We chose to write this little ditty about one of the most respected members of the Founding Era. Alexander Hamilton was the type of person who earned others’ respect. Actually this piece was written as a precursor to another set of articles — we hope you enjoy it.
“As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature; it is what neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is a common misfortunate that awaits our State constitution, as well as all others”… Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, June, 1788
If there is anything that caused the Founder’s unrest amid perplexity it was definitely “human nature.” We find that Hamilton felt that as wealth increased the accumulated amount would be in but a few hands. We also understand him to make a gaff at society itself stating as luxury prevails in society then down go the virtuous affects of the majority of the people. However, we find that Mr. Hamilton is well versed in all matters of human nature by realizing neither he nor an honorable man would be able to correct it.
Notwithstanding however, we feel certain distrust in the morals of human nature that suggests that he either took the actions of humankind with great civility and/or the fact remained that Mr. Hamilton simply was not a trusting soul with other humans.
This axiom is observed in his public talking about taxation: “As to Taxes, they are evidently inseparable from Government. It is impossible without them to pay the debts of the nation, to protect it from foreign danger, or to secure individuals from lawless violence and rapine”… Alexander Hamilton, Address to the Electors of the State of New York, March, 1801.
This ideology was of course a new way of thinking especially when one is given the task of trying to set up a new economic, as well as a new political system, or in other words it was not like the King of the Commonwealth had his or her hand in your pocket.
Knowing the true history of Alexander Hamilton is a growth experience in itself. Let us start out when Alexander was a boy; uncharacteristically living on Nevis Island off the western shore of Miami, Florida. It is super valuable to understand that Hamilton was an inhabitant of Nevis Island, and although we are certain he had his business jaunts to St. Kitts he nonetheless lived on Nevis. Actually Mr. Hamilton was born on Nevis Island.
Quite interesting for us is in the notion that Hamilton went to work at either the bait Shoppe or the General Store most likely the same place for both. However, Alexander was only between the age of 12 and 13 years of age when he started working for the owners.
They marveled at his bookkeeping abilities; yet above all his business acumen was far above his chronological age and from the 16 or more hours per day these owners could find no reason to distrust Hamilton whatsoever.
Here is a quick chronology of Alexander Hamilton’s life to show what an incredible person he became. Alexander Hamilton was born in 1757 (or 1755). His parents, mother Rachel Fawcett Lavien, daughter of a Nevisian doctor descended from French Huguenots and James Hamilton, 4th son of a Scottish Duke, were never married; however, theirs was a liaison that lasted about 15 years.
Alexander was the second son of the relationship (his older brother was named for his father). Hamilton, naturally bright and enterprising, migrated to the North American colonies for education,* became caught up in the American Revolution, was selected George Washington’s chief military aide. He published many articles supporting the Constitutional Convention which established the United States of America. Washington appointed him Secretary of the Treasury and he worked tenaciously researching and writing the new nation’s monetary policy.
Then he set about raising funds to pay off the Revolutionary War debts and fund the administration. Hamilton was the President’s most prominent cabinet member and was relied by Washington in many realms.
*Interestingly enough it was the older sea-dawg partners who had raised the capital for Hamilton’s education. They put in money of their own and then either by auction or simple fundraising the people of Nevis raised the money for Hamilton’s education – out of respect for him.
Imbued with a growing sense of entitlement to amnesty, illegal aliens and their supporters have become increasingly aggressive in pressing their demands. Among their new tactics is outright intimidation of public officials.
So as we continue to listen to politicians, especially our POTUS, espousing how important it is for these individuals learn to live outside of the shadows and become known our question remains – how long is this ridiculous posturing going to continue. Are they really that dumb, that is, the politicians.
Earlier this year, a group of illegal aliens turned up at the home of Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, sending a not-so-subtle message, “We know where you and your kids live.” On Wednesday evening it was House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s turn. Some 60 illegal aliens and their supporters forced their way into the lobby of Cantor’s suburban D.C. condo to hold a loud protest clearly aimed at intimidating him.
Not being one to constantly be barking “what about the rule of law” it seems to me that the statement “We know where you and your kids live” could be construed as a threat. The following video shows just how bat sh*t some people can become.
Please click on Kansas S. of State to see video of how brazen these people are becoming…
The Credibility Gap: Another Reason…
The erudite and ever-quotable late Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, famously said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”
Apparently, Sen. Moynihan was wrong. According to media reports, employees at the U.S. Census Bureau fabricated employment data to make it appear that unemployment was declining dramatically on the eve of the 2012 presidential election. The New York Post names a specific Census Bureau employee, Julius Buckmon, who cooked the books, adding, “a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee.”
The official monthly unemployment numbers are determined by Census Bureau interviews with some 60,000 U.S. households. Allegedly, Buckmon, who worked for the Bureau’s Philadelphia office, created people out of thin air and reported them as being employed. In compiling the monthly employment reports, Buckmon “interviewed” three times as many households as his peers.
Buckmon’s credibility is obviously in doubt, but he claims that he was told to fabricate data by his superiors. Whether the falsification was carried out to improve President Obama’s chances for reelection, or they were carried out because the Philadelphia office was having trouble meeting the requirement that they reach 90 percent of the households on their call list, is not clear.
What is clear is that the American public must be very skeptical about government data. This is an especially sobering thought as discussion of a mass amnesty remains before Congress. The bill passed by the Senate, in theory, relies on a government agency – the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – certifying that border and other immigration enforcement triggers be met before amnestied aliens can receive green cards.
House Speaker John A. Boehner says his party is hopeful that progress can be made on immigration reform, but believes that implementing change should be addressed “one step at a time.”
“I’m hopeful we can make progress on this very important issue,” he added, according to The Washington Post.
“The only way to make sure immigration reform works this time is to address these complicated issues one step at a time. I think doing so will give the American people confidence that we’re dealing with these issues in a thoughtful way and a deliberative way,” said Boehner.
Boehner said he was encouraged by the President, that he was open to reform changes being implemented in a gradual fashion. While he wouldn’t put a timeline on these changes, he insisted that immigration reform is still alive.
“Is immigration reform dead? Absolutely not,” he said, according to the LA Times.
The main bone of contention is the provision in the Senate-approved bill to allow illegal immigrants follow a path to U.S. citizenship, something the GOP-controlled House is against.
Please do not Confuse Dr.. King’s Life and Death with Immigration Reform
Fifty years after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his historic call for racial equality in the March on Washington, immigration reform activists are seizing on his “moral tone” in their fight for laws easing a pathway to citizenship.
Hey! I was there and I can assure you that a pathway to citizenship or immigration reform was the last thing that was in the forefront of people’s minds.
“At the core, we are talking about the same thing,” says Clarissa Martinez de Castro, the director of immigration policy for Hispanic civil rights organization National Council of La Raza. “This is a conversation about the value of a person. It was the core of the conversation then, and it is the core of the conversation now.”
It seems as though members of her coalition – meaning those who dabble in illicit pharmaceuticals, you know cartels, corruption, pay to play, and the unsightly Ponzi schemes always want to co-mingle the issues. It never ceases to amaze us how special interest groups will break any law even to the slightest to get their point across.
In lieu of a person who gave his own life for civil rights and to correct a nation from some of the extreme malfeasance steps admittedly guilty of and then some. This new initiative comes as immigration reform passed by the Senate remains stalled in the House where the leadership is showing far more discretion. House leaders in the lower chamber have indicated that they want a “step-by-step” approach that appears unlikely to include the hallmark of the Senate bill: a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
The yearning for full citizenship is one that black Americans understand deeply, says Wade Henderson, the president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
“African Americans understand the inherent power in citizenship,” Henderson said on a conference call for reporters organized by civil rights and immigration activists in advance of the March on Washington anniversary.
“As a community we are especially sensitive to issues involving incorporating individuals into the American system that don’t provide full citizenship,” he added.
Predicated upon that alone, Mr. Henderson appears to be a person of knowledge based on understanding. The entire civil rights movement in 1868 which of course spawned the 13, 14, and 15th Amendments was based on the Dred Scott decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.
“We sometimes get lost in those arguments for and against immigration reform,” he said. “What Dr. King did in 1963 was envision a moral future and a moral gap between the reality in America at the time and the moral future he envisioned.”
Please be aware that the Illinois House Representative Luis Gutierrez who muttered the above quote has got to be the sleaziest, word manipulator, that ever walked. It comes as no surprise that he calls Illinois his district.
Advocates are quick to say that their push should not come at the expense of other ongoing efforts by the black community like addressing voting rights, economic inequality, and law enforcement practices like New York City’s “stop and frisk.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the Voting Rights Act as a major setback for minorities, Martinez de Castro argues that the immigration movement is a continuation of King’s vision, she says, but the door is far from closed on the past era. Let it be illustrated just how stupid this Martinez de Castro is openly.
“Fifty years ago, Dr. King marched on Washington for the rights of those that were marginalized and suffering and oppressed to end segregation for equality,” says Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, the president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.
Americans saw what Rev. Samuel Rodriguez was talking about. No moral individual could have witnessed Selma, Montgomery, Los Angeles, Watts, New York City, and Chicago (naming just a few) and the horrendous treatment that most blacks were subjected too. Moreover,Martinez de Castro argues that the immigration reform movement is a continuation of Dr. King’s vision. Here is something that these idiotic advocates in favor of a Pathway to Citizenship need to understand: Blacks were brought to this nation in most cases against their will — regardless of whether they were prisoner’s of tribal warfare, or those intermittently found in a rough spot — most of African’s did not want to sojourn around the earth in nothing but a cork and endure the slavery and treatment they received after the Civil War, Civil Rights Act of 1868, and again in the 1960s.
Some Additional Issues that are Out of Control
Here is an example of mainstream media bias. Although unpleasant and astonishing we are surprised that this grave travesty did not receive more coverage than it did. All things being equal an investigation should have been done inasmuch as there are too many coincidences that occurred.
Their name conjures up the most celebrated moment of America’s post-Sept. 11 military campaigns. Now the Navy SEALs belong to a grimmer chapter in history: the most deadly incident for U.S. forces in the 10-year Afghanistan war.
Three months after they killed Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in neighboring Pakistan and cemented their place in military legend, the SEALs suffered a devastating loss when nearly two dozen of the elite troops were among 30 Americans who died when their helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan early Saturday.
You have no doubt heard of the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, No Child Left Behind, as well as the War on Terrorism. Most of these aforementioned “Wars on…” have been so pronounced because they are in fact, systems of presidential administration’s oversight and procedures. In short these “Wars on…”are typically extremely well-funded and the media attention is phenomenal.
Yet we still have a fundamental problem with the notion that suggests waging a war on illiteracy, terrorism, or poverty. Speaking of which we wonder daily why an administration would instill so many so much into any of these programs – inasmuch as we look at any particular instance, the outcomes of such plans are worse today than just about any other time in history.
In a new survey, four out of five American adults said they’ve struggled financially, and 15 percent of Americans live in poverty. Poverty for example has reached far into American family life. You tell me, are there more or less drugs on the street today than when the war was on? It should also be noted that drug addiction has changed to a measurable degree in the USA. Is your cold acting up again or perhaps you need an antihistamine? Better have a driver’s license or some proof of identification with you or you will not be getting anything similar.
Nah, not even the kids are getting any better – but their schools sure are at grade inflation and especially dumbing down compulsory course work. Fifteen year old students in the United States performed near the middle of the pack. On average 16 other industrialized countries scored above the United States in science, and 23 scored above us in math. The reading scores for the United States had to be tossed due to a printing error.
Just a small bit about the antihistamine story vis-a-vie Voter identification. Do you think that even for a split second that anyone from special interest groups to civil rights advocates would be screaming “That’s Racial Profiling,” when it comes down to purchasing something to assist in relieving harsh symptoms?
Knowing that anatomic differences exist between various Hispanics and Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans one would not be hard pressed to explain why members with these anatomical differences suffer from alcohol inebriation more than others do.
So why even bring that up? Because there are patterns of inebriation while operating vehicles where the data gets skewed naturally. Moreover, we write to inform, assist in making aware, and hopefully learning. It would be irresponsible to know this information and not to pass it on.
We definitely wanted to get to Fast & Furious today; however, that seems as though it is not going to happen. Yet in a tiny summation of events how can it be possible that U.S. Border Patrol officers are killed by weapons procured through the ongoing operation, as well as members of the ATF&E went ballistic and spoke to anyone who would listen including Congress; furthermore, the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is found in a Contempt of Court citation and has there been anything resolved? No.
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.
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….
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.
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.”
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.
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?
 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.
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.
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.