When I’m wrong I say I’m wrong. This particular mistake was one that I would kick myself for missing if I were more flexible. Instead, I’ll simply call out my errors and try to set a more accurate perspective.

I missed it completely on President Trump and DACA. It’s arguably the first time I didn’t see the 4D chess at work. Perhaps I was simply being blinded by hope. Before he officially rescinded DACA, I applauded rumors that he would be doing just that. I added emphasis to the opening paragraph of that particular article titled, “Letting DACA lapse would be the President’s best move so far.”

Rumors are flying that President Trump could announce the end of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), allowing one of his predecessor’s most egregious examples of overreach to fade away into oblivion.

Call it an assumption that he wouldn’t go against one of his most consistent and arguably the most important promise he made to his base. He declared shortly after launching his campaign in 2015 the DREAMers had to go. When asked by Chuck Todd whether he’d split up families, candidate Trump doubled down on the narrative by saying no families would be split up… because he’d deport everyone in the family who wasn’t supposed to be here.

I followed up that article once the official announcement about rescinding it was put forth. Like a silly boy hoping that Santa was real but noticing the handwriting on all the gifts was the same, I suspended my disbelief in the president’s worthiness by posting “Trump to end DACA the right way for the right reasons.”

For President Trump, this is a win-win. He is fulfilling one of his most important campaign promises and setting the stage for the GOP to demonstrate their resolve on the issue. If they do, he wins because the “blame” will be spread throughout the party rather than just focusing on him. If they cave for political expediency and recreate a congressional version of DACA, then President Trump did his part and Congress was the body that changed.

Now I see the light. Many conservatives are upset at the potential for a DACA amnesty that doesn’t include the wall. Even a handful of his Day 1 faithfuls have gone beyond scratching their heads and have graduated into full-blown scorn.

How did I miss it? I’ve been critical of leftist moves from him in the past. Why did I not see the writing on the wall? Perhaps it was his consistent stance on the matter:

DACA will end up being STRONGER once Congress pushes it through as the law of the land rather than an unconstitutional executive order. In fact, had Trump done nothing, the Supreme Court likely would have put a stop to DACA altogether. Oh well. Maybe we’ll get a wall someday. Maybe not.

Winning a Presidential election normally requires a strong face of unity from the party and its voters. The all-important Independent vote is often swayed by the level of consolidated and consistent support from the Republican or Democratic bases. The candidate backed by the strongest unified front will be the one that gets more Independents as well as crossovers from the other party.

This year is different. For both candidates, the opposition is at unprecedented levels of strength and numbers; they’re the two least popular candidates in modern history. This presents a dangerous scenario for both parties because it allows for the “general election pivot” to be more pronounced. They don’t have to stick to their guns. They simply have to pander to as many undecided voters as possible. That means that they must eliminate hardcore stances that would normally preclude Independents from voting for them. For example, Hillary has barely discussed her disastrous $15 minimum wage proposal for months. Her voters know she’s doing it and she doesn’t need to highlight it now that she has the nomination.

For Trump, one precluding issue is illegal immigration. He is very aware that it’s the one issue for which he’s been considered far-right from the beginning. He’s also aware that a slight majority of Americans, including moderate Republicans, are in favor of some form of legalization or amnesty. This is why he’s cracking the door open ever so slightly on the possibility of softening his stance. It’s why he’s gone from “we’re going to build the wall and Mexico is going to pay for it” to being “almost 100%” on building it at all. It’s also why he’s insinuating to Hispanic leaders that there may be a better way than the “harsh” deportations he’s proposed in the past.

In reality, this isn’t the flip-flop that mainstream media is painting it to be. He’s said that he’s trying to “come up with something fair” but he hasn’t quite flipped or flopped. Until he offers a proposal that says he’ll look at legalization options for illegal immigrants or that he won’t deport millions of people who have broken our laws, we have to go with the idea that he’ll take a strong stance on the issue as President. However, we cannot give him a sliver of a doubt about our position on the issue. The question has been asked, “Should Trump supporters call him out?” The answer is absolutely yes.

In any other recent Presidential election, the unified voice of a candidate’s supporters should avoid saying anything harsh. They should support the candidate on issues they agree with and avoid the others. This year is the exception. If Trump is allowed to backtrack on his initial position, the position that earned him the instant support of millions of Americans and that has grown his base for over a year, then he will continue to crack the door open further. Once he does that, there’s no going back, even for Trump. It would be a huge mistake to open discussions on legalization or amnesty and then to go back to his initial promotion of a “deportation force.”

His campaign believes that he needs to pull in a larger percentage of Hispanic voters. They believe that the only way to do this is to soften on illegal immigration. That cannot be allowed to happen. It’s the responsibility of every Trump supporter to make it known through email, Twitter, or whatever method you choose that we want a wall, we want illegal immigrants deported, and we want the rule of law to be re-established in this country after eight years of lawlessness. This isn’t negotiable. There’s no room for softness on this issue because once a little weakness is shown, that sliver of a doubt will become a giant fissure that will result in no wall, limited deportations, and a continuation of lawlessness.

Instead of pivoting to the current populist view, he should stand by his marquee policy proposal and give everyone a reasoned argument about why it’s necessary. He should appeal to the Hispanic population, the majority of which are here legally, and demonstrate to them why illegal immigration hurts them directly. In this one issue, Trump has the truth squarely on his side. There’s no need to bend on it.

Now is the time for his supporters to let him know. currently, he hasn’t officially softened his position. It’s the perfect moment for him to come out and say unequivocally that he will do what he said he was going to do from the beginning. If we don’t let him know that we disapprove of a position shift, there will be plenty of people whispering in his ear that he needs to back it down a few notches.

If the Republican Party is to unify behind Trump, he cannot back off on his most conservative policy perspective. For many, it’s all we have left. He’s abandoned free trade. He’s promoted affirmative action. He’s suggested a $10 minimum wage. He’s offered to go after portions of the 1st Amendment. With all this, he’s remained conservative on immigration. Don’t let him take that away from us as well.

Image courtesy of Gage Skidmore.

A note from DaTechGuy: I hope you enjoyed JD Rucker’s piece. Remember we will be judging the entries in Da Magnificent tryouts by hits both to their post and to DaTipJar. So if you like Mr. Rucker’s work, please consider sharing this post, and if you hit DaTipjar because of it, don’t forget to mention Mr. Rucker’s post is the reason you did so. If you missed his previous pieces they are: The one word to associate with Hillary that would doom her camapign and Trump is Exactly Where He Wants to Be Despite GOP ‘Chaos’


Today starts the last two weeks of our 6 week tryouts for Da Magnificent Prospects You can check out their work Monday evening, Tuesday at Noon, All Day Thursday and Saturday at noon. If you like what you see from them consider hitting DaTipjar in support of them (and please mention their name when you do) as both internet hits and tipjar hits will be part of scoring who stays & who goes.

(If you can’t see DaTipJar button below on their posts use the one on the 2nd column on the right)




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



One of the interesting things we have seen in our immigration debate is the corruption of language.

Suddenly the words “Illegal immigration” is not allowed even though the person is clearly breaking the law thus doing something “illegal” and the law this person is breaking is the law on “immigration”

Suddenly a Somali immigrant who settles near St. Paul Minnesota who is on trial for terror becomes a Minnesota Man

But the most amusing term of the lot, the term that we heard over and over in the primary season and one I suspect we will run into a lot during the election year is “Path to legal status”.

To the speaker using the phrase the purpose is to differentiate position of the person using it from “Amnesty” which is entirely different but the reality is the actual purpose of this phrase is to keep the listener from understanding that a “Path to legal status” is in fact amnesty.

So problem, how do you explain to the person being spun by the words “Path to legal status” that this is in fact Amnesty.

My solution? The Doctrine of Purgatory.

For those not familiar with Catholic Doctrine Purgatory is the place the temporal cost is paid for sins whose eternal cost have been already been forgiven, it’s where a soul is perfected for heaven.

Once that cost is paid and the soul has reached that state of perfect love either by either by indulgences earned during life, prayers or indulgences offered by the faithful for them after death, or through the purification process of purgatory then the soul is ready for Heaven.

Is this not the same thing as the “path to legal status” promises?

A “Path to legal status” by definition earns that a person is not currently legal. So the person has violated the immigration law, and through a process that might involve the paying of a fine and back taxes, which can be paid by either the person or someone else, and/or the waiting for a period of time, they at last achieve full legal status.

Why is this important? because every single soul is purgatory, no matter if they spend a single hour or till the end of time in Purgatory, those souls are saved, they have accepted the cost Christ paid in blood for their sins and sought the mercy he offers for their offenses.

Thus the souls in Purgatory have received the Amnesty that Christ has given them.

And that what the Path to Citizenship is, no matter how large the fine, no matter how long the wait, in the end the person is forgiven for their legal offenses.

Thus the persons who have received a “path to legal status” have received amnesty that the government has given them.

No amount of linguistic trickery will change it.

Yesterday we talked about and linked to the story of Twitter Hemorrhaging money but the more I think of it the more Twitter’s financial and publicity problems remind me of Marco Rubio.

Consider Twitter has a systemic problem of how to make money.  It’s business model depends on advertisers being willing to pay to get their ads before the eyeballs of tweeters.

So every single day advertisers see tweets like this:

and this

and this

And when we stories like this at Drudge

Liberals Turn Twitter, Facebook And Even College Campuses Into Unsafe Spaces For The Right

see power uses of twitter saying things like this:

I’ve gone off Twitter. Or, I should say, I’ve stopped being a Twitter user, and user is the right word.

It illustrates the issue. Twitter now has a reputation with conservatives who have an incentive to either leave it, ignore it or complain to advertisers.

We are rapidly reaching a point where even if Twitter reinstates Robert Stacy McCain, Disbands its safety council and offers profuse apologies to conservatives, the reputation that “Twitter is hostile to conservatives” will be ingrained and every potential company considering Twitter as a platform will be asking itself, “do I want to risk angering these people?

Once that rep is there it’s there, and I suspect Stacy holding court at CPAC will not help matters much.

Ironically that’s exactly the problem Marco Rubio has

Let’s start something that a lot of people forget. For all the stupidity of victory speeches after every loss the reality is Marco Rubio has a good record as a Senator.

He beat the horrible Charlie Crist. He has a 98% rating from the ACU, he’s been a vocal and eloquent defender of life and has stood side by side with Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and other strong conservatives on many issues and frankly if anyone told you the day he won in Florida that we’d be in an election where Marco Rubio was the establishment choice for president Tea Party Conservatives would be pumping their fists saying, We’ve won!

The problem for Marco is and remains the gang of 8.

For all of his good points Marco Rubio was a member of the gang of 8 pushing the amnesty bill. He was the face of the bill and as we’ve documented during the entire time it was pushed it was all about Marco.

And the voters have a very long memory on this issue:

“Over the last three months, Marco Rubio’s name and face and voice have been so attached to the comprehensive immigration bill that it has virtually killed any enthusiasm among Republicans in Iowa for a Rubio presidential candidacy,” said GOP State Central Committee member Jamie Johnson. “Most Republicans here now see Rubio as the amnesty candidate.”

That’s why Eric Cantor lost.

What’s really funny about this is regardless of what the MSM pretended supporting amnesty doesn’t nothing for a Latino who has an R next to their name as Gabriel Gomez demonstrated.

So let me get this straight, you have Gabriel Gomez who has a life full of achievement as a Navy Flyer, Navy Seal and businessman, who won a GOP primary with over 50% proclaiming loudly and publicly his support of the efforts of the gang of 8, and the reaction is to Question if he passes a litmus test for being Latino?

If this is how an actual Latino, a son of Colombian immigrants, a person to who English was the second language he learned what makes who supports the gang of 8 bill is treated can someone explain to me why anyone would assume Latinos will even give a hearing to the GOP if they support this bill?

And to top it off the forces of the establishment, the people who talked Rubio into joining the gang of eight in the first place are lining up to support him.

And that’s Rubio’s problem, he can make fun of Trump’s hands, he can try to spin Cruz’s amendments to the gang of eight bill, he can even make speeches about con men, the soul of the conservative movement and vow he will stay in the race all he wants.

But nothing he can do can take away the knowledge and the memory of his support for the gang of eight from GOP voters who care about it so as long as Trump is running on building the wall, Marco Rubio’s chances are practically non-existent.

That’s just the way it is and Marco Rubio can’t change it. The only question is will Twitter figure it out before they’re permanently in Rubio’s spot?

*******************************

I got a call yesterday from my old employer and much to my surprise I’ve been called by from my layoff and I’ll be back working overnights Saturday night.

That means rather than worrying about a mortgage which my job can cover I can try to pay down my debts over the next year so perhaps next year I can afford CPAC.

The goal remains the same $61 a day and I’m pleased to say we made yesterday’s goal by enough to make up for the shortfall the previous day meaning we start today with a deficit of $1285 and 21.06 days.

So if you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. We are currently 116.3 subscribers at $10 a month to make our goal every day without further solicitation but the numbers are even more interesting:

If less than 1/3 of 1% of our February readers this month subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

If less than 2/3 of 1% did, I’d be completely out of debt and able to attend CPAC

If a full 1% of our February readers subscribed at $10 a month I could afford to travel across the country covering the presidential race this year in person for a full month.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – Boy, did I ever step into it last week.  I forgot how thick-skinned bloggers need to be sometimes, and how vitriolic and hateful people can be when conflicting opinions exist.

My old friend William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection asked me to expound on my belief that Marco Rubio still has potential as a viable candidate in the 2016 Primary.  Keyword:  “potential.”

I touched on the subject in this space a couple of weeks ago and elaborated at Jacobson’s request at Legal Insurrection.  He’s got a really tough crowd over there and they basically rode me out of town on a rail, insulted my intelligence, and flogged me in the comments.  I really sort of expected that, but I was sorry it got so ugly.  I quit monitoring comments after the first few popped up.  In the end I think there were over 40 comments left on the post, but honestly, I quit reading them.  If comments are only insulting and not instructive, there’s no point.

At any rate, I’ll offer one last word on Rubio here and then I’m done with it.  I’m not endorsing Rubio.  Do I still see potential there?  Sure, I do.

Did he screw up with the Gang of Eight deal?  Absolutely.  Without a doubt.

Do I advocate amnesty?  No, I don’t, but I think we have to deal with this issue in a humane way and within the legal system.

But, do I think Rubio made have learned a lesson?  Possibly.

Should we trust him again?  I think he has to earn that trust by his actions (not words) and that’s not easy to do.  It takes time.

As to Rubio’s “new” immigration plans, should he get elected (a longshot, I would say now), which he explained on Face the Nation:

What I would do if I was president, the first thing I would do is, I would ask Congress to pass a very specific bill that puts in place E-Verify, an entry-exit tracking to prevent visa overstays, and improve security on the border. Once we achieve that, step two would be, we would modernize our legal immigration system, less family- based, more merit-based.

And then the third step would be to pass the bill that goes to the 10 million people that are here, or 12 million that are here illegally. If they have been for longer than a decade, they have to pass background check, they have to learn English, they have to pay taxes, they have to pay a fine. And they would get a work permit.

And after a substantial period of time in that status, assuming they haven’t violated any of the conditions of that status, they would be allowed to apply for legal residency, just like anybody else would, not a special process. And after you’re a legal resident, after a number of years, by law, you’re allowed to apply for citizenship.

It’s a long process. It’s a reasonable process. It’s a fair process. But it has to happen in that order. And it begins with serious enforcement measures.

Call me a liberal if you want to, but I don’t see anything wrong with that.  Get the enforcement measures in place first, like E-Verify, secure the border, the entry-exit tracking system – all that is good, right?  (The whole process would probably be dead in the water right there because I don’t see them every really securing the border). Only when all that works would I be interested in the rest of his plan:  the people here longer than a decade, clean background check, they’ve violated no laws  – not even traffic tickets (other than coming here illegally for which they’d pay a fine), learn English, and only then award a work permit – a legal working visa.  Stay out of trouble, earn your way, contribute to society, and then after a certain number of years they could apply for citizenship.

I just don’t have a problem with that; your only other choice is to round them all up and send them back and right now we can’t even seem to do that with the criminals, much less the ones that are working and raising families.

And that’s my last word on Marco Rubio.  Like everyone else, I’ll watch the debates, watch the candidates, watch it all unfold, and then decide on a candidate.

I’m certainly not advocating or endorsing anyone at this point.  I can’t take anymore venomous attacks this week.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

Latvian camp, Three  Rivers, Michigan
Latvian camp, Three Rivers, Michigan

By John Ruberry

Mrs. Marathon Pundit and I will be attending at party tonight in Chicago’s northwestern suburbs–a birthday celebration for one of her closest friends. Like my wife, her friend is an immigrant from Latvia. Both are in the country legally, Mrs. MP is a US citizen.

I imagine there will be about 50 guests there, of those, about a dozen of them are in the United States illegally. Most of them have shadow-jobs–caring for the elderly, for children, or cleaning homes and offices.

They’ve come here to work and if their hopes are realized, live here as Americans.  Even if a million more Latvians arrived in America. they would not dramatically change the national character. The same can be said of most other Eastern Europeans–or Koreans or Chinese.

That’s because these ethnic groups aren’t demanding bilingual education, nor are there institutionalized civil rights groups demanding it on their behalf. While these nationalities often seek to keep ties to the culture of the old country–my daughter used to attend Latvian school every Saturday–they usually immerse themselves in American way of life.

Last week President Obama issued an executive order that will prevent deportations of five million illegals–those  dozen guests at the party I’ll be socializing with tonight will likely be covered by that decree.

Obama eloquently spoke in his speech announcing the order about the travails of what he and his fellow liberals call “undocumented” Americans. But he left out two items that most Americans have always expected of immigrants–that they learn English and they accept American culture. It’s what Newt Gingrich calls “patriotic immigration.”

That’s what this nation needs.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Is it just me or does Barack Obama’s justification for amnesty deriding the “hypocrisy of a system where workers who pick our fruit and make our beds never have a chance to get right with the law?” sound less like King’s: “I have a dream” or LBJ’s “and we shall overcome.” and more like Al Campanas talking about his love of black America on Nightline?

I suspect the White House spin over these words is going to sound a whole less like Nixon in his resignation speech saying: “I regret deeply any injuries that may have been done in the course of the events that led to this decision.”

and a lot more like D.W Griffith as quoted by Lillian Gish in denying he was a racist after making the wildly racist Birth of a Nation:

To say that is like saying I am against children, as they were our children, whom we loved and cared for all of our lives.

Closing thought: Barack Obama and his handlers surely knew that this was going to be one of the seminal moments of his presidency. Given that fact it’s likely that every word of the speech he gave in prime time last night was chosen with care.

Given that fact the inclusion of the “workers of pick our fruit & make our beds” means either those words didn’t set off the alarm bells of any person in the White House staff that worked on or reviewed this speech, including the President OR President Obama overruled those objections personally.

Last night the President went on TV to announce executive action on Amnesty to people who have violated immigration laws.

The argument that we keep hearing is that the law is “broken” or immigration is “broken”.

Now I’ve seen power supplies broken, I’ve seen toys broken, I’ve heard of hearts “broken” but how does a law “break”?  Do the words fall off the paper?

All that is going on is that large amount of people are breaking a law, said people have allies with a large megaphone and have decided to ally themselves with a particular political party and said party has decided to attempt to buy their votes.

This is a law that is broken, this is law breaking that is being excused for political reasons.

This is going to mint republican by the tens of thousands because as people south of the border swarm in illegally (thinking that the amnesty applies to them) millions of people, black, white and hispanic find competition for the increasingly scarce entry-level jobs get even tighter.

The mask is coming off of this president and the country that already has paid a heavy price for their foolish decision to elect and re-elect him ain’t seen nothing yet.

Exit question:  If as the media says the GOP has to support this or will have no prospect of every winning again, why didn’t democrats run on it with a national ad campaign?

Update: title typo fixed

There’s not a lot of money is saying uncomfortable truths, so I’d really appreciate it if you considered hitting DaTipJar

Final Goal 2014

Olimometer 2.52
If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

 

I had to laugh when I saw this at Twitchy:

It produced some interesting exchanges such as this one:

Meanwhile at the same time that Landrieu is trying to run from her base by pretend she is something she is not Barack Obama is running toward his by being what he is:

Obama has pledged to use his executive powers to alter the immigration system before the end of the year, though it remains unclear exactly when he will act. He has asked senior aides and Cabinet secretaries to present him with options but has not formally huddled with them to make a final decision, according to administration officials.

This has produced a lot of shock of argument from the right and talk of a big fight, with many figures arguing that the president is making a huge mistake by ignoring the will of the electorate.  Why can’t they be more like Mary Landrieu & try to pivot toward the electorate.

They have it exactly backwards.

Not in terms of policy, the idea of a mass amnesty is a horrible policy that is going to hurt the country tremendously for years to come, and both the building of the Keystone pipeline and defending life iar the right things to do.

But politically the President has it exactly right and Mary Landrieu has it wrong

Absolutely nothing he may do is likely to expand his popularity among the people who just rejected his agenda and after six years of president Obama in office it’s highly unlikely he’s going to earn any new followers among the general public.

Politically The only thing he can do is to play to his base that has stuck with him, and since said base, and while some of his media base would like to play up to the candidates running in 2016 they are still afraid of the race or the sex cards being played on them.

The President may not have any gumption in dealing with Putin or Syria, but when it comes attacking his political foes he’s a tiger. This is exactly the type of thing that’s necessary for him to be relevant not only in terms of the remainder of his term but in terms of the next presidential election. Bill Clinton is right:

He also said Obama should maximize his pulpit and not give in to being a “lame duck,”

Mary Landrieu on the other hand is making a mistake.

Now in fairness to the senator from Louisiana she is in a horrible position. Her odds of winning a runoff in a red state where President Obama is highly unpopular are long to begin with and her opponents are smelling blood in the water.

If she had been given proper support from Harry Reid over the last 18 months she might have had time to separate herself from the White House and be in a better position, but with only a few weeks to go she doesn’t have that luxury. She has no good options, only a series of longshot options and her best longshot option is to completely energize the base, that is the black vote.

She needs to go whole hog for Obama, she has to remind every single person that she ever pulled a sting for, crooked or straight of every single favor she ever did for them and bluntly tell them their choice is simple, someone who will pay off and someone who won’t.

Running as pro-life isn’t going to win a single pro-life voter any more than Scott Brown running as pro-choice was going to win a single abortion friend while going after positions dear to her base is only likely to prompt them to stay home in a race they figure is lost anyway.

In the public service business you have to decide if you want to be a statesman or a politician. It’s kinda late for either Obama or Mary Landrieu to pretend to be a statesman so they might as well be a politician who plays to win.

Speaking of winning the only way I can end this year a winner is if you consider hitting DaTipJar

Olimometer 2.52
If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

 

As president Obama prepares to create a unilateral amnesty for who choose to violate immigration law I say why stop there?

How many times have we read about people who are in prison for bogus gun charges or through tax laws that are used to go after people for political reasons.

There are OSHA fines slowing down business, FEMA fines, the EPA picking on people and businesses who dare to consider humans more important than turtles.

I’ll wager there are tens of thousands of laws that conservatives who have run afoul of laws pushed by liberals who could use a break but since we are doing amnesty how about a GOP president grant blanket Amnesty for any business that violates the rules of Obamacare.

Hey if amnesty is good enough for non-citizen breaking our laws then it’s certainly good enough for citizens oppressed by laws opposed by conservatives.