[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse"

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD"

"Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy"

Woodworking and Construction Hacks

"CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination"

"NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law"

"Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing"

Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine

Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn.

After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning

Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate

Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending.

Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar”

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny"

"Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is"

Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner.

Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him

South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien

GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis

Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash

New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms

Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania

Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally

"It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala

Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump

Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive'

(Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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: 4408
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 16.

#9. To: cranky (#0)

Now that a federal judge has held Obama's illegal executive amnesty unconstitutional,

What?

Where did THAT happen?

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-19   10:59:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-02-19   13:48:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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!

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-19   15:01:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 16.

#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. CONCLUSION

This 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.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-02-19 15:52:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 16.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com