Ann Coulter Says, “If the GOP is this Stupid [on Illegal Immigration], It Deserves to Die”

Ann has a point, I would probably tear up my card …

Ann Coulter pens in an article on Ann Coulter.com, ”If  the GOP is this Stupid, It Deserves to Die.” Her comments are in reference to the Republicans ridiculous stance on Hispanics, illegal immigration and amnesty. The targets the GOP Ship of Fools of Four, Sens. Kelly Ayotte, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio. Amnesty for illegals will destroy the Republican party, an Democrats are wetting themselves with joy that they have created this canard. As Ann states, even if Mitt Romney had won 70% of the Hispanic vote in 2012, he still would have lost. No Republican presidential candidate in at least 50 years has won even half of the Hispanic vote. So how do Republicans think this is a political winner for them? In essence what the “Ship of fools of 4″ is proposing is to piss off the Republican base and allow amnesty first, never protect the border and just allow an influx of low skilled illegals and their families into a country that already in in debt, has record number of Americans on unemployment, on Food Stamps and disability. Good grief, this is a recipe to make the United States, Mexico. How on earth can Republicans thing that providing amnesty to people where a large majority will become dependent on government is good for them, or better yet and more important, good for America?

I have to admit, if the GOP goes for this amnesty first, protect the border whenever and allow 11-30,000,000 illegals and their extended this families into the US, not only will the GOP die, so will America. That many low income, low skilled individuals can do nothing for the United States except destroy it. Rubio talks about the extra tax revenue. Is this man on crack? What tax revenue, 47% of Americans already do not pay taxes and many in this category actually get money back from the federal government in the formed of “earned income tax credits”. Where do you think the majority of low skilled illegals will fall in the tax payer structure of the US? Has everyone forgot the rule of law in all of this? Hell, if we are going to just reward illegals, why don’t we provide amnesty to every one else in the United States who has broken the law? Seriously, amnesty for all individuals who have broke any law of the United States, forgive them of their crimes whether it be assault, robbery, drugs, rape, child molesters, white collar crime, etc. Sound insane? Then, why are politicians playing favorites as to what crimes they want to enforce and other that they do not?

Democrats terrify Hispanics into thinking they’ll be lynched if they vote for Republicans, and then turn around and taunt Republicans for not winning a majority of the Hispanic vote.

This line of attack has real resonance with our stupidest Republicans. (Proposed Republican primary targets: Sens. Kelly Ayotte, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio.) Which explains why Republicans are devoting all their energy to slightly increasing their share of the Hispanic vote while alienating everyone else in America.

It must be fun for liberals to manipulate Republicans into focusing on hopeless causes. Why don’t Democrats waste their time trying to win the votes of gun owners?

As journalist Steve Sailer recently pointed out, the Hispanic vote terrifying Republicans isn’t that big. It actually declined in 2012. The Census Bureau finally released the real voter turnout numbers from the last election, and the Hispanic vote came in at only 8.4 percent of the electorate — not the 10 percent claimed by the pro-amnesty crowd.

The sleeping giant of the last election wasn’t Hispanics; it was elderly black women, terrified of media claims that Republicans were trying to suppress the black vote and determined to keep the first African-American president in the White House.

Contrary to everyone’s expectations, 10 percent more blacks voted in 2012 compared to 2008, even beating white voters, the usual turnout champions. Eligible black voters turned out at rate of 66.2 percent, compared to 64.1 percent of eligible white voters. Only 48 percent of all eligible Hispanic voters went to the polls. (read full story at Ann Coulter.com)

It is mind boggling that it has come to this. The stupidity of allowing illegals amnesty first will be the death of anything that we used to recognize as an America we once knew. Guess who would be paying for their Obamacare? Guess who would be a drain on the entitlement programs of the US? Guess who would not be paying any income taxes?

Folks, immigration is not set up to benefit those individuals wanting to come to America, immigration law is made to benefit the country and who should be allowed in to provide the skill and knowledge to make the country better. The United States cannot be a welfare state to the world, as it is, we cannot even afford to be a welfare state to our own citizens.

Daily Commentary – Thursday, June 13, 2013 – As Jury Selection Begins in the George Zimmerman Trial

• Some prospective jurors claim they fear retribution if chosen

Daily Commentary – Thursday, June 13, 2013 Download

Talk About Hipocrisy … In 2006 Joe Biden Said, Don’t Trust a Spying President or Vice President, What Say You Now Joe? According to Gallup, Majority of Americans Don’t Either

Americans appear to be very troubled by the government spying on them. Hmm, so was Joe Biden when he was in the US Senate.  In 2006, then Senator Joe Biden said you can’t trust a spying president.

“If I know every single phone call you made I’m able to determine every single person you talk to. I can get a pattern about your life that is very, very intrusive. The real question here is what do they do with this information they collect that does not have anything to do with Al-Qaeda? And we’re going to trust the president and the vice president of the United States that they’re doing the right thing. Don’t count me in on that.“

But of course now that Biden is VP and Barack Obama is President, things are different. NOT! The NSA surveillance program as morphed into an all encompassing, out of control data grab on ever single American and in the process completely shredding the Contribution and Bill of Rights. For something that Biden said, “don’t count me in on that,” he appears to be all in now. What’s the difference? Oh, he is in power. Talk about your convenient flip-flops and the height of hypocrisy. Now that Biden is VP, he must feel it is completely OK to shred the US Constitution and spy on law abiding American people. Because the rules don’t apply the liberals. How does one morph their opinion that you can’t trust a spying president simply by whether they are a ”R” or “D”? Especially when the Obama administration has already been caught in the IRS scandal where conservative groups were targeted?

As Liberty Unyielding opines, “aren’t you glad we didn’t elect an idiot like Sarah Palin to be one heartbeat away from the president?”

It would appear We the People” are not for a spying president either. According to a recent Gallup poll, a majority of Americans disapprove of the NSA Government surveillance program. 53% of Americans disapprove of the “Big Brother” watching them and violating their right to privacy. Weasel Zippers provides a similar CBS poll where 58% disapprove of the Government surveillance program. The only group who approves, are Democrats. Funny, weren’t they the ones that were up in arms during the GWB presidency that their library books were being reviewed?

More Americans disapprove (53%) than approve (37%) of the federal government agency program that as part of its efforts to investigate terrorism obtained records from U.S. telephone and Internet companies to “compile telephone call logs and Internet communications.”

There are significant partisan differences in views of the government’s program to obtain call logs and Internet communication. Democrats are more likely to approve, by 49% to 40%. Independents (34% vs. 56%) and Republicans (32% to 63%) are much more likely to disapprove than approve.

CNN asks, Was it OK for Snowden to leak secrets? The question is debatable as the jury is still out as to what his ultimate motive was.

Another Day, Another Scandal … Prostitution, drugs, Sexual Abuse, Misconduct alleged in Hillary Clinton’s State Department

STATE DEPARTMENT-GATE … HILLARY-GATE? Another day and another scandal in the Obama administration. This time it is courtesy of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department. This from “Wannbe” president Hillary Clinton.

Good grief, prostitution, drugs alleged, sexual abuse, child prostitution inappropriate or even criminal misconduct by staff in Hillary Clinton’s State Department. According to accounts, the investigation was stonewalled and asked to be stopped by State Dept. officials. The investigators were leaned on, pressured and had their investigation called off. MORE TRANSPARANY? It’s not just Benghazi and the events that occurred before, during and after the terrorist attack that left 4 Americans dead that was botched by wannbe president Hillary Clinton, it appears she presided over an out of control State Department. But of course she knew nothing about what was going on, including allegations against her own security detail. As the NY Post reports, Hillary’s sorry state of affairs. Is any part of the Obama government under control?

A State Department whistleblower has accused high-ranking staff of a massive coverup — including keeping a lid on findings that members of then-Secretary Hillary Clinton’s security detail and the Belgian ambassador solicited prostitutes.

“It’s a coverup,” declared Cary Schulman, a lawyer representing the whistleblower, former State Department IG senior investigator Aurelia Fedenisn.“The whole agency is impaired.

Does this sound familiar, Hillary Clinton spokesman said that Hillary was unaware of the investigation and the memos, including the part about her own personal detail and learned about it from the media. GOOD GRIEF … HOW MANY TIMES ARE THESE PEOPLE GOING TO USE THE SAME EXCUSE OF IGNORANCE. Sorry Mrs. Clinton, not believable. President Barack Obama has already over-used that card, you do not get to.

From CNN:

Senior State Department and Diplomatic Security officials may have covered up or stopped investigations of inappropriate or even criminal misconduct by staff, according to an internal memo from the department’s Office of the Inspector General.

The timeline surrounding the allegations places the incidents during former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s tenure, opening the possibility that a widening scandal might taint both her record and her possible political aspirations. Clinton has also taken heat for the department’s response to the September 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.

The memo itself, purportedly written by Ambassador Larry Dinger, describes some of the information as coming from office chatter.

They include:

• An active U.S. ambassador “routinely ditched his protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children,” the memo says. The ambassador’s protective detail and others “were well aware of the behavior,” the memo asserts. When a diplomatic security officer tried to investigate, undersecretary of state for management Patrick Kennedy allegedly ordered the investigator “not to open a formal investigation.”

HOW MANY TIMES DO THEY GET TO USE THE “WE LEARNED ABOUT IN IN THE MEDIA” EXCUSE?

 EXIT QUESTION … AND HILLARY CLINTON THINKS SHE SHOULD BE PRESIDENT IN 2016? HOW CAN AMERICA AFFORD TO HAVE ANOTHER 4 YEARS LIKE THE LAST 8?

ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging NSA’s Patriot Act Phone Surveillance Against We the People … Violates Americans’ Constitutional Rights of Free Speech, Association & Privacy

Once again we are witness to a government that has become just too big.

As reported at the New York Times, the ACLU has filed a aw suit against the federal government challenging the NSA’s phone surveillance against “We the People”. In an interesting twist, the left leaning ACLU has filed a law suit against the far-Left Obama administration over the collection of logs of domestic phone calls of all Americans where they were the target of an investigation or suspected of terrorism or not. The law suit names Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, NSA Director Keith Alexander, Attorney General Eric Holder, Defense Secretary Charles Hagel and FBI Director Robert Mueller III as defendants. It is pretty bad when the ACLU is forced to sue the Obama administration over such an issue, or face a complete lack of credibility.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Obama administration on Tuesday over its “dragnet” collection of logs of domestic phone calls, contending that the once-secret program — whose existence was exposed last week by a former National Security Agency contractor — is illegal and asking a judge to stop it and order the records purged.

The lawsuit could set up an eventual Supreme Court test. It could also focus attention on this disclosure amid the larger heap of top secret surveillance matters revealed by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor who came forward Sunday to say he was their source.

I have personally disagreed with many actions in the past and inactions by the ACLU, who is supposed to defend all Americans civil liberties. However, I have to give them credit here. The ACLU filed a law suit charging that the program violates Americans’ constitutional rights of free speech, association, and privacy.  It is troubling that the US government thinks that it can just sweep up all data without any cause of legal search and seizure. It is even more eye opening that Barack Obama when he was Senator and candidate Obama ridiculed and vilified this program. When he became president, the program went on steroids.

In the wake of the past week’s revelations about the NSA’s unprecedented mass surveillance of phone calls, today the ACLU filed a lawsuit charging that the program violates Americans’ constitutional rights of free speech, association, and privacy.

This lawsuit comes a day after we submitted a motion to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) seeking the release of secret court opinions on the Patriot Act’s Section 215, which has been interpreted to authorize this warrantless and suspicionless collection of phone records. [...]

The ACLU’s complaint filed today explains that the dragnet surveillance the government is carrying out under Section 215 infringes upon the ACLU’s First Amendment rights, including the twin liberties of free expression and free association. The nature of the ACLU’s work—in areas like access to reproductive services, racial discrimination, the rights of immigrants, national security, and more—means that many of the people who call the ACLU wish to keep their contact with the organization confidential. Yet if the government is collecting a vast trove of ACLU phone records—and it has reportedly been doing so for as long as seven years—many people may reasonably think twice before communicating with us.

Legal Insurrection reminds us that this was not the first law suit filed when it comes to the NSA data dragnet, Larry Klayman, former chairman of ‘Judicial Watch’ filed one as well.

On Sunday, a similar suit was filed by Larry Klayman, former chairman of Judicial Watch, against President Obama, Eric Holder, Keith Alexander, the NSA and Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam, among others.  The suit claims that the government’s phone surveillance activities “violates the U.S. Constitution and also federal laws, including, but not limited to, the outrageous breach of privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the due process rights of American citizens.”