House Panel Votes Against E-Verify Amendments in Stimulus Bill
E-Verify is an employment eligibility verification system which helps companies certify that their employees are able to work in the United States legally. There was a lot of concern that, when passed, the Stimulus Bill which should create jobs and opportunities for Americans, would do the exact opposite. Not only will the Stimulus Bill increase our deficit but it’s focus is on paying off donors, creating jobs for specific Democrat constituents, and giving employment opportunities to illegal aliens. The Republicans saw all of this coming and the one thing they could curtail was the illegal alien loop-hole by amending the bill so that it would contain a stipulation requiring that the jobs created by the stimulus must go through the E-Verify certification system. Representatives Kingston and Calvert were on the forefront of this matter:
One of Rep. Kingston’s amendments would have required all federal contractors to verify all employees and new hires through the E-Verify system. The amendment would have countered a new executive order that the Administration is expected to announce today that weakens the 2008 executive order requiring all government contractors to use E-Verify. The amendment failed by a 23-to-35 vote.
Rep. Kingston’s second amendment would have required all employees, contractors, and subcontractors of the Legislative Branch to use E-Verify. That amendment failed by a voice vote.
Rep. Calvart’s amendment would have permanently reauthorized E-Verify, but it received resistance from, most notably, Rep. David Price who argued that E-Verify will be addressed during a larger immigration reform debate. The amendment failed 21-to-36.
American jobs are already being lost to illegal immigrants and health care costs are rising due to taxpaying Americans footing the bill for those who don’t contribute. America’s unemployment rate is creeping close to 10%. American citizens are out of work, but without E-verify some of these jobs will be given to people who aren’t even on the books in the United States. How does that help our economy and how does that lower our unemployment rate? I’m sure at this point many Americans would gladly take a job if they are out of work, no matter what that job is.
The jobs created by the stimulus will effectively be canceled out by the jobs given away to illegal aliens or a possible amnesty bill, if it passes this Fall.
Larry Summers, Obama’s economic advisor, exclaims that the only reason the government is taking control of private industry is due out of necessity. This is the same crisis creating, fear-mongering that liberals railed against when Bush used it during the War on Terror - why are they so complacent now?
Lawrence Summers defended Obama’s economic actions, saying they have been “particularly consistent and firm since the crisis began while he was campaigning for president.”
Even as Capitol Hill Republicans are railing against the administration’s interventions into the auto industry, Wall Street and healthcare, Summers said “the actions we take are those of necessity, not choice.”
Mark Sanford was right when he called out Obama, stating he was creating a “Savior-based economy.” Anything “savior-based” will fail, especially when their messiah has never taken an economics course.
Obama Budget Dumps Funds for Jailing Illegal Immigrants and Teaching Abstinence
President Obama voted in the Senate to provide additional funding for a program targeted for elimination by his budget that provides states a federal subsidy to offset the costs of jailing illegal immigrants.
Killing the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAPP) would save $400 million, according to Obama’s budget for fiscal 2010 released Thursday. It’s one of the largest non-defense discretionary cuts proposed in the president’s budget.
Think along with me here folks… Each illegal immigrants, studies show, cost Americans roughly $1 million dollars. Democrats are trying to push through a new Amnesty bill for nearly 12 million illegal immigrants. $1M x $12M = More than $400M! The logic of Democrats make absolutely no sense at all. They never plan ahead or measure the possible long-term repercussions of their actions. Obama sees money that can be cut now – so he doesn’t, or can’t, look beyond that. This action will actually cost us more money in the end.
Obama cuts abstinence-only programsout of the budget as well. Many argue that abstinence is not realistic in today’s society, but that has become more the norm due to Hollyweird and others advocating sex on a regular basis. Sex sells and sex is becoming the norm. My personal belief is to teach both and emphasize that the only sure fire way to avoid getting pregnant and contracting an STD is abstinence. What doesn’t make sense to me is the budget cut for this.
The White House wants to get out of the business of telling youngsters “Just Say No to Sex.”
President Obama is putting his own ideological stamp on federal spending in his proposed 2010 budget by cutting cash for abstinence-only sex ed programs.
He’s taken a scalpel to a pair of $100 million George W. Bush-era programs that exclusively preached abstinence. Obama is replacing them with $110 million for comprehensive teen pregnancy prevention.
“It’s about time that evidence-based management – and sanity – return to family planning programs,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan).
Think along with me again. The more young unwed mothers you create, the more welfare recipients you create. The more welfare recipients you create, the more loyal Democrat voters you create.
Thus, Democrat sex-education must always focus on getting teenagers to have more sex, not less.
Another important point to note – see what I bolded above? How is this a tax cut? If he is replacing the PAIR of programs that each equaled $100 million with only one program worth $110 million then it is, but the writing is very vague and misleading here… the question is if he is going to replace both programs with two other programs worth more money than the previous ones…
A picture of what his budget cuts really look like in the scheme of things:
Dumping the say-no-to-sex programs were a tiny fraction of the $17 billion Team Obama trimmed from its $3.4 trillion funding budget request.Overall, New Yorkers say Obama’s budget helps the city – but raised several red flags.
One is Obama’s plan to cut $600 million from the federal terrorism insurance program.
Maybe that’s what New Yorkers should be focusing on – not sex! Wake up!
Are You an Extremist? Peruse the New DHS Dictionary to Find Out!
The same Homeland Security Department office that categorized veterans as potential terrorists issued an earlier report that defined dozens of “extremists” ranging from black power activists to abortion foes. The report was nixed within hours and recalled from state and local law enforcement officials.
Whites and blacks, Christians and Jews, Cubans and Mexicans, along with tax-hating Americans were among several political leanings listed in the “Domestic Extremism Lexicon” that came out of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) in late March.
The lexicon lists definitions for key terms and phrases used by Homeland Security analysts “that addresses the nature and scope of the threat that domestic, non-Islamic extremism poses to the United States,” the report said.
For the Lexicon Report click here (PDF file).
“Although we have evidence that some of the groups described in this and other DHS intelligence products are an active terror threat to our nation, I would be interested in knowing why this lexicon mentioning left-wing extremist groups was deemed inappropriate by DHS and recalled, yet a similar report focusing on veterans, antiabortion activists and anti-illegal immigration activists was fit for distribution and sent out by DHS to law enforcement agencies across the country,” Mr. King said.
Oh goody – so we come to find out that people who oppose abortion and illegal immigration (on the right) and those who oppose war or are dedicated to environmental/animal causes (on the left) are lumped into the extremist category just like the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis etc.
The right-wing definition remains the same as the report that was just released from DHS last month, where Veterans of war were gravely offended.
The latest report to become public, the lexicon on domestic extremism, stated that people involved with anti-immigration extremism “may have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism to advance their extremist goals.”
“They are highly critical of the U.S. government’s response to illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are designed to extend ‘rights’ to illegal aliens, such as issuing driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education.”
“Cuban independence extremism” is defined as those who “do not recognize the legitimacy of the Communist Cuban Government and who attempt to subvert it through acts of violence, mainly within the U.S.”
And, the “tax-resistance movement” is described as “groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights.”
So if I am opposed to something my government is doing which I know deep down will be detrimental to our economy and society, then I am an extremist? Did I get that right? Well consider me part of the Right Wing Extremist Faction!
Cubans who do not agree with communism are also extremists? I guess Gloria Estefan would be one too!
Let’s also not forget about taxes – do people who oppose taxes by finding loop holes in the tax code also fall under this definition? They try extremely hard to fight taxes when April creeps up!
When does somebody see through the fog and realize that maybe it’s not the individual citizens of the United States who are extremists, but perhaps it’s the government itself that threatens this country’s future and its foundation.
Instead of making up these ridiculous reports, maybe DHS should spend its time on the impending attacks now that our national security has been compromised and we are much more vulnerable to “Man-Caused Disasters,” as Janet Napolitano would say.
