Corker-Hoeven amendment is a kickback for Las Vegas hotel and casino chains. The provision permanently gives $100,000,000 annually to the tourism industry under the Travel Promotion Fund, posing a win for Nevada Senators Dean Heller and Harry Reid. The funding was set to expire in 2015, but the provision extended it indefinitely(Sec. 1102(f), p. 66).
We certainly hope to give more just adieu about the notion of the means, processes, and whatever to the ideological reasons that President Barack Hussein Obama feels that it is somehow just and ethical to use America’s school children to help sell his Obamacare; let’s see we now know that he has approached the National Football League (NFL) what’s next?
Congress as well as other agencies aligned with the federal government are trying to fool us, and they have been for years. However, knowing the nature of humankind we must ask, are you being fooled by first Congress?
The matter we put before you should not be surprising at all; that is of course you have been reading this site as much as many of you state you are. We bring this notion forth insofar as we know how many times we have written these identical lines to you and what would be the consequences if we let them go. If you want or need proof, just type “Obama” into the search box and it is seriously like living in a self-prophetizing world.
Congress is trying to fool you.
Here is how they do business. A piece of legislation is going to cost trillions of dollars, but Members of Congress do not want the public to see that. Instead, they have the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) look at the bill for just the first 10 years—and they move any costly items off into the future on purpose.
Now let’s ask ourselves if there is any evidence of this type of arrangement say within the last six or so years. Oh! I get it! Who was that who just blurted out “Obamacare”? Well you are so right – in fact that program is going to cost more and more and more until it won’t be tolerated anymore.
In fact at The Foundry, a blog released and owned by The Heritage Foundation says they did it with Obamacare—saved the budget bombshells for later. Now they are trying to do it with immigration. Heritage experts are still analyzing the full report, but a few things jumped out immediately. The Gang of Eight bill:
WILL NOT stop illegal immigration – Despite promises of a secure border, the bill would slow future illegal immigration by only 25 percent, according to the CBO. In the next couple of decades, that means 7.5 million new illegal immigrants.
WILL drive down wages – For legal American workers, the CBO estimates the bill would drive down their average wages.
The bill’s drafters relied on the same scoring gimmicks used by the Obamacare drafters to conceal its true cost from taxpayers and to manipulate the CBO score. There is a reason why eligibility for the most expensive federal benefits was largely delayed outside the 10-year scoring window: to mislead the public. As Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, I asked CBO to provide a long-term estimate. Sadly, CBO did not provide the long-term estimate as requested.
And finally what would any reporting be without the “Quick hits” portion brought to you by Amy Payne, a writer from The Foundry.
- Six in 10 Americans believe border security should be a bigger priority than amnesty for illegal immigrants.
- U.S. marriage rates are at historic lows.
- The U.S. House approved a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
- A study from the Pew Research Center finds widespread media bias on coverage of same-sex marriage.
- Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) cited research from Heritage Action as he made his case against the Internet sales tax.
- President Obama has threatened to veto the House version of the farm bill.
Although each one of these carry a burden they are indeed must reading and you must go to the Heritage Foundation to read the full stories.
The Obama administration is secretly carrying out a domestic surveillance program under which it is collecting business communications records involving Americans under a hotly debated section of the Patriot Act, according to a highly classified court order disclosed on Wednesday night.
The order, signed by Judge Roger Vinson of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in April, directs a Verizon Communications subsidiary, Verizon Business Network Services, to turn over “on an ongoing daily basis” to the National Security Agency all call logs “between the United States and abroad” or “wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls.”
The order does not apply to the content of the communications. Oh please…then why are they being collected?
The four-page order was disclosed Wednesday evening by the newspaper The Guardian. Obama administration officials at the F.B.I. and the White House also declined to comment on it Wednesday evening, but did not deny the report, and a person familiar with the order confirmed its authenticity. “We will respond as soon as we can,” said Marci Green Miller, a National Security Agency spokeswoman, in an e-mail.
Inasmuch as we would like to say the most obvious – we will not. Albeit, on the other side of the street we would be negligent if we did not mention that this type of activity – causes scandals!
As previously mentioned this four-page court order was dug-up by British journalists; furthermore, this is where the White House, the FBI, Obama administration officials, declined to report or to engage in saying anything. Therefore, what has been so true in the past with this particular president, he finds a woman spokesperson (Mother complex?) at the National Security Agency (NSA) to come forward letting us through the mainstream media know that they’ll respond as soon as they can.
We have stated this in as many writings, which it is the notion of avoidance or no information at all that beget scandals.
For several years, two Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and Senator Mark Udall of Colorado, have been cryptically warning that the government was interpreting its surveillance powers under that section of the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming to the public if it knew about it.
In other words from Senators Wyden and Udall have been informing the appropriate governmental officials that they are “outside” the parameters of the Patriot Act with the levels of surveillance as well as the means by which that information was being used.
The provision was expanded by Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which Congress enacted after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The disclosure late Wednesday seemed likely to inspire further controversy over the scope of government surveillance. Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies, a civil liberties advocacy group, said that “absent some explanation I haven’t thought of, this looks like the largest assault on privacy since the N.S.A. wiretapped Americans in clear violation of the law” under the Bush administration. “On what possible basis has the government refused to tell us that it believes that the law authorizes this kind of request?” she said.
With all due respect to Ms. Martin, who in typical liberal fashion has apparently tried to defer any debate or malfeasance toward the Bush administration? However, why is she making the attempt to change the subject when there has been a new president at the helm, now into his second term? This is how scandals break out!
Soon enough – please be aware – that all of this Patriot Act rubbish will try and be dropped into the Bush Administration when in all reality those provisions ran out years ago. They have only been resurrected by President Barack Obama during the National Defense Authorization Act.
“We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted Section 215 of the Patriot Act,” they wrote last year in a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.
They added: “As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows. This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say when the public doesn’t know what its government thinks the law says.”
President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.
(Please click here for information on Section 15 — it’s must reading!)
It was brought to our attention that many of the findings and subsequent behaviors, in fact, have come true in America. We have gone to such lengths as using our Founding Fathers and the people of their generation as motivators. Moreover, we have used articles from “What would the Founders Do?” to illuminate what could be the potential downfalls within the American psyche if the government continued to disrespect the rights of every citizen and non-citizen in the country whilst running their ship lawlessly.
Certainly without hesitation we are implying that when the most powerful person in the world – the President – insidiously, arrogantly, and with little matter at all squashes the revered Founding documents of the United States most notably the U.S. Constitution and the laws thereto we believe that the citizenry experiences a form of cognitive dissonance.
The term cognitive dissonance is used to describe the feeling of discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs. When there is a discrepancy between beliefs and behaviors, something must change in order to eliminate or reduce the dissonance.
In other words the entire notion of cognitive dissonance is summed up in its definition. “As a state of psychological conflict or anxiety resulting from a contradiction between a people’s simultaneously held beliefs or attitudes.”
As children we are taught to respect our government. Moreover, we need to respect the leaders and their leadership tactics. We are also taught to love one another as we would love them. We are furthermore taught not to talk in church on Sunday’s, respect adults, and get the “best education” you can get.
Imagine the dissonance going on now when one of the most powerful organizations in the world – the very organization that manipulates your money as well as has the power to make one’s life be in danger or certainly impearled with the thoughts of hard jail time or loss of income, does exactly that – completely disregards your natural and civil rights amongst other things in order to make you see and do as they do.
Cognitive dissonance is concerned with an incompatibility in the relationship between two cognitions. This theory, first proposed by Leon Festinger, states that people need to maintain consistency among their beliefs, attitudes, and behavior. Contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, in order to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions and bring them back into a consistent relationship. (Please see further reading, click here.)
In other words – how are we supposed to respect a person who breaks the very rule of law by which you have been raised to accept? It gets worse – how are we supposed to follow a person or many people who knowingly and with all indignity don’t maintain the laws on the books now – such as the Attorney General of the US Eric Holder; look at the ridiculousness of the majority of those in the Senate; and we could always just charge the House of Representatives as condoning the likes of Charles Rangel or Nancy Pelosi.
But let’s face it here gang – most of those in leadership positions today don’t follow any consummated rules unless it is their own or a spin-off of someone who is higher in rank. Today at the Gallop Polling data center showed again where Obama’s approval rating has dropped – again. Albeit as for me I stand completely resolute in my own justifications – Barack Obama in order to have or save any.form of a legacy should resign, retire, or abdicate the Office of the President – Now!
We believe that the majority of our nation is in the process of some form of cognitive dissonance. We evidence this by identifying certain patterns of behavior, the well-being of the people, and a close look at what is causing the disorder within the society.