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.
LISTEN TO THE IMMIGRANTS OF OLD…
Many times during life’s tumultuous times such as sky high unemployment, an economy that really hasn’t done anything for the last five to six years, hopefully you will agree with me that when the centralized federal government begins doing mindless issues such as negotiating terms and agreements for criminals or those who have openly committed crimes against the Nation.
To just walk freely into our country and gain amnesty, free health care, welfare, and unemployment because hey! they just arrived and need some walking around money. Why don’t we chose a day of any month and open the lines for the illegal-undocumented-unnatural-individuals issue them a US Benefits card and open the door to issue only to them food stamps.
The United States of America and the Congress as well as the President thereto have issued nothing less than seven amnesty contracts with those who have arrived in unconventional ways. And the House Republicans as well as the Senate, and House Republicans and Democrats are writing the new amnesty laws as I type. Senator’s Schumer, McCain, Rubio, and Graham, what is it do you think is going to happen if you continue with your plans and grant a massive 11 to 25 million person amnestyfor those who are not acting as though something that is not theirs and yet gained illegally is going to accomplish?
During days such as I’ve described all I want to do is get home and read “other” immigrant stories – those who have not protested in the streets at everything from racial profiling to accommodating ways to be located in this nation at eight months and thirty days before the newest arrival of unchartered and unearned citizenship?
Please…what cheers me up is reading the stories of immigrants of older times arriving to this country.
No sooner was the Statue of Liberty erected than its meaning began to change. It quickly acquired a new significance from its location on Bedloe’s Island in New York harbor. Nearby was Ellis Island, which during the late nineteenth century became the largest point of entry for immigrants to the United States. In the moment of their arrival, they shared a common experience that became part of the mythology of the republic.
Imagine the agony of parting and the anxiety of an unknown future being very painful for most of them. The long sea voyage was difficult, and often times dangerous. Then at last they reached the New World, and had their first sight of Liberty with her upraised torch.
Most of the immigrants retained an indelible memory of the moment. One particular gentleman who was arriving from Italy, never forgot the instant when his ship sailed into New York harbor and the Statue of Liberty suddenly came into view. He remembered that a great silence fell suddenly across the deck of the immigrant ship – a silence filled with awe and hope and glorious inspiration. Parents reached down and raised their children above the rails to see the Statue of Liberty, “shadowy through the mist.” This gentleman even recalled the feeling that Liberty was beckoning to each of them, bidding them welcome in the great republic that was to be their home. .
I believe that this was the attitude that built America. This was the attitude that immigrants had being what we so aptly refer to as “America…the land of immigrants.”
Not that anyone one of these immigrants planned or conspired, to break any law to achieve their goal – no they endured the process. And before they asked for a thing mind you, they worked until almost death to fend for their family members.
TIME TO REVIEW VISA UNDERSTANDING…
If one were to look at the array of visas offered to potential immigrants from other countries, allow me to say that their options are ready just about everything one could possible imagine. Just as a quick ramble-off let us consider just a few of these visas for cursory purposes. Then let us look at them with what it is that the multitude of visas provide both for the benefit of the potential immigrant and the U.S. as well as what cost will it be.
First the easiest ones that don’t take a lot of explanation; however, please understand that each application of course works both ways – normally one for the applicant and the other for the applicant’s family and/or relatives, domestic partners, and many other forms as well.
We believe these to be the most sought: Application to work in the United States (Form I 765), A visitor’s visa (B-2), Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Form I 821D), Temporary Protected Status (Form I 821), and this is where things really get mixed up; El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, and Syria. We are reminded that the expiration date for all TPS status is often extended.
And we would hope you would ask about the Diversity Lottery. Ready? Is it possible to win a green card? Yes! There is actually an official lottery offered by the United States government to give individuals from under-represented countries the opportunity to live and work in the United States permanently and legally. It is commonly known as the Green Card Lottery. The official title is Diversity Visa Program and it is operated by the US Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs. Now on to H-1B visas.
Not everyone agrees with the desire to expand H-1B visas.
The H-1B visa is referred to as a “professional” visa category. In a recent article in the Stanford News top scholars were discussing the implications of this new type of visa, albeit it is not that new. The article is titled, Stanford Scholars see Political Hurdles in Immigration Reform. This particular type of visa is the one used in the article so I compiled some information. (For further reading click here.)
Minian said she believes that is unfair to bring more skilled workers to this country through H-1B visas while blocking employment of other migrants who have already built families and communities here.
Here is one dissenting opinion: Expanding H-1B visas is a vulnerable concern. The H-1B is a non-immigrant visa in the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 101(a)(15)(H). It allows US employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations. If a foreign worker in H-1B status quits or is dismissed from the sponsoring employer, the worker must either apply for and be granted a change of status to another non-immigrant status, find another employer (subject to application for adjustment of status and/or change of visa), or leave the US.
In addition, in the case of “H-1B-dependent employers” (usually those with more than 15% of their workers on H-1B visas), the law requires these employers to recruit U.S. workers in “good faith” (8 U.S.C. 1182(n) (1)(G)).
As a general rule, a person who is in one non-immigrant status may not change status or change employers in that status until he or she applies with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for such a change, and such change is granted. However, a provision called “H-1B portability” permits certain individuals already in the United States in H-1B status to commence employment for a new employer once a new employer’s H-1B petition is filed with USCIS.
Congress has placed a numerical “cap” on H-1B visas. For Fiscal Year 2015 (which begins October 1, 2014), the limit is 65,000 cap-subject H-1B visas, with an additional 20,000 visas available for individuals who have earned a master’s degree or higher from an accredited U.S. educational institution. Although some exemptions from the cap may be available (principally for institutions of higher education), most employers are subject to the cap. As with last year, we expect the H-1B cap to be reached the first week of April. Once the H-1B cap has been reached, employers will be unable to file new cap-subject H-1B petitions until April 1, 2015.
Consequently, employers are advised to make H-1B sponsorship decisions within the next few weeks. It is important to prepare H-1B petitions as early as possible—and well before April 1st—so that a complete petition can be submitted to USCIS on the first day the quota opens. USCIS received more than 85,000 H-1B petitions during the first week of April 2013, and established an H-1B lottery to determine which petitions would be accepted for processing.
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.
Principles of America’s Founders must be restored…
Understanding our political heritage is a vital part of building a stronger America for the next generation. The principles of America’s Founders must be restored to their proper role in the public and political discourse, influencing public policy and reforming government to reflect constitutional limits.
Recently, law professor Jonathan Turley took to the pages of The Washington Post to warn about the growth of the administrative state. “The growing dominance of the federal government over the states has obscured more fundamental changes within the federal government itself,” Turley wrote. “Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.”
Predictably, some career bureaucrats did not like Turley’s message and registered their protests with letters to the Post. “If Mr. Turley were to check the beginning of regulations published in the Federal Register, he would see that these civil servants also have phone numbers where they can be reached,” one wrote. “Agencies like mine go to great pains to be open about our efforts and are subject to vigorous scrutiny by Congress and the courts,” added another. “They end up knowing just about everything but our shirt size. How much more transparent can we get?”
The complaints miss the point. Certainly many bureaucrats are nice people, and certainly they can be reached by phone, fax, or e-mail. The problem is not the people in the government; it is that those people do not have the constitutional authority to be making public policy.
As Heritage’s Joe Postell puts it, there are four major constitutional problems today:
The administrative state combines the powers of government in the hands of the same officials in violation of the separation of powers principle.
It is based on unconstitutional delegations of legislative power from Congress to bureaucrats and administrators.
It violates the principle of republican government, which requires that power—especially legislative power—be derived from the consent of the governed, expressed directly or indirectly through elections.
The administrative process it follows to adjudicate disputes is fundamentally opposed to the protections offered by the rule of law in the traditional judicial process.
The Founders gave us a system carefully crafted to divide power, but we have allowed bureaucrats to expand their reach. “Do we want to be governed by the rule of law as hammered out in open legislative debate, carried on by our elected representatives, directly accountable to us? Or do we wish to be governed by the expanding rule of regulation, the rule of administrators who are most certainly not accountable to us?” asks Heritage’s Bob Moffit. “The rule of regulation is the rule of regulators. But today, the rule of regulators is arbitrary and unaccountable government.”
For additional in-depth reading on the importance of understanding America’s political government, please click here.
What’s up with this so-called income inequality…
As a worsening jobs picture appeared last week, Barack Obama sought to hit the reset button.
His strategy? Lie. (Anyone out there surprised.)
“If you like your plan, you can keep it.”
“You can keep your doctor, period.”
“The Affordable Care Act will reduce the deficit and save money for the economy.”
“The Benghazi attack was a result of an anti-Muslim video.”
“Al Qaeda has been decimated.”
“Republicans don’t care about people.”
But this time, it’s different.
Instead of a little lie, the president jumped right to a demagogue-level fabrication. (I guess Obama has become more comfortable in office during his second term.)
The lie was captured during a speech on income inequality…
“We’ve also seen how government action, time and again, can make an enormous difference in increasing opportunity and bolstering ladders into the middle class. Investments in education, laws establishing collective bargaining and a minimum wage – these all contributed to rising standards of living for massive numbers of Americans.”
Like it or not ladies and gentlemen since I have been on this planet there has always been a problem with what people want. We really could go on for hours simply with gender equality alone. No, I am sorry but I did not start the Women’s Liberation Front; moreover, having maintained my support of human dignity as well as my “ut-oh something is not correct in this situation” for me it all began with this trumped up notion of Comparative worth.
During the 1960s through the 1990s (hey…that is only one generation) women wanted everything, which altogether they originally kept a soaring accountability on. I really hope beyond all hope I will be able to address accountability again. But be it for now, in the early going women were trailblazers in form and control.
They knew what they wanted, got the think tanks involved, and put together one of the most worthy presentations that regardless of being male or female one walked away feeling molested and rightfully so.
About getting and maintaining an erstwhile form of income makes today look just too easy. Furthermore, trying to adjust in a discriminatory, male dominated work force was difficult to say the least. Yet there are those of us who believe in human rights what is good for one must be good for the other in its entirety.
Then we all hit the collegiate experience. What started out as some decent placements, comparative worth, successful legislation especially within the “sex” aspects of the law, we were brouha-ha-ing all over campus. It was very obvious that we could see our hard earned debating, protesting, and fight for human rights coming together nicely.
Then on an open forum night insofar as women in combat, heck, women in the military was one of the issues for debate when there was a sudden overflow of what is equal and what is not equal that most of my female colleagues did not care for whatsoever.
This was only after we had put out the responsible notion of Comparative worth.
Comparative worth is a concept that the searching a Rolodex, doing dictation from supervisors, or even finishing a letter – all matters that had been agreed upon at hiring saw some very sensitive men feeling betrayed. Imagine if you can – the time spent for getting a number or address or having a predesigned closure of written correspondence.
The Women’s Liberation Front felt as though they should be paid the exact amount that the principle – often times a founder, or at the very least a partner and above all the person who paid for all attorney’s fees for a very specified altruistic act of human rights.
I do NOT have a problem with these arrangements. Yet, who is kidding whom? Where is the equality in that fiasco? I do NOT believe that there will ever be an X-Ray technician who will receive the same as the doctor who has ordered it. Remember folks, this is capitalism in the United States of America.
You have probably heard the words “net neutrality” being tossed around a lot lately.
That is because on January 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Open Internet Order, which protected net neutrality by regulating the nation’s broadband infrastructure.
The court’s ruling appeared to be the coup de grâce for the FCC, which has been fighting to regulate the internet for over 10 years.
But as it turns out, the opposite may be true. By calling out the FCC for overstepping its bounds, the court may have actually opened the door for the FCC to completely control the internet.
Worst of all, no one is talking about it! The mainstream media is focused on the slight (but real) possibility that consumers may have to pay a little more to use services like Netflix (NFLX). And do not get me wrong – that is a distressing thought.
But there is far more at stake than the price of streaming video.
It appears that the Fed’s are conveniently rewriting the rules. . .ah. . . again.
The FCC’s fight to regulate the internet can be traced to 2002, when the Commission classified internet service providers (ISPs) as “information service providers” and not “telecommunications carriers.”
Since then, however, the FCC has continued forcing ISPs to follow the same rules that apply to telecoms (with varying degrees of success). And now, for the first time, the court has said definitively that the FCC cannot do that.
But that is not the whole story…
You see, in 2008, the FCC quietly reinterpreted Section 706 of the Communications Act. Sounds pretty harmless, right? But the updated version acts as a broad grant of authority for pretty much whatever the FCC wants to do.
And on January 14, when the court struck down the Open Internet Order, it also accepted the reinterpreted Section 706.
Basically, the court told the FCC: You cannot broadly regulate ISPs like telecoms, but do not sweat it! On a case-by-case basis, you can do virtually anything you want.
On top of that, Judge Silberman, who ruled in the Open Internet Order case, called any remaining limitations on the FCC “illusory.” In his dissent, he said that Section 706 “grant[s] the FCC virtually unlimited power to regulate the internet.”
Giving sweeping power to a federal agency is never a good idea, and the FCC is no exception. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has long supported net neutrality, says the ruling could be a “Trojan Horse for unrestrained FCC authority to regulate the internet.”
In fact, it is unclear why the FCC could not regulate any information services, so long as it has a plausible argument that it is boosting broadband demand. Could the FCC then rule over VoIP as well as broadband? What about smart cars? Or even entire smart cities?
It is a scary thought, and everyone – from net neutrality advocates to venture capitalists, broadband innovators and even ISPs like Verizon (VZ) and Comcast (CCV) – should be worried.
An open internet is essential to our very way of life, from education to freedom of speech to economic growth. Handing the government the keys to common law regulation allows the FCC to wage a piecemeal campaign that slowly but surely tightens the grip of federal regulation, and that is no good for anyone.
We would like to express our compliments and a well-earned hat-tip to Capitol Hill Daily’s Christopher Eutaw for seeing to it that this due-diligent article has – at least – been published by what we hope will become the neo-mainstream media. Please visit them by clicking here.
Late at night – on New Year’s Eve – the Supreme Court dealt a blow to ObamaCare. Or so the Obama Administration felt; not that the ruling was in anyway unlawful, the Supreme Court of the United States finally allowed for — and we mean this — religious liberty not to be screwed over in our Nation.
I can still remember last winter chatting with a “smarter than anything whip” in his junior year during his undergraduate degree coursework at some manner less Ivy League university. First off if someone doesn’t even understand that mandatory abortion pill Mandate does not affect a person’s religious liberties, well than, trust me it is no good trying to move ahead from that point.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor temporarily stopped enforcement of the ObamaCare abortion-pill Mandate, protecting a Christian employer against a grave violation of its religious freedom.
Despite this ruling, the Obama Administration is vowing to fight on. It’s not backing down from its commitment to force even Christian Americans to provide abortion pills. Understanding of course that not all people are even aware of what religious freedom means. I our sphere of influence we admittedly have far more acquaintances, friends, relatives, and work associates that received some sort of religious acculturation from birth to at least their mid-twenties, or until the decision to go to local services was completely their choice.
We understand that not everyone is spiritually bound, or for that matter experience a Christian spirituality. What we are alluding to is in the notion that people can lose their connection to a religious life. However not everyone has a) a religious life, or b) is losing their connection to their’s. It is important to note that it is not the people that matter here in a very small regard, but the Nation’s laws, the Founding, and standard operating procedures that may not be sold out for ObamaCare or any other whimsical idea.
But we’re not backing down either.
We’ve won seven injunctions against the abortion-pill Mandate, and soon we’ll be filing a crucial amicus brief at the Supreme Court.
Now is exactly the right time to join us. Join our brief. Join our committee to protect life and liberty from ObamaCare.
Sign the ACLJ Amicus Brief Against the Abortion-Pill Mandate.
Please allow me to go “walkabout” and share with you some significant findings on education and something almost as typical as ObamaCare in relation to how at least in the Nation’s second largest school district when one takes the initiative to start a new program IT IS ALWAYS BEST TO GET SCIENTIFIC DATA BEFOREHAND. Of course I am taking on the notion of the iPad Program and the basic disarray of America’s educational environment.
Yet what I have to share with you is a shockingly pathetic portrayal of first, the American (or at least) Los Angeles, CA ethics and family statuses; second, I don’t know when the current administration is going to get it however, with BIG PLANS, big money, and the unknown please try and make it better than your failed legacy. Ready?
It would seem Robert J. Moreau, a computer animation teacher who struggled for grants to set up a lab, would be among the first to applaud the $1-billion iPad program in the Los Angeles Unified School District. But he’s not.
“It’s outrageous, appalling, that we are buying these toys when we don’t have adequate personnel to clean, to supervise,” said the Roosevelt High School instructor. “Classrooms are overcrowded, and my room has not been swept or mopped in years except by me and the students…. It would be great if the basics were met. I can’t get past that.”
In an effort to determine how the iPad rollout is going and how to improve it, a Board of Education member and employee unions conducted surveys of teachers and administrators. Their anonymous responses: Just 36% of teachers strongly favored continuing the effort; 90% of administrators felt the same.
Schools Supt. John Deasy has pushed hard for the tablets, calling it a civil rights imperative to give all students access to technology used by the more affluent. What? Of all the ideas he throws this one out there?
But problems plagued the project from the start. When the first group of campuses received the tablets this fall, more than 300 students at three high schools almost immediately removed security filters so they could freely browse the Internet. All of the students at these schools had to surrender the tablets.
Please read more of initial story here.
I can’t explain it in its entirety, however, I will make an attempt at opening up this site and encouraging anyone and everyone to comment or participate.
It’s this way: Whenever you point your finger at another person, you always have three pointing back at you.
Ladies and gentlemen I want to candy coat this reality as much as possible; however, there comes a moment when it’s time to take the gloves off and duke it out. Essentially what I’m referring to is you may not like what I’m saying; nonetheless, the data is reliable and quite valid to suggest otherwise.
Indictment of the American Family
The following data comes from the Josephson’s Institute, Center for Youth Ethics that should start an avalanche of controversy with the media; however, this data does not support America’s agenda of the way things really are.
Josephson Institute’s 2011 Report Card on the Ethics of American Youth is based on a survey of nearly 30,000 students in high schools across the U.S. The results paint a troubling picture of our future politicians and parents, cops and corporate executives, and journalists and generals.
LYING: More than 42 percent said that they sometimes lie to save money. Again there are significance differences with gender (49% male, 39% female); however, included in the Report was this fact:
CHEATING: Cheating in school continues to be rampant and it’s getting worse. A substantial majority (64 percent) cheated on a test during the past year (38 percent did so two or more times), up from 60 percent and 35 percent, respectively, in 2011. There were no gender differences on the issue of cheating on exams.
Predicated upon this data we stand firmly among the claims of a huge, dysfunctional disconnect between what parents perceive, and the reality of the situation. Subsequently, we would like to ask: With this type of unethical behavior why parents and others who are outside the classroom so willingly to place blame on teachers?
These results beg some easy questions: Where is the American family headed? Where is the transmission of values, ethics, morals, and appropriate ethos?
Even more troubling is something that is completely missing from this Report: Parents and adults.
Is this what we want for America’s young people?
Blocked the ‘inevitable’ 2013 Amnesty…
WE DID IT!
Do you remember a year ago when nearly every pundit or politician with a prediction was saying passage of “comprehensive immigration reform” was virtually inevitable in 2013?
From January 31, 2013:
“This will be the year that Congress finally gets some common-sense immigration reform across the finish line”…– Sen. Chuck Schumer, CBS News
5.6 million is the number! That is how many faxes all of you members of NumbersUSA wrote and we at NumbersUSA sent to elected officials to thwart all the efforts for amnesty and immigration increases this year. (Below, you will see some of the many other markers that explain why we — you! — won against incredibly larger opponents.)
And now, Congress is on its way out of town until next year without sending any immigration bill to the White House!
But the danger remains real. The need for citizen mobilization remains urgent and absolutely necessary. Without a repeat of what we did together in 2013, there is a significant chance that our nation will be saddled with some kind of amnesty and major increases in legal immigration in 2014, even if not at the draconian level of the Senate-passed S. 744 bill.
Perhaps half the ways we mobilized our members can’t be specified in this letter because I don’t want to lay out these tactics so easily for our opponents to see. But I CAN show you some data that give you a pretty good indication of the power behind our success in stalling, weakening and eventually blocking the amnesty efforts that we were told somewhere in the media nearly every day were sure to happen.
From January 30, 2013:
“Comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for immigrants who came here illegally will likely pass Congress this year with broad bipartisan majorities.” — Mark Salter, Real Clear Politics
This year in June alone, we handled 347,914 phone calls. Are we together as we think that close to half a million calls in less than 30 days is not going to accomplish anything? For those of us with minds that need to break overwhelming numbers down in order to make sense of them here we go. June 2013 had five weekends with two days off apiece. Unbeknownst to many that leaves us with 10 days shy of thirty. So let’s round up make it 350,000 calls divided by 20 actual working days and that comes to 17,500 calls per day.
With me still? Good, no great! Now we take 17,500 and put that through a standard eight hour day and that comes to 2,187.5 calls per hour.
From March 20, 2013:
“The good news is that we really do think that . . . on the immigration issue, that we will, before summer have comprehensive immigration reform.” …Nancy Pelosi
Our traditional activist army grew from 1.38 million to 1.59 million. Our website routinely rates in the top 10 of all advocacy websites on any issue in terms of number of people educated through visits and time spent.
We began 2013 with 35,000 Facebook followers. By November, our NumbersUSA and Stop Amnesty pages had more than 1.7 million followers. So, we have just this year built a second army of citizens who happen to get their information mostly through Facebook rather than regular websites and email. We have 5 times more followers than Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s FWD.US pro-amnesty page.
It’s really no mystery. They have tons of money, but we have real citizen followers. Our side basically avoided theater and concentrated on connecting individual Americans with their public officials in civil engagement. While their side was putting on a show for the cameras and talking to themselves, we got voters talking to Congress.