America can quickly find employment for willing-to-work job-seekers—by installing a nationwide Employers Responsibility Act. Its last seven provisions would read as follows:
(9) Employers refusing to hire would be required to pay an additional “crime tax.”
Sociologists and criminologists agree that “the best cure for crime is a job.” Thus, employers who refuse to hire contribute to a growing crime rate in this Nation. Such non-hiring employers would be required to pay an additional tax, which would be earmarked for agencies of the criminal justice system at State and Federal levels.
(10) The seeking of “economic incentives” by companies in return for moving to or remaining in cities/states would be strictly forbidden.
Such “economic incentives” usually:
- allow employers to ignore existing laws protecting employees from unsafe working conditions;
- allow employers to ignore existing laws protecting the environment;
- allow employers to pay their employees the lowest acceptable wages, in return for the “privilege” of working at these companies; and/or
- allow employers to pay little or no business taxes, at the expense of communities who are required to make up for lost tax revenues.
(11) Employers who continue to make such overtures would be criminally prosecuted for attempted bribery or extortion:
- Bribery, if they offered to move to a city/state in return for “economic incentives,” or
- Extortion, if they threatened to move their companies from a city/state if they did not receive such “economic incentives.”
This would protect employees against artificially-depressed wages and unsafe working conditions; protect the environment in which these employees live; and protect cities/states from being pitted against one another at the expense of their economic prosperity.
(12) The U.S. Departments of Justice and Labor would regularly monitor the extent of employer compliance with the provisions of this act.
Among these measures: Sending undercover agents, posing as highly-qualified job-seekers, to apply at companies—and then vigorously prosecuting those employers who blatantly refused to hire despite their proven economic ability to do so.
This would be comparable to the long-time and legally-validated practice of using undercover agents to determine compliance with fair-housing laws.
(13) The Justice Department and/or the Labor Department would be required to maintain a publicly-accessible database on those companies that have been cited, sued and/or convicted for such offenses as:
- discrimination,
- harassment,
- health and/or safety violations or
- violating immigration laws.
Employers would be legally required to regularly provide such information to these agencies, so that it would remain accurate and up-to-date.
Such information would arm job applicants with vital information about the employers they were approaching. They could thus decide in advance if an employer is deserving of their skills and dedication.
As matters now stand, employers can legally demand to learn even the most private details of an applicant’s life without having to disclose even the most basic information about themselves and their history of treating employees.
(14) CEOs whose companies employ illegal aliens would be held directly accountable for the actions of their subordinates. Upon conviction, the CEO would be sentenced to a mandatory prison term of at least 10 years.
This would prove a more effective remedy for controlling illegal immigration than stationing tens of thousands of soldiers on the U.S./Mexican border. With CEOs forced to account for their subordinates’ actions, they would take drastic steps to ensure their companies complied with Federal immigration laws.
Without employers eager to hire illegal aliens at a fraction of the money paid to American workers, the invasions of illegal job-seekers would quickly come to an end.
(15) A portion of employers’ existing Federal taxes would be set aside to create a national clearinghouse for placing unemployed but qualified job-seekers.
* * * * *
For thousands of years, otherwise highly intelligent men and women believed that kings ruled by divine right. That kings held absolute power, levied extortionate taxes and sent countless millions of men off to war—all because God wanted it that way.
That lunacy was dealt a deadly blow in 1776 when American Revolutionaries threw off the despotic rule of King George III of England.
But today, millions of Americans remain imprisoned by an equally outrageous and dangerous theory: The Theory of the Divine Right of Employers.
Summing up this employer-as-God attitude, Calvin Coolidge still speaks for the overwhelming majority of employers and their paid shills in government: “The man who builds a factory builds a temple, and the man who works there worships there.”
America can no longer afford such a dangerous fallacy as the Theory of the Divine Right of Employers.
Americans did not win their freedom from Great Britain—and its enslaving doctrine of “the divine right of kings”—-by begging for their rights.
And Americans will not win their freedom from their corporate masters–-and the equally enslaving doctrine of “the divine right of employers”—-by begging for the right to work and support themselves and their families.
Corporations can—and do—spend millions of dollars on TV ads, selling lies—lies such as the “skills gap,” and how if the wealthy are forced to pay their fair share of taxes, jobs will inevitably disappear.
But Americans can choose to reject those lies—and demand that employers behave like patriots instead of predators.

9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AP, ARTHUR M. CUMMINGS, BOSTON GLOBE, BOSTON MARATHON, BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING, BOSTON PATCH, BRUSSELS BOMBINGS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, FBI, FIRST AMENDMENT, FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, ISIS, ISLAM, ISLAMIC TERRORISM, JIHADIST, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PARIS TERRORIST ATTACKS, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, POLITICO, RADICAL ISLAM, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON, SAN BERNARDINO MASSACRE, SEATTLE TIMES, SECURITY, SLATE, STEVEN EMERSON, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE REMAKING OF WORLD ORDER, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UP, UPI, US NEWS, USA TODAY, WORLD WAR 11
ISLAMIC TERRORISTS: PC VS. REALITY: PART ONE (OF TWO)
In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on November 2, 2017 at 12:12 amThe 2016 Boston Marathon was scheduled for April 18, 2016.
And local, State and Federal law enforcement authorities had been planning security for the event since October, 2015.
So it was only natural that these agencies wanted the public to know the Marathon would be as safe as more than 5,000 law enforcement officers could make it.
The Boston Marathon
“‘Leave the worrying to us’: Security Ramped Up for Boston Marathon,” read the headline of the April 16 issue of USA Today.
And it gave the reason for this: Three years earlier, on April 15, 2013, two bombers had wreaked havoc at the finish line of the race.
It also named the bombers—brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev—whose terrorist act killed three people and injured about 264 others.
Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
It further noted that Tamerlan had died in a shootout with police three days after the marathon–and police had captured Dzhohkar several hours later. (He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to death.)
But the story said nothing about their citing Islam as the reason for their murderous rampage.
Click here: ‘Leave the worrying to us’: Security ramped up for Boston Marathon
The April 16 edition of The Boston Patch carried this headline: “Boston Marathon 2016: Security Changes You Can’t See All Around You.”
The article stated that most of these precautions couldn’t be revealed. Then it added that even though law enforcement officials hadn’t identified a credible threat to this year’s Boston Marathon, “recent events make the world feel less safe today than in 2013.”
But the article said nothing about those “recent events,” such as:
Nor did the story say that all of these “recent events” were carried out by followers of the Islamic religion. Or that the perpetrators openly announced that their actions had been motivated by their Islamic beliefs.
Click here: Brussels attacks add urgency to Boston Marathon security | US News
On April 6, 2016, The Boston Globe announced: “Tight Security Planned for Upcoming Boston Marathon.”
The story noted that, in drawing up their security arrangements, “authorities analyzed terrorist attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, Calif., and Brussels in recent months.”
The San Bernardino attack had occurred on December 2, 2015.
The story said that Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, had slaughtered 14 people and wounded 22 at a Department of Public Health training event and birthday party.
Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook
But the article did not inform readers that Farook and Malik were Muslims acting in the name of Islam.
The story quoted Harold Shaw, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston Field Office, as saying: “San Bernardino taught us something very significant. They [the killers] were not on the radar.”
But the article omitted “something very significant”: Farook and Malik had melded perfectly into American society before their outrage.
Thus, the only factor that could have put them “on the radar” as potential terrorists was their being Muslims.
And in an America driven by Political Correctness, noting that would have been verboten.
Click here: Tight security planned for upcoming Boston Marathon – The Boston Globe
NBC News carried a story on “How the Boston Marathon is Using Security Technology.”
The story then described how police used a high-tech partner, Esri, to track, in real-time, the progress of the morning’s race.
“When you look [at] security, there’s three legs to the stool: People, process and technology,” said Arnette Heintze, CEO and co-founder of Hillard Heintze, an investigation and security risk management company.
Click here: How the Boston Marathon is Using Security Technology – NBC News
Yet for all the gushing kudos leveled at the new uses of sophisticated technology for keeping people safe, one thing was conspicuously ignored.
The opening paragraph, “Three years after a deadly bombing at the Boston Marathon….” left unnamed those had made the use of this technology necessary–Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
Nor did it mention that Dzhokhar had laid out, in a note, his reason for attacking innocent men and women: “We Muslims are one body, you hurt one you hurt us all.
“Well at least that’s how Muhammed wanted it to be forever. The ummah [Islamic community] is beginning to rise.
“Know you are righting men who look into the barrel of your gun and see heaven, how how can you compete with that. We are promised victory and will surely get it.”
Click here: Text from Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s note left in Watertown boat – The Boston Globe
Of all the Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates in 2016, only Donald Trump dared to say the politically un-sayable: Islam is at war with us.
And this candor—coupled with repeated Islamic atrocities—gained him both the Republican nomination and the White House.
Share this: