Call his bluff

By 40 Comments 2,098 views

dog-whistle

democrats are a dependable and predictable bunch. When they hear a dog whistle, they come. democrat pols have been blowing the whistle of impeachment for some time and their unthinking followers are obeying. Despite no GOP leader calling for Obama’s impeachment, however well deserved, democrats are ginning up the impeachment issue. As have observed, Obama is all but begging to be impeached. Rep. Steve Scalise said that this “might be the first White House in history trying to start the narrative of impeaching their own president.”

It is, of course, about money. democrats claim to have raised $2 million off the scare mongering thus far. Behind the scenes, they’re laughing at the democrat base they can count on empty their wallets without thinking. Tonight on Special Report AB Stoddard said that democrats can barely contain their giggling at their success.

The impeachment dog whistle is a convenient canard to distract the left wing base from how poorly Obama is performing. Greg Gutfeld:

“Strangely, it’s almost a tacit acknowledgement of how poor a job Obama is doing,” Gutfeld continued. “They’re not saying ‘Are you kidding!?’ when impeachment is brought up. Instead they threaten their base.”

So what should the GOP do?

Call his bluff.

They should continue to dismiss talk of impeachment and continue the lawsuit. Moreover, they should campaign on the President’s lawlessness, the damage being done to the country by the democrat party, the costs being visited upon taxpayers and the need for sanity.

Scott Brown has already begun to do this:

Republican Senate hopeful Scott Brown is unleashing a new TV ad focused on border security against New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, tethering her to President Barack Obama on an issue that has dominated the headlines in recent weeks.

The spot shows Brown, the former Massachusetts senator now running in the Granite State, talking to the camera, describing the various checkpoints Americans go through to get into government buildings, an airplane, a ballgame.

“But folks who come here illegally, they just walk across the border,” he says, calling it “wrong,” as the camera pans over a field of low, dry grass.

“Thanks to the pro-amnesty policies of President Obama and Sen. Shaheen, we have an immigration crisis on our hands,” Brown says. “We respond with compassion, but it’s time for us to secure the border once and for all.”

 

This is potent stuff. Republicans can appeal to minorities over the money happily spent by Obama on illegals that he doesn’t spend on inner city children:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcL259Tvvh4

Illegal immigration will destroy black America:

 

 

Obama spits in the faces of those who follow the rules and immigrate legally.

Speaking at The New York Meeting on Monday, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) took a firm stance against illegal immigration, saying massive illegal immigration angers legal immigrants and threatens to balkanize America.

Panelists who were more moderate on immigration policy tried to nudge McClintock to the left on the issue, but he stood his ground.

“A lot of immigrants that I talk to… are the maddest about illegal immigration because they’re the ones who stood patiently in line, and obeyed all of our laws, came here with a sincere desire to become Americans, and they are watching 11 million people trying to cut in line and flout our laws,” McClintock said. “I have found that legal immigrants, those people who came here in order to become Americans, are the angriest about illegal immigration and we need to appeal to them as well.”

McClintock, who many California conservatives ultimately believed would have been a better governor than Arnold Schwarzenegger, added that America was built on a common language, common culture, and a common appreciation of American legal and constitutional traditions

“If we allow illegal immigration, then there is no point to legal immigration,” he said.

McClintock said illegal immigration would destroy “the glue that holds this country together and unites us as one people made from all of the people’s from the world.

How about interviews with the families of those killed by illegals?

how about those murdered by Obama’s catch and release pals?

The majority of those appearing at the border are not children, but family units instead. This has to be made clear.

 

Illegals can fly without an ID.  American citizens cannot.

Illegals can enter the country without a passport or ID. America citizens cannot.

People are angry and democrats underestimate it. Should Obama go ahead and grant some kind of amnesty I suspect the country will catch fire. If he doesn’t, you’ll know he was always full of sh*t and his sycophants will know they’ve been shaken down. This is an intentionally manufactured crisis. Make Obama eat it.

There’s a lot of ammo out there. Lock and load.

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

40 Responses to “Call his bluff”

  1. 1

    DaNang67

    The media circus would be a nightmare. The right would come out looking reckless and foolish.

    The impeachment talk from the White House right now is just a way to gin up black turnout for the midterms to protect their guy from a Senate takeover. It’s a racial rallying cry.

    Some in the media may be disenchanted with Obama, but a real conflict would rally their support and the low information voters would only hear the leftist spin. With the Senate at stake, it would be a huge blunder to rally the left with impeachment hearings.

    Besides, Obama isn’t the problem, anyway. He’s just the face of the leftist machine. You can bet he takes no action without the approval of the strategy team that put him in the White House. After Obama, the big money socialist cadre will still be influencing politics at all levels. Any Democrat President will serve their ends and follow their plans. I doubt whether he even contributes much to the discussion.

  2. 2

    John

    Apparently Dr J hAs thrown Sarah Palin under the bus and no longer considers her to be a GOP leader as she is continually calling for impeachment

  3. 4

    SGT. Rock

    “Despite no GOP leader calling for Obama’s impeachment…”

    Michele Bachmann, Darrell Issa, Michael C. Burgess, Jon Kyl, James Inhofe, Tom Coburn, Blake Farenthold, Kerry Bentivolio, Steve King, Steve Scalise, Lamar Smith, Trent Franks and Tim Scott have all mentioned, advocated, or otherwise “called” for impeachment. I guess that you could say that none of these folks are “leaders” and then define “calling for” as actually drafting impeachment articles, then you might approach reality.

    You spend half of this blog saying that we don’t want to impeach, and the rest of it listing reasons to impeach.

    Gotta call B.S. on this one Doc.

  4. 5

    Ronald J. Ward

    They should continue to dismiss talk of impeachment and continue the lawsuit.

    Problem is, that lawsuit thing has pretty much gone over like a turd in a punch bowl for the GOP and has raised a boat load of cash for Dems. With that said, I’m actually in agreement to continue that strategy.

    Speaking of flawed logic, invoking Carpetbagger Scott Brown is rather interesting as his campaign seems to be in that proverbial punch bowl as well. I guess in your world, relying on a loser to promote a losing argument is like two negatives equaling a positive or, or something.

  5. 6

    agimarc

    The way to do it is not to impeach Obama. Rather it is to impeach, try, convict and remove all the little Obamas that he has appointed into office in the Executive Branch. Do about one a week starting in January starting with Holder. Move on to his deputies using Fast & Furious as the vehicle. Move on to the IRS and EPA and do the same thing then on to DHS and HHS for the flood of illegals . Make it painful and most of all very, very expensive for them to defend themselves. Remember they will ALL have to hire lawyers out of their own pocket. Decapitate this regime from the level just below Obama. Whittle down his support while terrifying the permanent Civil Service with threats of future reorganizations of their departments (the only way to get rid of them). Do it early. Do it often. Do it as a matter of normal businiess, which will end up making it easier to take out a few federal judges when they get into the legislating from the Bench business. Just a thought. Cheers –

  6. 7

    Skookum

    @agimarc: With control of the Senate, it should be fairly easy to impeach the Obama Loyalists entrenched in public service. After a few are brought down, offer the loyalists a retirement package without prosecution, if they will step down voluntarily. That will speed up the process, leaving Obama lost and bewildered for the rest of his lame duck presidency.

  7. 8

    retire05

    The full impact of this current crisis of hundreds of thousands of illegals flooding across the Rio Grand Valley will start to be felt in just a few weeks; when school starts.

    School districts, like the ones in Texas, that are primarily funded with property taxes, will see their budgets destroyed as these kids enter school. For one, many can’t speak a word of English, and consequently, the first order of the day will be to hire more ESL teachers, and more teachers that speak Spanish, making these kids require more from the public schools than they are currently equipped to provide. Also, since these kids will be put into “age appropriate” classes, books in Spanish will be required just to help them in class. Not to mention that many of the young girls were raped on their way to El Norte, so they are “special needs” kids that school districts have limited sources to handle.

    Add to that the disease problem. We know that these kids are not being given complete medical exams by HHS. So when schools start seeing increases in measles, TB, et al, all diseases we have basically wiped out, schools will be required to send notices home to American parents to have their own kids taken to the doctor and to make sure the immunizations are current (measles vaccine has a life span). Grandparents, and all seniors, will be put in harm’s way. We just recently got over a bout with whooping cough in my household and had been no where during the exposure time except Wal-Mart and HEB.

    Since June 15, 2012, when Obama issued his “DACA” orders, the cost of housing illegal alien children boggles the mind. We are not talking millions, but TRILLIONS of American tax payer dollars shifted by HHS to the care of UACs. Did Congress approve that expenditure? Was it outlined in HHS’s budget? I can’t find where it was and have been researching it for over a week.

    Meanwhile our President sits by and allows Honduras (who he screwed when he first entered office), El Salvador and Guatemala blame us because their citizens left their nation and make the trek to ours. And while we give Mexico tons of money in foreign aid, Mexico cuts a deal with Honduras, El Salvador and Belize to allow those nation’s citizens to not only cross Mexico [legally] but to assist in their trip. Why are we not shutting off the spigot of foreign aid to those countries until they take care of the problem on their side of the border?

    I don’t think anyone truly realizes the disaster, not that it is now, but is going to be.

  8. 9

    This one

    “…no GOP leader calling for Obama’s impeachment”

    Really, so this is Obama’s doing? Wow, you’re nuts, lol!

    Go ahead, impeach. Like Clinton, his approval ratings will soar and the GOP will be voted out, into extinction.

    PLLLEASE, IMPEACH!

  9. 11

    George Wells

    @Retire05 #8:

    “The cost of housing illegal alien children boggles the mind. We are not talking millions, but TRILLIONS of American tax payer dollars shifted by HHS to the care of UACs.”

    TRILLIONS? Really? As in, at a minimum, 2 trillion dollars spent on 60,000 children; as in, $33 million per child?

    Stretching the numbers a bit for dramatic effect, are we?

    We have somewhere between 10 and 20 million illegals in the United States, either of which number is absolutely impossible to return to their homes of birth. If they all went home voluntarily, our economy would collapse. Fearing that illegals tip Democratic, Republicans resist giving these 20 million illegals an accelerated path to citizenship, leaving no possible practical solution to the problem.

    Cutting off foreign aid to Central American governments won’t help. It might slow the flow of illegal children a bit, but their motivation to come here isn’t influenced by their respective governments as much as you would like to believe. And the lion’s share of the problem is already here, for the most part working at jobs we legal Americans don’t want. We pay them a pauper’s wage for the same reason we buy our appliances from China – they’re CHEAP! And now some of those 26.4 million legal Texans are crying that some of their historically low tax dollars are being used to assist Texas’s share of these 60,000 illegal children who are expected to arrive through the end of 2014. This is the price that we pay now for looking the other way all those years while the cheap labor was flowing in. This is the price that we pay for allowing administration after administration and congress after congress to fail to serve up anything more than lip service to stem this tide. Democrat and Republican – all were too greedy to act. All are punished.

    Blame it on Obama if it makes you feel better, but look around you. See who is re-roofing your neighbor’s house, washing dishes and picking beans. How many more illegals are you going to have to hire to do the job of rounding up and deporting the 20 million illegals that are already here?

  10. 12

    Nanny G

    @George Wells: When you say 60,000 you are only talking about the ones we know of as of now.
    That’s predicted to be 90,000 by October 1 of unaccompanied juveniles apprehended along the border and no end in sight.
    So, why freeze the number at 60,000?
    Wishful thinking?
    And, who knows about the cost per unaccompanied juvenile?
    Remember the hidden costs by taxpayers per car of the “Cash for Clunkers” program?
    Let me refresh your memory.
    Taxpayers paid $24,000 per car…..not counting what the individual auto or truck buyer spent!
    And that was just for one car or truck.
    A child is (as any parent knows) a 20+ year spending pit.
    There’s no savings in the fact that some of these unaccompanied juveniles are older: just different expensive programs.
    As of last year an average American baby, raised to age 18 cost over $240,000.
    And that’s if there are NO problems!
    And that does NOT include college.
    The average cost of studying at a four-year private (non-profit) university in the US is now US$28,500 per year, So tack on another $118,000 if you want them educated.
    Add to this the fact that private citizens do everything much more cheaply than gov’t programs do those same things, and you might as well double or triple these costs.
    (Think ”cash for clunkers” and you see the price of cars and trucks nearly doubled in every case.)

  11. 13

    retire05

    @George Wells:

    “The cost of housing illegal alien children boggles the mind. We are not talking millions, but TRILLIONS of American tax payer dollars shifted by HHS to the care of UACs.”

    TRILLIONS? Really? As in, at a minimum, 2 trillion dollars spent on 60,000 children; as in, $33 million per child?

    Now, I don’t know where you get the $33 million per child figure, but I am sure that in your deranged mind, you found a way to reach that number.

    The numbers I obtained were taken from TAGG, the federal government’s own website. Year to date for grants to house unaccompanied alien children? $518,092,034.00 Considering the government reports that approx. 36,000 UACs have entered the U.S. since January 1, 2012, that comes to a $14,391.00 per kid.

    And the lion’s share of the problem is already here, for the most part working at jobs we legal Americans don’t want.

    Really?

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/09/06/jobs-americans-wont-do-meme-takes-another-hit-mississippi

    http://newsbusters.org/node/12884

    Pew Hispanic Research did a study that showed the percentage of jobs that were filled in different professions (mostly construction/service industries) by illegals. If say 40% of all brick layer jobs are filled by illegals, who are the other 60%?

    And now some of those 26.4 million legal Texans are crying that some of their historically low tax dollars are being used to assist Texas’s share of these 60,000 illegal children who are expected to arrive through the end of 2014.

    News flash, dumass, the federal income/corporate taxes are the same in Texas as they are in the rest of the 50 states.

    How many more illegals are you going to have to hire to do the job of rounding up and deporting the 20 million illegals that are already here?

    You seem to be under the false impression that those who entered our nation illegally have some loyalty to the U.S. They don’t. They come here and work (those that are not hard core criminals) and sent that money back to their homelands, depriving our economy of that money. If you are so smart (which you’re not) you can research the amount of remittances that are sent back to Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and other nations per year. I think you are too lazy to do that, but that is your problem, not mine.

    The fact is that Pew Hispanic research estimated there was negative [illegal] migration in 2013 (meaning more left than came across the borders illegally) due to (tah-dah, wait for it) NO JOBS and Mexico’s unemployment rate was lower than ours.

    Stretching the numbers a bit for dramatic effect, are we?

    That’s pretty funny coming from FAs own drama queen.

    Stick to your queer studies, Bubba. You’re way out of your league on this one.

  12. 14

    George Wells

    @Nanny G #12:

    I understand that the costs of raising a child from birth through college is substantial, but regarding the under-aged illegals in question, hardly any of them are infants. More to the point, the costs that are currently aggravating local budgets have nothing to do with college tuition, but rather reflect the humanitarian cost of temporary maintenance while we figure out what to do with this excess human baggage that has arrived uninvited at our doorstep.

    In my opinion, the state has every right to line these children up against a wall and to shoot them all dead. Oh, we’d have to re-write our immigration statutes a bit to accommodate such brutality, and the paied outcry from bleeding-heart liberals would be deafening, but it would sure put a screeching halt to this problem.

    I don’t care whether you use 60,000 or 600,000 as your number. The problem IS out of control and it needs to be fixed immediately. But Retire-5’s answer is ALWAYS to blame Democrats (and never Republicans), and her partisan rancor does nothing to forward a solution.

    By Republican accounts, your party will soon control the House, the Senate AND the White House. This is one issue I honestly look forward to your swift and totally effective Final Solution.

  13. 15

    George Wells

    @Retire05 #13:

    “The cost of housing illegal alien children boggles the mind. We are not talking millions, but TRILLIONS of American tax payer dollars shifted by HHS to the care of UACs.”

    TRILLIONS? Really? As in, at a minimum, 2 trillion dollars spent on 60,000 children; as in, $33 million per child?

    “Now, I don’t know where you get the $33 million per child figure, but I am sure that in your deranged mind, you found a way to reach that number.”

    You used the term “TRILLIONS”. As a pluralized term, it must signify at least 2 Trillion. I assume that you understand this. If you divide 2 trillion (that is, 2,000,000,000,000) by 60,000, you get 33,000,000. This is exceedingly elementary arithmetic.
    I’m going to be generous and suggest that you didn’t really believe that “trillions” of dollars were being diverted, but rather “BILLIONS, ” and you simply used the much larger number because it is exactly one thousand times more outrageous, and you hoped not to be called on your sloppy, three-decimal-place exaggeration.

    “The numbers I obtained were taken from TAGG, the federal government’s own website. Year to date for grants to house unaccompanied alien children? $518,092,034.00 Considering the government reports that approx. 36,000 UACs have entered the U.S. since January 1, 2012, that comes to a $14,391.00 per kid.”

    These numbers are good. Be advised that 2 TRILLION is approximately 4 thousand times the $518,092,034.00 amount you quoted. Perhaps you were extrapolating the cost to house unaccompanied alien children over the next thousand years, adjusted for inflation???

    To quote the numerically challenged, “You’re way out of your league on this one.”

    The rest of your rant argues in a vacuum. I never suggested that Texas’ tax rates are different than those in other states. Neither did I suggest where illegal alien earnings were or were not being sent. Finally, there is no logic that implies that legal laborers cannot work side by side with illegal ones. Some just get paid less. Need help with that?

  14. 16

    retire05

    @George Wells:

    You used the term “TRILLIONS”. As a pluralized term, it must signify at least 2 Trillion. I assume that you understand this. If you divide 2 trillion (that is, 2,000,000,000,000) by 60,000, you get 33,000,000. This is exceedingly elementary arithmetic.
    I’m going to be generous and suggest that you didn’t really believe that “trillions” of dollars were being diverted, but rather “BILLIONS, ” and you simply used the much larger number because it is exactly one thousand times more outrageous, and you hoped not to be called on your sloppy, three-decimal-place exaggeration.

    Yes, I did say trillions when I should have said BILLIONS, but don’t be too quick to pat yourself on the back for being “generous”. To begin with, your number of 60,000 (which the highest number to date for fiscal year 2014 has been 57,000) ASSumes that I was using the number of UACs that have entered this fiscal year. So consequently, you are using the arbitrary number of 60,000 when I did not. That changes the equation to lend credence to your math by placing a number that I never used.

    Now, if you were honest, you would admit that I gave a dollar amount, year to date, using a number of UACs, provided by the Border Patrol, that is also year to date. But honesty has proven not to be your forte.

    So I have admitted the trillions figure was in error. Will you admit that you used your own arbitrary number of 60,000 to twist what I said?

    I never suggested that Texas’ tax rates are different than those in other states.

    No, what you did say was:

    And now some of those 26.4 million legal Texans are crying that some of their historically low tax dollars are being used to assist Texas’s share of these 60,000 illegal children who are expected to arrive through the end of 2014.

    What anyone reading that comment would think is that a) Texas have historically low taxes that are being used to support federal assistance to illegal children and b) Texas taxes going to the federal government are historically low and c) Texas taxes going to the federal government are lower than other states (implied).

    I pointed out the federal tax requirements in Texas are no lower than any other state, and it is clear that you meant the comment to be a slam against Texas, and its taxpayers. You could have used Massachusetts as an example as all states have the same federal tax rates, and because there have been protests against housing illegals in Massachusetts but you didn’t because your intent was to slam Texas specifically.

    . Finally, there is no logic that implies that legal laborers cannot work side by side with illegal ones. Some just get paid less.

    Again, you show your lack of business acumen. If I am a contractor, why would I pay an illegal one wage and pay a legal another wage? If I was willing to hire illegals, why not make ALL hires illegals? The simple truth is that illegals have driven down wage scales, especially in the construction trades, and legals have no choice but to take the lower wage, or as we have seen with the unemployment numbers, simply not work for a diminished wage. So while progressives scream for a higher minimum wage, actual events have shown that when illegals are removed from the work force of a company, such as the Swift packing houses, companies raise the wage scale on their own, and Americans are more than willing to take those jobs, with a simple dollar/per hour wage increase.

    To quote the numerically challenged, “You’re way out of your league on this one.”

    You had to use a number I did not provide in order to challenge my math. More dishonesty on your part.

  15. 17

    Nathan Blue

    My my…the lib trolls come out in droves for this one.

    Calls to impeach are part of every admin that I’ve ever heard of. Clinton got away with lying because it was personal, not business. Bush was accused of lying due to the unpopularity of the Iraq War (and the ensuing unpopularity of the Dem Senators and Dem House members who votes for the war covering their asses by “blaming’ Bush, although he followed the law and did nothing illegal), and now it’s Obama’s turn, if for no other reason than he’s simply the President (but there are many other real reasons).

    Dems: you will call for the impeachment of the next Republican President. You will. You won’t need a reason, but you’ll have one supplied by Comedy Central and the New York Times. Don’t throw stones.

    Only during the term of a Dem president is a call for Impeachment treated as a joke. It simply goes back to a dem-controlled media.

    Dems fail because they think it wise to “end” the Rep party, not seeing that both parties are different sides of the same coin: the American People. This is putting the Dems in a very bad position, as we see from the hate-filled sock puppets who troll here. They are fighting their abusing fathers, or their gym teacher, or their childhood church or something else.

    Dems and their supporters represent a mass psychosis of projection. Live and let live, rather than calling for the annihilation of the Rep party. That’s scary, tyrannical, and rather evil.

    Please, everyone go back to slinging your bullshit “facts”. You wear the Obama Jersey, and not even a overt crime on his part would shake that loyalty. That’s the only difference I see in Reps voters vs. Dem voters. Reps will actually call out their candidates, and abandon them if they don’t do the right thing. Dems? Moral relativity allows for any infraction to be ignored.

  16. 18

    retire05

    @George Wells:

    But Retire-5′s answer is ALWAYS to blame Democrats (and never Republicans), and her partisan rancor does nothing to forward a solution.

    All my research, showing BILLIONS have been spent on UACs, goes back to June 15, 2012. Now, perhaps you can tell me who has been in control of the White House, and Health and Human Services, since that date?

  17. 19

    George Wells

    @Retire05 #16:

    Thank you for acknowledging your error. I really didn’t think that you were stupid enough to believe your own math, thus my pointing out your mistake, which you might have checked yourself instead of first shooting off your usual “deranged mind” insults.

    I’m not sure what hair you are attempting to split by making an issue over the difference between 57,000 and 60,000 illegal children. They’re not passing through a turn-style on their way here, and the estimated numbers vary according to the conflicting interests of the people doing the counting. I’m happy to stipulate that your numbers (aside from not knowing the difference between a billion and a trillion) are correct. I did not say otherwise.

    I’m also not arguing with your assessment of the downward pressure illegals have on the wage scale. If you look back, you will see that I made the same point – that they are CHEAP labor. Applying a simple supply-and-demand principle gets you from what I said to what you said. The statements are not in conflict.

    More to the point: You are simply bickering over the irrelevant details. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have the heart to do anything effective about this problem. All of our borders, not to mention our coastlines, are ridiculously porous. Stopping illegals from entering the country by interdiction is a fools fantasy. Instead, we need a REAL deterrent, say, DEATH? Yes, make illegal entry punishable by summary execution, and see how fast the illegals disappear, and how fast children stop arriving.

    Don’t you EVER get tired of simply blaming the other political party for the problems that NOBODY has the stomach to correct?

  18. 20

    Nanny G

    The real problem is the law.
    The Wilberforce law states, in relevant part:

    “Any unaccompanied alien child sought to be removed by the Department of Homeland Security, except for an unaccompanied alien child from a contiguous country (i.e. Mexico — or Canada, so as not to sound discriminatory) … shall be — placed in removal proceedings … eligible for relief … at no cost to the child and provided access to counsel.”

    But the law’s definition of “unaccompanied alien child” limits the hearings to kids who have no relatives in the United States.

    Here’s the definition — note subsection (C):

    “(g) Definitions

    “(2) the term ‘unaccompanied alien child’ means a child who —

    (A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States;

    (B) has not attained 18 years of age; and

    (C) with respect to whom —

    (i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or (ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.”

    If your relatives live here, the law assumes you’re not being sex-trafficked — you’re trying to join them.

    In other words, these children are mostly NOT falling under the Wilberforce law at all!
    Obama is twisting it to fool us into allowing so many people to stay here.
    The law specifically excludes two huge categories of illegal aliens from getting hearings: (1) Mexicans; and (2) children who have relatives in the U.S.
    Who wrote that? Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Vice President Joe Biden!
    The New York Times points out that almost 90 percent of the 53,000 illegal alien kids given refugee status since October have already been transferred to parents or relatives living in the U.S. By the law’s clear terms, those 47,000 kids should have been summarily turned away at the border
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/15/us/questions-about-the-border-kids.html?_r=0
    Note down in the story MOST of the males are between 15 and 17 (supposedly).
    Men, not boys.
    Especially in the places where they were born and raised.
    WE are the exception, as we infantalize our youths instead of wean them into adulthood.

  19. 21

    retire05

    @George Wells:

    Thank you for acknowledging your error.

    Unlike you, I will admit my errors.

    I’m not sure what hair you are attempting to split by making an issue over the difference between 57,000 and 60,000 illegal children.

    I’m not spitting hairs. I used the figure of 36,000 (ytd) and you were the one that came up with the 60K, but you are not honorable enough to admit that I did not use that number in any way, shape or form.

    Don’t you EVER get tired of simply blaming the other political party for the problems that NOBODY has the stomach to correct?

    I will admit that Clinton did little, Bush did little. Are you willing to admit that Obama took a bad situation and made it much worse when he, unconstitutionally, decided on the DACA which should have been solely the purview of the Congress? Will you admit that in actuality, Obama has deported fewer illegals than Bush did, and only has the numbers he claims due to those who are turned away at the border before they set foot on U.S. soil are “deported”? And while you’re at it, perhaps you can name me all the Democrats who are supporting deportation, and the legal interpretation of the Wilberforce law, which does not apply to illegal children who a) have family already here and b) who have been accompanied by a parent?

    Let’s see how honest you are willing to be, because your track record to date is pretty pathetic in that area.

    Instead, we need a REAL deterrent, say, DEATH? Yes, make illegal entry punishable by summary execution, and see how fast the illegals disappear, and how fast children stop arriving.

    I would think that was a tongue in cheek comment, but since you lack a sense of humor, it is more an analcranial comment.

  20. 22

    George Wells

    @Retire05 #21:
    “I’m not sure what hair you are attempting to split by making an issue over the difference between 57,000 and 60,000 illegal children.

    I’m not spitting hairs. I used the figure of 36,000 (ytd) and you were the one that came up with the 60K, but you are not honorable enough to admit that I did not use that number in any way, shape or form.”

    It is so sad when you try to be smart with numbers. If I had used the 36,000 number you are now pushing, instead of the 60,000 that I came up with, your mistaken $33 million would have been instead $55.5 million PER CHILD. The larger number I found made you look slightly less imbecilic, and had no other effect.

    Clinton and Bush did LITTLE? They didn’t do squat! And yes, Obama hasn’t fixed anything either. I’ll even give you that he has indeed made things worse. Last I looked, he was trying to get somewhere on immigration reform, but Republicans weren’t having it. Did the Republicans offer their OWN solution? Maybe the media refused to publicize it? But I don’t see where the House passed anything along to the Senate on immigration. Why not? And why impeach Obama? When he abuses his executive order privileges, take it to the SCOTUS – they’ll knock him down a peg, and you won’t end up with President Biden.

    You’ve made the argument that 36,000 illegal children are threatening the United States with financial collapse. Seems to me that what you have described what can only be termed a threat to our National Security of the gravest dimension, and one that deserves immediate and lethal response. I gave you a reasonable solution to such a threat, and you responded with a typical potty insult. You are no better than the Democrats and Republicans who have let this problem get where it is today. Shame on you.

  21. 23

    retire05

    @George Wells:

    If I had used the 36,000 number you are now pushing, instead of the 60,000 that I came up with, your mistaken $33 million would have been instead $55.5 million PER CHILD. The larger number I found made you look slightly less imbecilic, and had no other effect.

    Get your Aracept refilled, George. Your remark of “your mistaken $33 million” was not my figure, ever. It was YOURS.

    You used the term “TRILLIONS”. As a pluralized term, it must signify at least 2 Trillion. I assume that you understand this. If you divide 2 trillion (that is, 2,000,000,000,000) by 60,000, you get 33,000,000. This is exceedingly elementary arithmetic.

    See your post #15. Only YOU mentioned $33 million, not me.

    Here is the bottom line:

    HHS spending for UACs year to date: $518,092,043.00

    Number of UACs year to date: 36,000

    Now you can do the math, but I have already done it. It comes to $14,391.45 per child, so far.

    I admitted I was wrong about the “trillions” when I should have said “billions.” But being the small man you are, you can’t admit that I never said one damn word about $33 million, or any of the other blathering you spew trying to dodge what YOU said.

    . I gave you a reasonable solution to such a threat, and you responded with a typical potty insult.

    If you consider this:

    Instead, we need a REAL deterrent, say, DEATH? Yes, make illegal entry punishable by summary execution, and see how fast the illegals disappear, and how fast children stop arriving.

    a reasonable solution, you need to be locked up in the nearest psychiatric ward immediately.

    You are no better than the Democrats and Republicans who have let this problem get where it is today.

    And your reasonable solution is no better than the Final Solution.

    You are one sick puppy, George.

  22. 24

    George Wells

    @Retire05 #23:

    OK, so those 36,000 illegal kids are NOT a threat to national security? Then why all the fuss?
    You got a BETTER solution?
    I’ll wait…

  23. 25

    retire05

    @George Wells:

    OK, so those 36,000 illegal kids are NOT a threat to national security?

    Some of them are. The Border Patrol has been ordered to release even those who are covered in tattoos, and who they know are MS-13 members due to the kids telling the BP they are.

    Then why all the fuss?

    Because we have laws against illegal entry into our nation. You can bet if these were red haired Irish kids who would grow up to vote Republican Obama would be shutting the border down yesterday.

    You got a BETTER solution?

    Yep. Clean them up, feed them, make sure they are healthy and send them back to their home nations. They are citizens of another nation, and are the responsibility of the nations they are citizens of, not ours.
    And don’t play the “Wilberforce law” with me. The bill doesn’t apply to any child that has not been trafficked for nefarious reasons.

    I’ll wait…

    Your wait is over.

  24. 26

    George Wells

    @Retire05 #25:

    I will grant that you have to start somewhere, but it seems to me that your prescription will encourage the youth of Central America to hang around our borders for some showers, free grub and better health care than they get at home, plus a free ride back to visit the folks.

    If you don’t want to be buried under an ever-increasing tsunami of the world’s excess population, you need to take a very forthright step to disincentivize illegal immigration, and you need to do it now. Compared to where those kids came from, your “solution” sounds like paradise. Those kids are not our responsibility – you got that much right. But you’re being too much of a bleeding heart liberal. We can’t afford to be so generous toward the world’s unwanted children – there must be about a billion of them. For them, you’ve GOT to make staying home more attractive than coming here. It’s as simple as that.

  25. 27

    retire05

    @George Wells:

    I will grant that you have to start somewhere, but it seems to me that your prescription will encourage the youth of Central America to hang around our borders for some showers, free grub and better health care than they get at home, plus a free ride back to visit the folks.

    I don’t care if they hang around the border until they are old enough to need walkers, as long as they do it on the Mexican side of the border. But the minute they cross mid stream in the Rio Grand, they need to be loaded up, taken to a plane, and returned to Mexico City and let the Mexican government deal with them since Mexican officials decided to violate their own immigration laws and cut a deal with Honduras, El Salvador and Belize.

    Mexico is scheduled to get almost $150 million in foreign aid from us in 2015. It is a simple matter to tell Mexico that as long as they are facilitating the passage of illegals through their country to the U.S., counter to their own laws, we will not give them another dime. Same with the rest of the Central American countries.

    But you don’t seem to understand, or want to accept, that this recent surge is the fault of Obama since he is the one that implemented the DACA and totally bypassed Congress, which he could not [Constitutionally] do. This action on the part of Obama is pure Cloward and Piven.

    So you can say I blame just one party, but I noticed you did not give me the names of the Democrats who support deportation and returning ALL the illegals back to their homeland.

    It is really ironic that as long as illegal immigration was a border state problem, you on the left ignored it. Now that it has affected the entire lower 48, you have your Hanes all in a wad over it. Perhaps we in Texas should put up bill boards, in Spanish of course, that your state is not only accepting illegals but will give them welfare, as well. It would serve the Beast Coasters right.

  26. 28

    Nanny G

    I bet all those inner city blacks in Chicago would LOVE to have over $15,000 lavished on each of their children.
    But the LAW says very plainly that the term ‘unaccompanied alien child’ means a child who

    (A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States;

    (B) has not attained 18 years of age; and

    (C) with respect to whom –

    (i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or (ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.”

    So, since most of these particular ”children” have been picked up by PARENTS OR LEGAL GUARDIANS they do not even qualify under the ”sexual exploitation” law at all.
    No $15,000, no big screen TVs, no nothing.

  27. 29

    George Wells

    @Retire05 #27:

    I find it rather amusing that here you are the bleeding heart liberal on this issue.
    There you went in your post #8 assuring us that this illegal children situation was a “disaster” in progress. You detailed how the costs of dealing with these children would be devastating, but your solution to the problem lacks one iota of deterrence. Like the Republican administrations that you have loved and the Democratic ones you’ve hated, you simply suggest a way to spend more of our taxpayers’ money shuffling the problem around a bit to no real effect. Bravo!

    Your asking me to provide the names of Democrats who support deportation is of course a joke. It is a joke because there is no affordable way to physically round up and deport 20 million illegals, and Democrats understand that. For that matter, Republican understand it too. Republicans simply want to make some political gain out of what is otherwise an impossible suggestion, so they make pretend that we COULD deport them all. Bravo again!

    You see, you are still laboring under the mistaken impression that the horse can push the cart. Even if you paid the extraordinary cost of finding and deporting 20 million illegals, they would still keep coming. That’s because this is the land of plenty, and the secret is out. The only effective way of ridding ourselves of the problem is to make being here illegally an extremely unattractive proposition. I suggested an easy way to do that, and you, squeamish liberal that you are, balked. Bravo!

  28. 30

    retire05

    @George Wells:

    You detailed how the costs of dealing with these children would be devastating, but your solution to the problem lacks one iota of deterrence.

    Obviously, you missed this:

    Mexico is scheduled to get almost $150 million in foreign aid from us in 2015. It is a simple matter to tell Mexico that as long as they are facilitating the passage of illegals through their country to the U.S., counter to their own laws, we will not give them another dime. Same with the rest of the Central American countries.

    End the foreign aid to those nations until they stop the flow of their citizens to our nation and see how quickly the flow diminishes. I guess I will have to be more specific in the future since you seem to lack the skills to comprehend what I am telling you.

    Other ways to deter the flow?

    National Guard on the border with arrest powers.
    End to DACA.
    Planes landing in Mexico City loaded with illegals that have cross their nation on the way to El Norte.

    Like the Republican administrations that you have loved and the Democratic ones you’ve hated,

    I see, if I disagree with Democrats on policy, I’m now hating on them? Really? You have been well indoctrinated, George.

    Your asking me to provide the names of Democrats who support deportation is of course a joke. It is a joke because there is no affordable way to physically round up and deport 20 million illegals, and Democrats understand that

    You continue to believe the false meme that illegals come here for a job, a false meme put out by Democrats. As I told you before, illegals have no loyalty to this nation. NONE. End the welfare, end the ability to get a job, end the anchor baby benefits, and you will see illegals finding their way back across the Rio Grand the same way they came here. No deportation required. I suggest you research Operation Wetback. It worked. A few years ago, there was a rumor going around construction projects that ICE was going to do sting operations in Houston. Some construction sites were totally shut down as the illegals didn’t come to work and seemed to fall off the face of the earth. The mere hint at INS showing up creates panic. Also, Pew Hispanic Research claims there was negative illegal migration during the recession as Mexico’s unemployment rate was lower than ours and jobs were not available. The negative illegal migration was calculated on the number who entered, minus the number who left. If you have a problem with that stat, take it up with Pew.

    I suggested an easy way to do that, and you, squeamish liberal that you are, balked. Bravo!

    What you suggested was pure Nazi. Bravo! Can we apply that to militant queers, as well, like the Nazis did?

  29. 31

    George Wells

    @Retire05 #30:

    Let’s start with your proposition: “You continue to believe the false meme that illegals come here for a job, a false meme put out by Democrats.”
    I’m at a loss as to why you would bother to type out such a ridiculous lie, after putting so much effort into rebutting it yourself:
    “A few years ago, there was a rumor going around construction projects that ICE was going to do sting operations in Houston. Some construction sites were totally shut down as the illegals didn’t come to work and seemed to fall off the face of the earth.”
    AND: “Also, Pew Hispanic Research claims there was negative illegal migration during the recession as Mexico’s unemployment rate was lower than ours and jobs were not available (here).”
    AND: “The simple truth is that illegals have driven down wage scales, especially in the construction trades…”
    AND: ” They come here and work (those that are not hard core criminals) and sent that money back to their homelands…”
    All your words, not mine.
    Having a schizoid moment?

    “I see, if I disagree with Democrats on policy, I’m now hating on them? Really? You have been well indoctrinated, George.”

    No, Sweet-Pea. You don’t disagree with Democrats on immigration policy any more that you disagree with Republicans on immigration policy. The two parties have given different lip services to their respective constituencies on this issue, but their respective actions have largely been the same. I will agree that if everything you suggest was done, the problem would mitigate, but the chances of that happening are dreadfully remote. You can’t even get the House Republicans to agree on a plan to get to first base in the effort to fix the illegal immigration problem we currently have. I’m so proud of them!

  30. 32

    retire05

    @George Wells:

    Having a schizoid moment?

    Nope. I’m not the one that seems to be off my meds with wanting to just kill illegals when they come across the border as a deterrent.

    Instead, we need a REAL deterrent, say, DEATH? Yes, make illegal entry punishable by summary execution, and see how fast the illegals disappear, and how fast children stop arriving.

    Anyone who adopts a “kill them all” mindset is sick in the head and needs immediate hospitalization in the nearest psych ward. Of course, I have known you are sick in the head for a long time so it comes as no shock.

    You can’t even get the House Republicans to agree on a plan to get to first base in the effort to fix the illegal immigration problem we currently have. I’m so proud of them!

    A bill just passed in the House to address the illegal immigration problem we currently have.

    OOOOPS.

    Now, will the head of your beloved Democrats, Harry Reid, call the Senate back into session to vote on the bill to start fixing this illegal problem, or will it just add to the other 300+ bills passed in the House of Represenatives, many of them by bi-partisan votes, languishing on Harry Reid’s desk?

  31. 33

    Nanny G

    I wonder if Dems would allow Obama’s solution to keeping track of all these illegals as they move around the country and skip out of their hearings?
    His solution?
    Use electronic monitoring…..you know….ankle bracelets.

    Instead of detaining illegal immigrants, especially families with young children, the federal government has decided that affixing these monitors to the ankles of immigrants is a practical, cheap, and relatively easy way to allow illegal immigrants to go about their daily routine, but also alert authorities if they attempt to flee.

    In the past, nearly 100 percent of those wearing the monitors have shown up to their court dates.

    Enrolling an immigrant in the ankle monitoring program costs about $4.50 a day, while the Department of Health and Human Services has said that it spends between $250 and $1,000 a day placing abandoned children with family members.

    Gee, anti-Cloward- Piven!
    No wonder you find lefties opposed to it in droves!

  32. 34

    George Wells

    @Nanny G #33:

    “I wonder if Dems would allow Obama’s solution to keeping track of all these illegals as they move around the country and skip out of their hearings?
    His solution?
    Use electronic monitoring…..you know….ankle bracelets.”

    Hey, Nanny G, if Obama wants to do something and Republicans like the idea, GREAT! Do it!

  33. 35

    George Wells

    @Retire05 #32:

    “A bill just passed in the House to address the illegal immigration problem we currently have.”
    Sweetie, the Republican bill passed AFTER I began writing my #31, so no “oops.” I’ll give you that at least they finally did SOMETHING beside pass measures intended to kill Obama-Care. But did you READ what their bill does? I think that the official classification for the bill would be “BANDAID” (as in, works for two months) with the added provision that the Administration will in the mean time be prevented from accomplishing anything effective on its own. Nice poison pill. Obama should turn the table on those House Republicans with the Senate’s agreement that with no more than the funding made available in the House bill, the Republicans should be handed the entire immigration debacle. See what THEY can do about 20 million illegals with that hand-full of spare change, and nary a speck of deterrence. Good luck!

    “300+ bills passed in the House of Representatives?”
    That’s a joke. What? 50 of them were to dismantle Obama-Care? Time well spent. With partisanship of that magnitude afoot, it’s no wonder this congress has been the single least productive session in history. You can’t pin that on Harry Reid.

    “Anyone who adopts a “kill them all” mindset is sick in the head and needs immediate hospitalization in the nearest psych ward.”

    “Kill them all” was YOUR words, not mine. YOU were the one who announced that the invasion of illegals would create a financial “DISASTER,” But then you and your bleeding heart liberal friends want to coddle them, feed and health-care for them and buy them safe passage home AT OUR EXPENSE, all the while failing to enact any deterrent to coming back for another go at the promise land. My words were, as YOU copied them: “make illegal entry punishable by summary execution.” How many illegals would actually have to be shot before EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM DISAPPEARED? I venture far fewer then the number of people TEAXS executes each year.

  34. 36

    George Wells

    Interesting how Retire05 shuts up when she runs head-first into a position that is more right-wing-extreme than her own.

    The characterization that people who, on one issue or another, vote Democratic are automatically “drones of the collective” misses the opportunity to enlist their support on other issues that Republicans hold dear.
    Once gay marriage is the law of the land and my 14th Amendment rights are secure, I’ll be voting with the Grand Old Party more often than not. That is, if you haven’t killed it off by alienating every single constituency other than stupid white male evangelicals. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are not enough to sustain a viable political party at the national level.

    Listen to Marco Rubio and Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Three Republicans with very different perspectives on many issues. When you crucify one or the other for “straying” from your party dogma, you alienate voters who share some of those alternate views. And when you insult those potential Republican voters like Retire05 has been busy doing here for God knows how long, you do so at your own peril.

    Have a nice day.

  35. 37

    Nanny G

    @George Wells: Republicans love it, George.
    It is Dems preventing it.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/384352/can-ankle-bracelets-help-solve-immigration-crisis-christine-sisto

    A critical New York Times story Tuesday profiled Carmen Garcia, who fled El Salvador and was arrested, along with her 12-year-old son, along the Texas border for illegally entering the country. When she reported to Manhattan in July, a tracking bracelet was affixed to her ankle. “Why are you putting this on?” she reportedly asked, “We’re not assassins. We’re not thieves. We’ve come to save our lives.” The New York Times did not provide the answer Ms. Garcia’s question, but it’s pretty simple: She broke the law.

    According to the Times, “advocates and federal officials differ on how often the tracking monitors should be used.” But there’s not much disagreement on the effectiveness of the method. Nearly 100 percent of those wearing the monitors have shown up to their court dates.

    Dems say that using the monitors is akin to treating illegal immigrants like criminals.
    A report by the Immigration Rights Clinic of the Rutgers School of Law-Newark has published a report about the ankle bracelets entitled “Freed But Not Free.”
    Ay, yi yi!

    OTOH, John McCain recently said he would like to see ankle monitors on all illegal immigrants!

  36. 38

    retire05

    @George Wells:

    Interesting how Retire05 shuts up when she runs head-first into a position that is more right-wing-extreme than her own.

    I didn’t run away, sodomite. I didn’t see your entry from two days ago. Not until Nanny G brought the thread back up again. Unlike you, I have a life.

    .” I’ll give you that at least they finally did SOMETHING beside pass measures intended to kill Obama-Care. But did you READ what their bill does? I think that the official classification for the bill would be “BANDAID” (as in, works for two months) with the added provision that the Administration will in the mean time be prevented from accomplishing anything effective on its own

    At least the House of Representatives stayed and tried to work something out, unlike the Democrat led Senate that bolted for the tarmac as soon as they could. And yes, it is a good thing that the Administration will be prevented from acting on its own. Obama wants to balkanize this nation. But then, you would not give Republicans credit for anything good so no surprise that you slam their attempt at trying to fix the problem.

    “300+ bills passed in the House of Representatives?”
    That’s a joke. What? 50 of them were to dismantle Obama-Care? Time well spent. With partisanship of that magnitude afoot, it’s no wonder this congress has been the single least productive session in history. You can’t pin that on Harry Reid.

    Not only has Harry Reid prevented even the bi-partisan bills being debated/cloture/voted on that have come out of the House, he has engaged in a nasty little trick to make sure that when a bill is presented, no amendments are allowed.

    https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

    “Kill them all” was YOUR words, not mine.

    Where did I say that? Even in response to your:

    Instead, we need a REAL deterrent, say, DEATH? Yes, make illegal entry punishable by summary execution, and see how fast the illegals disappear, and how fast children stop arriving.

    Yes, that is a “kill them all” mentality from you who is one sick sodomite.

    YOU were the one who announced that the invasion of illegals would create a financial “DISASTER,”

    As it will. But there are all kinds of disasters. Obviously your sick mind cannot understand the difference between them.

    But then you and your bleeding heart liberal friends want to coddle them, feed and health-care for them and buy them safe passage home AT OUR EXPENSE, all the while failing to enact any deterrent to coming back for another go at the promise land.

    I told you what I would do. Just because you want to ignore what I said doesn’t mean that I am as sick in the head as you are.

    And when you insult those potential Republican voters like Retire05 has been busy doing here for God knows how long, you do so at your own peril.

    If queers like you are the future of the GOP, I’ll join the Constitution Party, or the Free Staters, or the Federalists or any other party where I am not surrounded by queers that want to summarily execute illegals.

  37. 39

    George Wells

    @Nanny G #37:

    “Dems say that using the monitors is akin to treating illegal immigrants like criminals.”

    Well, now… I would think that Republicans would be saying the same thing. After all, illegal immigrants ARE criminals. I’m not sure what the problem is… and I’m not sure what excuse Democrats OR Republicans can give for ignoring the fact that there is a flood of humanity out there that surges toward our borders whenever there is a perceived “opening,” and we’ve been sending not-so-vague “opening” signals to them for decades. As a nation under siege, we have every right – AND DUTY – to protect ourselves however we see fit. Put up flood-gates, slap on ankle bracelets, declare open season on the undocumented – what ever it takes. But pussy-footin’ around on this one runs a mortal risk: At some point, numerical control is lost, and we may have already reached that point. And yet some around here are still looking to give out free lunches. Go figure.

  38. 40

    George Wells

    @Retire05 #38:

    Fortunately for the future of the Republican Party, MOST Republicans are not so bloated with disgust, so enraged with hatred that they would commit political suicide before welcoming a healthily diverse constituency into their fold. Evidently, you are blind to the future that is upon us, and while I am happy to help reveal it in its glorious splendor, you will remain deaf and dumb to the message. Your loss.

    “”Kill them all” was YOUR words, not mine.
    Where did I say that?”

    Your post #32, line 7, YOU used the words “Kill them all.” I did not use those words, nor suggest that killing anywhere near 20 million illegal immigrants was a good idea, or a practical goal, or any other such thing. YOU have been trying to equate the imposition of a death penalty with a call to “kill all criminals,” and the two are simply are not the same things. But as it seems to give you an excuse to call me a sick-minded sodomite – something that seems to be very important to your myopic view of the world – I suppose that bad logic is better than none at all.
    You might consider having your tap water checked for neurotoxins…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *