4um: THERE'S STILL TIME TO RUIN RYAN -- BARELY! Here's how

Title: THERE'S STILL TIME TO RUIN RYAN -- BARELY! Here's how
Source: numbersusa.com
URL Source: https://www.numbersusa.com/account/login
Published: Oct 22, 2015
Author: Roy Beck!
Post Date: 2015-10-22 14:44:06 by NeoconsNailed
Keywords: speaker
Views: 229
Comments: 17

'I heard you at a recent Tea Party meeting in Greenville. PLEASE VOTE AGAINST PAUL RYAN FOR SPEAKER. He is a total SELLOUT on immigration and a horrible neocon generally. And PLEASE LET ME HEAR YOUR POSITION on this. Not a form letter or message!'

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/paul-ryan-freedom-caucus-speaker- republicans-215044

Both are closet socialists, just like Paul Ryan, who also wants to destroy the TP.

U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY

First, they managed to drive John Boehner out of office. After that, they played a major role in stopping his lieutenant Kevin McCarthy from taking over and being John Boehner Jr.. Furthermore, they were holding out for even more: rule changes that would help even the playing field for conservatives in Congress.

That’s why at first glance, it was disappointing that most of them seemed ready to support Paul Ryan. After all, Ryan is diehard advocate of amnesty and publicly, everyone was saying that he would only become Speaker if everyone got on board beforehand and took the motion to vacate off the table, which would make it much harder to get rid of him.

That didn’t sound very appealing and so it was a big surprise that after a meeting with the Freedom Caucus, most of the members were willing to support him.

However, after details about the meeting leaked out, it all started to make sense. First, the The WAPO reported that Ryan had agreed to abide by the Hastert Rule. That’s significant because it means he couldn’t push an amnesty bill unless the majority of Republicans in the House went along with it, which is extraordinarily unlikely.

Additionally, The Weekly Standard said Ryan wanted changes to the motion to vacate, but didn’t actually want to get rid of it.

Then Breitbart reported that Ryan actually caved to most of the rule changes that the Freedom Caucus wants.

If all of this is true, then Right Wing News is willing to endorse Paul Ryan Speaker because sometimes you have to take “yes” for an answer and those rule changes would be very consequential.

Is Ryan our first choice? No. But, he’s not a member of the current leadership team, so he does at least give the GOP a clean break from the failures of the last few years. Additionally, IF it’s true that he has agreed to these rule changes, it would be a significant step forward for conservatives in the House AND it would prevent him from doing anything that the majority of the GOP in the House didn’t support.

The sad truth is that the candidates most conservatives would prefer don’t seem inclined to run or simply couldn’t win. Ryan can and IF he keeps the promises he’s made (and it won’t take long to find that out), the House would be significantly better off than it is today under John Boehner’s leadership.

U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY

SAVE US FROM PAUL RYAN AND THE KEMP BOYS

After Paul Ryan helped Mitt Romney lose the 2012 election by doing the impossible -- losing a debate to Joe Biden -- he went on an intimate tour of poverty. It was a journey so personal, Ryan brought reporters, writers and documentary producers with him.

So far, he's gotten one book and one documentary out of The Paul Ryan Intimate Poverty Tour -- we're still waiting for the tote bags -- and is currently promoting a major poverty-fighting initiative that he brainstormed during private moments of reflection, somehow captured by the press: "The Kemp Forum on Expanding Opportunity."

Appropriately for an event named after Ryan's mentor, Jack Kemp, the forum will allow Ryan to showcase his deep concern for the poor without doing a thing to help them. This is the hallmark of the "empowerment" crowd. What matters is their own self-regard and favorable press notices, not accomplishing anything useful.

In the 1996 vice presidential debate, Al Gore repeatedly praised Kemp for not being a racist -- unlike the rest of his party. After Gore called Kemp a "lonely voice" in the GOP, "who says we ought to be one nation," Kemp did not say:

MY PARTY? YOUR PARTY HAS A FORMER KLAN MEMBER IN THE SENATE! YOUR FATHER VOTED AGAINST THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT! YOUR PARTY DESTROYED THE BLACK FAMILY!

No, Kemp's response was: "Well, I thank you, Al. I mean that very, very sincerely."

For all Kemp's claims to being black America's truest friend, he didn't actually help any minorities. His famed "enterprise zones" were a renowned flop.

By now there have been approximately 1 million studies on the effect of "enterprise zones," "empowerment zones" and -- Obama's version -- "promise zones." The conclusion: Every single penny has been wasted. Businesses game the system, relocate shops from just outside the zone to just within it, or take tax credits for doing nothing that they weren't already planning to do.

The principal result of Kemp's enterprise zones was to double HUD's budget.

But Kemp, like his protege Ryan, was everything big corporations and Wall Street love in a Republican: He'd give them tax cuts, cheap labor and moral self-righteousness. Washington is full of these Kemparatchiks, churning out documents and admiring quotes about one another to willing reporters.

The Kemp boys think they're a big hit with poor minorities -- especially Hispanics. Ryan, for example, is a huge supporter of driving down Hispanic wages by endlessly dumping low-wage workers on the country. Empowerment!

Two years ago, Ryan bragged to a Catholic radio station: "I actually campaigned with Jack Kemp against a thing called Prop 187."

That "thing" was an overwhelmingly popular initiative to prevent illegal aliens from collecting government benefits. It gave Republicans their biggest victory in California in the last 30 years, was supported by a majority of blacks, a majority of whites, a majority of Asians and 31 percent of Hispanics.

Two years later, the Dole-Kemp ticket got only 21 percent of the Hispanic vote. That's worse than Romney! (These empowerment types really have their finger on the pulse of ethnic America!)

Like Kemp, Ryan acts as if he's the tribune of blacks and Hispanics, chastising Republicans for "preaching to the choir." He prefers to preach to the mariachi band -- one of which serenaded him on his visit to an immigrant rights group in Chicago, a few months after his failed vice presidential bid.

How about Ryan run for mayor of Los Angeles? After he wins, he can lecture us about how his Jack Kemp message resonates with Hispanics.

Ryan's big idea on poverty is indistinguishable from Kemp's: "Get money and capital and credit into the inner cities of America and the barrios and ghettos of America." This will "empower people"!

The best thing I ever heard about Dick Cheney is that, after listening to Ryan drone on about how Republicans needed to create "a real ownership society" at a meeting with members of Congress, Cheney said, "Yeah, we're not going to do that," and then turned to a different representative.

Imagining a photo of himself on the mantle of every black household in America, Ryan touts his forum on poverty, saying, "There are few challenges tougher than the fight against poverty, and we need all hands on deck."

Wow. What a caring person. No one's ever talked about poverty before! (Have they?)

About a decade ago, I met an actor, the hot new thing, at an agent's party. He excitedly told me his big idea: A war on poverty! I told him to look up "LBJ," but he earnestly persisted, saying, yeah, sure, maybe LBJ talked about poverty, but no one had ever called for "a war on poverty." See, that was the key -- the war part.

That was a mentally impaired actor. Now a decade later, I'm hearing the same thing from the man House Republicans want to make their speaker.

All of human experience has already taught us how to fight poverty, and it doesn't involve the words "opportunity," "empowerment" or "zone."

Effective: Don't pay people not to work. The 1996 welfare reform act, with its time limits and work requirements, reduced welfare caseloads by an astronomical 65 percent, as former recipients entered the workforce.

Ineffective: Self-flattering politicians jabbering about how much they care about poverty, then creating behemoth government programs that give corporations tax breaks for pretending to help the poor.

Effective: Stop dumping millions of low-wage workers on the country to drive down wages. America's booming, prosperous middle class arose in the 40-year period after immigration was virtually shut down in 1924 -- until Teddy Kennedy opened the floodgates to the Third World in 1965.

Ineffective: Demanding an endless supply of cheap immigrant labor favored by your corporate donors, subsidized by the long-suffering middle class, while strutting around like you're Martin Luther King.

COPYRIGHT 2015 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK

U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY

Yeah, the TP is pathetic -- and so is my Rep, Jeff Duncan. Pitiful, pathetic, lamentable, but with NumbersUSA we've won one battle after another.

U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY

No, I didn't waste a call to Mike McCaul, the richest guy in congress (thanks to his FIL).

“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

U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY

The more we do of it, the more it helps. The less we do the less it helps. NumbersUSA is a fantastic, very professional outfit -- makes it so easy for us to send faxes etc. A gift from God.

From: Roy Beck - NumbersUSA.com Subject: Anti-Ryan reaction changing some votes -- Phone again today

Phone calls and social media push are making a huge difference. We are hearing that some Members who indicated their support for Ryan earlier are re-thinking because their constituents are so angry.

PLEASE MAKE MORE PHONE CALLS TODAY at Capitol Switchboard (202-224-3121) or USE YOUR PHONE NOTE: https://www.numbersusa.com/phones?ID=17058.

Thanks to all of you who are part of this monumental effort to counteract the power of the corporate establishment to keep immigration expansionism alive in the highest leadership of the U.S. House.

I have detailed in multiple alerts this week and in this blog how Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has been involved in thwarting effective immigration enforcement and promoting massive immigration of foreign workers for two decades.

(Some of you -- before you act -- are going to need some more explanation of where we are in the fight after Rep. Paul Ryan announced last night that he is officially running to win the Speaker of the House vote next week. Please look below the Action Box for further detail and analysis.)

Switched to another e-mail address? Change your e-mail address online. Sign up for text message action alerts, and you'll receive a text message with instructions for action only when an urgent action is needed. Take our interests survey. Let us know what you're interested in so we can customize actions and other information to meet your needs.

U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY

The Charlotte Observer reports that "Most S.C. congressmen have pledged support" to Paul Ryan as the next Speaker of the House.

The story quotes Rep. Mick Mulvaney saying "He {Ryan} promised he would not bring up comprehensive immigration reform while Obama is still president."

Immigration wasn't going to come up again in this Congress anyway. What happens in 2017?

In an unsettling sign of things to come, Ryan has chosen as his chief of staff a K street lobbyist with deep ties to pro-amnesty and immigration- expansionist organizations and politicians - a man who personally worked with the Chamber of Commerce to pass comprehensive immigration reform during President Obama's first term, and who previously worked for a firm that helped build a coalition meant to pass President Bush's comprehensive amnesty.

Switched to another e-mail address? Change your e-mail address online. Sign up for text message action

Crippling Consequences of Illegal Immigration

In 1965 President Lyndon Johnson signed the Immigration and Naturalization Services Act of 1965 (also known as the Hart-Celler Act or the INS Act of 1965) that abolished the national-origin quotas that had been in place in the United States since the Immigration Act of 1924. It was proposed by Emanuel Celler and heavily supported by Senator Ted Kennedy partly in response to the Civil Rights Movement.

1965 Immigration Law Changed Face of America

Illegal immigration critics muddy Voting Rights Act renewal

23 Defining Moments in Immigration Policy History - ALIPAC

History of Illegal Immigration in U.S.

There is a common sense, humane and cost-effective way to solve the problem of illegal immigration, without resorting to either mass deportation or amnesty. This is called “attrition through enforcement” wherein if our existing immigration laws are consistently enforced and jobs cut off, the number of illegal aliens will return to their home countries over time. This middle-ground strategy is endorsed by real immigration reform groups such as ALIPAC and NumbersUSA.

Ted Kennedy's Immigration Legacy -- and why did he do it?

Among those who disliked Kennedy the most, there has been a sense that Ted Kennedy fundamentally distrusted and disliked the citizens of this country.

The line of thinking is something like this: Even though the majority of these citizens had elected his brother President, and appeared likely to elect another brother to the office, Ted Kennedy wanted a different citizenry. Perhaps there was a sub-conscious hatred for the overall American people because of the assassinations (although one assassin was a foreigner and the other had tried to emigrate to the Soviet Union).

Perhaps he had some Irish immigrant chips on his shoulder about WASPS disrespecting his family. If he disliked the balance of power among the citizens of this country, wildly increasing immigration levels could largely shift the balance of political power and ideology in the country.

To whatever extent any of that was true, Kennedy's immigration policies certainly "elected a new citizenry." This country now has more than 50 million natives of other countries and their children. In a country of 300 million, that is an incredible influence on every aspect of our political and social and economic lives, don't you think.

Most of those 50 million are here as a result of the policies Kennedy put in place.

U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY

This is one of the main reasons I say "There is no more United States of America."

U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY

Anybody here that doesn't want to fight to save what's left and regain lost ground, to hell with 'em.