wow! Is Coulter changing stripes?

[detbuch]

Maybe there is something blowing in the wind of the Republican party instead of the same old RINO butt wind. When even Ann Coulter gets upset with the establishment GOP and demands it carry through with a promise to the base and the voters who swept them into majorities in Congress, maybe a shift will be required in the party's impotent moderation:

http://humanevents.com/2015/02/18/go...tm_campaign=nl

The last sentence of the article, from a Republican Party suckbutt like Coulter, might portend a change, if not inaction by those now in power, then a change in their maintaining their power. She says:

"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."

[spence]

Since when has illegal immigration been the #1 problem facing the nation? Poll after Poll? Where are these polls? Has immigration EVER been ranked higher than the Economy?

I just read through all the recent AP-GFK polls and there's no mention of immigration being the worst ranked Obama policy.

She says that since 2006 "voters have insistently told pollsters they don’t want amnesty" yet interestingly enough the most recent immigration poll by the AP-GFK in December found nearly 60% of Americans favored a path to citizenship for illegals already here.

She repeatedly misleads with "executive amnesty" and "Obama's amnesty" and "Obama's illegal amnesty" while the executive action doesn't provide a path to citizenship.

Her claim that illegals will be each given $25K in taxpayer money is also 99% false. This provision could only apply to illegals who were already filing tax returns the past three years and could meet the standards for the maximum benefit. At best this could only be a miniscule fraction of the population yet she generalized it to all illegals.

And even considering, the influx of tax revenue from newly registered workers would dwarf any potential drain.

It looks just like vintage Coulter, she's simply making things up...

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Since when has illegal immigration been the #1 problem facing the nation? Poll after Poll? Where are these polls? Has immigration EVER been ranked higher than the Economy?

It's number 2. Everybody knows global warming is number one
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[iamskippy]

Originally Posted by spence

She says that since 2006 "voters have insistently told pollsters they don’t want amnesty" yet interestingly enough the most recent immigration poll by the AP-GFK in December found nearly 60% of Americans favored a path to citizenship for illegals already here.

Sounds like they polled all Immigrants that became citizens.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by buckman

It's number 2. Everybody knows global warming is number one
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah Buck, I'm thinking about throwing out my furnace this weekend.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

She says that since 2006 "voters have insistently told pollsters they don’t want amnesty" yet interestingly enough the most recent immigration poll by the AP-GFK in December found nearly 60% of Americans favored a path to citizenship for illegals already here.

But up until "the most recent" poll, she is correct. And campaigns can change opinions. And successfully characterizing the issue as "amnesty" rather than "path to citizenship" can change poll numbers. But, if we govern by polls rather than principle voting becomes a popularity contest. The best spin wins and often leads to results opposite to what spin promises.

She repeatedly misleads with "executive amnesty" and "Obama's amnesty" and "Obama's illegal amnesty" while the executive action doesn't provide a path to citizenship.

She didn't coin the term. She's using the spin label widely in use. So is "path to citizenship" a spin label. And, anyway, amnesty is a path to citizenship. But there is already a path to citizenship in place, so the one for illegals is a special one, with a politically correct name--a sort of amnesty compared to the immigration path already, and constitutionally legal, in place. The so-called "path" in the proposed Senate bill gives a tremendous advantage to illegals over legal immigrants. Not the least of which is a guarantee to millions of staying here until the "path" is accomplished, which is guaranteeing residence until it is made legal.

Her claim that illegals will be each given $25K in taxpayer money is also 99% false. This provision could only apply to illegals who were already filing tax returns the past three years and could meet the standards for the maximum benefit. At best this could only be a miniscule fraction of the population yet she generalized it to all illegals.

There seems to be a provision for being able to back-file returns for the three years previous to getting their social security card:

http://www.twcc.com/articles/2015/02...-than-citizens

And even considering, the influx of tax revenue from newly registered workers would dwarf any potential drain.

As in paying government employees rather than private contractors to do various government work, we always seem to forget legacy costs:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgr...-and-medicare/

It looks just like vintage Coulter, she's simply making things up...

It doesn't seem that she is making much up in the article. Most of it can be corroborated by other articles--which is where she probably got her information. Just like you or I do. The truth of it all may be hidden in the constant twist of spin. There may be half truths here or there, or none, or totally so. That is increasingly harder to determine in the mass of propaganda daily issued by our not totally honest media and politicians. Shall we say biased, or just good old-fashined corrupt.

But all of that was not my point in this post. I really wasn't interested in the polls crap. Polls are too often worded to get a desired response. And too often used by pols to bend opinion to their way. I wasn't interested in political wonk here.

The point was, that even a GOP hack, a rather brilliant one, like Coulter who usually fronts for the establishment over the "unrealistic" or "purist" or "radical" conservatives, is really pissed off at the party establishment for not doing that which they promised in order to get elected. Which may, or may not, be a bell-weather in determining who gets the GOP nomination. She is challenging them to put up or shut up and go away. Which is what a lot of us on the outer edge are feeling. There is mounting sentiment that the GOP has to become a more basically conservative opponent to the progressives. Just as the Whigs were sliding away from their anti-slavery principles and joining the Democrats on the fundamental issue of slavery, and to combat that the Republican party was formed as a principled opposition, so too have the Republicans been sliding away from their presumed principles to the point where differences from Democrats on so much are only in matters of degree, and a more principled party, either reformed, or newly minted may have to come into existence.

If the GOP establishment doesn't come across with their promises this time, the GOP may garner much more serious problems than figuring out how to hoodwink their voters in order to maintain their cushy power.

[JohnR]

Why are we still screwing with labels?

Illegal Aliens is the correct and accpted governmental term. Not Undocumented Workers or UnderNaturalized Pre-Citizens?

Law was broken, go to jail. At least that would happen to most legal citizens if we committed a border felony.

Lets get more immigrants, by opening the Front Door more.

/rant

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;1065251]
She repeatedly misleads with "executive amnesty" and "Obama's amnesty" and "Obama's illegal amnesty" while the executive action doesn't provide a path to citizenship.

QUOTE]

BTW, amnesty is a correct label:

http://time.com/3600536/obama-amnest...cutive-action/

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by detbuch

BTW, amnesty is a correct label:

http://time.com/3600536/obama-amnest...cutive-action/

The one constant of this presidency has been to play the label game. Either ignoring labels (Islamic Extremists), ISIS, or demeaning his only enemies he is willing to call out: Republicans, Tea Party, and the rest of the Bitter Clingers.

[Raven]

she only spews number 2

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Raven

she only spews number 2

That's OK, you only spew

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Law was broken, go to jail.
/rant

Not every time a law is broken do people go to jail.....but if you break the law and get caught there are always some punitive ramifications.

Personally I just say send them back. A bus ticket would be a whole lot cheaper

Sending them to jail doesn't really solve anything....it would probably make things worse in all honesty.......initially it would result in a huge burden to tax payers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The one constant of this presidency has been to play the label game. Either ignoring labels (Islamic Extremists), ISIS, or demeaning his only enemies he is willing to call out: Republicans, Tea Party, and the rest of the Bitter Clingers.

Yeah, being a "constitutional scholar," Obama would understand the misuse of labels and not only their power, but their ability to distract away from rational thought or discussion--as Supreme Court Justice Cardozo implied with "A fertile source of perversion in constitutional theory is the tyranny of labels ..."