Amnesty for illegal immigrants like a program proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton would require an immediate tax hike of $1.2 trillion, a $15,000 hit on every household in America, according to a new analysis of immigration reform. [More]So Grover is not only helping destroy "legal" recognition of the Second Amendment, his plan is going to make us pay for it. That's kind of like the Chicom/ Islamic Republic of Iran practices of charging the famiy of an executed prisoner a "bullet fee."
How very Opposite Day "progressive."
And how very Fairfaxian.
4 comments:
Am I missing something?
Your piece makes it sound like that quote shows that Americans for Tax Reform is endorsing Clinton, and the quote is from Grover, who is associated with them. The way I read that quote, it sounds like they're saying, "if you elect her, the amnesty she wants is going to cost you this much". It's a warning, not an endorsement.
So I went to the linked piece on the Washington Examiner to figure this out and Americans for Tax Reform is never mentioned; the quote on how much it will cost comes from the Heritage Foundation. And Grover is never mentioned.
Did you get the links right? What did I miss?
Practically everything. Including, apparently, the "helping destroy" link.
And including the extensive reporting and proofs I've provided for the past year on how Grover is enabling the Bloomberg/Hillary amnesty/pathway to citizenship cultural terraformng that will give the Dems/anti-gunners an unchallengeable supermajority to reshape the legislatures and courts, and how NRA has enabled Grover.
This new burden will be a direct result of that, and he and they share special culpablity.
SiGraybeard said... "Am I missing something?"
Don't be coy, it only makes you look stupid.
His piece does NOT make it sound that way at all.
However, over the past few years Codrea has made the case that over many decades ATRA-Norquisling have been EFFECTIVELY, relentlessly working to make the fate of California the future of the entire USA, permanent supermajority control of all branches of the federal government and a supermajority of the states.
If Hillary wins on Tuesday, Grover Al Nor'Qu'ist worked to make it happen.
You guys are both misinterpreting me. I'm no fan of Norquist, I voted against him in the NRA recall election, and I'd crawl on my knees through open fire to oppose Hillary, but the Examiner article had nothing to do with Grover Norquist. As for the one from last February, I read that last February, and it had nothing to do with the rest of the piece.
(The "am I missing something" is not an attempt to be coy, but to be polite. Remember that concept?)
When the person is as bad as Norquist or Hillary, there's no need to make up stuff about them. The article clearly said nothing about him and the quotes clearly came from a completely different organization, and there's just no need to conflate the two.
I feel like the article is a waste of time, and I commented because I honestly didn't see how Norquist related to the comments from Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation.
Post a Comment