First, America should generously welcome as equal citizens people from many nations and religions. The notion of almost always combining the two elements, nations, and religions, for many reasons has lost its viability in the United States. We believe that everyone who reads this article should underline or highlight those two specific elements of nation and religion.
Second, the numbers and kinds of immigrants may need to be limited with a view to the qualities of character required for democratic citizenship. This again is an area of immigration in this country that needs serious “Reform.”
President Washington wrote and subsequently when an occasion called for open remarks he espoused, “The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions.”
In his often recalled letter to The Hebrew Congregation in Newport, (RI) it is evident in all aspects his sincerity of religious freedom.
Washington writes: The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.
It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people who another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
In Washington’s account, America is different from, and superior to, countries based on a common ethnic or racial background, or a common religion. His steadfastness and resolve based on the government protects the “inherent natural rights” of all humankind should not be understated. As a result, for the first time since ancient Israel, Jews could become full citizens of a political community.
Washington’s generous conception of citizenship was widely held in America. In spite of a strong aversion to Catholicism among a fervently Protestant American people, The Continental Congress of 1774 invited the French-speaking Catholics of Quebec to, “unite with us in one social compact, formed on the generous principles of equal liberty.”
It is noted here that in a follow-up to that invitation, the Congress also wrote, “The common ground of ‘natural and civil rights,’ taught in the writings of ‘your immortal countryman, Montesquieu’ would be the basis of our union.”
Further noted in this writing is that although the (public) mainstream-media of the time were inclined to dismiss this episode as a cynical move for the strong anti-Catholic sentiments voiced against in the earlier Quebec Act. However for almost all Americans this policy proved to be the authentic expression of the American mind during the founding era. The principles became the basis for the extending religious liberty to all Americans in the early state constitutions and laws. (This sentence is read as though, “in early State constitutions and laws.”)
So let us have a look at how the nation was envisioned and subsequently developed into and what the current Congress and chief executive are doing as well as what they plan to do.
During the founding era America was socially, economically, politically, and behavioral in a much different place. One, America should welcome as equal citizens people from many nations and religions. From earlier writings the majority of the then settled, pre- Revolutionary War period most people came from originally from the United Kingdom, Scotland, Ireland, and western European people means the Benelux countries (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg) as well as Germany and Prussia.
America before thence was settled by the French, Spanish, as well as several other nations. Therefore, most Americans of that time period were anxious to have many people from many nations come to America to join the party.
Furthermore, a theme that is consistent throughout this and other writings is the notion of view to the qualities of character required for democratic citizenship.
So the main themes of immigration during Washington’s administration and the American public these issues carried the prominent weight; first immigration was welcomed for expansion of the nation and allow people to see what benefits there was to sharing various liberties especially religious liberty. Noted however, is the notion of citizenship which will be covered in detail in later writings. And two, the situation did not call for overwhelming refugee status or the needs of asylum; moreover, an unearthing of diversity. Therefore, the qualities of character was a very important reason. More later. .
It is once again time – based on what legislators are saying and trying to pass a bill for such as Senate bill 744 – and even more so for all of our readers who have been relentlessly searching the Archives section of this site for more information; subsequently, perhaps in two, three, or more articles time needs to be addressed and examined pursuant to How the Founders felt about Immigration – From their own words.
America has a long and generous tradition of welcoming as equal citizens a larger number of immigrants, from a greater variety of national and religious origins, than any other nation in history. Although in decades before the Founding Era by far the most immigrants were of North and Western European backgrounds.
That was until roughly 1870 when limits were placed upon those European’s and from 1880 until 1915 legislation was passed to begin accepting more people from Southern and Eastern Europe.
After 1920 legislation severely limited North and West European’s chances as well. The 1965 Immigration Act tremendously increased the numbers and changed the sources of immigrants. This particular law in effect made it much harder for Europeans, regardless of direction and made it far easier for non-Europeans to come to America.
Between 1900 and 1994, over 1.2 million people per year were granted the wellness and liberty of America. Eighty percent (80%) of that figure were non-European who immigrated to the U.S.A. This figure of course is
derived from material from between 1900 and 1994. Furthermore, this figure does not include the amount of people who entered the U.S. by unlawful means. In 1997 there was a fairly accurate number of approximately 7.5 million immigrants living in the U.S. in violation of the law.
Most Americans think these levels are too high; bearing in mind that the data used is from 1989-90 survey used to finally get a grip on stopping something from getting out of control. Seventy-four percent (74%) of non-Hispanic white citizens, whilst seventy-five (75%) of Mexican American citizens agreed with the statement, “There are too many immigrants” living in the United States.
However, before letting this writing get out of sorts, exactly in the fashion of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service has done – let us digress to the Founding Era primarily.
The American Founders would reject both of today’s dominant views of immigration reform. They would agree with those who say the America is based on the principle that all humankind are born free and equal. However, they would reject the conclusion that this requires minimal or no restraints on immigration.
The Founders supported the view that a nation may, and sometimes must, set limits on immigration, even to the point of considering national origin. Yet they based this view on the equality principle, not on its rejection.
Upon examination everything that the original Founding fathers did, believed in, and inevitably used far reaching controls over and at times against, are precisely what our nation’s Congress and Presidency is trying to do. Yes! Even after 235 years of experience, including what would work and what clearly does not work is now being considered for change.
We certainly are not trying to allege that this is all happening now. Oh contraire! Modifications have been supplanted as “reforms” throughout the country’s history; albeit, the importance of many issues were addressed and analyzed by the founding generation.
If there is any consolation, it was almost like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Franklin, and Adams were one person speaking with one voice. All of these people and many more had clearly defined positions on immigration. We believe we should start with General George Washington and what his principles – although not many in number – clearly set forth.
President Obama’s three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board last year were ruled unconstitutional by an appeals court, but the appointees are still in place as the dispute moves to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Obama’s recess appointments are unprecedented power grabs, which if left to stand will turn the constitutional separation of powers on its head,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, which has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
“Unfortunately, these recess appointments are one of many examples of this president acting outside of his constitutional authority. We hope the Supreme Court reminds President Obama that he is not above the law,” said Fitton, whose organization describes itself as a watchdog on the federal government.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the January 2012 appointments were unconstitutional, because the U.S. Senate was not in recess at the time.
Judicial Watch joined with the Allied Educational Foundation in the brief, which charges the president’s “alleged recess appointments to the NLRB are unconstitutional for the primary reason that the Senate was in session at the time of the purported appointments.”
“The president’s declaration that these sessions were invalid disregards the Senate’s authority to determine and administer its own procedures, including when it will recess and how it will conduct its business,” the Judicial Watch/AEF brief argues.
“The Senate alone can determine when it will hold session in conformity with its obligations and delegated powers by the Constitution.”
Wee reported earlier on the case when the appeals court ruled the appointments violated the law. At the time, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said the correct next step in the dispute would be for the appointees to step down.
Issa, the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chided that the president, “who taught constitutional law, should’ve known better.”
“As the Oversight Committee examined in a hearing a year ago, President Obama’s appointments looked like an obvious election-year pander to big labor bosses,” Issa said.
He said the ruling made the decisions from the board itself suspect. “To avoid further damage to the economy, the NLRB must take the responsible course and cease issuing any further opinions until a constitutionally sound quorum can be established,” he said. “The unconstitutionally appointed members of the NLRB should do the right thing and step down.”
Issa said his committee has examined the unconstitutionally of the president’s appointments and the repercussions that his decision to bypass the Senate confirmation process for NLRB appointees would have on the troubled agency.
The chairman said it’s largely uncharted territory. In a statement at the time the review was conducted, Issa said that if the Senate can pass a bill and send it to the president for his signature, it is clearly not in recess.“But a ‘recess’ is exactly what President Obama has argued in justifying four recent appointments,” Issa said.
The members named to the NLRB were Richard Griffin Jr., Sharon Block and Terence F. Flynn.
“This is not a recipe for good government and effective rule making – it’s a recipe for constitutional crisis,” Issa said. In the unanimous court opinion, the appellate judges said the Obama administration’s arguments were not persuasive.
“To adopt the … proffered intercession interpretation of ‘the recess’ would wholly defeat the purpose of the Framers in the careful separation of powers structure reflected in the Appointments Clause,” the court said.
The Supreme Court previously has said the “manipulation of official appointments had long been one of the American revolutionary generation’s greatest grievances against executive power, because the power of appointment to offices was deemed the most insidious and powerful weapon of eighteenth century despotism.’”
Because of the potential for abuse, the “advice and consent” part of the Constitution requires Congress to approve presidential appointments, they explain.
Judicial Watch said there should be no confusion regarding the intent of the Founders. Furthermore, the brief argues, the Senate sets its own rules.
Obama’s flouting of the constitutional requirements has been cited as one of many reasons to impeach him.
Just in case you missed it – another Kenyan Obama was granted full residency status yesterday. Yep! An immigration judge in Boston on Tuesday halted the deportation of President Obama‘s Kenyan-born uncle and granted him status as a legal permanent resident.
Onyango Obama, half brother of the president’s late father, came to the United States in 1963 from Kenya on a student visa that expired in 1970. He has been living in the country unlawfully ever since. (Please remember this…)
Judge Leonard Shapiro ruled from the bench that Onyango Obama qualified for a provision in federal immigration law that allows immigrants who have lived in the United States since before 1972 and have “good moral character” to apply for legal permanent residency, also known as a “green card.”
The judge said Obama was a good neighbor and a gentleman and had paid his taxes. At the end of the hearing, the judge said, “Welcome to America.”
Obama had ignored a deportation order issued in 1992. His immigration status was not publicly known until he was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving in 2011 in Framingham, Mass., west of Boston. He allegedly told police at the time, “I think I will call the White House.”
Shapiro previously granted an asylum request for Onyango Obama’s sister and the president’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango, in 2010. She had been ordered deported in 2004 after her first asylum request was rejected.
Actually we became privy to this pitiful story about three days ago. As for me I could not write with good-conscience until I gathered more information.
Accountability – being a responsible, consider somebody or something to have a particular quality, to do something in a way that does justice to one’s abilities or character. We feel the need to further espouse that other characteristics of accountability are having insight based on explanation and description.
Approximately 3 years ago, as Uncle Omar was fighting deportation following a DUI charge, the White House asserted to The Boston Globe without any apparent qualification that Onyango Obama “has never met his famous nephew.”
That statement was untrue.
Uncle Omar testified at an immigration hearing earlier this week that the younger Obama had briefly lived with him for several weeks in the 1970s.
That testimony called attention to the White House’s contradictory statement and led the administration to recant the untruth in a new statement to The Boston Globe on Thursday:
“The president first met Omar Obama when he moved to Cambridge for law school,” said White House spokesman Eric Schultz. “The president did stay with him for a brief period of time until his apartment was ready. After that, they saw each other once every few months, but after law school they fell out of touch. The president has not seen him in 20 years, has not spoken with him in 10.”
The White House claims that the error was the result of failing to personally ask the president whether he had ever met, let alone lived with, his uncle. This time, the White House says, the press office asked the president.
The relationship is important because reporters have been investigating whether anyone at the White House has paid attention to or interceded in Uncle Omar’s immigration battles.
The White House maintains that Uncle Omar’s case was free of “any interference from the president or the White House,” according to the Globe. Well hellyeah! After all this did come from a fact fabricating pathological lair.
If there is anything whatsoever inherent about good, solid leadership is in the notion of how well a person acts whilst under pressure; subsequently, the good leader candidates display such notable characteristics as a hidden sense of answerability to what happens during the time of their watch.
Other unusual behavioral characteristics such as responsibility and under normal circumstances the real great leaders are sure to have a sense of liability. In other words, whatever may break, good, bad, or ugly the best leaders ostensibly find the center and it may not always be comfortable in the center but being ahead with information is always the key to solving huge problems.
Especially good leaders are never arrogant, because being arrogant defeats the very purpose of why the leader is deemed to be needed and effective. Moreover, as we know arrogance is just one of those defense mechanisms parading around showing the world that one has a behavior that shows that they are better than the rest.
So many times people in leadership positions display elements of conceit, egotism, and superiority; all the while they act with pride for their accolades. Case and point: the POTUS, Barack Obama, broke a number of laws, including bribery, misappropriation of taxpayer funds, as well as on a more personal level outright lied to the American people and fabricated data that one would hope we would have better guidance about it.
Just as when Solyandra went down within a month after Mr. Obama rendered over one half a billion dollars on what? He did not see it then anymore than through his arrogance does he see it now he believed himself to be more superior to the rest of us to make the energy investment even palatable. Now then here is my question: One can tell if a person has learned by their future behavior.
What we have experienced since is the cruel and unusual way he rallied Congress’ democrats (mainly through off book favors or simple bribery) in getting the adequate legislation to pass the Patient Affordable Care Act (ACA) and then he signed it into law.
We were angry then primarily because of the Executive Orders and Amnesty for about one million illegal aliens very much providing a bonafide reason to wonder about his mental well-being as well as did he have America’s best interests in mind? Now this Amnesty issue is looking to make “paths to citizenship” just for breaking the law – hey! That is our rule of law.
Democrats back over the border but that is another lie like ObamaCare, “Fast, and Furious, Benghazi” and all the green frauds like Solyandra.
Just so we are all on the same page – the title of this article is “Accountability” and we as well as mental giants are wondering where is the accountability for the President’s Blue Ribbon –Legacy named after himself…ObamaCare?
Still a website that doesn’t work proficiently that looks to take another billion dollars to get running correctly as well as the more than 70 percent of the American people who despise his intentional lying along with his cohorts Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Katherine Sibelius. Anyone, please name another profession that allows for this type of misconduct…
Let’s Stop the Federal Government from Ruining our lives. No your eyes are not deceiving you inasmuch as the title says “Running” and the tagline replaces a letter to make it “Ruining” our lives. In yesterday’s article we brought forth some opinions, positions, feelings, and musings from leader’s that would be laughing at today’s version of what we call “People of integrity, measured approval/disapproval ratings, and good leadership.” That is of course if they were alive today.
Then-Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson devised what has proven to be a brilliant strategy in which to silence and neuter America’s churches. His bill, which created the 501c3 tax-exempt corporation status for churches back in 1954, has over the decades, effectively muted America’s pulpits.
The vast majority of churches today are thoroughly intimidated by the threat of losing their tax-exempt status under the 501c3 section of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). As a result, the vast majority of pastors are unwilling to address virtually any issue from the pulpit that could be deemed as political.
Add to the fear of losing tax-exempt status the egregiously slavish interpretation of Romans 13–that Christians and churches must submit to civil government no matter what–and a very legitimate argument can be made that Mr. Johnson not only silenced and neutered America’s churches, but that in effect turned them into agents of the state. More and more, the federal government is using pastors and churches to promote its big-government agenda.
Most readers are familiar with how the Federal Emergency and Management Agency (FEMA) created a program called “Clergy Response Teams” several years ago. Under this program tens
of thousands of pastors were instructed on how to assist the federal government in the event of a “national emergency.” Pastors were encouraged to teach Bible lessons from Romans 13 in which church members were told that God instructs them to always submit to civil authority unconditionally.
They were taught to encourage their congregants to turn in their firearms and to be willing to relocate to government-provided shelters if that is what the government told them to do. The last report I read noted that these Clergy Response Teams have been established in over 1,300 counties in the United States. We have been waiting so patiently in our reporting of real obliteration of materials that FEMA and other government agencies have spawned regarding the Federal Emergency and Management Agency (FEMA).
This is a grand old story now, but I need to ask you people about how you feel about such waste; moreover the reckless disregard for matters such as “church and state” doctrine. Just ask yourself “what if the circumstances were reversed?”
According to TheBlaze.com, “Community organizers are joining pastors across the country to educate and help parishioners sign up for Obamacare. The coordinated initiative, called ‘Health Care from the Pulpit,’ is being implemented by Enroll America, a non-profit with the goal of maximizing ‘the number of uninsured Americans who enroll in health coverage made available by the Affordable Care Act.’
“The program has already reached a number of churches across the nation. In Jacksonville, Florida Pastor John Newman is among those who invited community organizers from the group to his church to talk about the cost of Obamacare and the enrollment process.
“During the event, Enroll America invited congregants to fill out cards with basic information about themselves or people they knew who might be in need of health care, WJXT-TV [Jacksonville, Florida] reports.
“‘Our pastor, he keeps us real informed and grounded in what’s going on in the community, and he’s always bringing stuff to help us, so I love him for that,’ said one parishioner named Michelle Fletcher.
“Enroll America knows that pastors are trusted members of the community, which is why churches are a focus for education and information on the health care law.
“Through ‘Health Care from the Pulpit,’ the organization is working with faith leaders to ensure that people hear about availability–and with a captive audience in the pews, the move makes logistical sense.
“‘Pastors are trusted messengers. They’ll be able to get the story across, they’ll be able to relate to that story and they’ll be able to ask people to enroll in health insurance,’ Enroll America organizer Anthony Penna told WJXT.
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.
Instead we have heard a lot about a health-care overhaul that already needs an overhaul. Additionally, the United States internationally has been entangled in one huge scandal after another.
Furthermore, in a rare but very realistic maneuver House Speaker John Boehner killed the possibility of taking up the Senate bill; President Obama conceded and said a piecemeal approach likely to be used by the House in 2014 could work for him.
All things being equal there is not a hill of beans that looking upon a Senate S.744 consisting of well over 2,000 pages has alerted those in the House that maybe immigration reform is not about amnesty – mind you for some that is all that matters. Yet looking toward real immigration reform, as we have suggested should be dealt with preferably one issue at a time.
An Example of the Mainstream-media:
“Considering the House’s record of accomplishment, sometimes it is tough to imagine anything being accomplished on immigration beyond tougher border enforcement, and that would leave unchanged the status of more than 11 million living in the shadows.”
Another Example of fair and balanced media:
Insofar as the House is concerned it has been within their charter to engage in tougher border enforcement – this does include the complete infrastructure of our borders and by popular demand the American people have spoken regarding law enforcement and the condition of this nation’s borders.
No Mainstream or Fair and Balanced media:
As far as 11 million illegal’s living in the shadows – is tantamount to a cliché, one used far to much. Daily we see immigrants without any legal authority whatsoever getting far brasher and demanding in an entire load of rallies and protests.
This week a group of about 50 advocates for immigration will fast in Chicago for at least 24 hours to show solidarity with a group that has been fasting in Washington, D.C. for more than two weeks, said Lawrence Benito, chief executive officer of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (Our fear has been realized: Immigration AND Refugee Rights).
The movement for reform includes religious leaders, business leaders, Democrats and Republicans. We have experienced factious orthodox religion trying hard with their conglomerates of special interest advisors, advocacy groups, and make-shift Scriptural readings. However, as long as it took us during our information gathering and research, it did not take long to see what this colition of evangelicals is trying to do.
Obama should require government agencies to halt deportations of those who fit requirements for legal residency under the Senate bill, Giovagnoli said. “That’s a reasonable approach,” she added. “You’re actually respecting Congress.” Absolutely demented.
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.
The Senate bill does not say what President Obama thinks it says. Now I really truly and honestly hope that he has been given some misinformation prior to his speaking, or else it would be natural and very normal for one to infer someone is not being honest.
As for us, the entire matter of the Gang of Eight’s cum Senate bill is just a tad worse off than the original “Obamacare” travesty. During a very recent press conference Obama stated:
[W]e do have to deal with about 11 million folks who are in this country, most of them just seeking opportunity; they did break the law by coming here or overstaying their visa, and they’ve got to earn their way out of the shadows — pay a fine, learn English, get to the back of the line, pay their back taxes — but giving them a mechanism whereby they can get right by our society. And that is reflected in the Senate bill.
Somewhere in the White House, someone must have realized that Obama’s statement is not true.
The Senate bill does not make learning English a prerequisite for legalization. The Senate bill grants the Secretary of Homeland Security the discretion to wave fines for broad groups of illegal aliens. The Senate bill does not require back taxes of illegal aliens who never filed tax returns.
Jon Feere covered these myths in an op-ed for the Christian Science Monitor on May 13 earlier this year. The Washington Times wrote a story on the “back taxes” claim on May 21 in which it was noted that the “immigration bill’s authors acknowledged Tuesday that their legislation does not require illegal immigrants to pay all back taxes, saying it would be too difficult to make them ante up everything they might owe.”
President Obama’s language is not reflected in the Senate bill, but he has probably read similar language in immigration polling. Most polls that find support for a “path to citizenship” use language just as Obama did. One of the problems with those polls is that, like Obama’s statement, they do not describe the actual legislation that Congress is considering.
This is not the first indication that President Obama has not been fully briefed on the Senate bill. On October 24th, Obama remarked, “If there’s a good reason not to pass this common-sense reform, I haven’t
Well with the greatest of respect for the Office of the President just like Obamacare, Benghazi, Iran negotiations, and scandals within the highest echelons of government – don’t you think it’s time we had a POTUS that at least seemed more aware of the issues rather than simply going out and saying whatever?
Four months earlier, the Congressional Budget Office released a report on the economic impact of the Senate bill that predicted a decade of depressed wages and increased unemployment.