Wake Up, Marco! Your Gang of Eight Buddy speaking to Che Guevara supporters

'Gang of Eight' member, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) attended a 'May Day' rally in Chicago. During that rally, he spoke to a crowd that had clearly identified itself as being filled with communists. In fact, as Durbin was speaking, there was a rather large Che Guevara flag being waved from about the tenth row; there is no way that Durbin didn't see it. Though, when asked by a reporter from Breitbart, he attempted to laugh off as ridiculous, any notion that there were communists or socialists in the audience.

Via Breitbart:

Little more than two weeks ago, Rubio made the Sunday talk show circuit and was asked about Jay-Z's trip to Cuba. Rubio pointed out that one of Jay-Z's heroes is Che Guevara. The Senator from Florida then pointed out that Guevara was a racist and a murderer.

It's not just that Durbin spoke at a rally that had a Guevara flag. It's that the movement he was speaking to - and attempted to defend when it became obvious he couldn't deny - was communist and that support for Che Guevara in that crowd was pervasive.

Rubio understands communism and he knows the history of Cuba better than most Americans. Marco himself is quite educated on the subject as well. He often talks of his close childhood relationship with his grandfather, who couldn't stand Castro.

His alliance with Durbin on anything was misplaced and ill-advised. For starters, communists lie so when someone like Durbin attempts to deny he spoke to communists and then defended the act because it was his only play at that point, it's right to ask if he'd be lying if he says he isn't a communist sympathizer.

Back in January, I wrote that Rubio's first mistake with the 'gang of 8' was engaging with members of that group at all; aligning with Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) on anything was a mistake. The optics of Rubio yucking it up with these guys would not do him any favors. Nonetheless - and for whatever reason - he thought he could get something done by working with them. Conservatives knew better.

Since joining the Gang of Eight, Rubio has had a lot of trouble selling it. In the end, the only thing he might have to show for it is this:

As an aside, here is another instance of Durbin-style denial on May Day. Only in this instance, the person in denial is a local NBC News reporter in New York City. If you've ever found yourself scratching your head about why the mainstream media doesn't cover what's blatantly obvious, here is the perfect microcosm for you.

This woman's responses are worse than Durbin's. When asked about Communist flags at the event she's covering, she pretends they don't exist despite the fact that they're waving all around her.

It is amazing what the liberal mind will deny in the interest of ideology. This has got to be a form of mental illness on display.

It. Has. Got. To. Be.

Via GWP:

'Tis the Season for Treason

In a video, Bill Whittle explained the difference between a 'traitor' and a 'turncoat'. The former describes an individual who actively fights against his nation because he/she opposes it based on ideology, principles, or some agenda. The latter describes an individual who changes sides because the enemy is winning. In the case of America's most notorious traitor - Benedict Arnold - one could argue that he was both. At one point, he fought courageously for the colonists but several things happened.

Arnold married the daughter of a British sympathizer, which seemed to open the door for his providing secrets to the enemy. It was the discovery of his subsequent dealings with a British Major named John Andre' that revealed Arnold's treasonous behavior, which included the weakening of West Point's defenses. There are some indications that he had a problem with aligning with the French as well as with those who opposed the Protestant religion, though this may have involved a bit of rationalization after it became clear who he was.

Check this out from Biography.com:

Arnold gained access to even more sensitive information when he assumed command of West Point, in August of 1780. He began systematically weakening the fort’s defenses, refusing to order necessary repairs and draining its supplies. At the same time, Arnold began transferring his assets from Connecticut to England.

Arnold and André met in person on September 21, to discuss the operation. Several days later, André was captured. Papers exposing the West Point siege plot were found and sent to George Washington, revealing Arnold’s role.

A short time later, after Arnold's mask had been removed and he was free to convey his bitterness, he wrote a letter to the colonists in 1780, which said in part:

In the firm persuasion, therefore, that the private judgement of an individual citizen of this country is as free from all conventional restraints, since as before the insidious offers of France, I preferred those from Great Britain; thinking it infinitely wiser and safer to cast my confidence upon her justice and generosity, than to trust a monarchy too feeble to establish your independency, so perilous to her distant dominions; the enemy of the Protestant faith, and fraudulently avowing an affection for the liberties of mankind, while she holds her native sons in vassalage and chains.

There it is right there. Arnold himself admitted he thought it was SAFER to align with the British. Did self-preservation trump righteousness? Perhaps that's where the truth lies. That excerpt indicates that he thought Great Britain was destined to win and the colonists couldn't achieve their desire to be free.

There is a distinct difference between what happened when Arnold's activities became known by the colonists and activities of politicians in the 21st century became known to Americans. That difference is that similar behavior seems to be met with apathy on the part of modern day colonists - the American citizens.

In this comparative metaphor, Arnold has multiple manifestations in the present day but because of the colonists' apathy - as well as the unwillingness of leading politicians who hold powerful positions - these 'Arnolds' have either been caught red-handed or have relationships with individuals on par with Andre'. Yet, unlike Arnold, individuals like Chris Christie, who has taken a man with distinct ties to Hamas as his friend; Hillary Clinton, whose close adviser has irrefutable ties to the Muslim Brotherhood; Dick Durbin, who has ingratiated himself to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR); John Brennan, who seemed quite comfortable while speaking to representatives from several Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups at New York University.

These are just a few of several examples but when Benedict Arnold learned that he had been exposed, he fled. Conversely, Christie is being considered as a presidential candidate in 2016, ditto Hillary Clinton. Durbin is still a senior U.S. Senator and Brennan is the president's nominee for CIA Director.

That is an indictment of Senators and Congressmen who know better and who think it's "SAFER" to avoid the battle.

Republican leadership today is more interested in ignoring these red flags. In fact, when one U.S. Congressmen - Michele Bachmann - made public her concerns about Abedin, the Speaker of the House - the most powerful Republican in office - suggested that Bachmann's questions were 'pretty dangerous'.

Why?

Consider French General Henri-Philippe Petain, who reached hero status after WWI. While in his 80's, France turned to him again when his nation ran out of options to fight the Nazis. What happened is a case study in the origins of why the term 'turncoat' was invented. Petain essentially did the Nazis bidding as a figurehead in WWII.

Via First World War:

In 1940, at the age of 83, he headed the Vichy government of France during the Second World War, from 11 July 1940 until 20 August 1944. Petain established a Fascist-oriented government that became notorious for its collaboration with the Third Reich. Ruling with German approval, Petain's government passed anti-Semitic laws, rounding up French, Spanish and Eastern European Jews for deportation to German concentration camps.

For his collaboration he was sentenced to death for treason following the war, on 15 August 1944, a sentence that was commuted to life imprisonment by Charles de Gaulle, who had served as a junior officer in Petain's regiment at Charleron in August 1914.

Petain didn't act as an arm of the Nazis because he agreed with them ideologically. He did so in the interest of self-preservation. To quote Benedict Arnold, Petain likely thought it was "SAFER" to aid Hitler's forces than it was to fight against them.

Is that where far too many leaders of the United States are today?

If so, God help us if they believe not confronting the likes of Clinton, Christie, Durbin, and Brennan is "SAFER" than the alternative because it isn't.

In fact, it's the most dangerous course and while there may be a distinction between a 'traitor' and a 'turncoat' based on motive, there is little to no difference when it comes to where the actions of each leads.

That didn't take long: Schumer already changing his tune after photo-op with Rubio

On the morning of January 31st, I posted that Senate Democrats Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, and Bob Menendez would lie about considering border security as a trigger for any immigration reform bill in exchange for being seen with Republican Senator Marco Rubio. By yesterday afternoon, after the optics had played out a couple of days earlier, Schumer made good on that lie.

The photo op with Rubio was only 48 hours old.

Remember, Rubio told Limbaugh that if securing the border is not a trigger to a path to citizenship, he's out. Here is what Rubio said on Limbaugh's radio show on January 29th:

"If, in fact, this bill does not have real triggers in there, if there is not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else will happen unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place, I won't support it.  But the principles clearly call for that.  Now, obviously, we have to make sure the law does, too."

Take note at the 10:15 mark in the video below, as Harry Reid finishes speaking. Schumer starts out lying and doesn't stop.

"We want the border to be secure (yeah, right). It's more secure than it was several years ago but it has a way to go (whatever, Chuck)..."

Then pay attention to this quote from Schumer:

"We're not using border security as an excuse or block to the path to citizenship... not to use it (border security) as a barrier to prevent the 11 million from eventually gaining a path to citizenship."

Rubio referred to border security as 'trigger' necessary for his willingness to support any legislation on immigration reform (citizenship) for illegal aliens. Two days later, Schumer referred to the exact same thing as a 'barrier' to immigration reform (citizenship) for illegal aliens.

Had Schumer said this prior to the photo-op with Rubio, there wouldn't have been a photo-op with Rubio. Like I said, these Democrats placed intrinsic value in the optics of standing with a supposed conservative champion in the Senate. Once they had that under their belt, Rubio is left flapping in the wind, having to explain to conservative voters why he even tried. The hardest lesson for Republicans seems to be understanding that no good can come from attempting to work with liars and socialists whose agenda involve lying without any regard for ethics.

Frankly, I don't understand why it's so difficult to learn. The mask is off and Democrats have been wearing it on their sleeve for quite some time now.

h/t Hot Air:

Optics and Lies: The problem with Rubio's meeting with Democrats

The first problem with what Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) did when standing with the likes of Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), on immigration was that he stood with them on anything at all; it's the optics. They cannot be trusted and should not be dealt with. It's much easier to say neither side is working with the other when neither side agrees to do so in the first place. When negotiations breakdown, it's much easier for the Democrats to blame their Republican counterparts.

And they always do because they always lie if it helps their cause.

Case in point - John Boehner's approach to the fiscal cliff negotiations, which he later regretted, even saying he shouldn't have met with Obama, via the Hill:

Boehner now believes that effort was a mistake, and he has vowed to Republicans in the House that he will not negotiate one-on-one with Obama going forward. He is instead recommitting to a “regular order” process, whereby the House and Senate pass legislation independently that can then be reconciled with amendments or with conference committees.

Democrats know they'll have Lindsey Graham and John McCain come over to their side on immigration. Those two are old hat. Rubio represents new meat. All the Schumers and the Durbins want is to get Rubio to take that first step, to be seen publicly with them on an issue - any issue. They relish such moments. To Democrats, they're victories in themselves.

While appearing on Rush Limbaugh's show on January 29th, Rubio insisted that this was all preliminary and that he would not support any legislation that didn't have border security at the top of the list. That's good to know but do you know why the Democrats Rubio reached out to agreed to put that in their initial proposal?

Because the optics of having him stand with them were more important than being honest; everything is more important to Democrats than being honest, unless honesty is the more expedient thing to do. The Democrats have become the party of Saul Alinsky, where the ends justify almost any means. Now, when it comes to the optics vs. actually securing the border, the Democrats prefer not doing the latter over the former.

But they know they can have their cake and eat it too. They know that when conservatives see Rubio standing with them, it causes friction and doesn't lend itself to a united party. Conservatives want to defeat Democrats; they don't want to work with them. Too few elected Republicans seem to get that. When conservatives see Republican officials meet with Democrats, they instinctively know that nothing good can come out of it. Whether Rubio's motives may be pure, it's irrelevant. Those with whom he seeks compromise have impure and dishonest motives. Cunning and deceit always beats naivete.

Just look at how Limbaugh opened his show the day after his interview with Rubio:

So what do you think the big immigration news is today?  Take a wild guess what the big immigration news today is.  That's exactly right.  In fact, the only news on the immigration front in the Drive-By State-Controlled Media seems to be my interview with Florida Senator Marco Rubio yesterday.  And you know why?  You know why that's the only immigration news out there?  It's because the Drive-Bys seem to think that my praise of Rubio means that I have suddenly decided to support amnesty. I've got the sound bites to prove it.  I don't know what they heard, maybe they heard potential, but, you know, I'll tell you what did it.

At the end of the interview yesterday, I thanked the senator for joining us on the program and I praised him, and I praised him because he's got the guts to speak and articulate conservative principles.  He had the guts to take on President Obama.  Time will tell whether he'll follow through on that, but I simply believe in encouraging people that exhibit courage.  Now, he said yesterday during the interview that if there isn't any border security first, he's not gonna vote for this.  Time will tell.  But I simply was trying to encourage him, thank him for being here.

It wasn't a puffball interview.  "Why are we doing this?  Why do we let the Democrats set the agenda on this stuff all the time?  How come we're always reactionary and defensive?

Like the Democrats, the mainstream media lies when it furthers their agenda more than does telling the truth. Again, when Republicans meet with Democrats in the name of compromise, it's the Republicans who become compromised. The aforementioned reality enunciated by Limbaugh is perhaps an unintended consequence of Rubio's actions but it's a consequence nonetheless. The narrative that Limbaugh is giving in on amnesty plays in the homes of liberals who only watch the mainstream media and it's like fuel to the fire, whether it's true or not.

There was another telling moment during Rubio's interview with Limbaugh. Take note of what Rubio said here on the 29th:

You know, our argument about limited government is always harder to sell than a government program.  It always has been.  I mean, it's easier to sell cotton candy than it is to sell broccoli to somebody, but the broccoli is better for you, and the same thing with a limited government.  Yeah, it's a lot easier for a politician to sell people on how a big government program is gonna make their life better, but I think ours, once we sell it, is more enduring and more permanent and better for the country.  It is a challenge.

That sums up the problem with the Republican perspective. Far too often, the attempt is made to compete with the Democrats' ideas instead of shining a spotlight on why they're bad. It's easier to sell a newly christened teenage driver on the appeal and thrill of speeding and recklessness than to convince him to wear his seatbelt and obey the speed limit. An adult will rarely win that argument with a fearless sixteen year-old.

Unless... the teenager is shown film of accident scenes and what can happen when urges are satiated instead of held in check.

Abortion has an appeal to many young women who don't want the responsibility. It's difficult to convince them that responsibility is nobler than murder. The pro-abortionist Democrats convince young teenage women that it's not really murder and Pro-life conservatives are at a disadvantage.

Unless... these young women are made to watch an abortion or even be required to view a sonogram before killing their unborn children.

Rubio may be a well-intentioned freshman Senator but his performance in front of Hillary Clinton last week, coupled with his very ill-advised decision to meet with Democrats who will use cunning to undermine him should demonstrate he's not presidential timber yet.

If he has an awakening between now and 2016, that may change but right now he's behaving like new meat for the Democrats.

Video: Dick Durbin channels Nathan Thurm at Democratic Convention

In an interview with Fox News Channel's Bret Baier at the Democratic National Convention, Senator Dick Durbin was asked to explain why all references to 'God' or 'Jerusalem' were removed from the 2012 Democratic platform. Instead of answering the question, Durbin accused Baier of having an agenda that involved concluding that the Democratic Party is 'Godless' and doesn't support Israel. If you ever want to see a case study in defensiveness, this is it.

Durbin knows his position is indefensible so he does what any despicable Democrat does; he attempts to impugn the questioner as having a political agenda. Aside from the fact that Baier is as an objective reporter as there is today, Durbin's performance here would make Nathan Thurm blush. In fact, Durbin appears to be sitting on a defective whoopi cushion (see Nathan Thurm vide at bottom).

Via RCP:



Compare Dick with Nathan: