For the most part I believe that Sean Hannity means well, mind you, I also feel as though he can be a bit impetuous at certain times. Of course lately with a trying-to-be-a-reverse on Mr. Putin, President Obama who is lame when it comes to foreign policy, I believe that Barack Obama is simply waiting for Putin to step-in-it which is about to happen.
I believe that all of this occupation of Crimea the sending of the troops to both the Ukraine and outlying territories is far more a threat that an action delivered on. The brutal notion for me is that I believe that Obama and the Ukraine and Crimea are going to win what it is they want.
According to Hannity, “So we got a community organizer against the former KGB leader who is getting his butt kicked and embarrassed and humiliated on the world stage,” Hannity said. “The Russian media keeps showing a picture of [Obama] in Martha’s Vineyard, riding his little bicycle with his little helmet on. It’s so humiliating.”
Dear Sean Hannity:
Humiliation very much like embarrassment are subjective thoughts or feelings that one may generate; however, it is important to point out that not one person is capable of embarrassing you. And ditto for humiliation – I feel that these two behaviors cannot be forced on anyone by another source. It packs the scenario of only one can embarrass and or humiliate themselves by actions caused which results in the behaviors.
Furthermore, why are you using my airwaves to launch you childish rubbish. When various actions appear on the world stage, it is quite obvious that you will use your recently gained power to rub the rubbish everywhere.
Let us look at what you have written, or who has quoted you on the Fox News Insider. Starting from the third paragraph let’s come to what is so hard for the members of Congress to do…talk to each other and hopefully come to a compromise. Right then…we do have a community organizer-Junior Senator cum President going up against a real bully type in former KGB leader and whomever is getting their butts kicked will be decided in the middle to late rounds in this match.
You again state, “The Russian media keeps showing a picture of [Obama] in Martha’s Vineyard, riding his little bicycle with his little helmet on. It’s so humiliating.” Okay let us peruse these images. What Obama is doing is setting a great example because in most states helmets are required as is a license. Take a look at the statistical data where the per annum death toll arranged by those riders who do not wear helmets is roughly, 10,000. (Source citation here.)
Still with me? Great! So let us put this entire ridiculous mouth espousal to rest and assign blame on photojournalists. How would you feel if you were out intentionally on a summer day flabby and bear chested?
The only bit of Russian laughter that I receive is when I see the same person in a wrestling togs whipping some tiny adolescent boy.
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.
This weekend, I read about the proceedings at the Western Conservative Conference in Phoenix, Arizona as told by Floyd Brown, editor and also the Political Analyst, Military/Defense specialist for Capital Hill Daily website under title of The Scariest Military Retreat Since 2700 B.C.
According to Mr. Brown’s report, “Many of the speakers at the conference focused on domestic problems, but the discussion turned chilling when we probed threats to peace and security around the world. As so we believe here at The Contemplative Thinker. Espousing just a bit on what the Obama administration is doing to America’s military is nothing shy of dangerously disgusting.
In one session, Mr. Brown shared the podium with Trevor Loudon, a native of New Zealand. “I was fascinated by his unique perspective. Despite not being from the United States, he spoke with more passion about America and her strategic defenses than most Americans ever would.” And as a reporter, writer, and especially a U.S. Army veteran, the emotions that Brown experienced are indeed hair-raising and humbling.
You see, Loudon is worried about what will happen as America continues retreating from world leadership and allowing her military to be further degraded. It could be the ugliest retreat since the first war in recorded history, almost 5,000 years ago. Moreover, when one considers what retreating actually is, when defined, please take little or no heed to what the Obama administration would love to make us believe.
Retreating is so much more that a movement back, withdrawal from a position, troop withdrawal, or any other signal or order to relocate one’s troops from where they are. Retreating can also be a military function of backing down; furthermore, it could be stated that leaving, especially when hurried is definitely a time of retreating.
Loudon stated emphatically that a world with America in retreat is a more dangerous world, especially in regards to China. He reminded the audience that the leadership of China is still Communist. He admonished us to “not believe the propaganda that Red China has goodwill toward America.”
“They would collapse you in a minute, if they felt they had the strength and leverage to do it,” he said.
Moving along just three days when one stops to look into the Ukrainian matter and what Russia is now doing in Crimea is basically nothing shy of history repeating again on the same territory. Enough to the point that it serves as a point to review and strategize the necessity to reassess U.S. Foreign Policy – of course, that is if such a policy exists.
For centuries, Ukraine has been ground zero of an ongoing struggle between despotic rulers and people yearning to be free. The territory we know as Ukraine has been conquered, partitioned, and ruled by Poles, Ottomans, Hungarians, Austrians, Germans, and Russians for the last thousand years. Since the middle ages, the Ukrainian people have experienced self-government for only a few short periods.
And these periods of freedom have inevitably been followed by dark nights of repression, including the darkest under Joseph Stalin’s Soviet rule. Furthermore, it is not at all a shortcoming to review the history of the Cold War.
Currently the Obama administration has tucked tail and resembles a pathetic and cheap reply of a nation really on the verge of losing sovereignty. At this point, it is impossible to know what will happen in the weeks ahead. Perhaps Russian tanks will invade, and Putin will oversee a forced occupation of Ukraine.
No matter what, though, the Ukrainian people want freedom. They want to continue building a more prosperous future, just like the surrounding territories of the former Soviet empire.
The problem is Obama’s failed policies. He has ignored the freedom seekers in Ukraine, despite America’s history of providing aid and material support to freedom-seeking people. Under our current president, it seems all of that is changing.
Our two previous posts have dealt with simple definitions and explanations concerning economic theory in particular, the demand side of what we have always been told that the study of economics is about supply versus demand. And to all of those out there who have studied or majored in economics will readily admit that there is so much more than this block one of open market based economic theory in a capitalistic society. Then again it is so important to source properly so here is my attempt. Almost all economic theory came from a great source: A CAPITALIST MANIFESTO; Understanding the Market Economy and Defending Liberty, by Gary Wolfram who is a scholar, academia, and works at Hillsdale College and president of the Hillsdale Policy Group.
All of the other information with respect to the special interest groups, Department of Justice (DOJ), United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (USICES), Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, Explosive Devices (ATF), Immigration and Nationality Act (s) (INS) and the general overall status of affairs regarding immigration and control of America’s borders is my personal expertise. As such source documentation is in my possession with assistance from NumbersUSA.
It should be noted that every single individual has a process in economic theory. Of course insofar as when it comes to satisfaction the number one overall want or need is controlled by an individual’s preferences. For all it is worth some people prefer the quality of Ralph Lauren’s Polo Shirts versus Stafford or other brands.
This factor of demand should be of no surprise to anyone. The number two most often used is determined by an individual’s income. It is not that difficult to equate the relationship between preference and money or money and preference.
Knowing that 12 million illegal immigrants have come to the U.S.A. based on information already established or better yet, “to make a better life for myself and my family” or “to gain more money to send home or back to Mexico” solidifies both preference and income.
Anytime that a marginal benefit supersedes the marginal cost then it has been observed that rational individuals will continue [buying] any activity as long as this formula exists. Marginal benefit and marginal costs are nothing more than when the next to the last or the last unit is at the margin.
Let us move onto how such a basic theory of supply and demand is so easily considered as a small factor by our government and most often is overlooked or simply passed over for anything; albeit, one’s golf game, world vacations with exotic destinations, or perhaps just about anything will do including being involved in some way with the process of illegal immigration.
As for us at The Contemplative Thinker we find the largest culprits would be the main-stream media for not covering or even reporting the real circumstances. As for the nation’s leadership – Congress (both houses) the entire U.S. judiciary proceedings, and above all the President of the United States (POTUS) because he is the leader of the agencies that deal with the problem.
Have you ever thought of somewhere between 12 and 30 million people? The easiest estimate for me was to look up the ten largest by population cities in the United States. There are more illegal immigrants living here than the combined total of the ten largest cities.
Considering the government agencies who are collectively responsible for keeping this number at its bare minimum we wonder who within that array of overpaid elected politicians have and continue to fail We the people…year by year by year. So I just want to leave you with this proof…
Audit Shows Obama Administration Going Easy on Businesses that Hire Illegal Workers
Pres. Obama has made cracking down on employers who hire illegal workers a focal point of his immigration reform plan, but a new audit shows that the administration is anything but tough on unscrupulous employers. According to the audit by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general, administration officials have cut fines by an average of 40%.
According to the audit, one business had it’s fine of $4.9 million reduced to just over $1 million – a 78% reduction.
“The knowledge that fines can be significantly reduced may diminish the effectiveness of fines as a deterrent to hiring unauthorized workers,” the inspector general said.
The inspector general’s report found that ICE sent notices for fines totaling more than $52.7 million from 2009 to 2012, but only charged $31.2 million.
TRANSITION FROM THEORY TO FACT: THEORY WORKS WHEN ENFORCEMENT IS OF PRIME CONCERN
As previously promised today is the day that we make the transition. This transition involves the economic theory [open market] of rudimentary and fundamental postulates such as consistent rational thinking, with self-interest, and the desired act of purpose in obtaining something that we believe will enhance our lives. However, I am sure that we – all of us – want very similar needs, wants, and utility satisfaction to be granted at the lowest cost available to us.
We refer to the fact that an immigration policy with rules, procedures and laws does exist and that, for a very good reason. However, in order for any law to work, or procedure followed let us just complete the obvious – a law is nothing more than words on a sheet of paper, that when leadership, and especially enforcement agencies put forth the energy to support the law as well as the citizenry that enacted the moral values must not be wavering.
We are of the opinion that with the proper means of supporting our leadership especially through enforcement that when basic laws are disregarded, then people make up their own rules unless this situation has the very least – integrity – that is, doing the bare minimum of enforcement to maintain sovereignty of the United States. Please see below for crime within the system.
Millions of people are screaming everything from discrimination to racial profiling. Furthermore, at anytime that a newly instigated program is started and is successful we ask where is the moral values of our leadership? Such as Section 287(g) enforcement for communities.
The biggest difference between American immigration policy and Australia’s equivalent program is that in Australia their program is not put to the mercy of a non-constitutional-wannabe-king who hangs out with a pen and a phone.
Now is time for the news. It is rather obvious to us that 11 million people do not just come to another nation, take up residence, and that is just about it until certain special interest groups get involved.
Our nation’s immigration system is broken and our laws are not being enforced. Washington’s failure to fix them is hurting our economy and jeopardizing our national security. The overriding purpose of our immigration system is to promote and further America’s national interests and that is not the case today (Please click here for complete report).
I would really like the opportunity to ask Mr. Obama that very question; our immigration system is in obvious need of restructuring, with all due respect Sir, what have you done within the rule of law to assist making it better?
Remember Section 287(g) of the INS Act? This particular section was enacted for the sole purpose for making community living “communities” more safe to live in. Therefore, the United States Immigration and Custom Enforcement (USICE) where then hired and paid in advance to assist with identifying illegal immigrants and taking them to booking to free up ICE time. This program worked like magic until illegal’s started gripping to special interest groups then all of the sudden – out of nowhere, came “they are racial profiling” and this is discriminatory.
And Eric Holder’s Justice Department led an all out order to stop Section 287(g). And after suing at least 15 different states it was the local police and their states that electively stopped the program.
Or let us just mention E-Verify. As businesses were in hog heaven making bigger profits at the cost of illegal labor BIG BUSINESS originally started with “it is a crap shoot.” And again with special interest’s it was shut down.
Now that they have started to reenact E- Visa Verification who do you think they’ve hired to verify the old “crap shoot” verifying system? E-Verify.
What does all of this mean given economic theory? When U.S. government officials are caught and arrested for letting the cocaine, weed, and/or heroin or cash bring them to their knees as well as some Border Patrol Agents and ICE officials, AFT officers, and all of their management being involved as well then the system begins to break down.
Let us apply added benefit v added cost in here to solidify. Illegal member of MS-13 (major crime gang) without proper identification decides on moving north to America what are his added benefits. Let us start with anonymity; no one knows who this guy is so no criminal record is involved. Hum benefits… let us see now this guy has automatically upward mobility with some sort of job (that an American has lost), does he worry about his latest bullet wound. Nope because now this person has health care and it is probably for free. Oh but wait…our newest member of our society is very hungry, no matter, let us get him some food stamps and allow him to purchase weed with them as well. I think it is fair to say at this point that when someone – anyone elects to come over the U.S. border they instantly have more privileges than the Ward of any state.
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.
WHAT IS STIFLING THE AMNESTY DREAM..?
Here, plain as a sunny day, a real “I can see for miles and miles” kind of day it has become a favorite past time of mine to show an example of what true multimedia publishing and reporting is – and I will again try to make the article a true fair and balanced assessment pursuant to what really is going on with regards to immigration “reform” in the U.S.A.
Furthermore, since this little article where I have used his source citations and examples, I will email this response to irresponsible reporting to Mr. Nakamura who I believe is some type of reporter for the Washington Post.
“Thirteen years ago, President George W. Bush welcomed Vicente Fox of Mexico to Washington to lay the groundwork for an overhaul of U.S. immigration laws — sensing that fellow Republicans were finally ready to go along with a new legalization effort. The push included a rare address to Congress on Sept. 6, 2001, when Fox declared that immigrants “invariably enrich the cultural life of the land that receives them.”
After reading the full context of President Vicente Fox’s rare address to Congress, it is odd if not outright embellishing the true favor of the nation. It seems rather ridiculous to say that there will be an overhaul predicated upon “sensing” that fellow Republicans were finally ready to go along with a new legalization effort and that according to Mr. David Nakamura.
“For more than a quarter century, it has never been the right time for immigration reform. And the biggest stumbling block always seems to be concerns, primarily among conservatives, that border
controls are not tough enough and must be strengthened further before anything else can be done.
Yes and indeed quite accurate and true. Anyone, or in the larger context, any nation can proceed with stifling immigration reforms. However, the arguments that are presented warrant scrutiny. The first argument concerns the never ending drama of lying and corruption, or just plain mismanagement and improper allocation of resources.
The second argument simply illustrates how unfair and imbalanced those who seek “reform” are by wanting to jump logistical steps in seeing to it that said reform is accomplished. In other words, why should anyone in the USA trust or give more, knowingly, predicated upon past performances that simply show that the two definitions of reform are on opposite sides of the street.
Furthermore, let us not be manipulated by the ever increasing author of the original Washington Post article. In all true reality, the majority of those who are seeking reforms are actually illegal immigrants that already live in the U.S.A. looking to get more from an already over-spending government.
“But the situation is largely out of Obama’s hands, and the latest impasse has frustrated longtime advocates.” First the situation is not out of Obama’s hands. Earlier in the article it was alleged that Obama launched his immigration plans one year ago. Nothing could possibly be further than the truth. Obama easily started six years ago, yet matters that he felt were more important – ObamaCare, Welfare reform, the authorization of more food stamps and other entitlements, Fast and Furious, and any one of the five major scandals that are still open and unsolved at the time of this writing.
Why does the writer make such statements? Are the longtime advocates dismayed for some reason? Does the situation exist whereby someone has not been open and realistic with them? Or it can be and almost is always the case that the primary work is not finished or the incumbent government has not completed what they say they would have done.
It is a debate that has raged since President Ronald Reagan signed the last major overhaul of immigration laws in 1986, a bipartisan achievement hailed as a solution to the crisis of 5 million immigrants living in the country illegally. The Immigration Reform and Control Act put 2.7 million people on the path toward citizenship, marking the largest legalization program in U.S. history.
The number of people living in the country illegally rose again quickly, reaching more than 11.7 million last year. Yet, keep in mind the original program the IRCA (1986) was twenty-eight (28) years ago.
Concerning the masses, as Karl Marx would postulate or it is concerning the natural rights of man, as Thomas Paine would no doubt have espoused, and somewhere, somehow in-between these mediums the gauntlet of social sciences is labelled up the entirety of public policy. Furthermore, in the attempt to understand America and her political heritage one would be well disposed to study these sciences.
Yet we at The Contemplative Thinker are completely dismayed insofar as to be a true believer in the grand scheme of things or especially understand how our Constitution was put together as well as how the Founders thought, moreover, how they came about their decisions with the rule of law. All one need do is to look at The Federalist Papers – a series of essay’s as to why America should adapt the Constitution – and as a personal courtesy one should also visit or revisit the tyrannical effects Americans were enduring just prior to the American Revolution would assist one in knowing why we were framed a constitutional democracy.
Subsequently, it is overwhelming important for one to understand the notion of “The Administrative State/Branch” of government or even the mere mention of someone taking Executive posture in this nation of the people and because Congress is in a different stance on any number of political issues that one declares “I’ve got a pen…and…I’ve got a phone…” for production of executive orders. Inasmuch as everything our baffled clown has done already, if or when he begins to even think that tyranny or self-rule is the way, then we guess, he will become none other than a lame duck president.
Shaping public policy is a complex and multifaceted process that involves the interplay of numerous individuals and interest groups competing and collaborating to influence policymakers to act in a particular way.
These individuals and groups use a variety of tactics and tools to advance their aims, including advocating their positions publicly, attempting to educate supporters and opponents, and mobilizing allies on a particular issue. Often, the need for public policy develops over time. In the past, there might have been no way to prevent the problem from occurring, but with current technologies a solution may appear. Public Policy is easier to establish when it affects smaller groups of people.
As an academic discipline, public policy brings in elements of many social science fields and concepts, including economics, sociology, political economy, program evaluation, policy analysis, and public management, all as applied to problems of governmental administration, management, and operations.
At the same time, the study of public policy is distinct from political science or economics, in its focus on the application of theory to practice. While the majority of public policy degrees are master’s and doctoral degrees, several universities also offer undergraduate education in public policy.
Public comment is a specific term of art used by various government agencies in the United States, a constitutional democratic republic, in several circumstances. Generally these circumstances are open public meetings of government bodies which set aside time for oral public comments, or comments, usually upon documents. Such documents may either be reports such as Draft Environmental Impact Reports (DEIR’s) or new regulations. There is typically a notice which is posted on the web and mailed to more or less ad hoc lists of interested parties known to the government agencies. If there is to be a change of regulations, there will be a formal notice of proposed rule-making.
The basis for public comment is found in general political theory of constitutional democracy as originated during and after the French Enlightenment, particularly by Rousseau. This basis was elaborated in the American Revolution, and various thinkers such as Franklin, Jefferson, and Thomas Paine are associated with the rejection of tyrannical, closed government decision making in favor of open government.
The tradition of the New England Town Hall is believed being rooted in this early American movement, and the distillation of formal public comment in official proceedings is a direct application of this format in the workings of public administration itself. Therefore, we ask the question: If greater than say 60 to 70 percent of a nation’s population does not like the immigration reform policy set out by the Senate, why the Hades hasn’t considered the American public is well-beyond us.