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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

0,000+ online influencers, journalists, drive-by media, TV stars and writers work for State Department

"Why Are We Hiding It From The Public?" - Five Takeaways From Congressional UFO Hearing

Food Additives Exposed: What Lies Beneath America's Food Supply

Scott Ritter: Hezbollah OBLITERATES IDF, Netanyahu in deep legal trouble

Vivek Ramaswamy says he and Elon Musk are set up for 'mass deportations' of millions of 'unelected bureaucrats'

Evidence Points to Voter Fraud in 2024 Wisconsin Senate Race

Rickards: Your Trump Investment Guide

Pentagon 'Shocked' By Houthi Arsenal, Sophistication Is 'Getting Scary'

Cancer Starves When You Eat These Surprising Foods | Dr. William Li

Megyn Kelly Gets Fiery About Trump's Choice of Matt Gaetz for Attorney General

Over 100 leftist groups organize coalition to rebuild morale and resist MAGA after Trump win

Mainstream Media Cries Foul Over Musk Meeting With Iran Ambassador...On Peace

Vaccine Stocks Slide Further After Trump Taps RFK Jr. To Lead HHS; CNN Outraged

Do Trump’s picks Rubio, Huckabee signal his approval of West Bank annexation?

Pac-Man

Barron Trump

Big Pharma-Sponsored Vaccinologist Finally Admits mRNA Shots Are Killing Millions

US fiscal year 2025 opens with a staggering $257 billion October deficit$3 trillion annual pace.

His brain has been damaged by American processed food.

Iran willing to resolve doubts about its atomic programme with IAEA

FBI Official Who Oversaw J6 Pipe Bomb Probe Lied About Receiving 'Corrupted' Evidence “We have complete data. Not complete, because there’s some data that was corrupted by one of the providers—not purposely by them, right,” former FBI official Steven D’Antuono told the House Judiciary Committee in a

Musk’s DOGE Takes To X To Crowdsource Talent: ‘80+ Hours Per Week,’

Female Bodybuilders vs. 16 Year Old Farmers

Whoopi Goldberg announces she is joining women in their sex abstinence

Musk secretly met with Iran's UN envoy NYT

D.O.G.E. To have a leaderboard of most wasteful government spending

In Most U.S. Cities, Social Security Payments Last Married Couples Just 19 Days Or Less

Another major healthcare provider files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

The Ukrainians have put Tulsi Gabbard on their Myrotvorets kill list

Sen. Johnson unveils photo of Biden-appointed crossdressers after reporters rage over Gaetz nomination


Immigration
See other Immigration Articles

Title: S.744 Passes Senate—Pyrrhic Victory For Treason Lobby
Source: VDare
URL Source: http://www.vdare.com/articles/s744- ... rhic-victory-for-treason-lobby
Published: Jun 27, 2013
Author: S.744 Passes Senate—Pyrrhic Victory For
Post Date: 2013-06-28 13:15:03 by Big Meanie
Keywords: None
Views: 151
Comments: 7

The Treason Lobby won a Pyrrhic victory on Thursday, passing the nation-breaking Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill through the Senate. This widely-anticipated action led to predictable Main Stream Media ululations, maudlin sentimentality, and veiled racial threats against the historic American nation on the part of the governing class and its clients. But patriots should not be cowed: there is real cause for optimism.

The fact that Amnesty has passed the Senate means little in itself—it did that years ago. As Jim Antle notes on Twitter, “There has been 60 to 70 Senate votes for some form of comprehensive immigration reform since 2005.”

So the whole point of the current full court press for Amnesty/ Immigration Surge following Barack Obama's re-election has been to overwhelm debate and create a sense of inevitability.

Thus Lindsey Graham said that he wanted to get half of the Republicans in the Senate to back him. [Lindsey Graham: Marco Rubio 'Committed To Immigration Reform', By Elise Foley, Huffington Post, June 4, 2013] But in fact, only 14 of the 45 Republicans voted for it—a much lower share than in 1986 and 2006.

Similarly, Amnesty backers confidently predicted at least 70 votes—as Chuck Schumer put it, “We need 70.” [Getting to Maybe, by Ryan Lizza, The New Yorker, June 24, 2013] Even opponents of the bill conceded that was likely to happen. But it didn't happen—the final tally was 68-32. This tells us there is trouble from within the Establishment.

Even the celebratory press conference after the bill's passage seemed feigned and pathetic. Lindsey Graham made sure to thank President Obama for all his help—now that the bill is safely passed, the Beltway Right no longer has to feign opposition. He also threw in a prissy non sequitur attack on former Congressman Tom Tancredo, claiming that Republicans were coming around to Graham's own self-described “tough but practical” position.

However, one could not help but notice that two faces were missing from the celebratory gaggle—Marco Rubio and Jeff Flake. Both avoided the press conference, as if they were ashamed. It won't do them any good—Rubio's favorability ratings among Republicans have plummeted. [Poll: Rubio’s favorability down among GOP voters, up among independents, By Caroline May, Daily Caller, June 24, 2013]

After all, Rubio's role throughout this entire process has been to convince (= fool) conservatives that the bill ensures border security, when it does the opposite. Unfortunately, many conservatives are so desperate for minority frontmen, even stupid ones, that putative opinion leaders like Sean Hannity have gone along with this.

Nonetheless, even Rubio couldn't allow himself to be seen celebrating the passage of the Ted Kennedy Memorial Amnesty.

As for Jeff Flake, when he was running for the U.S. Senate, he said of Amnesty:

However, Flake knows his role as a corporate lobbyist and a kapo for the regime. His post-election flip-flop was predictable. What is astonishing is that every single one of the Republicans who voted for amnesty was on record as having opposed it, as chronicled by Erick Erickson of Redstate.

Perhaps the most contemptible: Orrin Hatch, who when facing a tough primary challenge bragged about his opposition to the 1986 amnesty but nevertheless voted to pass amnesty today. He stated,

Those who supported Amnesty back in 1986 can perhaps be forgiven for their ignorance. But no such excuses are open to politicians today. To support it today is to confess utter stupidity (Rubio), sociopathy (Graham and most other Republicans), or cold implacable hatred of the historic American nation (Schumer.) What's Hatch's excuse?

Patriots should take some small comfort in that Senators who opposed the amnesty had to break their word in order to do it. The Republicans and Red State Democrats who voted for amnesty are simply liars—and they are on record as such.

However, it should also be noted that not all the reversals were negative. The Kentucky delegation of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul voted against the bill.

Paul, after protracted fumbling, is now loudly condemning Amnesty. He claims that his “turning point” was “when the Gang of Eight Republicans began to say that legalization of the undocumented workers here would not be dependent on border security.“

As for McConnell, well, his reasons are far simpler—he's up for re-election.

The votes of Paul and McConnell are important because, in their own way, they each represent a critical component of the conservative coalition. Paul represents the rising libertarians ideologues, who are slowly taking over the Republican Party and making a big show of confronting the Establishment. However, they run screaming from any issues that might open them to charges of being Politically Incorrect.

The CATO Institute, Reason Magazine, the former “paleolibertarians” and most of the various libertarian student groups have been on the wrong side in the Amnesty battle, seemingly comfortable with the idea of America being transforming into a permanent statist “democratic” dictatorship by Third World voters.

Nonetheless, despite Paul’s wobbling and the efforts of the libertarian movement, Paul ultimately staked his claim to be the “anti-amnesty” Republican candidate in 2016.

As for McConnell, his vote shows that whatever the private opinions or financial interests of the Republican Establishment, they still fear angry conservative voters. McConnell has taken care to court his younger colleague from Kentucky to guard against his right flank, and his vote against Amnesty has be seen as an effort to save his own skin.

As Mark Krikorian acidly notes, he voted no “weakly” to keep his job, but is still trying to keep the “moneybags” on board.

Which brings us to GOP House Speaker John Boehner. After signaling initially that he would not try to block the bill, [John Boehner: ‘Open’ House on immigration, Politico, June 11, 2013] Boehner is now trying to sound tough. [If John Boehner Isn't Bluffing, He Probably Just Killed Immigration Reform, by Brett LoGiurato, Business Insider, June 27, 2013] If the Speaker holds to his position of not bringing the bill to a vote unless a majority of Republicans support it, the bill is in fact “dead on arrival” as Senator Rand Paul claims.

However, as New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait writes, there is a sneaky way the Democrats could push through the bill—a discharge petition. If seventeen Republicans break ranks, the Democrats and their collaborators can force a vote on the exact Senate bill, without any edits or additions.[ How Immigration Reform Can Pass, June 27, 2013] This would also allow Boehner and the Beltway Right to whip up anger at Democrats who refused to “work together” for a “practical” solution—thus protecting them from angry grass roots conservatives and still getting the big money from donors.

As Chait gloats, though turncoat Republicans would face furious conservative retribution, they would be well compensated by big money donors.

So “progressivism” has been reduced to this—gloating that politicians can get away with lying to their constituents because donors will pay them enough to make it worth their while.

Will Boehner hold to his newest position? Will he reverse himself (again)? Or will he try a clandestine betrayal of conservatives?

All depends on the level of outrage from the patriotic grassroots. At this time, the signs are good. Wavering Senators like Paul and McConnell backed down, the Amnesty Establishment failed to get 70 votes, and everyone involved (even Schumer) at least has to concede the rhetorical points of patriotic immigration reform on border security. Despite all the rhetoric about this being a “historic” day, immigration patriots have been in this situation before—and won.

That said, Boehner desperately wants to sell out his constituents, and the Beltway Right actively hates its own base. But neither is strong enough to openly betray them.

The power is still with the American grassroots, and they should take heart from what happened in the Senate. Politicians who are up for election are still scared, and the real battle is still about to begin.

As for Boehner and the straw men of the Republican Establishment—let them hate—so long as they fear.

James Kirkpatrick [Email him] travels around the United States looking for a waiter who can speak English.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Big Meanie (#0)

James Kirkpatrick travels around the United States looking for a waiter who can speak English.

Funny, and way, way too true.

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken

Lod  posted on  2013-06-28   13:54:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Big Meanie, *Illegal Immigration* (#0)

patriotic immigration reform on border security

immigration patriots

What's that supposed to mean? Amnesty with another meaningless promissory note on border security? That's not patriotic or immigration or reform. It's traitors aiding and abetting invaders again. We already went that ridiculous route of the deceivers years ago -- Reagan, 1986: 3 million imports and about 400% more border-defiant illegals using our electorate at our expense for their benefactors.

Border security with no Amnesty. Those opposed are like foreign agents.

Senate roll vote for immigration bill

Published June 27, 2013 / Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The 68-32 roll call Thursday by which the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill.

A "yes" vote is a vote to pass the bill.

Voting yes were 52 Democrats, 14 Republicans and 2 independents.

Voting no were 0 Democrats and 32 Republicans.

Democrats Yes
Baldwin, Wis.; Baucus, Mont.; Begich, Alaska; Bennet, Colo.; Blumenthal, Conn.; Boxer, Calif.; Brown, Ohio; Cantwell, Wash.; Cardin, Md.; Carper, Del.; Casey, Pa.; Coons, Del.; Cowan, Mass.; Donnelly, Ind.; Durbin, Ill.; Feinstein, Calif.; Franken, Minn.; Gillibrand, N.Y.; Hagan, N.C.; Harkin, Iowa; Heinrich, N.M.; Heitkamp, N.D.; Hirono, Hawaii; Johnson, S.D.; Kaine, Va.; Klobuchar, Minn.; Landrieu, La.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Manchin, W.V.; McCaskill, Mo.; Menendez, N.J.; Merkley, Ore.; Mikulski, Md.; Murphy, Conn.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Fla.; Pryor, Ark.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.V.; Schatz, Hawaii; Schumer, N.Y.; Shaheen, N.H.; Stabenow, Mich.; Tester, Mont.; Udall, Colo.; Udall, N.M.; Warner, Va.; Warren, Mass.; Whitehouse, R.I.; Wyden, Ore.

Republicans Yes
Alexander, Tenn.; Ayotte, N.H.; Chiesa, N.J.; Collins, Maine; Corker, Tenn.; Flake, Ariz.; Graham, S.C.; Hatch, Utah; Heller, Nev.; Hoeven, N.D.; Kirk, Ill.; McCain, Ariz.; Murkowski, Alaska; Rubio, Fla.

Republicans No
Barrasso, Wyo.; Blunt, Mo.; Boozman, Ark.; Burr, N.C.; Chambliss, Ga.; Coats, Ind.; Coburn, Okla.; Cochran, Miss.; Cornyn, Texas; Crapo, Idaho; Cruz, Texas; Enzi, Wyo.; Fischer, Neb.; Grassley, Iowa; Inhofe, Okla.; Isakson, Ga.; Johanns, Neb.; Johnson, Wis.; Lee, Utah; McConnell, Ky.; Moran, Kan.; Paul, Ky.; Portman, Ohio; Risch, Idaho; Roberts, Kan.; Scott, S.C.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Thune, S.D.; Toomey, Pa.; Vitter, La.; Wicker, Miss.

Independents Yes
King, Maine; Sanders, Vt.

Flashback 2009: Rubio says Reagan made a mistake with 1986 amnesty

“In 1986 Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million people,” Rubio said. “You know what happened, in addition to becoming 11 million a decade later? There were people trying to enter the country legally, who had done the paperwork, who were here legally, who were going through the process, who claimed, all of a sudden, ‘No, no, no, no, I’m illegal.’ Because it was easier to do the amnesty program than it was to do the legal process.”

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-06-28   19:35:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: GreyLmist (#2)

No surprise to see Boxhead and Frankenstein vote "yes." But of course.

scrapper2  posted on  2013-06-29   4:54:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: scrapper2 (#3) (Edited)

Evidently, more than two-thirds of the Senate -- all the Democrats and Independents + many Republicans too -- think it's their job to work as agents for alien invaders and their cohorts. At the very least, that complicit assemblage (adhering to and enabling those foreign invasion leagues) should be charged with conspiring to levy war against Americans by legislative intent to use their allied merc-forces to impose their entrenchment-treachery as triumphant.

Edited both sentences.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-06-29   14:48:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: GreyLmist (#4)

At the very least, that complicit assemblage (adhering to and enabling those foreign invasion leagues) should be charged with conspiring to levy war against Americans by legislative intent to use their allied merc-forces to impose their entrenchment-treachery as triumphant.

I agree with your sentiments 1000%.

But why have no constitutional public interest law firms sued these political turn coats for treason?

Fear of career-ending or life-ending repercussions?

Or is it something else that we are missing from a layman's perspective?

Does it have to do with "legal standing" ( barf!) to pursue such a case and be heard by the courts?

scrapper2  posted on  2013-06-29   15:26:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: All, *Illegal Immigration* (#4)

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

An ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the fact"), also called a retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.

a form of ex post facto law commonly called an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments [My note: in some countries].

A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation is no longer applicable to situations to which it previously was, even if such situations arose before the law was repealed.

Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.

i.e. Even if their "Amnesty" scheme included a repealing of all our immigration laws to ostensibly decriminalize the illegal aliens by awarding them citizenship status, it would still be Unconstitutional in America as an ex post facto violation.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-06-29   16:05:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: scrapper2 (#5)

I agree with your sentiments 1000%.

But why have no constitutional public interest law firms sued these political turn coats for treason?

Fear of career-ending or life-ending repercussions?

Good questions. I would add that some are turn coats themselves and there's not much financial profit in it for them to be more principally motivated. I think it was the 2008 elections that a State allowed 17-year-olds to influence the Primary outcome nationally by voting in that but didn't want them influencing State level issues by voting on those. Not only could I find no Constitutional or electoral "guardians" concerned about the possible Primary impact to the country from that (except maybe one who I think agreed that it might be a problem but would take a lot of money to challenge), I was also strenuously opposed in a debate about it for thinking it was out of bounds at all and by someone I thought would be more receptive. Still baffles me and there was no financial interest for the debater, as far as I know, so I guess their stance and unconcern was ideological.

Or is it something else that we are missing from a layman's perspective?

Does it have to do with "legal standing" ( barf!) to pursue such a case and be heard by the courts?

I've suspected before that this has something to do with issuing lots of new social security numbers by fiat-citizenship to be used as collateral by financiers in their secretive wheelings and dealings.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-06-29   17:33:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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