Amnesty approaching

Photo credit: westernjournalism.com

 

Ann Coulter has had access to a report on immigration by Phyllis Schlafly. Until Schlafly’s report is released, here are some excerpts from Coulter’s Townhall column yesterday:

GOP Crafts Plan to Wreck the Country, Lose Voters

As House Republicans prepare to sell out the country on immigration this week, Phyllis Schlafly has produced a stunning report on how immigration is changing the country. The report is still embargoed, but someone slipped me a copy, and it's too important to wait. 

Leave aside the harm cheap labor being dumped on the country does to the millions of unemployed Americans. What does it mean for the Republican Party? 

Citing surveys from the Pew Research Center, the Pew Hispanic Center, Gallup, NBC News, Harris polling, the Annenberg Policy Center, Latino Decisions, the Center for Immigration Studies and the Hudson Institute, Schlafly's report overwhelmingly demonstrates that merely continuing our current immigration policies spells doom for the Republican Party. 

. . .

According to a Harris poll, 81 percent of native-born citizens think the schools should teach students to be proud of being American. Only 50 percent of naturalized U.S. citizens do. 

While 67 percent of native-born Americans believe our Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law, only 37 percent of naturalized citizens agree. 

No wonder they vote 2-1 for the Democrats.

The two largest immigrant groups, Hispanics and Asians, have little in common economically, culturally or historically. But they both overwhelmingly support big government, Obamacare, affirmative action and gun control. 

. . .

Also surprising, a Pew Research Center poll of all Hispanics, immigrant and citizen alike, found that Hispanics take a dimmer view of capitalism than even people who describe themselves as "liberal Democrats." While 47 percent of self-described "liberal Democrats" hold a negative view of capitalism, 55 percent of Hispanics do. 

. . .

How are Republicans going to square that circle? It's not their position on amnesty that immigrants don't like; it's Republicans' support for small government, gun rights, patriotism, the Constitution and capitalism. 

Reading these statistics, does anyone wonder why Democrats think vastly increasing immigration should be the nation's No. 1 priority? 

. . .

It's terrific for ethnic lobbyists whose political clout will skyrocket the more foreign-born Americans we have. 

And it's fantastic for the Democrats, who are well on their way to a permanent majority, so they can completely destroy the last remnants of what was once known as "the land of the free." 

The only ones opposed to our current immigration policies are the people.  

 

 Read the rest here. 

 

 

Just a paragraph on Immigration “reform”

Photo credit: sodahead.com

  

The bad news: The GOP may yet pass an Amnesty bill. An article titled "Amnesty: The Next GOP Betrayal" by Michael R. Shannon appeared at CanadaFreePress over a week ago:

Amnesty is a payoff to big business, Democrat interest groups and tribal voters. There is no compelling Republican rationale for passage either morally or politically.

Yet the GOP leadership looks poised to cave. The good news: Roy Beck at NumbersUSA assessed the SOTU reactions from Congress:

It seems a good sign that [President Obama] thought it would be harmful to his cause to tell Americans anything specific that he wants on immigration. 

We had been told ahead of time that he would play nice with his immigration statement so as not to offend House Republicans who he is trying to win over. Still, I was a bit surprised -- and I think encouraged -- by his timidity.

Republican Response Speech A Bit More Troubling -- But Still Encouragingly Vague 

Republicans picked one of the House's top party leaders -- Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) -- to deliver the response.

Because many news media have practically declared the inevitability of House Republicans helping pass an amnesty this year, I was much more interested to hear what she would say.

Since she didn't really mention that many issues, it wasn't a good sign that she and her colleagues thought she should make such a big deal about immigration reform. Still, hers was also just a paragraph and more vague than specific:  

And yes, it’s time to honor our history of legal immigration.  We’re working on a step-by-step solution to immigration reform by first securing our borders and making sure America will always attract the best, brightest, and hardest working from around the world.  

Why do I have a strong idea that Mrs. McMorris Rodgers hasn't the first clue about our history of immigration or what we should honor about it?

Is she aware of our immigration history of a century ago, when mass immigration like we have today created increasingly wide income disparity, a huge underclass and was a primary tool for keeping the freed slaves and descendants of slaves in virtual servitude out of the mainstream of American jobs? How does she propose to honor that history?

I am particularly  concerned by her call that we make sure that America always attracts the "hardest working from around the world."  Sounds like she is committed to helping the corporate lobbies import any foreign worker who they think will work harder, longer and at lower wages and benefits and working conditions than the Americans who employers otherwise would have to recruit and train.

Is there any chance that a person giving any of these addresses could note that the point of immigration policy is to protect Americans. 

But her rhetoric is vague enough that the Republicans at their Chesapeake Bay retreat Wednesday through Friday won't have to embarrass her or seem to reject her when they show no enthusiasm for the GOP leadership's definition of "immigration reform."

Applause During Obama's Immigration Paragraph May Have Been Telling 

Back when I was a congressional correspondent sitting in the press box overlooking the SOTU proceedings, I took a lot of notes on how and when particular Members responded to parts of the speech. I had to depend on the camera feed for the TV networks, but I was intrigued with what I saw from the top 3 House Republican leaders during the President's immigration paragraph.

After his first sentence ending in "fix our broken immigration system," Vice President Biden quickly moved to his feet as did all Democrats in a pretty resounding ovation.

That certainly put Speaker Boehner in a tough position. He knew the cameras were on him. His corporate donors want him to give Mr. Obama what he wants. But Mr. Boehner also had earlier this morning seen a strong negative reaction from his Republican Members to the news reports about a possible GOP legalization plan. Does the Speaker rehearse his reactions ahead of time?  What would he do on this one?

I was relieved that Mr. Boehner didn't seem to have the slightest inclination to stand the way leaders of the "other party" sometimes feel they have to when baseball, mom and apple pie are being lauded.  Instead, Mr. Boehner gave a non-committal facial expression and slowly applauded while remaining seated.

The camera swung to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor who was giving a moderate applause while looking very serious.  At the edge of the camera shot was the No. 3 House Republican Kevin McCarthy also being careful not to look too enthusiastic, despite recently saying that he looked forward to moving legislation that gives work permits and legalization to most illegal aliens.

It looked like maybe a half-dozen Republicans were confident enough of their constituents to stand with the Democrats in the ovation. 

At the end of the President's immigration paragraph, there was more heavy applause.  The camera caught Mr. Cantor not joining at first and then offering a pretty slow clap.

I'm not going to read too much into what the various body language tells us about where these GOP leaders stand but I think it tells us worlds about where they think their constituency stands. 

Time to call Speaker Boehner. Again. And send postcards to his Ohio office (shorter security delay):

Speaker Boehner’s details:

Butler County Office  PH (513) 779-5400

Miami County Office PH (937) 339-1524

Clark County Office   PH (937) 322-1120

D.C. Office

PH  (202) 225-6205

FAX (202) 225-0704

And his mailbox:

Speaker John Boehner

7969 Cincinnati-Dayton Road, Suite B

West Chester, OH 45069

NumbersUSA blog is here. 

# # #

How to listen to the State of the Union speech

State of the Union this evening

 

If you don’t want to watch it live, you can always check in at VodkaPundit (Stephen Green), who, as usual, will be drunkblogging the speech. 9 PM.

 

Another waiver – this one from the NFL

Lawless government? No respect for NFL rules and mandates, either. From nj.com’s report “HowMetLife Stadium scored Super Bowl 2014, bringing the big game to N.J.”:

It took four votes and more than 10 years.

Kickoff for the 2014 Super Bowl is now [less than] two weeks away, and the NFL has already taken possession of MetLife Stadium. 

. . .

It’s been a long march up the field already, marked by quiet, behind-the-scenes lobbying and phone calls, getting the enthusiastic support of the state’s governor, and raising millions from sponsors for what will be the most expensive Super Bowl in history.

The bidding specifications for this year’s Super Bowl, obtained by The Star-Ledger, mandated tens of millions in expenses that would be borne by whoever won the honor of hosting the game. The 127-page document outlined everything from the minimum size of the stadium (the NFL mandates a seating capacity of at least 70,000, after an allowance of 3,000 seats for camera and production locations), to power and lighting needs.

Keep all those “NFL mandates in mind. Here’s another mandate [emphasis added].

And it required a climate-controlled domed stadium "if the historical average daily temperature over a 10-year period in the host city on the week of the game is below 50 degrees" — a mandate that needed agreement from the owners to at least a one-time exception before a cold-weather Super Bowl with a view of the New York skyline was even possible.

Obviously, as with Obamacare, some mandates are more equal than others.

[Jets owner Woody Johnson] said the only real negative he heard about was the weather.

"If you embrace the weather as we have, it doesn’t sound so bad. We’ve had bad weather at previous Super Bowls," Johnson said he argued. The message was drilled home repeatedly. "New York knows how to do this," he said he told other owners. "We’re experts at it."

Tell that to residents on Manhattan’s upper east side.  Brrrr. 

One Month Left To Comment On IRS Rule

From NumbersUSA, a 501(c)(4) organization committed to legal and reduced immigration:

One Month Left To Comment On IRS Rule

There's a little more than one month left for anyone to submit a comment to the IRS's proposed rule that would silence certain non-profit organizations, including NumbersUSA. Thanks to those who have already joined the more than 10,000 concerned citizens who have left a comment!

The proposed rule presents a real threat to our grade cards and faxing in the months leading up to federal elections. If enacted, certain non-profit organizations would not be able to even mention a candidate's name within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of the general election - even if the mention has nothing to do with the election itself. Nor, would we be able to tell you when a Member of Congress who is also running for office is pushing an amnesty.

This rule would require us to take down our grade cards and non-partisan candidate comparison pages and shut down most of our activism efforts during the election window.

If you want to learn more about the proposed rule and leave a public comment on the federal register's website, please visit http://www.ProtectC4FreeSpeech.com.

 # # #

According to examiner.com, as of January 21:

At the time of this writing, not one public comment on a proposed IRS rule for 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups is positive.

 # # #

Article V Symposium webinar announcement

Photo credit: whichway.com

Announcement from Tea Party Patriots:

Last week, the third webinar in Tea Party Patriots' Article V Symposium highlighted some of the most popular amendments being discussed in conservative circles. The final webinar is scheduled for next Tuesday and will continue to discuss possible amendments in an Article V Amending Convention.

WHAT: A continuation of proposed amendments

WHEN: Tues Jan-28 at 7:30 pm

Register for the Article V Symposium Webinars HERE
 

Obamacare does include a death panel

Photo credit: thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com

Kevin O’Brien’s opinion columns are always worth reading; here are a few excerpts from yesterday’s Plain Dealer online, Obamacaredoes include a death panel, and the separation of powers is its first target:

As the months have ticked by and the ludicrously misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has wobbled into reality, Americans have seen one promise after another come crashing down.

. . .

But the people still have some recourse — at least eventually. They can raise hell with Congress, which is still at least occasionally responsive. They can appeal for help from the courts.

Unless something that the forces of dictatorship want is purposely put out of reach of Congress and the courts.

Ladies and gentlemen, meet the  Independent Payment Advisory Board — the relatively tiny, incredibly powerful item in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that is designed, on purpose, to have dictatorial powers.

Some people call it the death panel, and it is, but there’s more to it than that. If it’s allowed to work, it certainly will kill a lot of Americans — any sick person who is deemed to be too great a drain on the federal government, an entity already deep in debt.

Worse than that, though, it’s a potential Constitution killer. There’s no way a nation like ours can abide a monstrosity like the IPAB. If we end up being forced to abide it, we will cease to be a nation like ours.

The IPAB is designed to centralize the powers that this nation’s founders worked so hard to separate.

The IPAB will legislate, setting all policy related to Medicare. It will be in a position to declare what will be acceptable regarding health care costs, patient access and quality.

. . .

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says IPAB decisions are not subject to judicial review.

So, let’s recap. Here we have a 15-member board appointed by the president that will make life-and-death decisions about which treatments will be allowed to which kinds of patients and what the people involved will pay and be paid, and the board is a law unto itself. Congress has no practical way of stopping it and the courts can’t intervene in what it does.

The time to stop the IPAB is now, before it becomes invincible. Fortunately, a lawsuit that takes aim directly at its consolidation of executive power, usurpation of legislative power and denial of judicial power is working its way through the federal court system.

The law that created the IPAB is so blatantly unconstitutional, even the reliably wacky 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should get this call right on Coons v. Geithner.

Read the rest here.