Ellmers triples down on amnesty

Renee EllmersShe refused to defund Obama’s executive order on amnesty for illegal aliens, refused to deport sex offenders and abusers, and would not defund amnesty for unaccompanied illegal alien children.  And then there was her NO vote on THIS amendment:

[…] “Sense of the Congress” language such as that introduced by Rep. Schock is excellent for statutory intent and review purposes (e.g., when laws such as the appropriations act are being examined in the course of lawsuits and other court actions), but it doesn’t get to the meat of the problem by actually doing anything to stop the extra-constitutional actions of the chief executive.

The Salmon Amendment, Introduced by Reps. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) and Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.). Like the Schock Amendment, this is a “sense of the Congress” amendment. This one expresses concern that the Affordable Care Act is skewed in a way that makes it beneficial for U.S. employers to hire illegal aliens who have become beneficiaries of “executive action” (which includes work permits) since they aren’t counted for tax and penalty purposes; and that, therefore, the executive branch should refrain from pursuing such lopsided policies at the expense of lawful American workers. Unfortunately, also like the Schock Amendment, this amendment does nothing to actually stop the unfair situation that it describes, nor does it curb the president’s overreach into the legislative arena. […] 

Seriously?  This one is a compound sin.  She is passing on an opportunity to attack: (1) ObamaCare, and (2) amnesty.

 

6 thoughts on “Ellmers triples down on amnesty

  1. Ellmers record is what in the military would be called a ”target rich environment”. We need the candidate with the funds to launch the missiles exposing that record to the GOP electorate. As you have said before, ”paging Jim Duncan”. If the broad mass of GOP voters learn how Ellmers has been misrepresenting them, she will be road kill in the primary.

  2. She’s in the pocket of farm special interest much the same as Bobby Etheridge. I’m sure after her election in 2012 the farmers sat her down and laid the law down…as in we need this cheap labor and you don’t want us as an enemy. Couple that with the money they offer and the pro-amnesty leadership of the House (along with Chamber of Commerce money, among others) and she figures she’d best play ball. Her thinking is she’s got the connections, the name recognition, the financing, so now she’s entrenched. Nobody can take her down…and she’s probably right.

    1. Entrenched? The political record says otherwise. In the 2012 primary, Ellmers lost two counties, including a major one, in the primary to token candidates who barely campaigned. In the 2014 primary, Ellmers struggled to win an unimpressive primary victory over a poorly funded third string opponent, and only after Zuckerberg opened his wallet to finance dishonest ads supporting her. The party activists are against her. That third string primary opponent won the straw poll handily at the 2nd district GOP convention among party delegates and alternates and also at most of the straw polls at county GOP conventions. Ellmers has gone further off the rails since then, so it is likely that a top drawer primary opponent could take her down.

      Farmers? How many votes do they really have these days?

      Money? There are lots of other interests who can put money into races. A strong primary opponent who could get the backing of the Club for Growth and / or Senate Conservatives Fund could outraise what the farmers would give her. Ellmers was targeted by Club for Growth in 2012, and was featured on their ”Primary My Congressman” page where they were seeking opponents to liberal GOP incumbents. Unfortunately, their choice of a primary opponent did not run, and they did not consider that Roche had the horsepower to win. Sadly, if the Club had put their muscle behind even a third stringer like Roche in 2014, they would have likely taken Ellmers down. What Roche lacked more than anything was the funding to get Ellmers miserable record out to the voters, and the Club could have covered that.

      Dave Brat was not that great a candidate and he had a lot less money than Eric Cantor, but he is now sitting as congressman in that district. He did have enough to get Cantor’s record out, and that was all it took.

      1. I somewhat disagree. I think Brat WAS a very good candidate, in part because he is very good at framing and simplifying the issues so voters can understand, and connecting issues to people at a more gut/emotional level. Presenting an issue at a purely theoretical level ain’t gonna cut it. I think that was one of Greg Brannon’s problems. He talked about the Constitution, but did not show the ‘unconverted’ why adhering to constitutional principles benefits them.

        Brat was very good at explaining the dire impact of amnesty and open borders (of course, the border rush also benefited him). I imagine he was able to do this so well because he’s spent much time teaching and having to break complex economic information down to an easily-understandable level.

        Anybody who challenges Ellmers needs to be prepared to engage directly with NC2 constituents – drive a pick-up truck all over the district with a bull horn, so to speak, and have an army of volunteers working all over the district to rip the conservative mask off the real Renee Ellmers and her voting record.

  3. I would LOVE it if she could be recalled. I voted for Frank Roche in primary – I liked him a lot. I knew I had zero representation from her and wanted her gone. Every concern I had – she sent a email with the exact opposite .Everything I do not want . she is all in . She is a disgrace to district 2 and the State of NC

Comments are closed.