(Real) Immigration Reform and what we learned in Boston

As tempting as it might be for anyone in Washington to find some way to spin the tragic events of the Boston bombings to advance their legislative agenda on Capitol Hill—and as mentioned in yesterday’s article they will indeed; however, they ought to think twice. That particularly goes for all sides in the immigration debate.

We are irked, therefore, that some of the bill’s supporters are making the case that the bombings in Boston demonstrate that we need the bill so “we can know who’s here.”

Washington should not get ahead of the facts, and it will take some time before we understand all sides to the events in Boston. From what we know so far, it appears law enforcement has conducted a textbook investigation into the bombing at the Boston Marathon.

They gave us the factual information they had, when they had it, and when they could share it. When it comes to tweaking the measures we use to prevent terrorist travel and foil plots, it is far too premature based on what they have told us to draw any conclusions on how to be more efficient at fighting terrorism.

America has had over a decade of experience in battling both transnational and “home-grown” terrorism. There is already plenty of experience to draw conclusions on how to keep this nation safe, free, and prosperous. When it comes to counterterrorism, the single most effective tool is finding the terrorists and stopping them before they kill. That has been the key to success to foiling most of the 54 frustrated plots by Islamist terrorists against America.

Good immigration and border security policies play an important, but supporting role. Generally, the rule is if you have good policies that facilitate legal immigration and travel while providing for public safety and security — they will serve well to help thwart terrorist travel.

The comprehensive immigration bill proposed by the Gang of Eight should be able to stand on its own merits. And there is plenty in the bill to suggest that it cannot.

In fact, the bill promises “new security” by demanding the government have an electronic system to ensure that we can check out every foreign visitor leaving the country. The problem is the federal requirement to do that is not new— it has been on the books at least 17 years and ignored by three different Administrations. It is still not in place. There is a vigorous debate over if “building this system is worth the security or immigration enforcement benefits it may provide.”

There are national security problems with the bill that we hope to be able to debate at length.

The Boston bombings were a stark reminder that terrorism is still a real security threat. The seriousness of that threat requires we react carefully and thoughtfully in debating key issues to
ensure we do what’s right to solve immigration reform and border security.

Therefore, we contend that we should make ALL MATTERS OF IMMIGRATION REFORM coming from or endorsed by the U.S. Senate be scrutinized to the inth degree. As time continues on we become far more
aware that we do not have a fence — built and completed before they started up again with immigration reform. Furthermore, let’s not forget about the Border Patrol officers, police, law enforcement personnel, and the lot who have paid the ultimate price, with their lives, ensuring our safety.

For example allow us this question: Would you willingly allow Senator’s Schumer, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, or Dick Durbin and many others your PIN numbers to the bank account? Or giving any one of them the keys to your house for a week or month? Sorry folks, I just don’t trust them at all!

 

Remember our (USA) Principles and Priorities…Let Boston be your Guide….

Remember our (USA) Principles and Priorities…Let Boston be your Guide….

This site is not and hopefully will never, ever become one of those politically correct – manipulation of words in language – site that as we are witnessing in the press. It is extremely important to identify issues, matters, and/or things as they are in reality and we encourage the “heck with it” attitude and if someone is carrying a homemade bomb and as evidence has led us to believe, that the same individual did seek to train, or even to advance in his knowledge of “Radical Islamic Jihad” well we wonder why all of the brouhaha as to whether refer to this crazy person as a “Terrorist” or a “Bomber.”

The entire line of questions is only confusing the proper use of English. Seems to us that the word Terrorist is a noun used to identify a person, their ideological, religious, and/or radical behavior whereas when one attends to a Bomber this appears to be where translation is lost with word meanings.

According to The American Heritage Dictionary and the Collins Online Free Dictionary there is a word choice differential that is interesting yet logical. Bomber is used in most cases in militaristic terms such as a particular aircraft, squadron, or what a person does.

So logically it appears to us that in this particular case of the Boston Marathon the brothers planned a terroristic attack that both was to kill and maim as many individuals as possible.

There so far exists evidence that one of the brothers traveled to Russia, as well as Chechnya to perhaps meet up with radicals.

Nevertheless what was inherent with the older brother is that communication with radical Islamic Jihadists, ideological and religious beliefs may have influenced his judgment. Although for the importance of the word usage is this following question:

What was the intent of these brothers? Where and how did they learn to make bombs capable of the carnage the bombs created and left on those in the immediate area (blast area, Boston, surrounding cities, and America) and the nation as a whole.

When one considers what their reasons were does that really matter in lieu of their offensives?

This definition and clarification aspect of this article is but to warn other individuals who may get caught up within the forthcoming spin that the U.S. government and all agencies thereof will try amount.  

One other warning is that of the press and other forms of media. As a fundamental action we must be cautious not to let the press and their machinations of information seize this opportunity for their own ends – by creating a story that may or may not be true.

With our hearts and prayers going to those who suffered the greatest loss, to those who have lost body parts, to those whose lives have been forever changed by the demonstrative actions of some radical, arrogant brothers we will – with all diligence continue to pray for the people of Massachusetts.

If there is any valuable hope to be found in this tragic event let us all focus in on the tributes rendered at Fenway Park, the streets of Boston, and the compliance of the general public with those within law enforcement.

We cannot close with anything other than to hat-tap to the governor of Massachusetts, the mayor of Boston, and their staffs, as well as the “Colonel,” (the chief-of-police), and to every single person in Boston for showing the rest of America how it is supposed to be done.  

 

How much does ethnicity, religious beliefs, and family have on decisions we make?

Chechnya, the Russian republic whose struggle against Russia inspired the two brothers suspected of the Boston Marathon bombings, has been the center of violent separatist uprising and bloody bomb-related killings for decades.

But “mainstream Chechnyan mujahedin have not traditionally been a direct threat to the United States,” said Evan Kohlmann, senior partner of Flashpoint Global Partners, a New York-based international security consulting firm. Several other organizations do recruit Chechen fighters, however, he said.

He said the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and one of its splinter groups, the Islamic Jihad Union, both have recruited Chechen, Turks and other non-Arab Muslims to fight with them against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. According to Kohlmann, both of these groups are based in the Waziristan tribal area of Pakistan, “and these groups can be just as radical as anything al-Qaeda puts out.”

“They have a strong animus against the United States,” Kohlmann said.

But he cautioned against making any assumption at this point that the bombing suspects were recruited and/or trained by foreign terror organizations.

“What happened (in Boston) is within the capability of two relatively sophisticated, homegrown individuals,” Kohlmann said. “These two people seem to have come out of nowhere.”

We believe the likelihood of this same occurrence with ethnic Chechen people is not as isolated as Kohlmann would want us to believe. Although there hasn’t been a huge number of Chechen individuals having a related history with violence against the U.S.A. that does not say that the notion doesn’t exist.

Moreover, insofar as violence is implied within the ethnicity as well as within the very religious praxis of these two Chechen offspring, it does seem that given the existence within the country of origin and assembling that with religious and deeply personal held beliefs we wound not necessarily stipulate to a partial package being made up does stand to reason as very likely to happen.

David Schanzer, a terrorism expert at Duke University, said the attack appeared to be “homegrown” and that the suspects appear unsophisticated and without ties to or training from international terrorist groups.

“The fact that they needed to rob an ATM to get money (suggests) they didn’t get large amount of outside funding. They had no escape plan to leave the country,” Schanzer said. “These are hallmarks of people who are not particularly sophisticated. I don’t see this as a highly planned plot. They seemed to be making this up as they go along.”

Kohlmann sent a post on his Twitter feed Friday that the official arm of the Chechen mujahedin has denied any connection between them and the Boston suspects.

Author Kimberly Marten, who researched Chechnya for her recent book, Warlords Strong-Arm Brokers in Weak States, cautioned Friday against concluding that the Boston attack was an act of terror.

Okay then Ms. Kimberly Marten what in all of your wisdom and knowledge call it? We certainly would not want to appear rude or condescending, however there are legitimate indicators that this was an act of terror.

Who or what would make explosive weapons and leave them in very crowed areas of major media events? Massive explosive weapons hurling schrap metal, ball bearings, and nails through the air at speeds unconscionable normally only have one thing on their minds.

Conversely, and viewed as far worse is the simple notion of lying an explosive bomb within mere feet of an eight year old child.

Among the most shocking acts of violence was an attack in the neighboring republic of North Ossetia in 2004, where militants seized a school and, in the three-day siege that followed, more than 300 were killed, most of them children.

Militants from Chechnya and other restive regions have targeted Moscow and other areas with bombings and hostage-takings for more than 20 years. The republic is predominantly Muslim and has waged two wars with Russian security forces.

President Vladimir Putin has often stressed that al-Qaeda is linked with Chechen fighters. According to the Council on Foreign Relations analysis, a Chechen warlord is said to have met with Osama bin Laden while both were fighting against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan from 1979-89.

Authorities have also found links between Chechen separatists and other Islamist terrorist groups. The U.S. Justice Department said in a 2004 report that Zacharias Moussaoui, who was convicted for his role in the 9/11 attacks, had previously sought to recruit at least one man to fight in Chechnya. Intelligence officials in France had warned the FBI of Moussaoui’s connection to the Chechen fighters.

We are not being foolish here by alleging that these “brothers of Chechen ethnic” were acting for or on behalf of any terrorist group, albeit, at least the evidence doesn’t support it.

However, we would like to inform Ms. Kimberly Marten that normally – if an object walking on two webbed feet, quacking before it slips into the water for a swim, well, if it looks like, smells like, and acts like a duck chances are there is influence from a duck….somewhere.

Origins, Circumstances, and Consequences of the National Experiment…

We are not completely out of mind with the origins and responsibilities of our national experiment.¹  We mean of course that the settlements of first transplants were primarily from Western Europe. They were people who had endured many a rough time in their native homelands albeit, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, England, as well as the Benelux nations of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxemburg as well as shortly thereafter came Germans, French, Spanish, and lest we mention even the old Scandinavian strongholds.

Put in a lighter perhaps more consistent with chronological data let’s look at what we do know. Shortly during or after the Ice Age and continuing on for many millennia humankind traversed land bridges ostensibly from what is now known as Asia. We have specific evidence that supports the notion that during the postglacial era ushered in warmer weather.

This allowed for further domestication and the cultivation of plant life. It should be clearly noted that by the end of the first century A.D., intensive farming was established from the southwest to the east coast inhabitants in what is now referred to as the United States.

With the exception of the Norsemen attempt at settling within the New World, contact between North America and Europe was clearly not established until the Age of Exploration at the end of the 1400s.

However it is of relevance to understand that settlements were indeed founded in Mexico as well as Florida by the Spanish in the 1500s. In addition, we should shed appropriate light on the entire eastern seaboard bordering the Atlantic Ocean littoral by France, England, Sweden, and Holland very early in the 1600s.

There were characteristics which many people had in common: Many people were fair-skinned with lighter hair; many were of medium build and tall. What many of us either choose not to think of – or, don’t know of immediately – is the praxis of these people. For example most of these people were colonizing in groups normally from places that had established cultures, norms, and they were assumed to continue on during their exploration.

Following on the heels of Columbus’ New World discoveries – which were vast and far-reaching – the Spanish set sail for America and conquered the Native American Aztecs and further south the conquering of the Inca empire literally established an colonial empire from Mexico to Peru. Even earlier the Spanish had explorers from the southwest (USA) to St. Augustine Florida, whilst at the same time the French were actively trading with the native cultures in the St. Lawrence valley onward to the Great Lakes.

When one looks at the state of affairs during the 1500s through the 1600s in Europe one should be noticing that the entire United Kingdom was in a violent civil war. The slew of monarchs around Charles I, who was executed, then Oliver Cromwell, and his whimsical destinations for acquiring new land and wealth were nothing short of additional failure causing many to be unsettled with an enormous government. This aided by an unpopular civil war for England – and on the edge with the French Revolution furthermore, when one considers the totality of Europe – Germanic wars, Prussia, and again Spain and Portugal amassing tremendous caches of wealth, Europe was in flux.

Perhaps more than anything else, as told by historian J.H. Elliott was in the notion of those Western Europeans liked the way things were – and resisted innovation like the plague. In fact as we already know that at the end of violent uprisings created a unique time for renovation. Precisely what those settling the New World didn’t want – they were looking for stability, especially within their civic and social organization.

And it is important to understand that the whole of Europe were in some way facing uprisings, thus they were in a state of constant changes. What causes more anxiety than changes?

[1] Reference to the national experiment literally means the process by which the second, third, and some fourth generations of colonists indulged to create what we call the national government. It should be remembered that before, during, and after the experiment it nonetheless remained an experiment.

Why government is the way it is…And what do we do about it..?

There are times that we are positive that our elected officials – Representatives, Senators, and the President have completely forgotten any and all forms of rational thought. No elaboration necessary. Who do these people think they are? We do have some source reading to assist in maybe why they think they are elite people and why when known before or after they are elected they truly were individuals with courtesy, decorum, friendliness, and above all manners.

Therefore, being a member of a Representative-Democracy, whom do these people think they work for? You, the American people, and me, that’s right. It is as simple as that period. We ought not to forget that friends, we need to be verbal, writing letters, and being advocates for what they have been doing.

Please share with us the last POTUS that got away with something as faulty as Benghazi, Libya? Lives were lost under enemy hostilities. A U.S. Ambassador was brutally mangled, sodomized, and dragged through the streets. And all of the sudden someone from the “elite” crowd is chosen to fabricate the truth for an international audience.

Anyone with any political background who may be seeking reelection, or any other controversial proposed legislation or more importantly issues that need fixing, such as immigration, illegal’s being in the country, same-sex marriage, and any other matter where one may be in the fray with high emotional sentiment, chances are they are amazingly quiet.

According to Congressional Quarterly Today, in the 112th Congress, law is the dominantly declared profession of Senators, followed by public service/politics, then business; for Representatives, business is first, followed by public service/politics, then law.

Does this information tell us anything about why our government is the way that it is? Of course it does; using common sense let’s look at law. What are law school students taught to do? Argue anything; albeit, for murder, kidnapping with assorted sexual assaults, regardless of which side of the argument one is on – and I guarantee that one person will perform their arguments from both perspectives. After all that is the profession of law.

Moreover, on a direct note the composition of the elite leadership of this nation should not be consorting themselves within the practice of business. Seriously, as one critically thinks about it — aren’t there enough professional firms on Wall Street and/or any economic district in most larger cities.

Now a look at politics on a professional basis; first we must naturally assume that people are genuinely disunited and ostensibly at odds with each other about anything and everything. Unfortunate or not this is the human nature of people that anyone putting a government together will encounter.

Politics is the process used to influence the behavior of individuals. Because people find themselves in dysfunctional relationships with other people coupled with disunity within the human state, then in an attempt to assure order to individuals it is the seeking of power that is the prime subject of political science.

Furthermore, whether or not a particular situation exists – such as inequality, fairness, common treatment – power seems justified as a way of placing everyone under the rule of the best human qualities. Why this basic notion of political science seems so irrelevant among members of a society is that people tend to look at what is good for them.

Just look at the Ten Commandments. There are ten unifying principles about how to act and otherwise, so why not display this collection of moral values so that everyone could see, read, and enjoy them? Now suppose that another religious sector of society has a 10 Commandments model espousing the same sense of morality, values, and ethics as the first one, then we say sure it should be used.

We’ve given our money and trust for what..? Lack of Accountability..!

The Obama administration’s decision to release some immigrants awaiting deportation back into the community has spawned a furious backlash from Congress, where stunned lawmakers have besieged the Homeland Security Department with questions.

Department officials have described the move as a cost-savings measure required by the budget sequesters, but two years ago one top official testified to Congress that detaining immigrants is usually cheaper than releasing them.

As the questions build, so does pressure on Homeland Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano, who has not yet answered the requests, signed by dozens of Senate and House members, to detail who exactly has been released, why they were being held in the first place, and who gave final approval.

This very behavior by DHS, Secretary Janet A. Napolitano, and President Obama, as well as the entire Administration of clowns should be viewed under the microscope of ACCOUNTABILITY! Forget about transparency people – the entire Obama Administration does not take accountability for anything.

Again, much the same as Benghazi (Benghazi-gate) as well as Operation Fast and Furious, voter fraud in Ohio, the no decision to ever produce a “non-tampered with birth certificate,” college transcripts, and the now infamous Barry-Barack-Hussein-Soebarkah-Soetoro-Marshal-Davis-Herald-Bounel-Obama litany of names used by this man.

“It is frankly irresponsible that your agency chose releasing detained immigrants as its first effort to control spending,” a group of 37 House Republicans, led by Reps. Matt Salmon of Arizona and Duncan Hunter of California, said in a letter Friday.

On Monday, Sen. Daniel Coats, the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee that oversees immigration, took to the Senate floor to say the department cannot duck his questions. He speculated that the release has already spurred a new wave of illegal immigration.

“I can see the traffickers pitching this to tens or hundreds of thousands of people, taking their money, getting them across the border, breaching the fence or tunneling under the fence or climbing over the fence,” Mr. Coats said.

An internal ICE memo obtained and released last week by the House Judiciary Committee found that the agency contemplated releasing 1,000 immigrants a week — far more than the several hundred it said it released.

By the end of March, ICE would be detaining fewer than 26,000 immigrants, or 5,000 fewer than in mid-February. Congress has given ICE funding to detain about 34,000 on any given day, but the agency had been running at about 36,500 on the average day, meaning it was already over budget even before the sequesters.

ICE has blamed both the sequesters and “fiscal uncertainty” stemming from the 2013 appropriations process for the cuts. Congress only passed funding for half of the year, and must approve the other half by March 27.

Administration officials said that while they have released immigrants, they pose little danger to the community, and all of them are still being supervised, either through electronic device or by a check-in requirement.

“These decisions were made on a case-by-case basis, by career law enforcement officials in the field, in order to ensure that ICE maintained sufficient resources to detain serious criminal offenders and other individuals who pose a significant threat to public safety through the end of the continuing resolution,” the agency said in a statement. Pure hyperbole.

Among the questions Rep. Duncan, Mr. Salmon and their colleagues are asking is how many immigrants were reviewed but denied release, what other budget cuts the agency made before deciding to do releases, and what sort of tracking is being used on those who were released.

ICE has said it cannot divide out which immigrants were released because of budget constraints versus other reasons.

But whether releasing immigrants saves money is now being called into question. Funny how some questions go…

Two years ago, ICE Director John Morton testified to Congress that it was often cheaper to detain immigrants than to release and monitor them.

The President’s informal policy of refusing to enforce the law

Republicans are in danger of embracing “comprehensive” immigration reform — which is to say, amnesty — out of panic. The GOP does need to do better among Hispanics and other voters, but this is not the way to achieve that — and, more important, it is bad policy. A formal policy of refusing to enforce the law is not obviously the best substitute for an informal policy of refusing to enforce the law. Which all things being equal, this is what President Obama has done. Yet in an once overachieving nation that has run according to the rule of law, it appears that once again the country suffers for its egomaniac and arrogant president, that doesn’t seem to realize that his word – his bond – is as shabby as any union boss’ has ever been. For example,

THE PRESIDENT: “But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true.”

Now this is where we at The Contemplative Thinker begin to get confused. On the one hand, in signing a Memorandum directing to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano then she apparently passed the Memorandum to the Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for implementation.

The Reagan-era Immigration Reform and Control Act conferred amnesty upon some 3 million illegal’s in exchange for promises of stepped-up enforcement at the border and in the back office, further it included a mandatory enlistment into the military or a minimum of two years of college. But the sanctions never quite materialized. Even though some improved security measures were implemented after 9/11, the Bush years saw a 40 percent increase in the population of illegal’s, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

Our immigration system is in need of deep reform, but amnesty is not the first item on intelligent reformers’ to-do list, if indeed it belongs on the list at all. All decent people have a measure of sympathy for those who, driven by desperation, come illegally to the United States seeking work to provide for themselves and their families. That they so frequently work at low wages in miserable conditions and that they are vulnerable to every kind of abuse is reason for deeper sympathy still. But the solution to their plight is not to abandon the law, any more than the solution to the plight of Les Misérables is to legalize the theft of bread.

The rule of law exists to alleviate misery, not to mandate it. We know from historical experience that immigration amnesties serve only to encourage yet more illegal immigration, and the suffering and disorder that go along with it. Illegal immigrants constitute a permanent underclass, the growth of which is in the long-term interest of the citizens neither of the United States nor of those immigrants who aspire to citizenship. Stopgap measures such as “temporary guest worker” programs simply convert that underclass from de facto to de jure.

There are many steps we can and should take toward improving our national immigration regime. And for those who are here illegally, especially those who were brought here as young children, our policy options are not restricted to amnesty or round-ups and mass deportations. As anybody who has ever missed a credit-card payment can attest, we have more than sufficient information technology to identify whether people who are cashing paychecks, renting homes, or transacting ordinary business are in fact legally authorized to do so. Until the borders are physically secured, our most effective and most humane option is steady, consistent, judicious workplace enforcement. We do not lack the national means to enforce the law, only the political will to do so.

Why has the Administration’s position on the legal authority of the Executive Branch changed?

Why has the Administration’s position on the legal authority of the Executive Branch changed?

Well we’ve finally asked the question. What we are asking is that prior to June 15, 2012 President Barack Obama when asked if the President of the United States had the authority by whatever means – Executive Order, Memorandum of Policy Direction, or any other means President Barack Obama replied,

THE PRESIDENT:  “I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true.”

We challenge the Latino leadership in this nation’s Congress, executive, and judicial branches to explain to us how such an overwhelming proportion of an identified electorate – regardless of facts – minorities mattered in 2008 for three reasons. First, their relative sizes compared with whites increased in each state; second, their enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate was greater than in 2004; and third, white turn-out for the Republican candidate waned in comparison to the previous elections.

In times that are marked primarily as negative, and the most telling, the mood of the country, two-thirds of Americans are dissatisfied (66.6%) with the way things are going in the country. Last fall, 79% said they were frustrated or angry with the federal government; 89% give a negative rating to the national economy; and views of Congress are as negative as they have been in 25 years.

As far as the presidential race, Barack Obama still has only a 47% job approval rating and a 38% approval rating for his handling of the economy. The uptick in minority enthusiasm for the first black presidential candidate resulted in higher turnout rates, and larger Democratic vote margins nationally than in 2004. This was the case in most but not all states, including Nevada and Florida, where Hispanics, blacks, and other minorities turned the tide toward the Democrats.

This disconnect with the nation’s new diverse demographics can be explained by the fact that minorities are, for the present, less likely to be citizens and of voting age. The following statistics tell it all: For every 100 Hispanics in the population, only 44 are eligible to vote. This compares with 78 eligible voters for every 100 whites in the population. (Blacks and Asians are also less able than whites to vote at rates of 69 and 53 per 100, respectively.

The latest national polls suggest this pattern may well continue in 2012. Millennial generation voters are inclined to back Barack Obama for reelection by a wide margin. By contrast, Silent generation voters are solidly behind Romney. This of course represents the overall polarization of age demography; that is, Millennial being the youngest and the Silent being the oldest.

In between the youngest and the oldest voters are the Baby Boom generation and Generation X. Both groups are less supportive of Obama than they were in 2008 and are now on the fence with respect to a second term for the president.

So given this data we ask how – other than by race or ethnicity – could there be a reelection of the incumbent Administration? This is and will remain a topic of discussion until we have a uniform rule of voting. One rule in particular is a voter identification card with a photo I.d. Another is a suggestion that with the implementing of E-Verify machines to verify any person’s national alliance or the right to work in our nation should be accompanied by granting the individual verified with a card similar to this one.

4-ITEMS YOU MUST KNOW

4-ITEMS YOU MUST KNOW BEFORE ENTERING THE VOTING BOOTH

Did you vote for Barack Obama in 2008? Many people did – obviously.

What a time. There’s still room for improvement, but what a testimony to just how far we as a nation have come in terms of racial harmony, tolerance, and diversity.

Only decades earlier, a man like Barack Obama – a black man – couldn’t even drink from the same water fountain as a white man, let alone become president of the United States. A hundred years prior to that, and he may well have been counted another man’s property.

On Nov. 4, 2008, millions gathered at the ballot box to prove, for the last time, that, in large measure, we as a nation have healed from our disgraceful, self-inflicted wounds of racial abuse, bias, and division.
That we could elect an African-American to lead the free world is indeed a very good thing.

We just happened to elect the wrong African-American.

ITEM #2

Barack Obama’s presidency has been a halo effect. As a lot of us did in 2008, America fell victim to false advertising. As the past four years have demonstrated beyond any serious debate, the idea of President Obama was far better than the reality of President Obama. We were promised the world. We were promised transparency; but we were sold an illusion. We were taken.

Indeed, during the 2008 campaign, a then-Senator Barack Obama promised us that, if elected, we would look back upon the moment he took office and “tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless.

This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”

That was the idea of President Obama. That was how many good, well-meaning people voted. That was the hope offered and the change promised.

ITEM #3

That was not what we got.

Mr. Obama’s attempts to gloss over his mounting leadership failures summarized a few of the big ones. While addressing an audience member who, perhaps like you, voted for Obama in 2008, we observed, in part, the following:

“I think you know better. I think you know that these last four years haven’t been as good as the president just described and that you don’t feel like you’re confident that the next four years are going to be much better either. …“He said that, by now, we’d have unemployment at 5.4 percent. The difference between where it is and 5.4 percent is 9 million Americans without work. …

“He said he would have, by now, put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security because he pointed out they are on the road to bankruptcy. He would reform them. He’d get that done. He hasn’t even made a proposal on either one.

“He said in his first year he’d put out an immigration plan that would deal with our immigration challenges. He didn’t even file it.

“This is a president who has not been able to do what he said he’d do. He said that he’d cut in half the deficit. He hasn’t done that either. In fact, he doubled it.

“He said that by now, middle-income families would have a reduction in their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It’s gone up by $2,500 a year. And if Obamacare is … implemented fully, it’ll be another $2,500. …

ITEM #4

“He said in his first year he’d put out an immigration plan that would deal with our immigration challenges. Obama didn’t even file it. Why our Hispanic community would even consider to vote for him…

However there are issues that remain “under investigation” like the terrorist attack at Benghazi, Libya, Fast & Furious, murdered Border Patrol agents, what the hay are we doing in Afghanistan, and the disruption occurring in the Middle East under his watch.

President Obama has authorized a makeshift Memorandum of Amnesty through the Department of Homeland Security – a memorandum that can be quashed at any time by Congress or a Constitutional law suit. He’s done the same with same-sex marriage, created fabricated information (disinformation) regarding the killing of hundreds of Mexicans and others from Middle America, and least we never forget the misinformation campaign dealing with Benghazi, Libya.

Recommendations from The Center for American Progress (CAP)

If you are just joining us, this is part three of a multi-post that covers much of what Barack Obama wants to do with his Administration during the next four years based on his re-election. This information was procured by several individuals within the Administration itself. As momentum grew regarding the scope and amount of executive actions – actions by the president regardless of a Congress and the only means necessary for the judiciary is to determine whether or not what the president plans on going are within the realm of the US Constitution.

Without further adieu it is important to understand and acknowledge World Net Daily and their publishing arm which provided for the exhaustive research pursuant to these plans; moreover, it is of course WND who Aaron Klein is Jerusalem bureau chief for WND and hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio, the nation’s largest talk station. Klein’s program is one of only two weekend shows in the U.S. to make the Talkers Heavy Hundred official list of top American radio shows.

Together these two have put together “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed” and is slated for release on August 7, 2012. This multi-part series of articles is our level best efforts to inform, educate, and tell of the unintended circumstances should these plans come to fruition.

If one has any questions or needs to bone-up on their individual knowledge, please see the two writings that precede this one.

The center’s recommendations include eliminating the cap on the number of the H-1B visas provided to foreigners.

H-1B is the most widely used high-skilled immigration classification for temporary workers. Currently, the system is regulated by a congressionally established annual cap set at about 85,000 H-1B visas per year.

The CAP report also states the country isn’t giving out enough green cards. Currently, about 140,000 employment-based permanent visas, or “green cards,” are available each year. CAP asks the White House to

remove the cap on those highly restricted visas.

The 2009 amnesty bill that “Fool Me Twice” shows forms the basis for future legislative and executive policies, makes precisely the same CAP arguments for lifting the cap on visas in a section titled “Visa Reform.”

The bill’s solution, however, is to take the regulation of legal immigration away from Congress and vest it in an agency within the executive branch. The so-called Commission on Immigration and Labor Markets would establish “employment-based immigration policies that promote America’s economic growth and competitiveness while minimizing job displacement, wage depression and unauthorized employment in the United States.”

The executive branch, under the plan, would determine the number of new immigrants, as well as the people to whom visas would be issued.

Register new “legal’s” as voters.

“Fool Me Twice” documents specific, second-term progressive plans for government agencies to immediately register as voters the new Americans who would receive amnesty.

One such plan is outlined in a 32-page report from the progressive think tank Demos, “From Citizenship to Voting: Improving Registration for New Americans.”

Demos, like CAP, has been highly influential in crafting White House policy.

This particular Demos report was authored by Tova Andrea Wang, a senior fellow at both Demos and a group called the Century Foundation, which works closely with the Center for American Progress.
The Demos report calls for the United States Citizenship and Immigrant Services, the USCIS, to fully implement a new policy to ensure “new Americans” are provided with a voter registration application at all administrative naturalization ceremonies.

Ultimately, USCIS should be designated as a full voter registration agency under the National Voter Registration Act so that every newly naturalized American is automatically given the opportunity to register to vote. We wonder if they are aware of this…

The report also calls for state and local elections officials to be proactive in registering new citizens to vote by reaching out to their communities through every possible means. Methodology: 

Klein and Elliott explain how they documented Obama’s second-term blueprint on amnesty.

The president’s first-term signature policies, including the “stimulus,” defense initiatives and Obamacare, were crafted over years by key progressive think tanks and activists, usually first promoted in extensive research and policy papers, the author’s document.

Some first-term policies were even recycled and modified from older legislative attempts that had previously been pushed by progressive Democrats, the authors show. Klein and Elliott, for example, documented the way in which progressive legislation and research papers that traced back to 2002 and, in some cases even to the 1990s, eventually made their way into what became Obama’s health care bill.

We are of the distinct — yet open — opinion that this is very much the same way other authoritarian (aka dictators) have planned to come into power and unfortunately for the citizenry ostensibly every time this has occurred in history the executive’s terms in office become all but limited. Instantly Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, come to mind with visions of the “Killing Fields” as well as the “Gulag Archipelago” come very focused realities.