Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Gop Double Crossing Traitors
Source:
Ann Coulter
URL Source: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-02-18.html
Published: Feb 18, 2015
Author: Ann Coulter
Post Date: 2015-02-18 19:19:09 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 4729
Comments: 23
Now that a federal judge has held Obama's illegal executive amnesty unconstitutional, perhaps U.S. senators will remember that they swore to uphold the Constitution, too.
Back when they needed our votes before the last election, Republicans were hairy-chested warriors, vowing to block Obama's unconstitutional "executive amnesty" -- if only voters gave them a Senate majority. The resulting Republican landslide suggested some opposition to amnesty.
Heading into the election, college professor Dave Brat took out the sitting House majority leader and amnesty supporter Eric Cantor in a primary, despite being outspent 40-1. It was the greatest upset in history since the 1980 "Miracle on Ice" at the Lake Placid Olympics: Never before has a House majority leader been defeated in a primary. And Brat did it by an astonishing 55.5 percent to 45.5 percent.
Again, the voters seemed to be expressing disquiet with amnesty.
After that, even amnesty-supporting Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., was denouncing Obama's executive amnesty. "If the president were to do that," he said, "and we have a Republican majority in the United States Senate, why, we have a number of options that we don't now have to remind him to read Article I of the Constitution."
Poll after poll showed Americans ranking illegal immigration as the No. 1 most important problem facing the nation. We haven't changed our minds. Last week, an Associated Press-Gfk poll showed that Obama's single most unpopular policy is his position on illegal immigration.
In other words, Obamacare is more popular than amnesty. That's like losing a popularity contest to Ted Bundy.
Since at least 2006, voters have insistently told pollsters they don't want amnesty. Seemingly bulletproof Republican congressmen have lost their seats over amnesty. President Bush lost the entire House of Representatives over amnesty. What else do we have to do to convince you we don't want amnesty, Republicans? Make it a host on "The View"?
Before the election, then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell complained that Obama's decision to delay his executive amnesty until after the election was a ploy to prevent Americans from "hold(ing) his party accountable in the November elections."
But voters went ahead and held Obama accountable! Now McConnell is Senate majority leader -- and he claims his hands are tied.
McConnell's spokesman at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Brad Dayspring, predicted that Obama's amnesty threat would drive voters to "elect a new Senate (that) will stand up to the president."
Check! Mission accomplished! Done and done! Officially off our bucket list. OK, guys, your turn. When do you start standing up to the president? Hello? Hell-oooo?
To gin up votes, "Republican insiders" told the Washington Examiner last fall that "the results of the midterm elections" would determine how "aggressive" the GOP would be in fighting Obama's amnesty.
Voters gave you a blow-out victory, Republicans. You cleaned their clocks. (Have you seen Harry Reid lately?) Where's that promised aggression on amnesty?
Republicans and George Will tell us they can't stand up to Obama's executive amnesty because the media are unfair.
Oh, well, in that case ... never mind.
This is news to them? They didn't know the media were unfair when they were promising to block Obama's illegal amnesty before the elections? The media have blamed the GOP for every failure of Republicans and Democrats to reach an agreement since the Hoover administration. This isn't a surprise development.
Why don't Republicans attack the media? People hate the media! Their power is eroding -- and it would erode a lot faster if Congress would challenge them. Instead of submitting to the media's blackmail, my suggestion is, take their gun away.
Tell voters what the media won't: that Obama's "amnesty" will give illegal aliens Social Security cards and three years of back-payments through the Earned Income Tax Credit, even though they never paid taxes in the first place.
Could we get a poll on that: Should the government issue work permits to illegal aliens and give them each $25,000 in U.S. taxpayer money? I promise you, Obama would lose that vote by at least 80-20. Even people vaguely supportive of not hounding illegal aliens out of the country didn't sign up to open the U.S. Treasury to them.
Tell voters that the media are refusing to report that, for the past two weeks, Senate Democrats have been filibustering a bill that would defund Obama's illegal amnesty.
Whether or not the Democrats continue to filibuster the bill containing the amnesty defund, the government won't shut down -- contrary to hysterical claims by the media and George Will. The government is funded. Only the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will be "defunded."
Which means, wait ... I'm counting on my fingers ... yes, that's right: NOTHING.
Nearly all DHS employees are "essential" personnel required to stay on the job even if the department is defunded -- the Secret Service, the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard.
Approximately 200,000 of DHS's 230,000 employees will keep working.
By "government shutdown," the media mean: "some secretaries will not go to work."
Why don't Republicans spend all their airtime attacking the media for lying about what Obama's amnesty does and what the Democrats are doing? It's hard to avoid concluding that Republicans aren't trying to make the right arguments. In fact, it kind of looks like they're intentionally throwing the fight on amnesty.
If a Republican majority in both houses of Congress can't stop Obama from issuing illegal immigrants Social Security cards and years of back welfare payments, there is no reason to vote Republican ever again.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#0)
When you vote Republican or Democrat, you lose.
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul#2. To: hondo68 (#1)
"If a Republican majority in both houses of Congress can't stop Obama from issuing illegal immigrants Social Security cards and years of back welfare payments, there is no reason to vote Republican ever again."
Even Coulter has had enough.
#3. To: cranky, All (#2)
"If a Republican majority in both houses of Congress can't stop Obama from issuing illegal immigrants Social Security cards and years of back welfare payments, there is no reason to vote Republican ever again."
The only way to stop Obama is to impeach him. Think that will happen?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
#4. To: cranky (#0)
If a Republican majority in both houses of Congress can't stop Obama from issuing illegal immigrants Social Security cards and years of back welfare payments, there is no reason to vote Republican ever again.
ANN COULTER is writing this??????
Maybe the Bible Thumpers are right,and the End Times truly are upon us?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#5. To: SOSO (#3)
The only way to stop Obama is to impeach him. Think that will happen?
I have said it before and I will say it again. "Obomber could eat a live white infant on prime time tv and not be impeached."
Hell,some of his supporters would applaud him for eating white meat instead of red meat.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#6. To: SOSO (#3)
he only way to stop Obama is to impeach him. Think that will happen?
Not a chance in hell.
The pubbies want to take the country to the same place that the Democrapheads want to go.
#7. To: cranky (#2)
"If a Republican majority in both houses of Congress can't stop Obama from issuing illegal immigrants Social Security cards and years of back welfare payments, there is no reason to vote Republican ever again."Even Coulter has had enough.
She's just posturing.
Give her time, she'll be back drinking the GOP kool-aid soon enough.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts#8. To: Deckard (#7)
Give her time, she'll be back drinking the GOP kool-aid soon enough.
We'll see.
She hasn't said the pubbies 'are dead to me' yet but she's seems to be getting closer.
#9. To: cranky (#0)
Now that a federal judge has held Obama's illegal executive amnesty unconstitutional,
What?
Where did THAT happen?
#10. To: cranky (#0)
Now that a federal judge has held Obama's illegal executive amnesty unconstitutional...
A couple of thoughts to consider.....
1. Coulter claims that a federal judge has held that that the DACA program is "unconstitutional" - I'm pretty sure that this particular judge only issued a temporary injunction, preventing the program from going into effect.
2. It is probable that this injunction will be overturned on appeal.
3. It is my opinion that the president's move to initiate these two programs is a no-lose scenario for him and the democrats politically - He has locked up the Hispanic vote and made the republicans look like the bad-guy in the eyes of 25 million eligible Latino voters.
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
#11. To: Jameson (#10)
no-lose scenario for him and the democrats politically
When the media is acting as your court-jester, EVERYTHING is a no-lose scenario
#12. To: SOSO, cranky (#3)
The only way to stop Obama is to impeach him. Think that will happen?
It would be easier to defund his programs. Either house can defund with zero Dem help. The same congress critters who will not do that are even less likely to impeach.
#13. To: cranky (#0)
It seems to me people are getting excited before anything has happened. We will see if the Pubs stand tough, or collapse.
I don't see any reason they should concede. Homeland security continues operating whether or not the bill is passed. The judge's restraining order will probably be overturned, since reid was able to stack the judiciary by ending that filibuster, but the SCOTUS will probably affirm the original order. All the Pubs have to do is not crumble, things are headed their way.
#14. To: Vicomte13, cranky (#9)
[cranky] Now that a federal judge has held Obama's illegal executive amnesty unconstitutional,[Vicomte13] Where did THAT happen?
Ref: Texas v. USA, TXSD 1:14-cv-00254 Doc 145 (02/16/15)
It didn't. The case has not been decided and here is no presidential executive order before the Court. The issued Memorandum Opinion was on deciding whether a Preliminary Injunction should be issued pending resolution of the case. The case in main has not been heard yet.
In Section I., "The Issues Before and Not Before the Court," the court stated, in Doc 145 at 4, "this court is not faced with either a Congressional Act or an Executive Order...."
At 6, the Court said, "Both sides agree that the President in his official capacity has not directly instituted any program at issue in this case."
At issue before the Court is an action of DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson and whether he had the lawful authority to issue and implement it. Implementation of Jeh Johnson's order has been temporarily stayed pending a decision on whether it is lawful.
The Court ruled there was a liklihood that the plaintiff would prevail.
#15. To: sneakypete (#5)
I have said it before and I will say it again. "Obomber could eat a live white infant on prime time tv and not be impeached."Hell,some of his supporters would applaud him for eating white meat instead of red meat.
Why impeach the guy?
Right now it looks like his 6 years of attempting to destroy the USA is unraveling. His imperial dictates on immigration are being stopped by the courts and the Pubs aren't funding it. His obamacare garbage is going to fall apart when the SCOTUS disallows the subsidies for people who went through the fed exchanges for their coverage.
In addition to this, hillary is looking less and less like a shoe-in and more and more like a grumpy know nothing granny.
So far the Pubs are playing the cards they've been dealt masterfully. They are holding up his appointments and are passing legislation that the country wants. It's the Rats that are the radical leftist obstructionists.
In 2016 the country will be able to decide do we want another 4 years of incompetence with less national security, or do we want things done in an adult manner. I think the Pubs are headed to a big sweep, if they don't cave-in now.
#16. To: nolu chan (#14)
At issue before the Court is an action of DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson and whether he had the lawful authority to issue and implement it. Implementation of Jeh Johnson's order has been temporarily stayed pending a decision on whether it is lawful.The Court ruled there was a liklihood that the plaintiff would prevail.
So, this was a preliminary injunction, a TRO. The article said there was a HOLDING, but there was no HOLDING that struck anything down.
Got it.
Thanks!
#17. To: Jameson (#10)
He has locked up the Hispanic vote and made the republicans look like the bad-guy in the eyes of 25 million eligible Latino voters.
And that was the goal from the beginning. Anybody that thinks this self-proclaimed African gives a damn about Latinos needs to contact me about buying bridge in NYC.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#18. To: wmfights (#15)
Why impeach the guy?
Moot question for two reasons.
1: He ain't going to be impeached,period.
2: VP Joe Biden. See number 1 for clarification.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#19. To: sneakypete (#17)
And that was the goal from the beginning.
Of course it was.
Let's be honest.
Just as the president and his party have an agenda to improve their political position by playing politics instead of really caring about Latinos, the republicans will act with wanton disregard toward their constituents and all they claim to believe in to gain a political advantage too.
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
So, this was a preliminary injunction, a TRO. The article said there was a HOLDING, but there was no HOLDING that struck anything down.
It has issued a holding for purposes of the temporary injunction. The case in main has not been argued in court and decided on the merits. Nothing has been struck down, it has been temporarily stayed.
At 112:
In sum, this Court finds, both factually based upon the record and the applicable law, that DAPA is a "legislative" or "substantive" rule that should have undergone the notice-and comment rule making procedure mandated by 5 U.S.C. § 553. The DHS was not given any "discretion by law" to give 4.3 million removable aliens what the DHS itself labels as "legal presence." See 5 U.S.C. § 701 (a)(2). In fact the law mandates that these illegally-present individuals be removed. The DHS has adopted a new rule that substantially changes both the status and employability of millions. These changes go beyond mere enforcement or even nonenforcement of this nation's immigration scheme. It inflicts major costs on both the states and federal government. Such changes, if legal, at least require compliance with the APA. The Court therefore finds that, not only is DAPA reviewable, but that its adoption has violated the procedural requirements of the APA. Therefore, this Court hereby holds for purposes of the temporary injunction that the implementation of DAPA violates the APA's procedural requirements and the States have clearly proven a likelihood of success on the merits.
At 123:
VI. CONCLUSIONThis Court, for the reasons discussed above, hereby grants the Plaintiff States' request for a preliminary injunction. It hereby finds that at least Texas has satisfied the necessary standing requirements that the Defendants have clearly legislated a substantive rule without complying with the procedural requirements under the Administration Procedure Act. The Injunction is contained in a separate order. Nonetheless, for the sake of clarity, this temporary injunction enjoins the implementation of the DAPA program that awards legal presence and additional benefits to the four million or more individuals potentially covered by the DAPA Memorandum and to the three expansions/additions to the DACA program also contained in the same DAPA Memorandum. It does not enjoin or impair the Secretary's ability to marshal his assets or deploy the resources ofthe DHS. It does not enjoin the Secretary's ability to set priorities for the DHS. It does not enjoin the previously instituted 2012 DACA program except for the expansions created in the November 20, 2014 DAPA Memorandum.
#21. To: nolu chan (#20)
Thanks again.
#22. To: cranky (#0)
We are living in a Corpocracy. They get cheap labor and take the money that they should have given to a citizen employee and use it to buy our politicians to get more of what they want. It is so anti-American that it makes me ill. There is no patriotism among them. Money is king.
‘the Medieval Christian threat is under control’
#23. To: SOSO (#3)
" The only way to stop Obama is to impeach him. Think that will happen? "
Absolutely not!
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]