He did so for two apparent reasons.
a) To shift the media and news from his series of scandals so he can claim Republicans are stiffing him and oppose immigration reform
and
b) So he can create future dependent Democrat voters while completing the destruction of our borders.
Obama plans to do so by executive orders thumbing his arrogant nose at those who disagree with his dictatorial acts.
Happy Fourth for those who continue drinking Obama's "Kool Aid" and an Unhappy Fourth for those who remember we were once a nation of laws and elected presidents who supported those laws.
This from an old friend and fellow memo reader's friend: " PAUL RYAN AND GEORGE WILL IDENTIFY AND EXPLAIN THE ROOT CAUSE OF OUR COUNTRIES MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM. THIS SOCIAL CANCER WAS ACTUALLY FIRST IDENTIFIED BY A LEADER OF THE DEMOCRAT POLITICAL PARTY DANIEL MOYNIHAN BACK IN 1965 WHEN HIS PARTY WAS STARTING TO BE TAKEN OVER BY SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST ADVOCATES WHO HAD FALLEN IN LOVE WITH THE PRECEPTS OF SOCIAL ENGINEERING. SINCE THAT TIME TO THE PRESENT DAY, ANY CRITICISM WAS/IS DEMONIZED BY A WELL ORGANIZED FIFTH COLUMN, INTENT ON UNDERMINING THE GREATEST REPUBLIC IN RECORDED HISTORY. AS A RESULT THIS CANCER HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO FLOURISH AND GROW TO THE POINT OF EVENTUAL EXTINCTION OF OUR REPUBLIC, AS WE KNOW, IT ALLOWED TO CONTINUE WITHOUT REDRESS." (See 1 and [edited version of an immigration article] 1a below.)
And then see 1b below. and ask yourself do you agree and if not what do you intend to do?'
Click on:http://www.youtube.com/watch_
===
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Liberals have had decades to learn the lessons of dependency
BY GEORGE WILL
Critics of Rep. Paul Ryan’s remarks about cultural factors in the persistence of poverty are simultaneously shrill and boring. Their predictable minuet of synthetic indignation demonstrates how little liberals have learned about poverty or changed their rhetorical repertoire in the last 49 years.
Ryan spoke of a “tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work,” adding: “There’s a real culture problem here.” This brought down upon Ryan the usual acid rain of accusations — racism, tribe —blaming the victims, etc. He had sauntered into the minefield that a more experienced Daniel Patrick Moynihan — a liberal scholar who knew the taboos of his had tiptoed into five years before Ryan was born.
A year from now, there surely will be conferences marking the 50th anniversary of what is now known as the Moynihan Report, a.k.a. “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.” In March 1965, Moynihan, then 37 and assistant secretary of labor, wrote that “the center of the tangle of pathology” in inner cities — this was five months before the Watts riots — was the fact that 23.6 percent of black children were born to single women, compared to just 3.07 percent of white children. He was accused of racism, blaming the victims, etc.
Forty-nine years later, 41 percent of all American children are born out of wedlock; almost half of all first births are to unmarried women, as are 54 percent and 72 percent of all Hispanic and black births, respectively. Is there anyone not blinkered by ideology or invincibly ignorant of social science who disagrees with this:
The family is the primary transmitter of social capital — the values and character traits that enable people to seize opportunities. Family structure is a primary predictor of an individual’s life chances, and family disintegration is the principal cause of the intergenerational transmission of poverty.
In the 1960s, as the civil-rights movement dismantled barriers to opportunity, there began a social regression driven by the explosive growth of the number of children in single-parent families. This meant a continually renewed cohort of adolescent males from homes without fathers; this produced turbulent neighborhoods and schools where the task of maintaining discipline eclipsed that of instruction.
In the mid-1960s, Moynihan noted something ominous that came to be called “Moynihan’s scissors.” Two lines on a graph crossed, replicating a scissors’ blades. The descending line depicted the decline in the minority — then overwhelmingly black — male unemployment rate. The ascending line depicted the simultaneous rise of new welfare cases.
The broken correlation between improvements in employment and decreased welfare dependency was not just bewildering, it was frightening. Policymakers had long held a serene faith in social salvation through better economic incentives and fewer barriers to individual initiative. The possibility that the decisive factors are not economic but cultural — habits, mores, customs — was dismaying because it is easier for government to alter incentives and remove barriers than to alter culture. The assumption that the condition of the poor must improve as macroeconomic conditions (which government thinks it can manipulate) improve is refuted by the importance of family structure.
To say that poverty can be self-perpetuating is not to say — and Paul Ryan did not say — that poverty is caused by irremediable attributes that are finally the fault of the poor. It is, however, to define the challenge, which is to acculturate those unacquainted with the culture of work to the disciplines and satisfactions of this culture.
Nicholas Eberstadt, an economist and demographer, notes that “labor force participation ratios for men in the prime of life are demonstrably lower in America than in Europe” and “a large part of the jobs problem for American men today is that of not wanting one.” Surely the fact that means-tested entitlement dependency has been destigmatized has something to do with what Eberstadt terms the “unprecedented exit from gainful work by adult men.”
Next March, serious people will be wondering why the problem Moynihan articulated half a century earlier has become so much worse while so much else — including the astonishingly rapid receding of racism and discrimination — has become so much better. One reason is what Moynihan called “the leakage of reality from American life.” Judging by the blend of malice, ignorance, and intellectual sloth in the Left’s reaction to Ryan’s unexceptionable remarks, the leak has become — among some factions — a cataract.
George F. Will is a Pulitzer Prize–winning syndicated columnist. © The Washington Post
1a)
Ryan spoke of a “tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work,” adding: “There’s a real culture problem here.” This brought down upon Ryan the usual acid rain of accusations — racism, tribe —blaming the victims, etc. He had sauntered into the minefield that a more experienced Daniel Patrick Moynihan — a liberal scholar who knew the taboos of his had tiptoed into five years before Ryan was born.
A year from now, there surely will be conferences marking the 50th anniversary of what is now known as the Moynihan Report, a.k.a. “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.” In March 1965, Moynihan, then 37 and assistant secretary of labor, wrote that “the center of the tangle of pathology” in inner cities — this was five months before the Watts riots — was the fact that 23.6 percent of black children were born to single women, compared to just 3.07 percent of white children. He was accused of racism, blaming the victims, etc.
Forty-nine years later, 41 percent of all American children are born out of wedlock; almost half of all first births are to unmarried women, as are 54 percent and 72 percent of all Hispanic and black births, respectively. Is there anyone not blinkered by ideology or invincibly ignorant of social science who disagrees with this:
In the 1960s, as the civil-rights movement dismantled barriers to opportunity, there began a social regression driven by the explosive growth of the number of children in single-parent families. This meant a continually renewed cohort of adolescent males from homes without fathers; this produced turbulent neighborhoods and schools where the task of maintaining discipline eclipsed that of instruction.
In the mid-1960s, Moynihan noted something ominous that came to be called “Moynihan’s scissors.” Two lines on a graph crossed, replicating a scissors’ blades. The descending line depicted the decline in the minority — then overwhelmingly black — male unemployment rate. The ascending line depicted the simultaneous rise of new welfare cases.
The broken correlation between improvements in employment and decreased welfare dependency was not just bewildering, it was frightening. Policymakers had long held a serene faith in social salvation through better economic incentives and fewer barriers to individual initiative. The possibility that the decisive factors are not economic but cultural — habits, mores, customs — was dismaying because it is easier for government to alter incentives and remove barriers than to alter culture. The assumption that the condition of the poor must improve as macroeconomic conditions (which government thinks it can manipulate) improve is refuted by the importance of family structure.
To say that poverty can be self-perpetuating is not to say — and Paul Ryan did not say — that poverty is caused by irremediable attributes that are finally the fault of the poor. It is, however, to define the challenge, which is to acculturate those unacquainted with the culture of work to the disciplines and satisfactions of this culture.
Nicholas Eberstadt, an economist and demographer, notes that “labor force participation ratios for men in the prime of life are demonstrably lower in America than in Europe” and “a large part of the jobs problem for American men today is that of not wanting one.” Surely the fact that means-tested entitlement dependency has been destigmatized has something to do with what Eberstadt terms the “unprecedented exit from gainful work by adult men.”
Next March, serious people will be wondering why the problem Moynihan articulated half a century earlier has become so much worse while so much else — including the astonishingly rapid receding of racism and discrimination — has become so much better. One reason is what Moynihan called “the leakage of reality from American life.” Judging by the blend of malice, ignorance, and intellectual sloth in the Left’s reaction to Ryan’s unexceptionable remarks, the leak has become — among some factions — a cataract.
George F. Will is a Pulitzer Prize–winning syndicated columnist. © The Washington Post
1a)
President Barack Obama faces mounting calls from Republicans to take a firsthand look at the immigration emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border, putting him on the spot concerning what he has called the "humanitarian crisis" of tens of thousands of unaccompanied children flooding in from Central America.
"If he doesn't come to the border, it's a reflection of his lack of concern about what's going on there," according to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a possible GOP presidential candidate in 2016.
Obama has no plans to visit the border when he travels to Texas next week, primarily to fund raise for Democratic congressional candidates. A trip to the border could result in awkward optics.
Administration officials state Perry and Republicans are trying to score political points rather than resolve a major problem. The border crisis has put Obama in the difficult position of asking Congress for more money and authority to send the children back home at the same time he's seeking ways to allow millions of others already in the U.S. illegally to remain.
The White House wants the focus to be on Republican lawmakers whom the president has accused of blocking progress on a comprehensive overhaul of America's immigration laws. Obama announced said, due to a lack of progress on Capitol Hill, he was moving forward to seek ways to adjust U.S. immigration policy without congressional approval.
Obama's options range from modest changes, aka deportation, to broader ones that could shield millions in the U.S. illegally from deportation while giving them temporary authorization to work here.
Immigration advocates emerged from a meeting with Obama this week convinced the president was considering the more aggressive approach.
"He's flipped from doing everything possible to give Republicans the space to get to 'yes' to doing everything possible to cement the GOP as anti-immigration in order to bolster the Democratic Party's image as pro-immigration," said Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice.
Advocates are pushing Obama to provide work permits for 9 million who would have been eligible for citizenship under a comprehensive immigration bill passed by the Senate a year ago which stalled in the GOP-led House. Barring that, advocates want Obama to extend a "deferred action" program to all immigrants in the U.S. illegally who have children who have become American citizens, thereby allowing many young immigrants, who arrived in the United States as children before June 15, 2007, to apply for work permits and two-year reprieves from deportation.
Those proposals stand in stark contrast to the Obama administration's response to the influx of unaccompanied minors showing up at the border. The president has asked Congress for $2 billion in emergency spending to hire more immigration judges and open more detention facilities. He's also seeking the flexibility to speed up the youths' deportations.
Republicans want to draw a connection between the current crisis and Obama's desire to use executive powers to change immigration laws. They point specifically to his 2012 deferred-action decision, saying it left the impression in Central America that youngsters arriving in the U.S. alone would be allowed to stay.
'This is another disaster of President Barack Obama's own making,' said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Obama's advisers challenged the motivations of Goodlatte's request Obama visit these detention centers.
'The reason some people want Obama to visit the border is because they'd rather play politics than actually trying to address these challenges,' White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.
Earnest noted senior administration officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, made such trips in recent weeks and Vice President Joe Biden even traveled to Guatemala last month to discourage adults from sending their children to the U.S. and to dispel the notion they would be guaranteed entry.
Most of the 50,000 unaccompanied minors are arriving from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment