Category Archives: Americans

Ted Cruz Obama eligibility, Natural born citizens?, Cruz approval protects Obama, 1 US citizen parent, Language of constitution citizen parents, Cruz born in Canada, Obama born ???

Ted Cruz Obama eligibility, Natural born citizens?, Cruz approval protects Obama, 1 US citizen parent, Language of constitution citizen parents, Cruz born in Canada, Obama born ???

“The Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize America today….The Constitution has been tossed on the same trash pile as the Bible.”…Amazon description of Cheryl Chumley book “Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming our Reality”

“no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .”…US Constitution

“‘It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well…..In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words — in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.’s idea originally, of course,’ he added as an afterthought.”…George Orwell “1984”

 

 

Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

We do not know where Obama was born.

There is zero proof that Obama was born in the US.

Cruz and Obama had 1 US citizen parent. That creates a problem with the natural born citizen requirement of the US Constitution.

Many of the Obama eligibilty challenges beginning in 2008 were based on a lack of a authentic birth certificate proving birth in the US. The image presented on WhiteHouse.gov, even if it came from Hawaii does not prove US birth.

Some of the eligibility challenges were based on the requirement of 2 US citizen parents and birth on US soil.

CDR Charles F. Kerchner filed a lawsuit against Obama on January 21, 2009.

“47. Hence, at the time of his birth on August 4, 1961, Obama was born to a U.S.
citizen mother but not a U.S. citizen father.
48. Under the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Obama therefore
cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” Endnote 9.”

“9. The origins of the term “natural born Citizen’ and inclusion in the Constitution can be traced to a 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington. This specifically speaks about the reason for requiring the President to be a “natural born Citizen.” It was believed that there would be less of a chance to have foreign influences put upon the President and Commander in Chief of our Army (military forces) if the person serving as the President is a “natural born citizen”, i.e., being born on U.S. soil and being second generation via both his parents also being U.S. citizens. There thus would be no claim on the President from any foreign power and he would have no relatively recent allegiance
and influence via family to a foreign power or from family living in a foreign country.
Being a “natural born citizen” dramatically reduces the likelihood of such foreign
influence. That is why John Jay, who was a major writer in The Federalist Papers which were critical in the ratification process of getting the Constitution approved, requested that the term be inserted into our Constitution. He was one of the founders who was very concerned about foreign influences being exerted on our new nation, especially on the President and Commander in Chief of the Army. He was not concerned about the loyalties of existing “original citizens” of the new country because they had openly fought for independence. And that is why the Article II grandfather clause is in there for them. But John Jay was very concerned about foreign influences on future Presidents and Commander in Chiefs. Thus he wrote the letter to General Washington. Washington
agreed and had the clause put in the Constitution and the delegates agreed and approved it and the “We the People” of those days voted for it and ratified it. And it can only be changed now by a new amendment by today’s “We the People.” Jay would have obtained the term “natural born Citizen” from the leading legal treatise of those times, The Law of Nations (1758), E. Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212. This work was read not only by the Founding Fathers but was also well-known throughout the colonies among the general population. Jay frequently cited this treatise in his writings.
Additionally, the term “Law of Nations” is mentioned in the Constitution itself in Article I, Section 8 (defining piracy). There are also many references to The Law of Nations in The Federalist Papers, for the writers relied upon authors such as Vattel, among others.
The Journal of Legal History, Volume 23, Issue 2, August 2002, pages 107 – 128.”

H. Brooke Paige challenged Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen in the Vermont Supreme Court.

“Mr. Paige, for example was aware of the Venus Cranch case of 1814 in which Justice Livingstone quoted the entire 212nd paragraph of Vattel and stated:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…”

This contradicts the Vermont state attorney who attempted to marginalize Vattel’s description of natural born citizen and portray it as antiquated.”

http://citizenwells.com/2013/05/19/vermont-obama-eligibility-challenge-update-may-19-2013-h-brooke-paige-appeal-in-vt-supreme-court-awaiting-decisions-on-multiple-issues-obama-not-natural-born-citizen/

There are 2 important concepts from the above cases.

1. It was clearly understood at the time the Constitution was written that in this country natural born citizen meant a child born on US soil to 2 US citizen parents.

2. That the requirement of natural born citizen has not been changed by an amendment. You are being bombarded by misinformation about this law and that law affecting the natural born citizen requirement but nothing has changed it since the Constitution was ratified. This was noted in Hassan v FEC;

 “Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail.”

From Mario Apuzzo:

“Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789″
“In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”

http://citizenwells.com/2015/03/25/glenn-beck-comedy-show-wnd-media-lie-about-natural-born-citizen-and-constitution-citizens-not-eligible-ted-cruz-eligibilty-in-question-founder-and-historian-david-ramsay-defines-natural-born-citize/

You are being led to believe that “legal experts” are in agreement on the definition of natural born citizen (refer to numerous orwellian references at Citizen Wells)

That is simply not so!

John McCain had 2 US citizen parents.

However,

From the Michigan Law Review August 13, 2008.

Gabriel J. Chin, U of California, Davis, School of Law.

“Although he is now a U.S. citizen, the law in effect in 1936 did not grant him citizenship at birth. Because he was not born a citizen, he is not eligible to the office of president.”

“II. Natural Born Citizenship as a Child of Citizens”

“According to the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the
Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth
and naturalization.” Unless born in the United States, a person “can only
become a citizen by being naturalized . . . by authority of congress, exercised
either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the
enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or
by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens . . . .” A person
granted citizenship by birth outside the United States to citizen parents is
naturalized at birth; he or she is both a citizen by birth and a naturalized
citizen. This last point is discussed thoroughly in Jill A. Pryor’s 1988 note in
the Yale Law Journal, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential
Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty.”

“Since Senator McCain became a citizen in his eleventh month of life, he does not satisfy this criterion, is not a natural born citizen, and thus is not “eligible to the Office of President.”

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1157621

Media reports.

Here are 2 of the more honest reports:

From Time June 23, 2011.

“It’s equally strange to me that a nation that was forged through immigration — and is still formed by immigration — is also a nation that makes it constitutionally impossible for someone who was not physically born here to run for President. (Yes, the framers had their reasons for that, but those
reasons have long since vanished.)”

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079445,00.html

Honest but stupid: “but those reasons have long since vanished.”

Wrong!

From PolitiFact May 9, 2013.

“Is Ted Cruz eligible under the Constitution to become president?”

“When discussing McCain, the CRS report draws on immigration law and says: “The uncertainty concerning the meaning of the natural-born qualification in the Constitution has provoked discussion from time to time, particularly when the possible presidential candidacy of citizens born abroad was under consideration. There has never been any authoritative adjudication.”

“So legally, the question is unsettled. Perhaps it will be if Cruz ever becomes a presidential contender.”

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/article/2013/may/09/ted-cruz-eligible-under-constitution-become-presid/

Something happened from 2013 to 2015.

Now Ted Cruz can be legally challenged on his natural born citizen status.

On  August 12, 2013 Cheryl Chumley wrote the following:

“Donald Trump, staunch birther: ‘Nobody knows’ yet where Obama was born”

“The two then discussed the birthplace of Sen. Ted Cruz, who’s been talked about as a potential GOP frontrunner for the White House in 2016. Mr. Cruz was born in Canada, which would make him ineligible for the office under the provisions of the Constitution.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/12/donald-trump-nobody-knows-yet-where-obama-was-born/

On March 24, 2015, Cheryl Chumley, writing for WND, wrote the following:

“DONALD TRUMP GOES BIRTHER ON TED CRUZ”
“Section One, Article Two of the Constitution states “no person except a natural born citizen, or citizen of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of president.””
Read more:
Why did she leave out:
“at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”
which is crucial to the statement and to differentiate between citizen and natural born citizen?
She left out 9 words.
9 very important words.
I can only think of one plausible answer.
The same conclusion you are arriving at.
 We are being bombarded with article after article stating that Ted Cruz is eligible to be president.

Why?

TO

PROTECT

OBAMA

 

 

 

 
media reports 2013 v now

Glenn Beck comedy show WND media lie about natural born citizen and Constitution, Citizens not eligible, Ted Cruz eligibilty in question, Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines Natural Born Citizen in 1789

Glenn Beck comedy show WND media lie about natural born citizen and Constitution, Citizens not eligible, Ted Cruz eligibilty in question, Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines Natural Born Citizen in 1789

“In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents.”…Attorney Mario Apuzzo

“no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .”…US Constitution

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

 

 

At the time the US Constitution was drafted and ratified there were 2 classifications of citizens, natural born citizens and everyone else.

That is why non natural born citizens, just citizens, had to be grandfathered in to run for president.

The US Constitution states:

“no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .”

There was no naturalization law and no naturalized citizens by law.

Natural born citizen was understood at the time and needed no further explanation.

However, a prominent historian and founding father, David Ramsay did, in the same year the Constitution was ratified, 1789, define natural born citizen.

From Citizen News March 25, 2015.

“Yes, the Glenn Beck Radio Show is mostly comedy. Occasionally they inject facts and outrage.
Glenn Beck once again insulted legal scholars and concerned Americans with his entertainment culture low information media use of “citizen” interchangeably with “natural born citizen.”
 “One of his parents is American. That’s all it takes. For the love of heaven, if illegal aliens can come to the America and give birth, and that birth child is a citizen, then so is Ted Cruz, for the love of heaven. Stop it!” Pat said. The Immigration and Nationality Act states that a person is a citizen by birth if they are born to a parent with U.S. citizenship, ”
Perhaps the explanation for Beck and his lackeys doing so comes from commenter JayJay.
Submitted on 2015/03/25 at 3:18 am
““no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .”
Sadly, Americans are so lacking in grammar, they don’t get the significance of the comma after ‘states’.”
Yesterday on WND, writer Cheryl Chumley omitted a crucial sentence of the US Constitution that states who is eligible to be president.
Words matter.
Especially in the US Constitution.
Especially when they define the eligibility for president of the US.
So the question is, why did Cheryl Chumley omit them?
From WND March 24, 2015.
“DONALD TRUMP GOES BIRTHER ON TED CRUZ”
“Section One, Article Two of the Constitution states “no person except a natural born citizen, or citizen of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of president.””
Read more:
Why did she leave out:
“at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”
which is crucial to the statement and to differentiate between citizen and natural born citizen?
Much of the tone of this article is atypical for a WND article.
It resembles work from the left or “1984.”
Read the full article and let me know.
She left out 9 words.
9 very important words.
I can only think of one plausible answer.
The same conclusion you are arriving at.”
“Patriot and legal scholar Mario Apuzzo has provided some of the best information on the definition of natural born citizen from  the year the Constitution was ratified.

From Mario Apuzzo:

 

“Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789″
“In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.” David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….” http://www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay/.

In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay’s History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,” Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.” In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born citizen.” ”

http://citizenwells.net/2015/03/25/glenn-beck-wnd-media-lies-about-natural-born-citizen-and-constitution-citizens-not-eligible-ted-cruz-eligibilty-in-question-founder-and-historian-david-ramsay-defines-natural-born-citizen-in-1789/

 

Thanks to CDR Charles Kerchner for his ongoing assistance and dedication to this country.

 

 

 

Putin deposed in Russian coup?, Israeli former ambassador to Russia signs of coup, Stroke health issues dead?, Security chief general Viktor Zolotov killed?, Putin not seen in public in 10 days

Putin deposed in Russian coup?, Israeli former ambassador to Russia signs of coup, Stroke health issues dead?, Security chief general Viktor Zolotov killed?, Putin not seen in public in 10 days

 

 

From Haaretz March 15, 2015.

“Israel’s former ambassador to Russia: ‘There are signs of a coup’

Zvi Magen believes army factions or wealthy businessmen could be behind President Vladimir Putin’s disappearance.”

“Russian President Vladimir Putin was last seen in public on March 5, and in Russia there are increased fears he is the victim of an attempted coup by security organizations and the Russian army.

Israel’s former ambassador to Russia, Zvi Magen, told Haaretz he believes “there are many signs of a coup. The movement of the army around the Kremlin indicates that there is a change in government, or that an attempt at a change in government is being carried out.”

Magen believes those responsible for the potential coup are “branches or factions in the army who are working together or against one another, or wealthy businessmen, many of whom worked in these organizations. They could only be people who are free to walk around the corridors of the Kremlin.”

He says possible reasons include the ongoing sanctions imposed by the West on those close to the Kremlin, sanctions “that harm them personally. I don’t believe there’s a controversy there surrounding policy. They’re protecting their own interests.””

Read more:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/.premium-1.647001

From the Russian Monitor March 11, 2015.

(translated into English)

“Putin stroke?”

“Mail “Russian Monitor” received a letter signed by an anonymous employee of the Central Clinical Hospital of President Administration (CDB) in Moscow, in which he reported that the staff of this elite Moscow hospital to which “attributed to” the top management of the Russian Federation, circulate rumors that Vladimir Putin a few days ago was diagnosed with ischemic stroke. The source said that directly to the CDB President not hospitalized.”

http://rusmonitor.com/u-putina-insult.html

From Radio Free Europe March 15, 2015.

“News Analysis: Three Scenarios For A Succession In Russia”

“For a decade and a half, Vladimir Putin has sat at the top of a closed, hierarchical, and personality-based political system that allows for no competition.

As a result, opinion polls in Russia routinely show the public sees “no alternative” to Putin’s leadership.

So what would happen in Russia if Putin suddenly and without warning left the political stage? Over the last few days, we have seen the anxiety that even the rumor of such an event can produce in Russia and around the world. If Putin is the guarantor of stability in Russia, then does a scenario without Putin automatically imply instability — even violent instability?”

“The Constitutional Scenario”

“So if Putin unexpectedly left the scene and the constitution were followed to the letter, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev would return to the Kremlin and a competitive election would take place in three months.”

“The Consensus Scenario

Of course, such a smooth and legal transition of power is unlikely in Russia.

In Soviet times, political heavyweights wrestled behind the scenes until a successor emerged through some unfathomable communist alchemy.

More recently, when President Boris Yeltsin decided to retire, political insiders reached a consensus and produced the unimaginable candidacy of Vladimir Putin as his successor. They then used a combination of their financial, administrative, and media resources to get him elected.”

“The Conflict Scenario

But what if consensus can’t be reached?

Under Putin, the political system has become more personalized and centered around the president himself, who has balanced conflicting parties. And he has almost certainly stifled all discussion of what could or should happen in a post-Putin era.

But the divisions in Putin’s inner circle, always latent, have become more manifest with the Ukraine crisis and have intensified since the February 27 assassination of opposition figure Boris Nemtsov.

“Now the conflict between the clans has become very seriously intense,” says journalist and analyst Raf Shakirov. “It is obvious that different groups are pushing for different paths.”

The main fault line, he says, is between “hawks” who have become ascendant due to the Ukraine crisis and Russia’s showdown with the West and a “liberal group” responsible for the economy who would prefer a thaw at home and a rapprochement abroad.”

Read more:

http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-succession-scenarios/26899859.html

5.2 million full time employments lost Obama’s first year, Part time jobs created, Job myths lies exposed, Media lies, Whitehouse lies, Obamacare created more full times jobs?…let the drug testing begin, Gallup CEO Jim Clifton right

5.2 million full time employments lost Obama’s first year, Part time jobs created, Job myths lies exposed, Media lies, Whitehouse lies, Obamacare created more full times jobs?…let the drug testing begin, Gallup CEO Jim Clifton right

“Over the last six months, of the net job creation, 97 percent of that is part-time work,”…Keith Hall, former BLS chief August 5, 2013

“There’s no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.”…Gallup CEO Jim Clifton 

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984”

 

 

Did you know that 5,205,000 full time employments were lost during the first year of Obama’s occupation of the White House from January 2009 to January 2010?

Don’t take my word for it, FRED, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis reports it.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS12500000

This number has been somewhat obscured because some part time jobs were created to partially offset this number so that we only lost (ha ha)  3,714,000 jobs in 2009.

This is one of the best examples of many full time jobs being replaced by few part time jobs.

Ready for more laughs? (I know & agree, this is too damn serious to laugh)

The Obama White House brags about creating full time jobs.

“New Data: Most of the Increase in Employment is in Full-Time Positions Since the Affordable Care Act Became Law”

“Since the Affordable Care Act became law, the economy has created 6.5 million full-time jobs, while the number of part-time jobs has been essentially unchanged.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/09/06/new-data-most-increase-employment-full-time-positions-affordable-care-act-became-law

For starters, as you can clearly see, Obama brags about creating full time jobs that were mostly lost during his first year.

The recession supposedly ended June 2009.

By all credible accounts, there has been an increase in part time jobs.

The original WhiteHouse.gov article was posted:

September 06, 2013.

Once again the quote from above:

“Since the Affordable Care Act became law, the economy has created 6.5 million full-time jobs, while the number of part-time jobs has been essentially unchanged.”

From the BLS.

“Commissioners
Keith Hall
January 2008–January 2012
Keith HallAppointed by: George W. Bush
Also served under: Barack Obama”

http://www.bls.gov/bls/history/commissioners/hall.htm

Keith Hall was commisioner of the BLS and is not under the control of Obama.

If anyone should know jobs data, it is Mr. Hall.

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution August 5, 2013.

“Welcome to the Obamcare economy. From McClatchy:

“The July government employment report released Friday showed the job market treading water.”And a closer look at one of the two measures the Labor Department uses to gauge employment suggests that part-time work accounted for almost all the job growth that’s been reported over the past six months. …” ‘Over the last six months, of the net job creation, 97 percent of that is part-time work,’ said Keith Hall, a senior researcher at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center. ‘That is really remarkable.’”Hall is no ordinary academic. He ran the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the agency that puts out the monthly jobs report, from 2008 to 2012. Over the past six months, he said, the Household Survey shows 963,000 more people reporting that they were employed, and 936,000 of them reported they’re in part-time jobs.” ‘That is a really high number for a six-month period,’ Hall said. ‘I’m not sure that has ever happened over six months before.’ “”
“How, then, to explain what’s happened since January? Back to the McClatchy article and Hall, the former BLS chief:

“Hall speculated that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, shorthanded as Obamacare, might be resulting in employers shifting workers to part-time status to avoid coming health care obligations.”

‘There’s been so much talk about the effects of Obamacare on part-time work,’ he said. ‘This is such an unusual thing to see.’ ”
By “so much talk,” Hall of course was referring to the numerous stories of employers that are cutting back on their workers’ hours to avoid qualifying for Obamacare’s mandate to provide health insurance for them. Just yesterday, the AJC reported on the various ways local employers are trying to cope with the looming mandate (subscription to MyAJC required for link), including the decision by AAA Parking to move 250 full-time workers to part-time status. Many of the Americans affected by these business decisions are, of course, the very people Obamacare was supposed to help.

In fact, we can get even more specific than the January-July numbers Hall outlined.

Looking at the BLS data, the number of Americans working part-time for economic reasons — i.e., not because they want to work part-time — hit a multi-year low in March. Since then, part-time jobs have accounted for a whopping 99.1 percent of all jobs created. Over the past four months, on a net basis, just 9,000 full-time jobs have been added in the entire United States.

That means there have been 110 part-time jobs created for every one full-time job since March.”

Read more:

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/kyle-wingfield/2013/aug/05/obamacare-economy-35-part-time-jobs-every-new-full/

The Atlanta Journal Constitution article was written one month prior to the WhiteHouse.gov article.

From the Federal Reserve April 14, 2014.

“The persistently high stock of involuntary part-time work

Chart 1 presents the two main categories of involuntary part-time work: i) individuals who work part time due to slack work or unfavorable business conditions, and ii) individuals who could only find part-time work, each as a percentage of the labor force (left panel) and for each its change since 2007 (right panel). For comparison purposes, we also plot the unemployment rate and average weekly hours by persons at work (the workweek). The decomposition in Chart 1 yields our first observation: although the share of individuals in the labor force working part time due to slack work or business conditions has declined roughly along with the unemployment rate, the percentage of individuals reporting they could only find part-time work has continued to increase.”

PartTimeFed

http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/notes/feds-notes/2014/why-is-involuntary-part-time-work-elevated-20140414.html

Even PBS is asking questions.

“The startling fact you, we and Paul Krugman didn’t know about the jobs report”

“Hidden Part-Time Workers

But the number of part-time workers may actually be even higher than 7 million. As Making Sen$e has recently discovered, there’s another whole pool of part-time workers whom the government counts as full-time employees. How can that be? To count as a full-time worker, you must work 35 hours or more. But what if you work two or more part-time jobs that add up to 35 hours?

Several months ago, when we first asked Wolfers whether those part-time workers would be counted as full-timers, he said, of course not, no, but then quickly realized that, yes, in fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics would count them as full-time employees.

According to the BLS, in data not disclosed in their monthly report, 1.2 million workers toil at multiple part-time gigs with hours adding up to or surpassing 35 hours. On paper, they’re full-time workers. At work, at home, and shuttling between shifts, though, they’re part-timers who may not enjoy the benefits, convenience or stability that comes with holding one full-time position.

The Real Shocker

Even more shocking is that the BLS’s headline number of jobs added each month — the figure that can move markets and shape headlines — makes no distinction between full-time and part-time payroll gains. “So if you’re on for an hour,” Wolfers said, “you’re counted as having a job” in the survey of employers.”

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/the-startling-fact-you-we-and-paul-krugman-didnt-know-about-the-jobs-report/

You expect lies from the Obama camp and White House.

The media is just as bad.

More to come on that.

Job recovery a lie, Over 9 million millennials entered job market, 2.8 million fewer white Americans employed in Obama’s first year, 4.7 million migrants given work permits, Sloppy reporting bias Orwellian lies?

Job recovery a lie, Over 9 million millennials entered job market, 2.8 million fewer white Americans employed in Obama’s first year, 4.7 million migrants given work permits, Sloppy reporting bias Orwellian lies?

“Of the approx. 6 million new employments since Obama took office in January 2009, 4,511,000, 75 percent, were Hispanic/Latino!”…Citizen Wells

“In today’s labor market, there are nearly 1 million “missing” young workers—potential workers who are neither employed nor actively seeking work (and are thus not counted in the unemployment rate) because job opportunities remain so scarce. If these missing workers were in the labor market looking for work, the unemployment rate of workers under age 25 would be 18.1 percent instead of 14.5 percent.”…Economic Policy Institute May 1, 2014

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

Read the following Market Watch article and decide for yourself if it is Sloppy reporting, bias and/or Orwellian lies.

From Market Watch March 1, 2015.

“Jobless recovery is now the job-led recovery”

“The easiest way to explain why the U.S. economy appears poised for its best growth in years can be found in a pair of words that have become more and more common: Help wanted.

Over the past year the U.S. has cranked out an average 259,000 new jobs a month, including almost 1 million positions in the last three months alone. That’s the strongest increase in employment in a decade and a half.

Nor is there any sign hiring is about to crumple. The U.S. added 252,000 jobs in January and economists polled by MarketWatch predict a milder but still-healthy 235,000 gain in February. The unemployment rate is seen dipping to 5.6% from 5.7%, though the official figure excludes millions of people who’ve given up looking for work and those who can only find part-time jobs.

In any case, the spike in hiring has set the stage for faster economic growth even though there’s little evidence yet that workers are receiving sharply higher wages. More Americans working means more people eating out, more car sales, more home buying and so forth — even if people who already had a job don’t increase their spending at all.

Better yet, that will spur businesses to raise their own spending.

“All the gains in the labor market have generated plenty of momentum that will support more consumer spending,” said Sam Bullard, senior economist at Wells Fargo. “There will come a point when businesses will need to expand to keep up with the pace of orders and sales.””

Read more:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/jobless-recovery-is-now-the-job-led-recovery-2015-03-01?dist=beforebell

Here is the truth:

Job recovery of what jobs?

It is questionable if we have recovered the jobs lost prior to Obama taking office.

2.8 million white Americans fewer were employed during Obama’s first year.

During Obama’s term, from January 2009 to now, 75 percent of the employment went to Hispanics/Latinos.

New entrants to the labor market, those turning 16, netted by deaths yields at least 9 million new workers.

The US Labor Dept. states that we have approx. 15.5 million more in the labor force since January 2009.

4.7 million migrants were given work permits and God only knows how many more illegals entered the country.

There was an increase of over 12 million not in the labor force since Obama took office.

This is one reason that millennials are having a tough time.

Of the jobs touted in the article above for last year, 1.3 million went to Hispanic/Latinos. Almost as much as White Americans.

And from the CEO of Gallup, Jim Clifton.

“The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment”

“Here’s something that many Americans — including some of the smartest and most educated among us — don’t know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

Right now, we’re hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is “down” to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job — if you are so hopelessly out of work that you’ve stopped looking over the past four weeks — the Department of Labor doesn’t count you as unemployed. That’s right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news — currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren’t throwing parties to toast “falling” unemployment.

There’s another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you’re an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 — maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn — you’re not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

Yet another figure of importance that doesn’t get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find — in other words, you are severely underemployed — the government doesn’t count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.”

Read more:

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx

For more details on the facts reported above, visit the Citizen Wells articles from the past several weeks.

 

 

 

Hispanics already getting 75 percent of jobs and Obama giving them more, History trumps IHS projections, White population millennials getting decimated, Citizen Wells reveals year by year of Obama American job killer

Hispanics already getting 75 percent of jobs and Obama giving them more, History trumps IHS projections, White population millennials getting decimated, Citizen Wells reveals year by year of Obama American job killer

“Of the approx. 6 million new employments since Obama took office in January 2009, 4,511,000, 75 percent, were Hispanic/Latino!”…Citizen Wells

“In today’s labor market, there are nearly 1 million “missing” young workers—potential workers who are neither employed nor actively seeking work (and are thus not counted in the unemployment rate) because job opportunities remain so scarce. If these missing workers were in the labor market looking for work, the unemployment rate of workers under age 25 would be 18.1 percent instead of 14.5 percent.”…Economic Policy Institute May 1, 2014

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

I reported to you on February 11, 2015 that 75 percent of the increase in employment during Obama’s administration, that is from Jan. 2009 to the present, went to Hispanics.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/75-percent-of-obama-jobs-added-go-to-hispanic-latinos-many-low-paying-part-time-jobs-bls-reveals-6-049-million-jobs-added-since-jan-2009-no-white-american-jobs-added-since-2006-obama-lies-why-amn/

Look it up!

On February 24, 2015 IHS reported that in the future Hispanics will get 75% of jobs.

I reported it.

“Hispanics Will Account for More Than 40 Percent of the Increase in U.S. Employment in the Next Five Years, IHS Study Says

Share of job growth will rise to more than 75 percent from 2020 to 2034″

“The Hispanic population will play an increasingly significant role in future U.S. employment growth, accounting for more than 40 percent of growth in the next five years and more than 75 percent between 2020 and 2034 – an increase of 11 million jobs out of an economy-wide gain of 14 million –according to a new study from IHS Inc. (NYSE: IHS), a leading global source of critical information and insight.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/ihs-study-75-percent-of-jobs-added-go-to-hispanics-by-2034-citizen-wells-news-flash-they-already-are-75-of-obama-jobs-added-went-to-hispanicslatinos/

Now that is an interesting projection.

What I reported earlier is history and much more powerful as information and as a condemnation of the Obama lies and agenda.

For example, the impact on millennials.

From Citizen Wells February 25, 2015.

“The problem with the percent of population employed is the increase of people over 16 in this country.

The US Labor Dept. states that we have approx. 15.5 million more since January 2009.

Those turning 16 each year netted by those dying adds approx. 1.5 million a year which totals 9 million since 2009.”

“But Obama has used his power over the immigration agencies to minimize enforcement of immigration laws. Since 2009, Obama’s senior deputies have repeatedly instructed his immigration agencies to reduce enforcement of immigration laws. For example, since 2009, his aides have given work-permits and temporary residency to 4.7 million migrants, including illegal immigrants, tourists, guest-workers and students.

That 4.7 million is in addition to the annual inflow of 1 million legal immigrants. Roughly 4 million American youths enter the workforce each year.”

“So, there you have it.

At least 9 million native born Americans being added to the labor force and immigrants taking native born American jobs.

There was an increase of over 12 million not in the labor force since Obama took office.

The youngest members of the workforce, 16 and above will be hit the hardest by immigrant workers.

And all of those jobs that Obama bragged about and Janet Yellen and others referred to….

Of the approx. 6 million new employments since Obama took office in January 2009, 4,511,000 were Hispanic/Latino!

We have barely, if at all,  recovered all of the jobs lost during the recession and 75% of the job growth went to Hispanic/Latinos!!”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/janet-yellen-millenials-a-mystery-citizen-wells-schools-yellen-student-debt-and-jobs-influx-of-illegals-impacting-job-market-75-percent-of-obama-jobs-went-to-hispanics-latinos-high-unemployment-r/

The year by year breakdown of jobs added/lost during Obama’s tenure is even scarier.

Employment added/lost.

…………….White………..Hispanic

2009    2,812,000-         85,000-

2010        248,000        335,000

2011         111,000       1,476,000

2012        788,000        688,000

2013      1,211,000        772,000

2014      1,626,000     1,325,000

Hispanics are supposedly 16 percent of the population.

It is about to get worse.

From WND February 27, 2015.

“Obama, according to the Washington Times, “told a Miami crowd that he will move ahead with his executive action on immigration and vowed that his administration will become even more aggressive in the weeks and months to come.””

““In short,” Klayman told the court, “President Obama’s defiant pledge in Miami, Florida, on February 25, 2015, to move forward aggressively with implementation of his deferred action amnesty by executive over-reach …  more than suggests that the Obama administration is continuing to implement the executive action amnesty in defiance of the court’s temporary injunction.”

 

“The Obama administration’s action “to expend taxpayers money in violation of this court’s temporary injunction order would be another affront to the rule of law,” he wrote.

WND reported earlier this week that Obama’s amnesty plan took another step forward.

It came when the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced the extension of a program allowing spouses of certain visa holders to obtain work permits.

According to the Washington Times, the move will, in 90 days, allow some 180,000 immigrants to be eligible for the benefit “in the first year.””
Read more:

http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/sheriff-joe-warns-amnesty-judge-on-defiant-obama/

Wake up America!

 

 

 

IHS study 75 percent of jobs added go to Hispanics by 2034, Citizen Wells news flash, They already are!, 75% of Obama jobs added went to Hispanics/Latinos

IHS study 75 percent of jobs added go to Hispanics by 2034, Citizen Wells news flash, They already are!, 75% of Obama jobs added went to Hispanics/Latinos

“Of the approx. 6 million new employments since Obama took office in January 2009, 4,511,000, 75 percent, were Hispanic/Latino!”…Citizen Wells

“In today’s labor market, there are nearly 1 million “missing” young workers—potential workers who are neither employed nor actively seeking work (and are thus not counted in the unemployment rate) because job opportunities remain so scarce. If these missing workers were in the labor market looking for work, the unemployment rate of workers under age 25 would be 18.1 percent instead of 14.5 percent.”…Economic Policy Institute May 1, 2014

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

I’ve got a news flash for IHS and Americans.

75 percent of Obama jobs, since he took office in January 2009, went to Hispanics and Latinos.

Straight from the US Labor Department.

This is one of the reasons millennials are hurting.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/janet-yellen-millenials-a-mystery-citizen-wells-schools-yellen-student-debt-and-jobs-influx-of-illegals-impacting-job-market-75-percent-of-obama-jobs-went-to-hispanics-latinos-high-unemployment-r/

From IHS February 24, 2015.

“Hispanics Will Account for More Than 40 Percent of the Increase in U.S. Employment in the Next Five Years, IHS Study Says

Share of job growth will rise to more than 75 percent from 2020 to 2034”

“The Hispanic population will play an increasingly significant role in future U.S. employment growth, accounting for more than 40 percent of growth in the next five years and more than 75 percent between 2020 and 2034 – an increase of 11 million jobs out of an economy-wide gain of 14 million –according to a new study from IHS Inc. (NYSE: IHS), a leading global source of critical information and insight.

The IHS study, Hispanic Immigration and U.S. Economic Growth, projects that Hispanic employment growth will average 2.6 percent per year over the next 20 years. At the same time, growth of the non-Hispanic working age population will slow to near zero, and new non-Hispanic entrants to the labor force will barely offset retiring Baby Boomers. As a result, the Hispanic share of total U.S. employment will rise from 16 percent in 2014 to 23 percent in 2034.

Other key findings include:

  • Immigration will play a key role in future U.S. employment growth. By 2020, labor force growth is expected to slow to the point that the annual change in the labor force is roughly equal to the amount of net migration.
  • Despite a generally positive long-term economic outlook for Latin American countries, the U.N. projects continuing net outmigration from the 10 Latin American countries and Puerto Rico that are the primary countries of origin of the foreign-born U.S. Hispanic population.
  • According to U.S. Census Bureau assumptions about future Hispanic net international migration, the number of foreign born Hispanics will grow from 22 million in 2014 to over 29 million in 2034, and the foreign-born share of the Hispanic population will fall slowly over this period – from 39.7% to 34.8%.
  • The number of Hispanics that speak Spanish in the home will rise from 36.9 million in 2014 to 55.4 million in 2034.
  • Higher levels of immigration are conducive to stronger U.S. economic growth, and there are credible scenarios for higher levels of Hispanic immigration than assumed in the study’s baseline forecast.”

Read more:

http://press.ihs.com/press-release/economics-country-risk/hispanics-will-account-more-40-percent-increase-us-employment-n