It is crucial that we understand that jobs, our debt, and anything viewed as part of the “economic crisis” is being used by Progressives, particularly the Progressive-Terrorist-In-Chief Barack Obama, to force the creation of a new Civil Right subject to government protection: unemployment.
Further, Americans must comprehend how this act is being used to empower illegal aliens as well, that illegal aliens are not exempt from enforcing the unemployment protections of the American Jobs Act.
Through reading what I have of the American Jobs Act it is clear to me that Obama is trying to make unemployment a Civil Right, and a new means of entitlement, http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?extend.181.2. That unemployment benefits have been extended to 99 weeks, and were sold to us on the idea that “not extending these benefits takes money out of local economies,” is Progressive packaging of unemployment as a boon to the economy, where we pay out 100% but revenue from those amounts will be the taxation of where the money is spent, which is a persistent curve of diminishing returns, particularly when one considers how all the money is not spent in legitimate uses.
In relation to civil cases, such as enforcement of not being prejudiced by unemployment, the 99 weeks, and all other benefits applied for, are government records that will be used in the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Using unemployment as a criteria of prejudice to trigger 1964 Civil Rights Act protections and provide the plaintiff standing to bring a lawsuit, is a significant issue relating to illegal aliens as well. I have yet to meet an illegal alien currently employed and submitting a resume with their employment history, as having these is evidence of a crime, committed both by the illegal alien and their former employers, as well as civil liability for unpaid taxes, both at the State and National Government levels.
So now, imagine illegal aliens suing our American businesses, and even being able to go to a U.S. Attorney to have a Governor arrested for enforcing their State's immigration laws (see section 375 subsection (d)), on the grounds that “requesting records of past employment (which would come up with a Social Security Number/eVerify) violates the American Jobs Act as such records are an attempt to establish the current unemployment of the applicant to prejudice them from employment.”
An illegal alien coming to America from any country generally has no employment records to share (there is a reason they left their country without expatriating), and thus, by all appearances, the illegal alien is technically "unemployed" at the time of applying. This is how Progressives play the game, technicalities in favor of some long drawn-out legal argument by their favorite Civil Rights "branch of government," the ACLU (ACLU does receive some public funding). A slow procession toward their goals (more on the ACLU's goals below).
A perfect illustration is the case Lawyer Obama was employed by ACORN to bring, http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.104
The Blaze decided to say that the concern over the AJA State Sovereignty issue is an overreaction, http://www.theblaze.com/stories/what-you%E2%80%99re-not-hearing-about-the-new-jobs-bill-it-overrides-state%E2%80%99s-rights/?corder=desc#comments, and I tend to agree. But the overreaching affect of the provisions in the AJA, irrespective of the fact that an Act of Congress cannot abrogate a Constitutional Protection, remains intact. The reason being that it is government who hears and enforces, government who carries on the governing function, thus the recognition of what is or isn't true is assumed, and entirely, up to government, as brought before government courts as the institution to carry on these events. There is no question that, at this time, we cannot count on Our Government to respect the Constitution according to what this document means to We The People, cannot believe for an instant that there is a reasonableness in government that would, for even a moment, accurately conclude that an Act of Congress cannot abrogate a Constitutional Provision. And it is clear to me Government knows the courts won't rule in favor of the Constitution, in the fact Congress regularly puts such clauses in acts “giving money” to the States as a “string attached” -- The AJA string is the broadest I've seen, as it includes money “for any” programs and not just those to facilitate the AJA. Therefore, the threat to National Sovereignty, as Liberal appointed judges uphold a Civil Rights case brought by the ACLU on behalf of an illegal alien, is a legitimate concern, and in no way an overreaction.
As the article about Obama's ACORN case illustrates, Progressives bring the case on Civil Rights grounds, but settlement is based on something else, and the grounds of the settlement was the whole purpose in filing the case. The initial Civil Rights issue under which they filed the case was legitimate if pursued, at least according to the Civil Rights Act, so I am not saying it wasn't (though the Civil Rights Act seems to be merely a tool for Progressive and government power expansion). What I am saying is that the Civil Rights claim was done solely to achieve the settled outcome, a means to use race as the legal vehicle for standing to sue, and thereby, to force an institution to conduct private business differently -- Legal leverage.
The same will be true if unemployment is legislated into being treated as a Civil Right through the AJA, which is exactly what this act does. There is no exemption of illegal aliens from being able to enforce it. The icing on the cake of destroying State Sovereignty is to assure enforcement by the National Government of whatever they wish to do with this act, particularly as the State Sovereignty waiver is a matter of standard legislative procedure. This is particularly true with any act, such as the AJA, throughout which are made countless amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
As written, the AJA neuters the States while legalizing the National Government's direct oppression of private citizens who own businesses. Unemployment is now going to be a tool to hinder the use of private property, to force businesses to employ people solely on the basis of them being unemployed, an unspoken but effectuated socialism, redistribution, social justice, etc. This, to me, explains well why Obama has only now, after 3 years, focused on jobs, using them to agitate and force capitulation. Unemployment is a problem, and, though it could go up by forcing employers to hire anyone, or they get sued and end up going out of business, this bill destroys the whole point of looking for qualified people to hire, mocking the idea of qualifications and subjecting the owner of the money, property being paid to hire and pay, as the lesser liability to what a lawsuit could bring. The American Jobs Act destroys American Businesses, and ANY private sector job creation in the future.
This is not an overreaction. This is a legal researcher who worked on Civil Rights cases back in his California existence expressing the very way these laws are viewed and used by lawyers when they want to promote a particular agenda. The ACLU certainly qualifies in this regard, and has a record of doing these things in the past, along with holding to communist principles, which should alone disqualify the ACLU from being public funded:
“I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself . . . I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.” -- Roger Baldwin, Founder of the ACLU, per http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/24/aclu-vs-religious-liberty/
Let's add to this the Congressional report in 1931, merely 11 years after the ACLU comes into being:
“The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is an attempt to protect the communists” -- Ibid.
The overall lack of actually reviewing the AJA, likely due to being basically overwhelmed by all that Barack Obama and the Progressive democrats have done to destroy America, seems to have led to have affected even The Blaze Staff, to carry on cursory reviews substantiated by one person's opinion about the issue, instead of a thoroughly researched and considered review. At least this is obvious to me when considering the ACLU's origins, history, and its use of the Civil Rights Act to effectuate communist goals.
Thank you for reading,