Especially illegal immigration.
Especially illegal immigration.
Not really a surprise from the spineless jellyfish RINOs. The Republicans, rather than explain how they would fund all of DHS except for Obama’s amnesty, instead chose to surrender completely.
The “Hastert Rule” says that a Speaker shouldn’t let any bill reach the floor unless a majority of his own caucus supports it. In the end, when the Great Executive Amnesty Sellout reached its final act, a supermajority of Boehner’s caucus opposed it. He passed the bill anyway — with all members of the minority party voting yes.
All the Democrats voted for it, and a handful of Quisling RINOs did, too.
All they had to do was explain that they would fund everything but the illegal amnesty.
Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution lists the powers of Congress – among them:
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization
That’s all they have to say. Explain that it’s for Congress to do, not the Executive branch. Explain that the executive doing it is unlawful and illegal, and it will be stopped. Explain that impeachment is an option, but one that Congress would rather forgo by shutting down the illegal amnesty and correcting the petulant and wrong “constitutional scholar” Obama.
Or they can crap all over the working people, poor, and middle class in the US who will now have to deal with illegal aliens who compete for their jobs, take their benefits, and take their taxes. No one benefits from illegal aliens being allowed in except for illegal aliens and the people who exploit their labor or their persons.
There will be more illegal aliens when amnesty is granted. This is not really a surprise. If you tell some illegals they can stay, others will try to do the same. Following the law is shown to be for suckers.
Or maybe it’s time to get used to Republicans intentionally losing, like the impotent jackasses they keep showing themselves to be. The handful that are worth a damn can’t get rid of the useless establishment toadies who knuckle under to every leftist demand, and every time the sniveling pusillanimous cowards surrender, they drive away more and more of the people who would be their base.
Why vote for them or support them when they’re going to surrender at every turn and abandon every principle they were elected to hold? And why can’t the establishment Republicans see that they’re committing suicide with those who would support them?
The new blood Tea Party Republicans need to put the screws to the establishment until they either grow a spine or go join the Democrats (like the stuff we’ve already seen them do in the last few elections).
Basically Drudge’s big stories of the day, but today the FCC chair refused to testify before congress about net neutrality, The Hill looks at the new arbitrary ability for the FCC to impose internet regulations and asks if it’s outright lawless, and the lefty “Electronic Frontier Foundation” suddenly realizes that big government might not be the best thing to have on an internet that’s supposed to be free.
There are several problems with this approach. First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet. Second, we worry that this rule will be extremely expensive in practice, because anyone wanting to bring a complaint will be hard-pressed to predict whether they will succeed. For example, how will the Commission determine “industry best standards and practices”? As a practical matter, it is likely that only companies that can afford years of litigation to answer these questions will be able to rely on the rule at all. Third, a multi-factor test gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence.
A leftist push for more control really might mean cronyism for their politically aligned friends? Naw… you don’t say.
In a joint column, Federal Communications Commission member Ajit Pai and Federal Election Commission member Lee Goodman, leveled the boom on the Obama-favored regulations, essentially charging that it will muck up the freedom the nation has come to expect from the Internet. …
“These Internet regulations will deter broadband deployment, depress network investment and slow broadband speeds. How do we know? Compare Europe, which has long had utility-style regulations, with the United States, which has embraced a light-touch regulatory model. Broadband speeds in the United States, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than those in Europe. Broadband investment in the United States is several multiples that of Europe. And broadband’s reach is much wider in the United States, despite its much lower population density,” the two wrote. …
“Internet freedom works. It is difficult to imagine where we would be today had the government micromanaged the Internet for the past two decades as it does Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service. Neither of us wants to find out where the Internet will be two decades from now if the federal government tightens its regulatory grip. We don’t need to shift control of the Internet to bureaucracies in Washington. Let’s leave the power where it belongs — with the American people. When it comes to Americans’ ability to access online content or offer political speech online, there isn’t anything broken for the government to “fix.” To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan, Internet regulation isn’t the solution to a problem. Internet regulation is the problem.”
I’d file this entirely under the part of the cycle of the anointed being wrong where Thomas Sowell says “the critics’ concerns are dismissed”… which comes right before the “solution” is implemented and causes the exact problems the critics fortold.
This is a long march for them, and they will always be working to take your rights away. That’s their focus, their reason, their essence, and their firm belief. Any means necessary, any backdoor way, any subtle move, any overt move.