Top House Republican Declares He Wants Total Amnesty

Redstate ^ | 12/5/2014 | Erick Erickson

[JSDude1]

House Republicans, coming up with every excuse under the sun to avoid stopping President Obama, are letting slip the real reason.

Congressman Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX)69%69%, chairman of the House Rules Committee, is telling Democratic lawmakers he wants total amnesty.

The Daily Caller reports Sessions met with Democratic lawmakers telling them how expansive his vision of immigration is before Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)N/AN/A announced the GOP would give up the fight on immigration.

More details are here. It is more and more obvious the only way the GOP will stop Obama is if House conservatives hold the line and oppose both the rule on the continuing resolution and the continuing resolution itself.

Time to work the phones people.

[GeronL]

I don’t understand how anyone can support these people and still call themselves conservative.

[Dick Bachert]

[greene66]

I’m having to think how many years have now gone by since the GOP leadership actually stood up and ‘fought’ for any issue I believed in, as opposed to immediately caving/siding with Obama and the Dems.

Does anything animate them? Other than pushing for some free-trade deal with Outer Derkistan, or getting taxes lowered for their Wall Street buddies? That seems to be the only kind of thing they give a damn about.

[arthurus]

Total Amnesty. Issue US passports and immigration visas to everyone in Latin America and everyone who overstays a visa. Or just eliminate all requirements for passports and visas for everyone in the world for entry into the US.

[Baynative]

“I’m going to use my assets and resources in the new year to work with this Congress… to have a well-understood agreement about what the law should be, and how we as communities, and farm communities, and tech communities, create circumstances where we can have people be in this country and work, and where not one person is quote ‘thrown out’ or ‘deported,’” Rep. Pete Sessions, the chairman of the powerful House rules committee, told a group of Democratic legislators.

Who the hell elected this guy. He needs to be taken out of his chairman seat when the new congress convenes.

"Sessions’ promise of de-facto amnesty to Democrats was welcomed by Chicago Rep. Luis Gutierrez, who frequently describes unauthorized migrants as members of his community."

[SkyDancer]

Why stop there? Give amnesty to all these people, wipe the board clean:

Rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, a$$-kickers, shiat-kickers and Methodists.

Thanks to Mel Brooks, Blazing Saddles.

[Truth29]

Nothing within the existing duopoly of the governing parties seems able to make them support the will of the voters. Boehner and his ilk need to be made to fear an enraged populace that would hound him morning, noon, and night and never give him a moments respite. Nothing short of that will have any effect and that may not be enough.

[GeronL]

bump

they pretend to be conservative only during campaigns

[DannyTN]

[Yosemitest]

ANY VOTE FOR an "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN"

… is a vote … FOR OBAMA.

What a DISAPPOINTMENT!
Compromisers ALWAYS LOSE !

"Establishment Republicans" lose everytime they're listened to.
They wouldn't care if they DO lose.
If they can't be in power, they don't want US in power.
It's just that simple.
It's WAR!

We will never unify under "Establishment Republicans" .
"Establishment Republicans" have more in common with the Democrats, than they do with Conservatives.
The weak candidates are "Establishment Republicans", weak on national security, amnesty for illegals, abortion, and government spending.
"Establishment Republicans" scream "COMPROMISE".
And people who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.
Someone once said [We're] 'Not victims of "the Establishment." '
I disagree.
I ask you again:

Who was it that dumped all those negative adds on Conservative Candidates in the primary?
Who was it that constantly battered each leading Conservative in the primary with an average of three to one negative ads against our real candidates?
Who's money was dumped against the conservative choices?

It WAS Mitt Romney, leader of the "Establishment Republicans"
and it WAS the "Establishment Republicans" who funded all those negative ads against Conservatives.

So conservatives, the BASE of the Republican Party, WERE ' victims of "the Establishment." '

These "Establishment Republicans" are being weeded out, one by one, and slowly but surely, the TEA Party is taking over.

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2014 OR NOT?

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.
Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.



The "Establishment Republicans" can GO TO HELL !

[joshua c]

Can we hear from Pete Sessions’ constituents? Have they started the recall? Where do I send money?

[clintonh8r]

What part of Texas is this hump from?

[Night Hides Not]

Pete’s real constituents are now Floridians. The low info voters in his district just haven’t learned that fact yet.

[crusher2013]

If they actually do this, then I guess its time to drop the Republican party registration and start actively pushing for a new replacement party.

The Republicans really do seem to want to follow the Whigs into the dustbin of history.

[Kackikat]

I resigned the Republican Party many moons ago, and registered as Independent. Funny, that when I came back here they asked my political party when I got my drivers license....so I said ‘Independent’ and that’s where I am now....it means I don’t have to read the party propaganda.

[Kackikat]

That is what is happening, it’s the NORTH AMERICAN UNION...courtesy of the New World Order....look it up online.

[molson209]

The GOP have fallen for it again ,they’ll pass some crap and get the blame and the Grubered Voters will put the Democrats back in Power

[FlingWingFlyer]

Go ahead Peter, old boy. Just don’t ask the US taxpayers to pay to subsidize you illegal aliens. They aren’t Americans and Americans should not be forced to worry about them. That’s their own government’s job. How ‘bout you politicians put YOUR OWN money where your big mouth is and you clowns pay for them to live here.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Obama’s amnesty was boot good and bad for RINOs. Good, they don’t get blamed for it but bad, they are now expected to oppose it.