If I was a conspiracy nut.....The 8:50-9:10 portion could be taken the wrong way. lol.. He speaks of illegals and then says "Millions of us myself included go back generations in this country". Hmmmmm.
Anyway the speech is up so we can blast him for his BS and unconstitutional order. He should be impeached for this.
For openers they can shove his BS rhetoric about getting tired of waiting for Congress to act by pointing out that Immigration Reform could have been tackled between 2009-2011 when he had all 3 branches of the government in (D) hands. Much like the ramming though of the ACA this could have been done without any Republican help whatsover.
Next they should posit a question to the American voter; "Why do you think this wasn't done for immigration but was done for the ACA?"
Then offer the answer; easy, the ACA benefitted those already on the dole while not costing them a farthing. Immigration reform on the other hand would impact those at the bottom of the trough as it would create an influx of competition at said trough.
You see the problem with creating too diverse a collection of dependents means at some point you would be able to please them all (at best) and may alienate some (at worst) with new policies.
Then it becomes like a chain of dominoes; the first one falls and starts the chain reaction. Inevitably the Democrat party is unable to keep warring factions aligned and they become irrelevant.
By delaying action on immigration you maneuver for room to blame the Republican party and keep the coaltion of dependents united against the convenient bogeyman. At worst you set yourself (D's) up for maintenance of the status quo and at best you get the win-win scenario.
This isn't about fixing a broken immigration system-it never was. This is about inflicting as much political damage on your enemy as possible and deriving as much political benefit for yourself as possible.
Get this reality across to the population not under the boot of dependency and the Democratic party will become an irrelevent party for a very long time.
Don't fight the fight on their terms; make them fight it on our terms.
Everything this president does is politically motivated and it should be priority #1 for the Republicans to publicly document this situation- take out commercials if the MSM won't report it- its that important to get the truth to the public.
I firmly believe that if we had impartial reporting in MSM our gov officials would not be able to get away with the crap they are now.
Saul Alinsky is long gone but Obama, Clinton and their ilk still carry the torch.
God bless, Steve
If you don't mind, I have done a fauxdoc and copied and pasted it on another thread as it fits there, too. However, you will have full credit.
Again, kudos.
jack
That's how the system works, buddy.
In a republic, we elect representatives. When a majority of the representatives vote to pass, it passes. Now bring it to the House, where a majority will vote to pass it again. Or should we thwart the will of the people?
The majority of Americans do not want the dems plan on immigration and WTH didn't Obama and the dems do something about immigration when they had a super majority in the house and senate and also had the presidency? They did NOTHING and the Republicans wouldn't have been able to do a thing about it. All Obama and the Dems needed to do was act on immigration in any way the wanted and we would have a law.
At least be honest about what this really is all about!
I also get a crack out of the definition of what bipartisan is defined as in Washington. you can get 2 republicans to agree with a dem bill and it's suddenly bipartisan. Same goes the other way as well. IMO that bill is NOT the will of the people.
By the way you are the pot kettle thing here. If you think this is the will of the people and the way it works to vote on that bill then the dems should vote on the 350 bills the Republican house passed and sent to the senate for a vote that were not even given the light of day or even discussed in the senate!. What party was it that are obstructionist again?
Your wast'en your time, logic and common sense are not one of the Obamabot's strong points. You will notice it's was 99% crickets in regards to the IRS, Bengazi, fast and furious etc... etc..controversies.
By the way.... How the hell does Obama figure this only effects about 4 million illegals? There are over 20 million and they didn't all come in the last 5 years but they will say they did.! Mark my words that 15-20 million at least will come forward if this stands.
IMO the number of illegals is wayyyyyy higher than they even think it is. I lived in AZ for a time and it seemed like there was 20 million there alone. lol
A majority means a majority. If only two Republicans vote for a bill, but that bill passes, it means that a majority approves it. It does not mean that because a majority of Republicans disagree that they win. They lose.
Your a DOLT if you really believe that what I pointed out it is irrelevant . How is it Irrelevant? I mean really!!
Soooooooo it's ok for the dems in the senate to thwart the will of the people and obstruct and stop 350 PASSED house bills that were sent to them for a vote but it's somehow NOT ok to do that on this one bill? lmao. Typical looney, head in the sand, no sense of fair play liberal! One sided condemnation is all you got!?
Both parties are wrong on this kind of crap dude!
1st realize the will of the people was thwarted with many bills that are written and passed. The people DID NOT want the ACA but got it anyway! Under our current crazy govt just passing a bill is NOT necessarily the will of the people. Again the ACA comes to mind.
You're a funny one Fra. You should do a stand up act.
Hey...can you tell us with a straight face how (OMG, I'm laughing so hard now I can hardly type) what the emperor did last night WASN'T amnesty like he claimed?
Wait..before you do let me get my rain pants on so that when you p*ss on my leg and then tell me it's raining it won't ruin my jeans.
Now the waves coming across will be like tidal waves, looking for "amnesty". They aren't exactly going to understand Obama's "nuances" as to who will be "legal" and who will not. All they will hear is open borders and amnesty. It is going to be a bigger mess than anyone can imagine.
IMO this isn't about dealing with illegals that are here now at all. This is about opening the flood gates to those that are packing their bags as we speak.
Obama doesn't want any immigration bill because he knows it will include securing the border BEFORE any of this other crap. That is something he doesn't want.
TD,
the dems will get a free windfall of 20 million votes now. That's what this is all about. Republicans will NEVER WIN AGAIN if this stands
If this stands we will be having this EXACT SAME situation in another 5 years, only it'll be 10 thousand instead of 5.
This is like having someone walk into your home and sit in your chair watching your TV, and then get all indignant when you ask him to leave.
But WE'RE the unreasonable ones....
In a republic, we elect representatives. When a majority of the representatives vote to pass, it passes. Now bring it to the House, where a majority will vote to pass it again. Or should we thwart the will of the people?
I'm in a bit of quandry Fra and hopefully you can help me out. Can you point me in the direction of your post excoriating Senate Dems for putting the brakes on the Keystone XL bill?
You might remember that one as it seems to have handily met the metrics you just took to Hammer like the proverbial 2 x 4.
I'm certain I must have missed that post of yours where you really took Harry Reid to task for "thwarting the will of the people."
Right buddy?
Right?
Mike in CT's Link
Actually it does not; whether this comes down to a court ruling or the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the US Government needs to intervene remains to be seen. Either way this is far from settled.
Yeah, but how many times can you vote to repeal the ACA
As poll after poll has shown this law to be unfavorable with the American public (and the most recent Gallup poll show it's highest disapproval level) I would say as many times as necessary to drown this rat.
Hell, given your citation of the function of a representative republic to do the will of the people one would expect you to be leading the cheers over Congress taking their function so seriously.
My original point was simply that there would have been no executive order if the House had engaged with the Senate bill, negotiating as they saw fit.
If your premise, as it seems to be is the Executive Order would not have been necessary had the House taken up the Senate bill then it should be equally true that the EO would not have been necessary had Immigration reform been taken up between 2009-2011.
With all due respect to lay the blame on the House in 2013 is a specious argument and it avoids answering the question of why did you not pass Immigration reform when you did not require a single Republican vote to do so?
Aside from this aspect had the Senate bill been taken up in the House there is no guarantee that the bill that left the House would have been palatable to either the Senate or the President. At this point all we can is speculate about what that outcome would have been.
What is not subject to speculation though is the had Obama and the Democrats really wanted immigration reform in 2009-2011 they had the means at their disposal to pass legislation as they saw fit.
They did not. No one seems to want to question, let alone own up to why that came to be.
The answer (to me and I'm sure others) is painfully obvious; the proposed "solution(s)" isn't popular and if you pass it alone you own it.
Was that the "will of the people?" Certainly NOT!
The house never voted on the final bill!
They should do the same thing to repeal it then!
The “deem and enact” maneuver has only been used 6 times since its inception in 1933 and NEVER on something like this or a bill that is so controversial and looked at so unfavorably by the public.
Just thinking about all this again just pisses me off to no end. Oh how many Americans and the weak minded have forgotten how all this went down! It is but a distant memory.
However, I think trublu and Mike are correct, insofar as the huge push to pass the ACA absorbed all the legislative energy the Dems could spare.
Whether that reflects a disinterest in immigration reform, or simple prioritizing is another question. Given the interest in immigration reform under Both Bush and Obama, I would say the latter.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. CMON. Nice try!
Gimmie a break man. They had super majority for 2... count them...2 whole years. I was around then and they easily could have done it and ACA. They did much other business as well and skipped right over it. We all know why!
