Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    They voted to keep Americans jobless so illegal aliens could

    LOOK AT THEIR NAMES -- They voted today to keep Americans jobless so multitudes of illegal aliens could keep fed jobs

    By Roy Beck, Friday, June 12, 2009, 6:47 PM

    The choice couldn't have been clearer. And these U.S. Representatives said a big fat NO to the unemployed voters of their Congressional Districts and said hundreds of federal contractor jobs have to remain with illegal aliens. See the list of shame below.

    On Friday, the U.S. Representatives listed below took an amazingly callous action that told federal contractors that they can continue to use taxpayer money to hire illegal aliens -- instead of unemployed Americans.

    They voted NO on an amendment to let Americans have those jobs.

    I hope you will broadcast the shame of their vote throughout the voters of their Districts.

    This is the latest of a growing and nauseatingly long list of actions this year in which the majority in Congress take the side of Big Business and illegal aliens against the U.S. households that would like nothing better than to get a paycheck again.

    These Representatives took this unconscionable action because they don't believe the voters in their district will notice or create any political pain. ONLY YOU CAN CHANGE THAT PERCEPTION. Please spread the word among everybody you know that these Representatives are taking these kinds of actions.

    This outrageous vote today was not an oversight. No, they knew exactly what they were doing and they were doing what their Party leadership told them to do.

    The debate in the Appropriations Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives was very clear about what was at stake. Because Congress and the President have refused repeatedly during this deep recession to bar illegal aliens from federal jobs, Rep. Kingston of Georgia once again on Friday offered an amendment to make sure that federal contractors employ only legal workers.

    For the most part, federal contractors are the only part of our economy that is growing. This is where the jobs are. We and our children and grandchildren will be paying off the debt for these Stimulus jobs and deficit spending for decades. Rep. Kingston fought for a small sense of decency, asking that Americans and legal immigrants already here get those jobs. It appears that hundreds of thousands of these jobs already are filled by illegal aliens.

    If Kingston's amendment had passed, federal contractors would have had to run their existing and new employees through E-Verify which would have forced the illegal workers out, opening up jobs for hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans and legal immigrants.

    BUT THESE REPRESENTATIVES VOTED 'NO' -- REFUSING TO MAKE FEDERAL CONTRACTORS USE E-VERIFY TO KEEP ILLEGAL ALIENS OUT OF JOBS

    (AZ) Ed Pastor
    (AR) Marion Berry
    (CA) Sam Farr
    (CA) Michael Honda
    (CA) Barbara Lee
    (CA) Lucille Roybal-Allard
    (CA) Adam Schiff
    (CO) John Salazar
    (CT) Rosa DeLauro
    (FL) Allen Boyd
    (FL) Debbie Wasserman Schultz
    (GA) Sanford Bishop
    (IL) Jesse Jackson
    (IN) Peter Visclosky
    (KY) Ben Chandler
    (MA) John Oliver
    (MI) Carolyn Kilpatrick
    (MN) Betty McCollum (NJ) Steven Rothman
    (NY) Maurice Hinchey
    (NY) Steve Israel
    (NY) Nita Lowey
    (NY) Jose Serrano
    (NC) David Price
    (OH) Marcy Kaptur
    (OH) Tim Ryan
    (PA) Chaka Fattah
    (PA) John Murtha
    (TN) Lincoln Davis
    (TX) Chet Edwards
    (TX) Ciro Rodriguez
    (VA) Jim Moran
    (WA) Norman Dicks
    (WV) Alan Mollohan
    (WI) David Obey


    Why did these elected officials vote against giving federal contractor jobs to American workers?

    Spokesmen for the NO vote tried to use the Chamber of Commerce's tired but totally false line that DHS is unprepared to handle such a large increase in E-Verifiy users, and that the error rate is too high.

    In fact, even DHS head Janet Napolitano recently said that DHS can handle the expansion easily. And the E-Verify error rate is quickly approaching zero, with safeguards protecting every innocent party from losing even a day's work and wages.

    So what is the real reason 35 Representatives killed the hopes of hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans that they could get a federal contractor job this summer?

    One of two reasons:

    1. They are committed to protecting the job of every illegal alien until Congress can pass an amnesty that will give permanent job permits to the illegal workers. Some of the NO spokesmen today said that these questions about E-Verify should wait until Congress is considering the comprehensive (amnesty) bill.

    2. They feel more beholden to Party leaders in the House than to the jobless households in their Districts. Party loyalty seemed to be the driving principle today.

    Either way, those of you represented by these NO voters have a big problem on your hands.

    The rest of us are depending on you change some minds.

    ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA

    http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusab ... tid=254574
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member nomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NC and Canada. Got a foot in both worlds
    Posts
    3,773
    David Price (NC) got a scathing email AND phone call from me, didn't seem to phase the person I talked to in his office... and got no reply to my email. I think he represents Raleigh (if you can call it that), but I'm not sure of that.

    THIS GUY HAS GOT TO GO NEXT ELECTION!

  3. #3
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,716
    "These Representatives took this unconscionable action because they don't believe the voters in their district will notice or create any political pain. ONLY YOU CAN CHANGE THAT PERCEPTION. Please spread the word among everybody you know that these Representatives are taking these kinds of actions."

    The above comment needed emphasis!

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #4
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,716
    nomas wrote:

    THIS GUY HAS GOT TO GO NEXT ELECTION!
    I've been saying that for years! However, election after election and the guy is still here (he is my district representative).

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #5
    Senior Member jp_48504's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    19,168
    I don't agree with everify, but I do agree with enforcing our existing laws. As far as getting new people in office goes,people keep saying it, but then they dont do anything to change it. Start a grassroots effort and get someone else elected. Start now. The 2010 elections are coming.
    I stay current on Americans for Legal Immigration PAC's fight to Secure Our Border and Send Illegals Home via E-mail Alerts (CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP)

  6. #6
    Senior Member StokeyBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,912
    Did you ever wonder where the money for things like the subversion of the world’s immigration laws may come from?

    It seems to me as long as we allow people to print up fiat money there will be no place in the world where freedom can flourish.

    If the Globalist oppose your efforts, paid for with real hard earned money, all they have to do is fire up the presses and shovel the money to any group that will oppose you.

    Not only that but it seems they do it in such a way that the money to achieve THEIR goals is borrowed from them. Then we pay interest to a group outside of our country, like the Federal Reserve, on the creation and borrowing of OUR OWN fiat money.

    IN ESSENCE THEY BEAT US WITH OUR OWN STICK!


    *******************************************


    I think they should uphold the rule of law and govern by the rules set forth by the United States Constitution, as they swore they would with their oaths of office.

    Back in the sixties the government came into the schools and brainwashed us with the idea we needed to control the population because it was rising so fast. They said the roads would become crowded and we would run out of things like water.

    They unleashed abortions, birth control pills, and other forms of Family Planning.

    To allow the country to be over run with the criminals in businesses illegal labor while the criminals in the government aid and abet the invasion is a travesty against mankind.

    They have seen to it our children were killed to control the population at the same time allowing the world to export their population problems here.

    What about our sacrifices, many made against our will?

    P.S. We still haven't recovered from the last time the criminals in business were allowed to bring in their slaves.

  7. #7
    Senior Member lccat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,584
    After a quick scan of the listed representatives the one that stands out as a surprise is "(KY) Ben Chandler". He has in the past mostly voted Pro Citizen and not Pro ILLEGAL. Would anyone from Kentucky or familiar with Chandler be able to explain what I would have considered an out of character vote for him? There may be others but his name caught my eye. Or could it be another case of "Just follow the money"!

  8. #8
    Senior Member StokeyBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,912
    Quote Originally Posted by lccat
    After a quick scan of the listed representatives the one that stands out as a surprise is "(KY) Ben Chandler". He has in the past mostly voted Pro Citizen and not Pro ILLEGAL. Would anyone from Kentucky or familiar with Chandler be able to explain what I would have considered an out of character vote for him? There may be others but his name caught my eye. Or could it be another case of "Just follow the money"!
    His report card looks pretty good.

    http://grades.betterimmigration.com/...=KY&VIPID=1145

  9. #9
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012
    I believe that they are all on board for the Union payback. As our "stimulous" money begins to trickle down for the construction season, the Unions are in line for the MAJORITY of the money to "rebuild" America using cheap foreign labor.

    I also believe that Unions are becoming one of the major culprits in the illegal immigration debate. They don't seem to care if these people are legally allowed to work, as long as they pay the dues and make the Unions fat and powerful.

    Please note that on February 6, 2009, by Presidential Order, the large constuction projects were given to the Union.

    Why wait until 2010? There may not be anything left by then or the "new laws" will be in place and the Census and Acorn will be in place to scew the election.

    I think we should start the process to RECALL THEM NOW if we can, 2010 may be too late at the pace they are going. I am beginning to think that they seem to be trying to beat the clock to get everything they want and the tools in place to keep it before 2010.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_off ... nProjects/



    Friday, February 6th, 2009 at 12:00 am
    Executive Order: Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects
    THE WHITE HOUSE

    Office of the Press Secretary

    For Immediate Release
    February 6, 2009

    EXECUTIVE ORDER

    - - - - - - -

    USE OF PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and in order to promote the efficient administration and completion of Federal construction projects, it is hereby ordered that:

    Section 1. Policy. (a) Large-scale construction projects pose special challenges to efficient and timely procurement by the Federal Government. Construction employers typically do not have a permanent workforce, which makes it difficult for them to predict labor costs when bidding on contracts and to ensure a steady supply of labor on contracts being performed. Challenges also arise due to the fact that construction projects typically involve multiple employers at a single location. A labor dispute involving one employer can delay the entire project. A lack of coordination among various employers, or uncertainty about the terms and conditions of employment of various groups of workers, can create frictions and disputes in the absence of an agreed-upon resolution mechanism. These problems threaten the efficient and timely completion of construction projects undertaken by Federal contractors. On larger projects, which are generally more complex and of longer duration, these problems tend to be more pronounced.

    (b) The use of a project labor agreement may prevent these problems from developing by providing structure and stability to large-scale construction projects, thereby promoting the efficient and expeditious completion of Federal construction contracts. Accordingly, it is the policy of the Federal Government to encourage executive agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement.

    Sec. 2. Definitions.

    (a) The term "labor organization" as used in this order means a labor organization as defined in 29 U.S.C. 152(5).

    (b) The term "construction" as used in this order means construction, rehabilitation, alteration, conversion, extension, repair, or improvement of buildings, highways, or other real property.

    (c) The term "large-scale construction project" as used in this order means a construction project where the total cost to the Federal Government is $25 million or more.

    (d) The term "executive agency" as used in this order has the same meaning as in 5 U.S.C. 105, but excludes the Government Accountability Office.

    (e) The term "project labor agreement" as used in this order means a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement with one or more labor organizations that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project and is an agreement described in 29 U.S.C. 158(f).

    Sec. 3. (a) In awarding any contract in connection with a large-scale construction project, or obligating funds pursuant to such a contract, executive agencies may, on a project-by-project basis, require the use of a project labor agreement by a contractor where use of such an agreement will (i) advance the Federal Government's interest in achieving economy and efficiency in Federal procurement, producing labor-management stability, and ensuring compliance with laws and regulations governing safety and health, equal employment opportunity, labor and employment standards, and other matters, and (ii) be consistent with law.

    (b) If an executive agency determines under subsection (a) that the use of a project labor agreement will satisfy the criteria in clauses (i) and (ii) of that subsection, the agency may, if appropriate, require that every contractor or subcontractor on the project agree, for that project, to negotiate or become a party to a project labor agreement with one or more appropriate labor organizations.

    Sec. 4. Any project labor agreement reached pursuant to this order shall:

    (a) bind all contractors and subcontractors on the construction project through the inclusion of appropriate specifications in all relevant solicitation provisions and contract documents;

    (b) allow all contractors and subcontractors to compete for contracts and subcontracts without regard to whether they are otherwise parties to collective bargaining agreements;

    (c) contain guarantees against strikes, lockouts, and similar job disruptions;

    (d) set forth effective, prompt, and mutually binding procedures for resolving labor disputes arising during the project labor agreement;

    (e) provide other mechanisms for labor-management cooperation on matters of mutual interest and concern, including productivity, quality of work, safety, and health;

    and

    (f) fully conform to all statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders.

    Sec. 5. This order does not require an executive agency to use a project labor agreement on any construction project, nor does it preclude the use of a project labor agreement in circumstances not covered by this order, including leasehold arrangements and projects receiving Federal financial assistance. This order also does not require contractors or subcontractors to enter into a project labor agreement with any particular labor organization.

    Sec. 6. Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council), to the extent permitted by law, shall take whatever action is required to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation to implement the provisions of this order.

    Sec. 7. The Director of OMB, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor and with other officials as appropriate, shall provide the President within 180 days of this order, recommendations about whether broader use of project labor agreements, with respect to both construction projects undertaken under Federal contracts and construction projects receiving Federal financial assistance, would help to promote the economical, efficient, and timely completion of such projects.

    Sec. 8. Revocation of Prior Orders, Rules, and Regulations. Executive Order 13202 of February 17, 2001, and Executive Order 13208 of April 6, 2001, are revoked. The heads of executive agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, revoke expeditiously any orders, rules, or regulations implementing Executive Orders 13202 and 13208.

    Sec. 9. Severability. If any provision of this order, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

    Sec. 10. General. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    (i) authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

    (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    Sec. 11. Effective Date. This order shall be effective immediately and shall apply to all solicitations for contracts issued on or after the effective date of the action taken by the FAR Council under section 6 of this order.

    BARACK OBAMA

    THE WHITE HOUSE,

    February 6, 2009.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •