COURAGE: 70 House Republicans to push back against immigration bill

www.GlennBeck.com ^ | Jun 13, 2013 | Glenn Beck

[sergeantdave]

“How will the wealthy GOPe doners benefit if America turns into a Zimbabwe?”

I think the elitists are looking at more of a South African model. They live in guarded, barbed-wire communities, prisoners in their own country. Outside the elitist gate is Mad Max writ large. It all ends for the elitists in a French revolution-style bloodbath or a mass shooting and hanging of elitists like in Libya in 2011.

Then we do again in another 200 years.

[marygam]

As long has they hang on to their wealth and that will be questionable, they gain power over the little people. GOP-E are progressives too. They are all on the same side. Bush’s, Rove, Rubio, Graham, McLame throw into the same pot as Clinton, Schumer, Feinstein and the like. So goes for their donors.
Beck has been correct all along with his statement from years ago, doesn’t matter D’s or R’s. All on the same side. We are now seeing it play out with clearer eyes through this Amnesty/Immigration bill. Wasn’t so clear with Obamacare until it was on top of us. Now we see this right before us. They want to crash the system and bring us in line with 3rd world nations. And the Richest continue to be the power brokers globally.

[marygam]

I thought the same thing! They are acting like lapdogs more than usual.

[taildragger]

RINOS better get the message---they cannot use conservatives to get back in power UNLESS rock-hard conservatives (like Trey Gowdy and his surrogates) are placed in key positions in the party---in DC and nationwide. This must happen now....or we will proceed without them.

Again I say Liz....

They Divorced us a long time ago, we are too stupid to move out.

It is time for a new party for Conservatives, in fact I think this deliberate to get us to walk.

If so, so be it.

Sarah Palin, Col West, Congresswomen Bachmann are you listening?

You are our leaders, it is time to begin to build a Party that was started by Ross Perot when you think of it, the same fervor of people having had it with the status qou is the same energy we had with the Tea Parties, it is time to tell both Statist Parties to shove it, we will go it alone..

[Yosemitest]

"What does the RNC gain by Amnesty?"

Rush covered this subject very well.

RUSH: ...I'll tell you where we are now.
When this happens, and if there is this ten-year, 13 year, whatever it is,
it's not gonna be either of those, but by the law, Gang of Eight bill, is 13 years.
In those 13 years, those people that Schumer's talking about cannot get Obamacare,
they cannot get any welfare benefits, and guess what?
That makes them more hirable.
They're cheaper.
Employers will hire the newly pathway to citizenship people because
they don't have to pay a fine if they don't have health care.
They don't have to give them Obamacare benefits.
They don't have to provide them workmen's comp, any of that,
they don't qualify, they're not citizens yet.


I think there's another element to this.
Nobody ever looks at this from the perspective of the Hispanics who are living here.
But how about this take on it.
You've got legalized Hispanic immigrants to this country who are now citizens.
Do you think that they're eager to have an influx of whatever numbers of millions it is that are going to be competing with them for work?
We are being told part and parcel of this, we're being told --
and this is what the Republicans are buying
-- is that there is a monolithic relationship,
that there is a monolithic unified relationship of all Hispanics
and that they are all desirous that every Hispanic be granted a pathway to citizenship and an eventual citizenship.
That there is a unified, monolithic view that
they all hold that there is this Hispanic solidarity
that all Hispanics want every other Hispanic in the country to be made legal
simply because there is this loyalty one Hispanic to the next.

The Republicans are being told that,
and Republicans are therefore believing that if something upsets that monolithic view,
that if you make one Hispanic mad
because you, quote, unquote, mistreat another Hispanic,
then all Hispanics are gonna hate you.
It would be the same thing as saying
all women are gonna hate you if you don't do this,
all men are gonna hate you if you don't do that,
all homosexuals are gonna hate you if you don't do that.
They're all gonna hate you.
And the Republicans live in fear of being hated,
and it's the Democrats telling them WHO's gonna hate them.
And it's the Republicans believing what the Democrats are telling them about how to be loved.
"You better NOT make the Hispanics MAD."

Yet, what if it isn't true?
What if there isn't this Hispanic solidarity that's monolithic?
What if there are Hispanics who look at other people as just people first, not Hispanics first,
and who don't want additional competition for jobs,
particularly among people who are less educated and less qualified and, therefore, cheaper?
We're being asked to believe so much that just violates basic human nature.
It's all part of believing that minorities have a solidarity,
that every minority thinks exactly alike
and that every member of a minority group hates every member of the majority a
nd that every member of a minority group is in solidarity with everybody else,
and that they're all unified against whoever is gonna deny one member of that minority group whatever they want.

It flies in the face of basic human nature.
At any rate, the point is that Schumer said,
"We can't get that done in a number of years."
Dingy Harry says, "We're NOT going to EVER DO border security. You guys are whistling a pipe dream."
Let's go to Rubio.
Rubio on Fox this morning.
Bill Hemmer talked to him.
"It's obvious that you will not get Republican support unless
you convince your colleagues that border security will happen and will be a priority.
Will you make that happen?"

RUBIO: I think we can, because what we're asking for is very reasonable.
Two things: borders and benefits.
On the benefits,
we want to make sure that this is not a strain on the American taxpayer.
It is not fair to ask the American taxpayer to pay for benefits for people that have violated our immigration laws,
and on the border
it's not just border, it's eVerify, and entry/exit tracking of visitors.
We want to make sure that this never happens again.
We don't want to be back here five years from now
talking about another five or 10 million people who have entered our country illegally.

RUSH: I don't know how this stops that.
I don't know how this stops that,
and the thing I don't get is WHY,
just because the Democrats want to do something, that we have to go along.
Why can't our reaction to what they want be "NO"?
Why must there always have to be an alternative that is rooted in what THEY want?
They want 11 million NEW voters.
They don't say that.
They say
they want citizenship for these poor people that have risked everything to come to America, the great America.
They want their freedom from oppression.
Who are WE to deny these people their humanity?
We must grant them a pathway to citizenship.
They're here, and they're in the shadows, and the Republicans say,
"Hmm, you know what?
Since you guys want it
we better come up with a version of it,
or we're gonna be hated."

Why can't the Republicans say,
"No. I tell you what we're gonna do.
We're gonna shut down the border.
Everything stays the same until we shut down the border.
The country and the sun are gonna come up tomorrow.
The sun's gonna set.
Everybody's gonna go along.
Nobody's in great danger.
Nobody's threatened here right now.
We're gonna secure the border first
and then we'll talk about what to do about the people who are here.
But the first thing we gotta do is stop the influx."

Why can't we do that?

We have Obamacare because THEY want nationalized health care, and WE didn't say "NO."
We said,
"Well, okay, we've gotta have an answer to this.
We've gotta have our own version of this.
We gotta have our own smarter way of doing this."
Pick the issue. The Democrats are ALWAYS driving.
They're always the ones wanting bigger government, more government,
and we never say "NO."
We always think we have to have an alternative to whatever they propose.
Why don't we take the initiative and say,
"You know what, we need to get rid of some government."

We OWN the House.
Why don't we do this?
We could STOP EVERYTHING they want to do.
We would FORCE Obama to do it by executive order.
We can STOP EVERYTHING they want to do, but we don't.
We don't push back.
I guess we have a mind-set of PERMANENT minority.
We have a mind-set, apparently, that says
most people hate us.
The Democrats advance something, people love Democrats, and people must want this,
so we better look like we're in favor of some of it, otherwise we're gonna be hated.
I interpret how the Republicans react to things and what they do.

Hemmer then said to Rubio,
"Are you saying that you can get Republican support because of border security?
You're saying that you can convince your colleagues and moderate Democrats
that illegals will not get the benefits of federal government?
You believe at the end of this year, as Speaker Boehner said, the immigration will be signed into law, 2013?"


RUBIO: Well, that will depend on border and benefits.
If we have an immigration reform bill that
secures the border,
ensures that we don't have another wave of illegal immigration in the future,
and protects the American taxpayer
by denying federal benefits to those who have violated our immigration laws,
if the Democrats or whoever refuses to agree to that, we will not.

RUSH: Sounds good. Sounds good but then I've got the story here:
In a remarkable turn of events all Gang of Eight members voted to table the Grassley amendment
to have control of the border for six months before amnesty kicks in.
So it sounds good, and they're not gonna get benefits.
Does anybody expect that to survive?
Can you see Schumer finding the nearest camera and microphone within a couple of weeks:
"These people, we have just said that they're now legal terms of a pathway to citizenship.
We have officially welcomed these people,
and we're denying them health care?
And we're denying their kids' education?
What kind of a country is this?"

And the pressure will then be brought to bear to have an amendment that allows the benefits.
Well, again, it's intelligence guided by experience, vice-versa. Pretty predictable.
So then, let's see, last night, I guess, The O'Reilly Factor.
O'Reilly is talking to Rubio. O'Reilly said,
"Senator Leahy from Vermont says that he wants gay illegal aliens to bring in their gay friends and their gay partners or whatever
and he's trying to get that rider, that amendment on the immigration bill.
Is that gonna happen?"

RUBIO: If that happens, the bill is dead.
It certainly won't have my support. I've been very clear on that.
I respect people's views on the issue, but that is not --
this is already tough enough as it is;
to inject something as divisive as that,
if that gets on the bill, the bill's gonna die.
There's no doubt about it.
RUSH: I have to take a break, but I don't understand WHY.
WHY does that kill it?

END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links


• Breitbart.com: Reid Kills Amendment Requiring Border Security before Amnesty
  
  
• Breitbart.com: Schumer: 'Years and Years and Years' to Secure the Border
  
  
• YahooNews: Rubio: ‘I’m Done’ if Immigration Bill Includes Gay Couple Amendment
  
  
• Heritage: Spread the Word About What the Senate Is Doing
  
  
• RealClearPolitics: Bachmann: "Ruling Class" Will Pass A "Trojan Horse" Immigration Bill In House
  
  

[Theodore R.]

It’s the result of long-term poor selection of nominees by Republican primary voters, particularly in the large majority of states that do not have party runoff elections.

[Theodore R.]

The people of Boehner’s district are so uninformed that they will renominate him even if they know the disaster he brings. It’s a matter of power with the people in most districts.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”More importantly it’s time to ditch RINO conservative-haters like Priebus, the neocons, Rove, and the rest, who have continually kicked conservatives to the curb. They cannot be a part of any effort to clawback Republicans to power using the important IRS issue, and so on.”

Dont forget manufactured conservative cult figures like this guy:

Paul Ryan: ‘I will debate anybody’ who says immigration bill is ‘amnesty’

[BCW]

“...the decision of these 70 Republicans to stand up to the majority is one of the most courageous acts we have seen in a long time. ..”

This is the BIG NEWS...I was hoping that there was going to be a coup and Obama was going to be removed from office...that would be a history changer...not 70 elected leaders doing their job for the first time...

Beck’s definition about “defining moments in history” is quite different than mine...

[Yosemitest]

After reading that comment again, it reminds me: "... the liberal mindset ..."

Here's something to consider about liberals, and conservatives.

The liberal's problem is psychological projection.

Liberals do this all the time.
Here's a definition.
Freudian Projection

The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts.
In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called Freudian Projection.

• "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept.
  It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."
  
  
• "The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people.
  So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual."
  
  
• "Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."
  
  
• "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself.
  Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest.
  The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."
  
  
• "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others.
  An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."
  
  
• "Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification.
  We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."

And here's a problem with honest people.

(General) Projection

Here projection is assuming that others act or perceive similarly – according to this definition it is not necessary for a projected trait to be undesirable or unconscious.
Projection is probably inherent in social animals and the single most important psychological mechanism.
The following are given as examples:

1. Individual A assumes that B sees the colour red as he does, until informed that B is colour-blind;
   
   
2. Someone who never lies is easy to deceive because he projects his truthfulness onto others, assuming that others are honest also;
   
   
3. ‘It takes one to know one’;
   
   
4. An inept con-man fears that others are trying to cheat him, signals his fear and alerts others;
   
   
5. (Freudian) An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but who is unwilling to perceive himself as a protagonist, convinces himself that his opponent feels and would act the same way.

Liberals constantly project their own vile values onto conservatives, intentionally or unintentionally,
and they need to called on it, shamed on it, and laughed at to scorn, when they do it.

We MUST get rid of these evil people.

[catfish1957]

That is what I thought.... Just 70?

[bert]

I think you are correct. There are more than 70

We had a recent thread describing a group of Republicans, Tea Party Republicans, that has grown to I believe 118. They can not be ignored.

I wish I could remember what they are called.

[Cowboy Bob]

It has long been my belief (and I have been shouted down here on FR about saying it) that the ruling class in Washington (both D and R) have looked the other way regarding illegal immigration because the Illegals were helping to support Social Security.

The illegals, 11-20 million of them, have been using false SS numbers and paying into a system that they cannot collect from. The money received from the illegals are going to pay the benefits of those who are currently retired.

But this logic would fail if these illegals were to suddenly receive Amnesty. They can begin to collect, and become since a burden on the system that it would completely collapse in a few years.

This theory/comment by Rush that the corporations support Amnesty because the Illegals and their employers would escape the penalties of ObamaCare is interesting, but I believe that ObamaCare will collapse next year as the public begins to realize how expensive Obamacare is.

Of all the scandals in Washington, I thing ObamaCare will have the biggest impact because it has effected the greatest number of Americans where it hurts the most - their pocketbook.

No matter how bad the other scandals are - Benghazi, IRS, Fast & Furious, etc., the problem with them is that most Americans are not personally affected. They watch it on TV and say “Oh, how horrible,” but until,it effects their lifestyle (I.e., paying for food and rent/mortgage), they will just sit back and watch Dancing with the Stars.

The average American has to personally suffer before they give a damn, and that time will be coming in a little over 6 months from now.

If Amnestry can be blocked this year, I think ObamaCare and the effect it has on the economy and the average American will destroy any possibility for Amnesty for,the next 20+ years.

[Will88]

Progressivism is collapsing and only amnesty will save them.

Yep, I think they'd lost the debate over the past 40 years among the extant US population and their descendents, and only massive legal and illegal immigration from third world countries has kept them competitive.

Now they're trying for a long term win with much assistance from many Republicans.

[Yosemitest]

Watch Glenn Beck - Exposes Obama's plan to collapse the system, Sep 24, 2010.

Barack Obama George Soros Collapsing America 2012 Economic Collap...

It's INTENTIONAL !

[LibLieSlayer]

Thanks!

LLS

[LibLieSlayer]

We will defeat him in the House... he cannot win another election as Speaker with 70 members of his own party boycotting him.

LLS

[Cowboy Bob]

I know it’s all intentional by the Democrats, but why is the GOP leadership going along with it?

The people in Washington know. Both Democrat and Republican. Boehner and Co. Are not doing this because “it’s the right thing to do,” they are doing it for reasons that are selfish and destructive to this country.

I wish one of the 70 who oppose the immigration plan were to step forward and say: “the reason why the Democrats and GOP leadership,is joining forces to force Amnesty upon an unwilling American public is...”

Then I would Harry Reed and John Boehner run around and try to deny the truth. America will take notice if a member of Congress steps forward and calls out the leadership.

Maybe this group of 70 is a first step

[PlanToDisappear]

If it gets to the point where this battle is lost and all we have left is to primary the traitors, it won’t really matter. The war will be over.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Time, NO, WAY PAST TIME, to replace Boner! Sorriest SOH I’ve seen in my lifetime, with the obvious exception of Nancy Pelosi.