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.

 

 

 

Ted Cruz another Harvard Law graduate and Harvard Law Review editor like Obama?, Ignoring constitution, Cruz states he is a natural born citizen when having a US mother only gives him citizenship, Let’s get a ruling from FEC and Supreme Court

Ted Cruz another Harvard Law graduate and Harvard Law Review editor like Obama?, Ignoring constitution, Cruz states he is a natural born citizen when having a US mother only gives him citizenship, Let’s get a ruling from FEC and Supreme Court

“The term, “natural born Citizen” has been so bastardized, that even logic, and precedence, play no part in the definition liberals use to circumvent the requirement for POTUS eligibility.”…Citizen Wells commenter bob strauss

“No matter what one thinks of his politics, Ted Cruz is NOT constitutionally eligible. And the two major political party lawyers Katyal and Clement can spin and put out disinformation to lend support to constitutionally ineligible people in both major parties, but they cannot change the original intent, meaning, and understanding of who is a “natural born Citizen” which comes from Natural Law and not man-made laws or acts of Congress. Both major political parties are out to dilute and abrogate the original intent, meaning, and understanding of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II of our Constitution and why it was put there. Being simply ‘born a Citizen’ was proposed and not accepted. The founders and framers added the adjective “natural”. And that adjective comes from Natural Law. Adjectives mean something. Look up the meaning of the adjective “natural” when it comes to legal meaning in front of a noun.”…CDR Charles Kerchner

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

Presidential candidate Ted Cruz on an interview by Sean Hannity on March 23, 2015 stated that he is a natural born citizen. The argument that he used, having a US citizen mother, only makes him a citizen and not natural born citizen.

“I was born in Calgary,”

“My mother is an American citizen by birth … [and] by federal law, the child of an American citizen born abroad is a citizen at birth, a natural born citizen, which is what the Constitution requires.”

Starting at minute 4:47.

Ted Cruz continues to talk about the constitution but is ignoring and disrespecting it when he claims to be a natural born citizen.

If Ted Cruz believes in the US Constitution, is a patriot and intelligent, he will get this matter settled as soon as possible.

As I recently wrote, a simple request from the FEC for an advisory opinion as to his eligibility for federal matching funds will get the ball rolling. He has to be a natural born citizen to receive those funds.

Ultimately the US Supreme Court needs to do their job and settle the matter once and for all.

Getting a nod from your cronies at Harvard and the Law Review will not suffice.

We are not fooled.

We are also fed up with the chicanery of your fellow Harvard alumnus Barack Obama.

If you want our support, put your actions where your mouth is.

No more smooth talking attorney speak.

Wells

Citizen Wells Request of Cruz January 27, 2015.

“For the good of the country I am requesting that Ted Cruz, at the earliest possible moment, request an advisory opinion from the FEC about his eligibility for Federal Matching funds and therefore the presidency.”

Ted Cruz eligible for presidency?, Ted Cruz natural born citizen?, Cruz a patriot?, Ted Cruz advisory opinion from FEC, Natural born citizen not citizen, Naturalized citizen Abdul Hassan not eligible

Some recent comments at Citizen Wells.

CDR Charles Kerchner.

“No matter what one thinks of his politics, Ted Cruz is NOT constitutionally eligible. And the two major political party lawyers Katyal and Clement can spin and put out disinformation to lend support to constitutionally ineligible people in both major parties, but they cannot change the original intent, meaning, and understanding of who is a “natural born Citizen” which comes from Natural Law and not man-made laws or acts of Congress. Both major political parties are out to dilute and abrogate the original intent, meaning, and understanding of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II of our Constitution and why it was put there. Being simply ‘born a Citizen’ was proposed and not accepted. The founders and framers added the adjective “natural”. And that adjective comes from Natural Law. Adjectives mean something. Look up the meaning of the adjective “natural” when it comes to legal meaning in front of a noun. See section 212 of this legal treatise on the Principles of Natural Law which was written in 1758 Vattel, the 1775 edition which was edited and published by Dumas and was much used by the founders and framers: http://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ Read:http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html and http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/ina-post-on-harvard-law-review-forum.html and http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html CDR Kerchner (Ret) – ProtectOurLiberty.org”

“If Ted Cruz (and/or his CruzBots or the Obots pumping indirectly to help Cruz to help provide cover for Obama in case it surfaces that Obama really was not physically born in HI) wish to point to the 1790 or 1795 Naturalization Acts as a way of claiming “natural born Citizen” status, then they also are admitting that Cruz is a “naturalized” Citizen by the very title of those man-made laws. “natural born Citizens” are created by the laws of nature and natural law and need no statutory law or act of Congress to recognize them as such. See again how the 1795 naturalization act repealed and replaced the 1790 act removing what children born overseas to U.S. citizen parents are considered to be at to type of Citizenship: http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html CDR Kerchner (Ret) – ProtectOurLiberty.org”

Commenter bob strauss.

““Again, at first glance this appears to provide a neat little soundbite for Obama supporters. But it doesn’t. The quote above is taken out of context. The Court’s opinion goes on to state:”

“Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided…that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since.”

Here, the Minor Court cites the first naturalization act of 1790 to the effect that persons born of US citizen parents – outside the jurisdiction of the US – are “considered as natural-born citizens”. So, here we can see that while the Minor Court only recognizes two paths to citizenship, birth and naturalization… it is clear that some persons who, at the time of their birth, are US citizens, require naturalization for such status.

So, it’s clear that while there are only two paths to US citizenship, birth and naturalization, those two paths sometimes merge. But naturalized citizens are not eligible to be President. (The Minor Court failed to mention that the words “natural-born” were repealed from the naturalization act of 1795.)

Additionally, the current US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, at “7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency“, comments on the 1790 act as follows:

“This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”

https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

Read more comments here:

WND article omits critical words from US Constitution on presidential eligibility, Cheryl Chumley replaces at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution with …, Why?, Joseph Farah seen this?

WND article omits critical words from US Constitution on presidential eligibility, Cheryl Chumley replaces at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution with …, Why?, Joseph Farah seen this?

WND article omits critical words from US Constitution on presidential eligibility, Cheryl Chumley replaces at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution with …, Why?, Joseph Farah seen this?

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

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:

Donald Trump goes birther on Ted Cruz

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.

24 hours within Glenn Beck using citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably.

“‘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. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take “good”, for instance. If you have a word like “good”, what need is there for a word like “bad”? “Ungood” will do just as well — better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of “good”, what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like “excellent” and “splendid” and all the rest of them? “Plusgood” covers the meaning, or “doubleplusgood” if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already. but in the final version of Newspeak there’ll be nothing else. 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”

Donald Trump questions Ted Cruz eligibility, Cruz born in Canada, Not natural born citizen, Section one article two US Constitution, McCain 2 US citizen parents born on US base

Donald Trump questions Ted Cruz eligibility, Cruz born in Canada, Not natural born citizen, Section one article two US Constitution, McCain 2 US citizen parents born on US base

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

Why did WND leave out part of the constitution below:

“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 . . . .”

From WND March 24, 2015.

“Billionaire businessman Donald Trump – who’s recently made moves toward a 2016 White House run – reacted swiftly to Sen. Ted Cruz’s announced presidential campaign kick-off, saying on MyFoxNY the fiery Texan still has a substantial obstacle to overcome: His birth place.

“Well, he’s got, you know, a hurdle that nobody else seems to have at this moment,” Trump said, in reference to Cruz’s Canadian place of birth. “It’s a hurdle and somebody could certainly look at it very seriously. He was born in Canada … if you know … and when we all studied our history lessons … you’re supposed to be born in this country, so I just don’t know how the courts would rule on it. But it’s an additional hurdle that he has that no one else seems to have.””

“Cruz isn’t the only presidential candidate to have his eligibility questioned in regards to birth place. Sen. John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father served in the military, fought off a brief court challenge to his eligibility to serve as president during his run for the high office in 2008, Politifact reported. And of course, President Obama’s stated birth place of Hawaii has been an item of controversy for years, with many – including Trump, at points – insisting he was born in Kenya.

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.” But the document doesn’t define “natural born citizen,” and that’s where the differences of opinion arise. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has never clarified.

“The origins of the Natural Born Citizenship Clause date back to a letter John Jay (who later authored several of the Federalist Papers and served as our first chief justice) wrote to George Washington, then president of the Constitutional Convention, on July 25, 1787,” wrote Sarah Helene Duggin, professor of law and director of the Law and Public Policy Program at Columbus School of Law at Catholic University of America, in a 2013 post for the National Constitution Center.

She went on: “At the time … framers worried about ‘ambitious foreigners who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.’ … [So] the natural-born citizenship language appeared in the draft Constitution the Committee of Eleven presented to the Convention. There is no record of any debate on the clause.””

Read more:

Donald Trump goes birther on Ted Cruz

 

Blagojevich appeal status March 24, 2015, Sentence shortened or Obama pardon?, Obama cronies Rezko and Blagojevich know corruption details, Will Rod Blagojevich rat on Obama?

Blagojevich appeal status March 24, 2015, Sentence shortened or Obama pardon?, Obama cronies Rezko and Blagojevich know corruption details, Will Rod Blagojevich rat on Obama?

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

 

You don’t suppose…

Two Obama cronies are languishing in prison.

Tony Rezko and Rod Blagojevich.

Tony Rezko has indicated that he would not rat out his buddy Obama.

Rod Blagojevich, in the approx. 3 percent of wiretaps released, inadvertently ratted out Obama.

You don’t suppose that Rezko, of Syrian birth, made a deal with Obama related to Syria?

I do suppose that Obama and Blagojevich have a deal. It probably involves others including former prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

Despite the lies told by Fitzgerald about the rapid arrest of Blagojevich, the prosecution and legal process of his trials and appeals has dragged out forever.

Remember, the feds knew about and began investigating the Blagojevich Administration by at least late 2003.

I stated some time ago that I believe that Blagojevich’s sentence would likely be reduced, that is, if Obama doesn’t pardon him first.

From Citizen Wells January 1, 2014.

“So far no one has ratted on Obama.

Tony Rezko said that he wouldn’t.

Some never had the chance.

Orlando Jones
Donald Young
Quarles Harris Jr.
Christopher Kelly
Bill Gwatney
Andrew Breitbart
Loretta Fuddy

I believe that Rod Blagojevich made a deal with Obama. Probably beginning in 2006.

I believe that Blagojevich, who was deeper under investigation than Obama, agreed to take the heat for a reduced or pardoned sentence.

ObamaBlagoNov2008

A lot of interesting things can happen in 2014.

We will know the results of the Blagojevich appeal ruling within a few weeks.

I believe that he will get a sentence reduction or a new trial.

This will determine what Obama does next. And of course Obama not being impeached or arrested will too.

If Obama does not lose senate control in 2014, I believe that he will pardon Blagojevich.

Of course the AL Supreme Court may rule that Obama is ineligible.

The Sheriff Joe Arpaio investigation may convince enough congressmen to investigate Obama.

Dead men don’t talk or do they?

There are plenty still alive who may talk. Even Tony Rezko.

The economy has been propped up by smoke and mirrors. That can only work so long.

Despite the best efforts of the media to talk of an economic recovery the economy on your street, not Wall St. has been heavily impacted.

Millions are unemployed, working part time, receiving food stamps and now being charged more for their healthcare insurance.

The media and Obama camp are trying to prop up the economy through the 2014 elections. They have to win.

By their own admission Obama could be impeached otherwise.

My hope for 2014 is that Obama is arrested and removed from office.

Survival of our nation depends on it.

2014 Obama Blagojevich Rezko, Economy collapse, Arpaio investigation of Obama fraud, AL Supreme Court ruling, Fuddy death, Wall St vs your street, Democrats need to win 2014 elections may get Trumped

 

Glenn Beck wrong about Cruz eligibiliy, It’s the Constitution stupid not your feelings, Ted Cruz natural born citizen?, Senate Resolution 511 states McCain had 2 US citizen parents & born on US base, Citizen not equivalent to NBC

Glenn Beck wrong about Cruz eligibiliy, It’s the Constitution stupid not your feelings, Ted Cruz natural born citizen?, Senate Resolution 511 states McCain had 2 US citizen parents & born on US base, Citizen not equivalent to NBC

“Why does Glenn Beck think that he knows more than constitutional scholars and millions of concerned Americans. The definition of natural born citizen has not been settled by the US Supreme Court.”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

I like Ted Cruz.

I believe that he has the human traits to be a good president.

However, he may not be eligible as a natural born citizen.

My feelings and opinions about him have nothing to do with that.

Too bad Glenn Beck is not guided by reason and adherance to the US Constitution.

I just heard uninformed Glenn Beck insult millions of Americans again for questioning Cruz’s eligibility.

The preponderance of evidence indicates that to be a natural born citizen one must be born in the US to 2 US citizen parents.

This has been debated by constitutional scholars but not settled definitively by the US Supreme Court.

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 . . . .”

Ted Cruz is a citizen, but since he was not alive at the adoption of the Constitution, he is not by default a natural born citizen.

The Constitution was crafted by individuals with an excellent understanding of the law and a concern for foreign influences.

They made a clear distinction between citizen and natural born citizen.

Senate Resolution 511

April 30, 2008

“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

McCain had 2 US Citizen parents and was born on an American military base.

That language was included by attorneys on purpose.

Read more here:

Ted Cruz citizen not natural born citizen, Cruz not alive at adoption of constitution, Harvard Law Review article, Still teach to constitution?, Citizen at birth not equivalent to natural born citizen

Ted Cruz presidential announcement Monday March 23, 2015, Cruz natural born citizen?, Citizen Wells to Ted Cruz please request FEC advisory opinion asap, Cruz Twitter tweet

Ted Cruz presidential announcement Monday March 23, 2015, Cruz natural born citizen?, Citizen Wells to Ted Cruz please request FEC advisory opinion asap, Cruz Twitter tweet

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

From CNN March 23, 2015.

“Ted Cruz announces 2016 presidential bid”

“Ted Cruz is first out the gate.

The first-term senator from Texas announced early Monday he is running for president.

Cruz announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in a 30-second video message in a tweet shortly after midnight Monday. Later in the day, he will appear at Virginia’s Liberty University, the largest Christian university in the world, where he will make his in-person declaration.

“I’m running for President and I hope to earn your support!” Cruz said in his tweet.

Cruz, 44, will be the first candidate to formally throw his hat in the ring for what’s expected to be a crowded GOP primary, with more than a dozen high-profile Republicans expressing serious interest in a White House run.”

“A constant and vocal critic of the Obama administration, he’s perhaps best known for his stalwart fight against Obamacare in 2013, which led to a tense standoff between Democrats and Republicans and ultimately resulted in a 17-day government shutdown. The showdown was punctuated by Cruz’s 21-hour speech on the Senate floor.”

Read more:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/23/politics/ted-cruz-2016-announcement/

Senate Resolution 511

April 30, 2008

“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

From Citizen Wells January 27, 2015.

To be president of the US one must be a natural born citizen, not just a citizen and not a naturalized citizen.

Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?

Based on my understanding the answer is no.

Ted Cruz was born in Canada and had only one US citizen parent.

Is Ted Cruz a patriot?

I believe so.

For the good of the country I am requesting that Ted Cruz, at the earliest possible moment, request an advisory opinion from the FEC about his eligibility for Federal Matching funds and therefore the presidency.

The FEC will be compelled to provide an advisory opinion about whether or not he is a natural born citizen.

This will be important for two reasons.

Ted Cruz needs to know early if his efforts are worthwhile and not counterproductive.

We need a ruling on this. Every government entity that should provide guidance on the definition of natural born citizen has passed the buck, including the US Supreme Court. The courts and congress have shirked their constitutional duty.

There are 2 important instances of an advisory opinion from the FEC on matching funds.

1. Attorney Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie on behalf of Barack Obama in 2007.

From Citizen Wells January 23, 2012.

“WHY DID OBAMA REFUSE MATCHING FUNDS IN 2008?

PART 4

Obama, attorneys and Democrats control FEC

The devil himself could not have come up with a more devious plan.

Robert Bauer, of Perkins Coie, on February 1, 2007 requested an advisory opinion to keep Obama’s option for matching funds open. Bauer knew full well that Obama, not being a natural born citizen, was not eligible for matching funds. The FEC advisory opinion from March 1, 2007 responded in the affirmative.Ellen L. Weintraub, former staff member at Perkins Coie, was a Democrat appointee of the FEC at that time. She remained well beyond her scheduled tenure with the help of Barack Obama.
Obama, Robert Bauer, Democrats interaction with FEC timeline.
February 1,2007

Advisory Opinion Request: General Election Public Funding

From Obama attorney Robert Bauer to FEC

“This request for an Advisory Opinion is filed on behalf of Senator Barack Obama and the committee, the Obama Exploratory Committee, that he established to fund his exploration of a Presidential candidacy. The question on which he seeks the Commission’s guidance is whether, if Senator Obama becomes a candidate, he may provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option, upon nomination, of returning these contributions and accepting the public funds for which he would be eligible as the Democratic Party’s nominee.”

“cc: Chairman Robert Lenhard
Vice Chair David Mason
Commissioner Michael Toner
Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky
Commissioner Steven Walther
Commissioner Ellen Weintraub

Note, in the above advisory opinion request, Robert Bauer was a Perkins Coie attorney and Ellen Weintraub was a former Perkins Coie staff member.
March 1, 2007

FEC advisory opinion

From Robert D. Lenhard to Robert Bauer

“The Commission concludes that Senator Obama may solicit and receive private contributions for the 2008 presidential general election without losing his
eligibility to receive public funding if he receives his party’s nomination for President, if he (1) deposits and maintains all private contributions
designated for the general election in a separate account, (2) refrains from using these contributions for any purpose, and (3) refunds the private
contributions in full if he ultimately decides to receive public funds.””

June 19, 2008.

“Obama to Break Promise, Opt Out of Public Financing for General Election”

“In a web video to supporters — “the people who built this movement from the bottom up” — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, announced this morning that he will not enter into the public financing system, despite a previous pledge to do so.”

“In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”
Obama wrote:

“In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party
candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/obama-ga-ballot-challenge-natural-born-citizen-status-judge-michael-malihi-why-did-obama-refuse-matching-funds-in-2008-part-4-obama-attorneys-democrats-control-fec/

2. Abdul Hassan, a naturalized citizen, requested an advisory opinion in 2012.

From Citizen Wells March 11, 2013.

“From the FEC March 11, 2013.

APPEALS COURT ISSUES PER CURIAM ORDER IN HASSAN v. FEC

WASHINGTON – The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today issued its Per Curiam Order inHassan v. FEC (Case 1:11-cv-02189-EGS). The text of the Order may be found here: (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_ac_order2.pdf).

Background.

From Citizen Wells October 1, 2012.

“From the FEC October 1, 2012.

DISTRICT COURT ISSUES OPINION IN HASSAN v. FEC

WASHINGTON – The United States District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order in Hassan v. FEC (Case 1:11-cv-02189-EGS). The text of the Memorandum Opinion may be found here (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_dc_memo_opinion.pdf) and the text of the Order may be found here (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_dc_order2.pdf).

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency that administers and enforces federal campaign finance laws. The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Established in 1975, the FEC is composed of six Commissioners who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2012/20121001_Hassan_v._FEC.shtml

Exerpts:
“Hassan’s challenge to the Fund Act rests on his contention
that the natural born citizen requirement has been implicitly
repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court need
not repeat the thorough and persuasive opinions issued by its
colleagues in at least five other jurisdictions, all of whom
determined that the natural born citizen requirement has not
been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”

“Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of
Presidential eligibility remains valid.”

“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.””

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/abdul-karim-hassan-vs-federal-election-commission-march-11-2013-u-s-court-of-appeals-per-curiam-order-hassan-not-natural-born-citizen/

This is important.

I urge you to contact Ted Cruz with this important information.

Ted Cruz eligible for presidency?, Ted Cruz natural born citizen?, Cruz a patriot?, Ted Cruz advisory opinion from FEC, Natural born citizen not citizen, Naturalized citizen Abdul Hassan not eligible

Garrison Keillor lies about talk radio, Glenn Beck reveals Obama Obamacare lies, NPR too liberal a shame, Talk radio Limbaugh Hannity Beck et al source of truth, A Prairie Home Companion bias is sad

Garrison Keillor lies about talk radio, Glenn Beck reveals Obama Obamacare lies, NPR too liberal a shame, Talk radio Limbaugh Hannity Beck et al source of truth, A Prairie Home Companion bias is sad

“I hate being the guy telling you the President of the United States is a liar. I hate it. I hate it. I don’t want to be this guy, but nobody else will say it.”…Glenn Beck March 20, 2015

“Glenn Beck, I do not like being the person that calls Obama or Yellen a liar either but somebody has got to do it.”…Citizen Wells

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”…Jesus, John 8:32

 

 

I have listened to NPR for many years during a time when I also listened to Rush Limbaugh.

Sadly NPR has bceome increasingly biased to the left over the years.

My favorite show on NPR is still “Car Talk.”

I have never heard them get politically biased.

I have also listened to “A Prairie Home Companion” for many years. But the host, Garrison Keillor is obviously a liberal and the show from time to time lets its bias ruin an otherwise entertaining show.

Today was one of those days.

I was listening in the car as Keillor stated “Talk radio, where people get paid to tell lies.”

That is a lie and Keillor is getting paid to tell it.

There is talk radio and there is talk radio. Obviously all hosts do not have the same credibility.

However, I can state unequivocally, that talk radio as a whole is one of the few places in the media where the truth can be found.

I regularly tune in to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.

I usually agree with Beck but on Friday, March 20, 2015, he was particularly on point and one of his statements really resonated with me.

From Glenn Beck March 20, 2015.

“There’s a reason Glenn doesn’t like to spend too much time playing audio from President Obama. In fact, he banned his name from even being mentioned on the radio show for all of 2013. Today, Pat put together a montage of some of Obama’s biggest lies – and Glenn could barely contain his outrage. “Nobody wants to believe the President of the United States is a liar. Nobody. It doesn’t work out well. No one wants to say that about the president. I don’t want to say it, I don’t want to believe it. I love this country. I have immense respect for the office of the President of the United States, not the men, but the office. But this is a fact. And it is an unpleasant one. Most of the press completely ignores it, but it is a fact, and the proof is readily available for anybody who cares to look,” Glenn said on radio today. Glenn then ran through a litany of lies that Obama has told. Here are just a few: Lie: The Affordable Care Act isn’t a gateway to single-payer. President Obama said, “Let me address an illegitimate concern that’s being put forward by those who are claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single payer system.” The Truth: President Obama has said in the past “A single payer health care credit–universal healthcare credit. That’s what I’d like to see, but as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House and we’ve got to take back the Senate and we’ve got to take back the House.” Lie: The healthcare mandate isn’t a tax. President Obama said, “For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.”

The Truth: In order for SCOTUS to uphold the individual mandate, it had to be declared a tax. Lie: If you like you’re healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan. The Truth: Nope, millions couldn’t keep it. Turns out there was an assumption that people wouldn’t be happy with their plan. As Glenn put it, “The responsibility for the lie is us. We liked our doctors and we shouldn’t have liked them. We are stupid, and therefore, we need to be lied to.” Lie: Obamacare would be revenue-neutral and only cost $900 billion. The Truth: Again, no. “Well, after his $900 billion promise, the next year cost was adjusted to $1.4 trillion. The next year, $1.7 trillion. The next year, again to $2 trillion. The next year it was $2.3. The latest, $2.6 trillion. How much do you love it now?” Glenn said. Lie: It was supposed to insure all 48 million without insurance. The Truth: “ObamaCare was supposed to insure all 48 million Americans who were without insurance. That was the compassionate thing to do. Even their most wildly ridiculous claims are that 9 million have been insured. $2.6 trillion for 9 million people. We still have 39 million people uninsured. Is that better than you predicted? I could go on,” Glenn said. “There are literally hundreds of lies we could highlight from this man, but my doctor says I have too much Obama for my blood pressure,” Glenn said. “I hate being the guy telling you the President of the United States is a liar. I hate it. I hate it. I don’t want to be this guy, but nobody else will say it.””

Read more:

http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/03/20/this-is-why-we-dont-like-talking-about-president-obama/
http://www.video.theblaze.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=50163483&width=400&height=224&property=theblaze

NC January unemployment rate 5.4 percent LOL, May 2008 comparison showed over 5 percent plummet in participation rate, Jan data not available yet, LAUS data being rectified, BLS 2015 redesign

NC January unemployment rate 5.4 percent LOL, May 2008 comparison showed over 5 percent plummet in participation rate, Jan data not available yet, LAUS data being rectified, BLS 2015 redesign

 

“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 

“11.4%: What the U.S. unemployment rate would be if labor force participation were back to January 2008 levels.” …James Pethokoukis, American Enterprise Institute, June 2013

“the Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today’s issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston’s job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones.”…George Orwell, “1984”

 

***  UPDATE BELOW  ***

The January 2015 employment data for NC was announced March 17.

Several days ago I attempted to access the LAUS, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, for North Carolina.
I got this message :

“Due to maintenance this site is temporarily unavailable. 

You can access our data using one of our other available applications:
AccessNC OR NCWorks

If you need to contact us please call 919.707.1500.”

The next day I called, was transferred to a specialist & left a message.

I have received no return call.

From the US Labor Department BLS.

“What does the LAUS 2015 Redesign entail?

The 2015 LAUS Redesign includes improved time-series models for the census divisions, states, select substate areas, and the balances of those states; an improved real-time benchmarking procedure to the national Current Population Survey (CPS) estimates; an improved smoothed seasonal adjustment procedure; and improved treatment of outliers.

Non-modeled area estimation improvements include: updated Dynamic Residency Ratios (DRR); more accurate estimates for all-other employment; more accurate estimation of agricultural employment; and improved estimation of non-covered agricultural unemployment. Handbook estimation is now done at the county level instead of at the Labor Market Area (LMA) level, which better reflects local conditions. The Redesign also introduces estimation inputs from the American Community Survey (ACS) to replace inputs that were previously obtained from the decennial census long-form survey.

In addition, 2010 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delineations for metropolitan areas, metropolitan divisions, and micropolitan areas and new LAUS small labor market areas will be implemented with the 2015 LAUS Redesign.

How often does LAUS conduct major redesigns to its methodology?
Typically every 10 years.

When will the LAUS 2015 Redesign changes be implemented?
The 2015 Redesign is being implemented with the publication of January 2015 estimates.”

“Why is LAUS making these program improvements?

Some issues have been identified with the 2005 methods of estimation at the state and substate levels that affect accuracy and analysis of the estimates. Because LAUS is committed to producing high-quality data, it must conduct research and improve its methods and procedures. Moreover, when data sources cease to exist, it must find new sources to replace them. The 2015 state and substate estimation approaches generate more accurate and reliable estimates.”

“How will the LAUS 2015 Redesign affect historical comparisons?

For the census divisions, states, and balance of states, the entire historical series from January 1976 forward will be replaced with estimates based on the redesigned models. For the five modeled metropolitan areas and divisions, the plan is to re-estimate back to 1990. For the remaining substate areas, the re-estimation with the new methodology will be carried back to 2010. Hence, many areas can be expected to display breaks in series between 2009 and 2010.”

http://www.bls.gov/lau/2015redesignqa.htm#Q02

I can’t wait to see the “rectifications.”

I have criticized NC Governor Pat McCrory as well as Obama.

From Citizen Wells February 5, 2015.

From the State Of the State speech February 4, 2015.

“As I said, two years ago, our unemployment rate was the fifth highest in the nation. So we all rolled up our sleeves, made the tough decisions, and as of today, the private sector has created nearly 200,000 new jobs. We went from the 5th highest in unemployment to the 23rd lowest, and now we’re even beating South Carolina. Despite this tremendous accomplishment there are still a lot of communities, small businesses, and individuals that are hurting, and there is still much work to be done. Therefore, my administration’s focus will be on five areas that have the greatest impact on our people. ”

“Much of the drop in the unemployment rate in NC came from people dropping out of the labor force.

From Citizen Wells December 21, 2014.

“Despite what you may have read from the low information mainstream media, baby boomers retiring are not the cause of the drop in the labor force in NC or US.

Do the math or read prior articles at Citizen Wells.

Lack of jobs is the problem.

From May of 2008 to November of 2014, the labor force participation rate plummeted 5 percent in NC. The unemployment rate is the same.””

“Greensboro News Record February 5, 2015.

“The unemployment rate in the Greensboro-High Point metro area decreased to 5.3 percent in December 2014, compared with 6.9 percent in December 2013, according to a report from the N.C. Department of Commerce.”

““The state’s labor force shrunk 0.2 percent in November, losing 13,534 people. Over the past year, the labor force has shrunk 0.7 percent, for a reduction of 31,665 people.

A shrinking labor force will drive down the unemployment rate because fewer people are looking for work.””

“From the Center for Immigration Studies August 2014.

“An analysis of government data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that, since 2000, all of the net increase in the number of working-age (16 to 65) people holding a job in North Carolina has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal). This is the case even though the native-born accounted for 61 percent of growth in the state’s total working-age population.””

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/nc-governor-pat-mccrory-speech-on-employment-misleading-big-unemployment-rate-lie-greensboro-news-record-article-record-numbers-leave-labor-force-percent-of-population-working-plummets-immigrants/

The primary reason that the unemployment rate has dropped is due to the plummet of the labor force participation.

From Citizen Wells January 29, 2015.

“NC labor force participation rate plummets 5.3 percent since May 2008, Reason for unemployment rate drop, Reason for drop in claims, No more employees left to lay off, NC ninth most populous state”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/nc-labor-force-participation-rate-plummets-5-3-percent-since-may-2008-reason-for-unemployment-rate-drop-reason-for-drop-in-claims-no-more-employees-left-to-lay-off-nc-ninth-most-populous-state/

From Citizen Wells December 21, 2014.

“Despite what you may have read from the low information mainstream media, baby boomers retiring are not the cause of the drop in the labor force in NC or US.

Do the math or read prior articles at Citizen Wells.

Lack of jobs is the problem.

From May of 2008 to November of 2014, the labor force participation rate plummeted 5 percent in NC. The unemployment rate is the same.

From NC Spin December 20, 2014.

“North Carolina’s jobless rate fell to 5.8 percent in November, the lowest since May 2008, as the state’s economy gains force in the second half of the year.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2014/12/21/nc-labor-force-participation-rate-plummets-5-percent-from-may-2008-to-november-2014-unemployment-rate-same-baby-boomers-retiring-not-cause-of-labor-force-drop-lack-of-jobs-causes-younger-people-to/

 

***  Update 3/21/2015 10:10 AM  ***

From the NC LAUS

“This application is expected to be available on March 24, 2015.”

 

 

 

 

Janet Yellen jobs lies, Obama lies, Media lies, Yellen employment growth strong and touts stated unemployment rate, Gallup CEO Jim Clifton correct, Dictionary states lie is anything that gives or is meant to give a false impression

Janet Yellen jobs lies, Obama lies, Media lies, Yellen employment growth strong and touts stated unemployment rate, Gallup CEO Jim Clifton correct, Dictionary states lie is anything that gives or is meant to give a false impression

“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 

“In February 2015 there were 43,000 fewer white Americans employed, 354,000 more not in the labor force, 96,000 more employed and we added 295,000 jobs? Was Common Core math used?”…Citizen Wells

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

 

 

Two people with vast knowledge of US employment have made statements in the past several years.

Keith Hall ran the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 2008 to 2012.

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution August 5, 2013.

“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.’”

Read more:

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

Jim Clifton is the CEO of Gallup.

From Gallup February 3, 2015.

“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.

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.

And it’s a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual’s primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity — it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen’s talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.”

Read more:

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

Jim Clifton was attacked and ridiculed.

But Clifton was correct.

Websters New World College Dictionary

“The official dictionary of the Associated Press”
Lie definition (noun)
“anything that gives or is meant to give a false impression.”
So why does Janet Yellen, Obama the liar in chief and the media continue to tout the “low” unemployment rate.

It is a big lie!!!

Janet Yellen in her FOMC presentation repeatedly referred to the “low” unemployment rate in the context of strong employment growth as well as the number of “jobs” being added.

“We have seen continued progress toward our objective of maximum employment. The pace of employment growth has remained strong, with job gains averaging nearly 290,000 per month over the past three months. The unemployment rate was 5.5 percent in February; that’s three-tenths lower than the latest reading available at the time of our December meeting.”

Click to access FOMCpresconf20150318.pdf

Obama has a long well documented tradition of lying.

The mainstream media is controlled by Big Brother Obama.

So why is Yellen lying?

Let’s examine US employment in the short term and over Obama’s 6 year tenure.

All of this data can be found at the US Labor Dept. BLS site.

The latest report was for February 2015.

The Labor Dept. reported 295,000 jobs added.

However, there was only a 96,000  gain in employment.

And Whites had 43,000  fewer employments!

There were 354,000 more people not in the labor force!

There were 180,000 more people not in the labor force who want a job now!

Does Yellen consider this strong employment growth?

That does not even cover new entrants into the labor force.

Remember, there are approx. 4 million people turning 16 each year in the US. This is from people living here and does not count illegals.

From Obama’s first 6 years.

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?

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.

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/janet-yellen-fomc-press-conference-march-18-2015-pace-of-employment-growth-has-remained-strong-continued-progress-toward-maximum-employment-of-whom-illegal-aliens-job-gains-averaging-nearly-290k/

What about people losing their job?

Averaging 300,000 initial claims each week seems to be a victory to those in government and the media.

From Zero Hedge March 19, 2015.

“After some ‘stability’ in the last few weeks, initial jobless claims in the major shale states has started to rise again with Texas the most impacted for now. Overall initial jobless claims rose very modestly to 291k, but leaves the 4-week average above 300k for the 2nd week in a row – the first time in over 6 months.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-19/initial-claims-hold-worst-levels-6-months-shale-state-joblessness-re-surges

I have been concerned for some time that we are not getting the full impact of these numbers.

From the BLS.

Unemployment insurance (UI) programs are administered at the state level and provide assistance to jobless people who are looking for work. Statistics on the insured unemployed in the United States are collected as a by-product of state UI programs. Workers who lose their jobs may file applications to determine if they are eligible for UI assistance. These applications are referred to as “initial claims.” Claimants who meet the eligibility requirements must file “continuing claims” for each week that they seek benefits.

Data on initial and continuing UI claims are maintained by the Employment and Training Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor, and are available on the Internet at http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp.

While the UI claims data provide useful information, they are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered.

In addition, the insured unemployed exclude the following:

  1. Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits.
  2. Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force).
  3. Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker fired for misconduct on the job.
  4. Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits.

Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a measure of total unemployment in the United States. Indeed, over the past decade, only about one-third of the total unemployed, on average, received regular UI benefits.”

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

The number of people who have lost jobs and in some cases fallen by the wayside may be much higher than we thought.

I hope to report more on this soon.

I know that the mainstream media is not reporting this.

Are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck or your favorite talk radio host reporting these facts?

Let me know.