O'Reilly denies 'Colluding' with Gang of 8 Republicans on Immigration then behaves as if he did

The charge was first alleged earlier this week in an article by Ryan Lizza in the New Yorker. In essence, Lizza claims that gang of 8 Republicans in the Immigration debate (he names Rubio and McCain specifically) have lobbied Fox News hosts to garner support for the Immigration Reform (Amnesty) bill.

Here is the relevant excerpt from the New Yorker piece:

McCain said that he, Graham, Rubio, and others also have talked privately to top hosts at Fox, including Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Neil Cavuto, who are now relatively sympathetic to the Gang's proposed bill. Hannity voiced support for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, which he previously dismissed as "amnesty," on the day after the 2012 election.

On his June 20th program, O'Reilly came out in his Talking Points Memo, right out of the gate, claiming that such a charge was ridiculous. He mocked the notion that he has 'colluded' with anyone, referring to his show as a 'no collusion zone' while also making reference to an off-air call he had with... wait for it... Marco Rubio. He then came out in full support of the Gang of 8's bill before going to a soft-shoe interview with another 'Gang of 8' Republican - Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ).

Click here to see the TPM / Flake interview.


When someone is busted doing something untoward or wrong, the response of an unrepentant suspect is almost universally similar; he or she smears either the accuser, the charge, or both as ludicrous. While this is not proof of wrongdoing, it is a trait of wrongdoers. People who are wrongfully charged, rightfully have similar reactions; this is what makes the response so effective.

Right after O'Reilly's powder puff interview with Flake, he had talk show host Laura Ingraham on to debate the issue further. O'Reilly had not one sound argument in response to Ingraham and came across as incoherent before ending the interview by telling Ingraham he disagrees with her "100 percent".



Interestingly, one of the biggest talking points to come out of the Gang of 8 and by extension - the Republican Party establishment - has been that immigration reform must be passed or the Party will destroy itself with Hispanics. You know who else has been making this argument?

Far left Democrats like Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), who is also in the Gang of 8:



In an article by Michael D. Shear at the New York Times, he reports that the Obama administration itself is the driving force behind the Gang of 8. Again, the same fatally flawed argument was put forth:

Passage of immigration legislation is critical to Mr. Obama’s legacy but could also help Republicans repair their image with Hispanics — a rare confluence of political interests that has stoked optimism among supporters that it will pass the Senate in the next several weeks.

So, a primary reason why the Republicans need to pass the bill is to prevent the destruction of its own Party and this is the same argument put forth by the opposing Party?!

To recap, in response to reports that O'Reilly talked privately with Republican Gang of 8 members who allegedly lobbied him hard / colluded with him to support the immigration bill, the Fox News host does the following:

1. Admits to having at least one private phone conversation with Marco Rubio but attempts to dismiss it.
2. Follows that up by giving another Republican Gang of 8 member a platform on which both men publicly align with each other on the Gang of 8 bill.
3. Interviews Laura Ingraham shortly thereafter and defends another Republican Gang of 8 member - John McCain - without offering one coherent response to Ingraham's problems with the bill.

O'Reilly appears to be looking out more for the Gang of 8 than for the folks.

There is definitely more to this.

Videos: Bald-Headed John McCain outs himself as Bald-Faced LIAR

Today, lying Senator John McCain played the race card in defense of granting amnesty to illegal aliens currently in the U.S. (h/t GWP):



In 2008, he said 'Build the dang fence' when trying to get elected:

NSA Whistleblower comes forward; presents more evidence of Petraeus Effect

Last week, I began a post with the following:

In the film, "The DeadZone" an aspiring, yet wicked politician named Greg Stillson (played by Martin Sheen) is running for a seat in the US Senate when he learns of an editorial that is going to appear in the local paper and will do great damage to his chances of winning. Stillson's goons enlist the help of a harlot to seduce the married writer, which she does successfully when photographs are taken of their encounter and shown to the editorial's author. After Stillson tells the writer to "stay out of the campaign business" in return for him staying "out of the publishing business", the writer wrestles with his conscience and asks, "What if I don't make a deal, Stillson?" As Sheen's character prepares to leave the writer's office, he says, "Oh, you'll make a deal. Otherwise, I'll have Sonny here take your (expletive) head off." - The Case FOR Islamophobia, p. 390

In that film, the writer chose to pull his editorial in the interest of self-preservation. Had he done the right thing - after doing the wrong thing - Stillson would not have been able to take his heinous plan for the world (nuclear war) all the way to the Oval Office. The writer chose to commit two wrongs to make things right - for himself. Any inkling he may have had to do what he knew should have been done was extinguished with a threat of bodily harm.

An NSA whistleblower named Russ Tice has come forward with explosive charges that the NSA has been targeting top officials in the U.S. Government and Military with warrantless wiretapping. While talking with Peter B. Collins, Tice spoke adamantly about how he held the paperwork that ordered such tapping of then Senator Barack Obama in 2004 and "One of the judges is now sitting on the Supreme Court..."

Perhaps one of the most compelling moments in the exchange between Tice and Collins at the 2:20 mark:

Collins: This creates the basis, and the potential for massive blackmail.

Tice: Absolutely!

Here is the audio of Tice revealing what he knows to Collins, via WashingtonsBlog:



Conspiracy theories about blackmail get much closer to becoming conspiracy realities when you have corroborating evidence that demonstrates blackmail being done in the past. In this case, we don't just have a whistleblower. We also have the case of former CIA Director David Petraeus, who was forced to resign over an extra-marital affair that the Department of Justice had known about for months prior to the election, and General John Allen, the top military commander in Afghanistan, who was implicated in the scandal as well but was neither disgraced or forced out. Both men had previously made public statements decrying desecration of the Qur'an.

Indications are that Petraeus was punished for not playing ball on the Benghazi talking points. We now know that he said the following about the revised talking points in an email one day before Susan Rice lied to Americans five times on the Sunday shows:

"Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this."

On his birthday - November 7th -  one day after the 2012 election, Petraeus was summoned to the White House by his boss - James Clapper - and forced to resign. Two days later - on Friday, November 9th, he publicly did so and the reason for that resignation was made public; it was his extra-marital affair.

It's easy to forget how blatantly obvious the blackmail was in the case of Petraeus. Here is Charles Krauthammer on 9/13/12. The only thing Krauthammer may have gotten wrong here is the part about Petraeus' September 13th testimony. In hindsight, it's more likely that the aforementioned email from Petraeus in which he wanted out of the talking points sandbox, served as the impetus for the affair being revealed:



Such rock solid evidence that the CIA Director was blackmailed by the Obama administration cannot and should not be dismissed. It is stronger than anecdotal evidence. It is proof of criminal behavior that is being reported by a whistleblower.

Immigration Reform
Many - including Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), Rush Limbaugh, Bill Kristol and others - are not just comparing the 'Gang of 8' Immigration bill to Obamacare but some are comparing the actual sausage-making as being similar. Remember Obamacare? Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) accepted the 'Cornhusker kickback' for his vote; Mary Landrieu took the 'Louisiana Purchase'; and Rep. Bart Stupak - the final hurdle - accepted a worthless Executive Order in exchange for selling out on abortion.

Were those congressmen blackmailed? Hard to say and there's no direct evidence. Besides, they're Democrats and Democrats always unite in the end. In the case of Obamacare, the Democrats had the votes to overcome a filibuster - until Ted Kennedy died. They got around the subsequent lack of a filibuster-proof majority by using reconciliation and had a Democratic majority in the House; the administration didn't need to target Republicans; the arm-twisting was all internecine.

In 2013, Obama wants Immigration Reform just as badly - if not more so. The problem for him is that Republicans hold the House and the filibuster-proof majority is long gone in the Senate (only 54 Senators caucus with the Democrats). What the administration did to the aforementioned Democrats during the 2010 Obamacare votes must somehow be done to Republicans in the 2013 Immigration debate.

Arm-twisting to get behind the Party of the President is anathema to the opposition Party. For Obama to get done with immigration now, what he got done with Obamacare then, would almost necessarily require blackmail.

When you couple what happened to Petraeus with what NSA whistleblower Tice is alleging, can you think of a better explanation for why Republicans are so aggressively pushing a suicidal agenda for their own Party?

Can you think of a better explanation for why they're doing it for a scandal-ridden administration?

Shouldn't Republicans in both the House and the Senate be focusing on something like, gee, I don't know... The IRS Scandal, perhaps?

The IRS was attempting to do what immigration reform will do - create one-Party rule in America.

Why on earth would leaders of the opposing Party go along with that?

Petraeus Effect?

The NSA Scandal and The Petraeus Effect

In the film, "The DeadZone" an aspiring, yet wicked politician named Greg Stillson (played by Martin Sheen) is running for a seat in the US Senate when he learns of an editorial that is going to appear in the local paper and will do great damage to his chances of winning. Stillson's goons enlist the help of a harlot to seduce the married writer, which she does successfully when photographs are taken of their encounter and shown to the editorial's author. After Stillson tells the writer to "stay out of the campaign business" in return for him staying "out of the publishing business", the writer wrestles with his conscience and asks, "What if I don't make a deal, Stillson?" As Sheen's character prepares to leave the writer's office, he says, "Oh, you'll make a deal. Otherwise, I'll have Sonny here take you (expletive) head off." - The Case FOR Islamophobia, p. 390

That the Obama administration had the goods on CIA Director David Petraeus and used what it knew to destroy him when he didn't play ball is as close to a self-evident truth as you can get. Perhaps that wasn't just about meting out punishment to a disloyal subordinate. It may have also served as a shot across the bow to others who desperately want to keep their skeletons locked up, regardless of what they are.

As the details about the NSA surveillance program started coming out, Attorney General Eric Holder was asked by Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) if Holder could assure that "no phones inside the Capitol were monitored, of members of Congress".

Holder would not answer the question. As a result, every member of Congress who had Petraeus-like secrets began taking inventory of what the administration might know. This is a perfectly logical conclusion, not simple speculation:

Do you think the majority of Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) have secrets they want kept secret? Do you think that Holder's answer indicated that the administration has information about those secrets? Do you think Congressmen and Senators were able to infer that possibility, based on Holder's answer, Petraeus' treatment, and the scope of the NSA surveillance program?

You betcha.

Consider Barack Obama's operation manual - Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. It is a book he long ago grokked. There are two rules that would seem to apply here:

Rule #4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

Rule #8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

To illustrate usage of Rule #4, we have the virtually empirical evidence that Petraeus was destroyed ("killed") by being made to live by his own book of rules. A four-star General / CIA Director having extra-marital affairs is something he would likely do anything to prevent from coming out. In the case of Petraeus, it appears he either wasn't willing to stretch the lie about Benghazi any further, consequences be damned OR he called the administration's bluff and guessed wrong. This reality is not lost on members of Congress, especially in light of Holder's response to Kirk.

As for Rule #8, if Edward Snowden intended to harm the administration, he may have strengthened it. First, if there was a scandal that was really beginning to do damage, it was the IRS scandal. Attention has been re-directed to the NSA surveillance programs. It may just be that these revelations are not only not harming Obama but giving him the leverage to covertly coerce a majority of individuals in the branch of government that is supposed to keep him in check.

How else can we explain that while the administration is seemingly drowning in a sea of scandals, Obama's immigration agenda is sailing through Congress? Why would Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) totally and completely abandon the constituency without which he never would have gotten elected? Why would Rubio stand with the likes of Schumer, Durbin, and Menenedez... on anything, let alone on such a divisive wedge issue? As I've said before, photo-ops are forever:

Now it's learned that after the NSA surveillance program was leaked, Rubio twists the knife in the backs of conservatives just days later by going on Univision and telling the audience - in Spanish - that legalization comes first, then border security. This is anathema to the radio ads featuring Rubio's voice that have been played during Rush Limbaugh's commercial breaks. Saying one thing in English and another in Arabic Spanish is what Al-Jazeera does; it shouldn't be what a conservative U.S. Senator should do.

What is utterly amazing is that scandal-ridden administrations are supposed to see their agendas dry up, not sped up.

Consider the 'gang of 8' on the House side. A normally conservative congressman - Rep. John Carter (R-TX) decided it was good optics to tour the country with Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), a congressman so liberal that he made the list of 70 who are actually registered with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) caucus. We had his spokesman on the radio show and the rationale goes that if you get the far left (Gutierrez) and the far right (Carter) to work together, you'll find a happy medium. That's insane. It's like arguing that putting dirt in your water will make it taste better.

Again, though, why is a scandal-ridden administration seeing "conservatives" pushing its agenda?

While we're on the subject of the House of Representatives, how about its Speaker? Within just a few short days of the NSA surveillance scandal being brought to light, John Boehner has announced that he expects to have a House Bill on immigration.

From POLITICO, via Hot Air (check the comments to see how conservatives feel about Boehner's position):

After months of coy talk from Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), any sign of planning for legislation is a positive development for reform proponents.

Why would the "coy talk" all of a sudden stop as soon as Holder indicates he may have the goods on any member of Congress who hasn't been able to "live up to his own book of rules"? Again, why is a scandal-ridden administration seeing a Congress continue to push the administration's agenda?

Check out the Senate vote for cloture. At 82-15, it wasn't even close. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) voted to end debate, waving the need for a 60-vote majority before voting on the bill.

Despite the outrage of Tea Party conservatives who have been targeted by the IRS, a majority of Senate Republicans have decided to operate on a now demonstrably false premise which says that Obama was fairly re-elected and that consequently, his agenda should be followed. At the heart of the IRS scandal is strong evidence that voters were disenfranchised. Yet, despite this burgeoning reality, these Republicans are choosing to spend their time and energy doing what their constituents desperately don't want them to do - push forward comprehensive immigration reform (amnesty) at a time when we have every reason to believe that the IRS suppressed these votes.

Why are Republican Senators and Congressmen doing these things?

Here is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) heaping praise on McConnell and Boehner for helping him with immigration reform, via RCP:

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:

Marco Rubio's attempts to explain his Immigration stance sounding a bit convoluted

A common response from radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh when it comes to the question about whether Barack Obama is intentionally trying to destroy the country or is doing so because he doesn't know what he's doing is one of dismissal. In Limbaugh's view, it doesn't matter because the result is the same.

Conservatives - whether they want to admit it or not - are being faced with a similar reality when it comes to U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) - a Tea Party darling - and his involvement with the 'Gang of 8', which consists of Senators who simply cannot be trusted to do what's best for America, let alone what's right on immigration (Schumer, Durbin, Menendez, McCain, Graham, etc.). When it comes to Rubio, conservative talk show hosts scratch their heads and want to know why Rubio is doing this. Is he naive or does he have an agenda diametrically opposed to conservatives who put him in office?

To paraphrase Limbaugh, it doesn't matter because the result will be the same if immigration reform is passed without first securing the border.

When you listen to Rubio attempt to explain why he's part of the 'gang of eight' or why he's supporting such a monstrous bill, he says the issue is 'complicated'. It's really not. Conservatives see it as quite simple and have for years. They're willing to talk amnesty, citizenship, reform, blah, blah, blah after one thing - and one thing only - happens.

The. Border. Is. Secured.

What's complicated is trying to understand what Rubio is saying. When you're done listening to him attempt to explain his position, you just keep coming back to one very simple question:

Why can't we talk about this after the border is secured? Rubio doesn't seem capable of asking that question. Then again, these conservative talk show hosts don't want to press him too hard, apparently because of his Tea Party bonafides. In fact, listening to his interview with Mike Gallagher, the lead up to Gallagher's first question reminded me of all those Senators who burned up precious minutes during Hillary Clinton's Benghazi testimony, praising her for being such a great Secretary of State and for serving her country.

A noteworthy moment during Rubio's exchange with Gallagher comes around the 5:50 mark. Gallagher asks Rubio if he believes there are Democrats on the other side of the aisle who simply do not want border enforcement and want open borders. Rubio's answer was quite telling:

"There's no doubt there are people that feel that way but they're not a serious player in this conversation..."

Really Senator? If that is indeed true, then you should be able to pass one very simple, one-page bill that demands the border be secured. There is a reason that hasn't been done; 'serious players' are preventing it.

I would love to know how Rubio is defining 'serious player' because every single one of his fellow Senators is one in this conversation and certainly the rest of the 'gang of eight' is. Are we to believe that Schumer and Durbin want a secure border? Please. Rubio's counterparts in the House will be 'serious players' as well. Essentially, what Rubio is saying is that every member of his 'gang of eight' wants a secure border.

Again, we're back to either naivete, denial, or dishonesty. The fact that we DON'T have a secure border right now is proof positive that we already have 'serious players' who don't want it secured.



Here is a portion of Rubio's interview with Sean Hannity, via Daily Caller:

The benchmark for conservative politicians is former U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), who now heads the Heritage Foundation. He's obviously not happy with Rubio's stance or the 'gang of eight' which should most definitely reinforce the concerns conservatives have about what Rubio is doing. As if that's not enough, as you'll see at the beginning of this clip, Barack Obama is praising the efforts of Rubio's gang (so is Howard Dean).

Via Daily Caller: Rubio is so on the wrong side of this issue and it doesn't matter if he's doing so intentionally or because he doesn't know what he's doing - the result will be the same.

Will John Boehner Betray his nation on Second Amendment and Immigration?

It looks like House Speaker John Boehner may be paving the way for two of his biggest caves - on gun control and on immigration. If he does, it will mean that he will essentially be throwing in with the Democrats at the expense of a majority of his own caucus. It will be a colossal betrayal. We're talking Benedict Arnold type betrayal.

It would also make him a bald-faced busted... liar.

The 'Hastert Rule', named after Boehner's Republican predecessor Dennis Hastert, says that no bill will get a vote unless it has the support of a majority of the caucus. The Toomey-Manchin gun control legislation would not garner a majority of the caucus, which should make it DOA because Boehner has supported the Hastert Rule, though only when it seems to suit him, which doesn't seem to apply with the Toomey-Manchin bill.

Via the Washington Post (h/t Hot Air):

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) signaled Thursday that he may continue to bypass a House Republican rule that has required any legislation being voted upon to have the support of a majority of the GOP conference.

Boehner has flouted the so-called “Hastert Rule” — named for former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) — on a few pieces of key legislation so far this year, which hasn’t sat well with some conservatives.

He said at a news conference Thursday that he will continue to try and follow it in spirit, but also suggested he might well violate it for upcoming votes on guns, immigration and the budget.

“Listen: It was never a rule to begin with,” Boehner said. “And certainly my prerogative – my intention is to always pass bills with strong Republican support.”

Boehner in early March sought to reassure his conference that the rule would continue to be regular practice, but he broke it again earlier this week.

A common theme - demonstrated by Toomey - is that Republicans are incapable of presenting a united front on important matters. There always seems to be just the right number of votes from their caucus to give the Democrats what they want. In this case, if Boehner breaks the Hastert Rule on gun control, it will mean he knows the legislation will pass with a Democratic minority, coupled with a few Republican peel-aways. It will make Boehner a traitor to his party but more important, a traitor to the Constitution in general and its second amendment in particular.

On another huge issue to conservatives, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) more than just slightly rankled the right wing of his party when he became one of the 'gang of eight' and joined with the likes of Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), John McCain (R-AZ), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on immigration reform (amnesty). The left will display photos of Rubio standing with them at a podium for years to come.

What Rubio didn't seem to understand or care about was that nothing - absolutely nothing - good could come out of his joining with those Senators.

Now, Boehner is hinting that he will betray conservatives on another promise. That promise is that he would honor regular order, which in the case of the monstrosity that is the immigration bill, is all that more important. Like the 2009 stimulus bill and the 2010 Obamacare bill, page numbers end with four digits.

Via Breitbart:

According to a recent Politico report, Boehner is seriously considering abandoning regular order to rush through immigration reform. Regular orders is the process by which a bill is supposed to come up through the respective committees of jurisdiction and allow members of those committees to offer amendments, an open and transparent process that then is supposed to continue on the House floor.

“The GOP is also mulling skipping the committee process and instead having lengthy discussions among Republicans to work out the legislation’s kinks,” Politico’s Jake Sherman wrote in the report. “This would allow leading conservatives who are crafting the deal with Democrats to explain the policy. That seems to be the preferred path, according to conversations with several GOP aides.”

Ain't that something. With that as a potential reality, it would mean that Boehner only feigned outrage when he slammed down the 1100 page Stimulus bill in 2009 because, for one thing, it was being rammed through without consideration for... wait for it... regular order:



Ah, the tale of two Boehners. First, the tough-talking Boehner can adequately express outrage when he has no power. Since becoming Speaker, he's rarely expressed even a modicum of that kind of indignation. Now that Boehner is in the majority and holding the gavel, he's just might be willing to do with a 1500 page immigration bill what he was so adamantly against being done with an 1100 page stimulus bill.

This would make him a liar in addition to being a weak leader. Apparently, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) agrees.

Democratic politicians should be recognized for one thing; they hardly ever break ranks. United fronts abound. Perhaps one of the best examples is the Senate vote on Bill Clinton's impeachment. Not one Democrat voted to remove him from office. It worked for them then and it's a strategy they've replicated many times over since.

Republicans, on the other hand, are behaving as if they want to lose the 2014 mid-terms because - as a group - they're incapable of standing on principle and are walking all over themselves to hand the Democrats victory after victory.

Audio: Is Ted Cruz separating himself from the Rand / Rubio Immigration Chaff?

Conservatives are looking for someone - anyone - in the halls of power to actually assert his / her power. In the House, there are a handful of courageous Republicans (Bachmann, Gowdy, Gohmert, and a few others) but in the upper chamber, where more power is wielded and more weight is carried by each Senator, the battle has seemingly come down to three people.

Rand Paul (R-KY), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Ted Cruz (R-TX).

In a world where a few hot-button issues rotate to the front burner with increasing frequency and intensity, immigration appears to be taking its turn. In this battle, Cruz has taken the lead among conservatives and that is evident when comparing the recent positions / activities of the three men, coupled with Cruz's stated positions on Sean Hannity's April 1st radio show.

Let's take a look at the three Senators who are attempting to tap into the most passionate and sought after voting bloc of the Republican Party - the conservatives.

Paul won major points with conservatives when he decided to filibuster for twelve hours over a response he did not get from the Obama administration over the use of drones to kill Americans on U.S. soil. Regardless of where one comes down on the issue, Paul exhibited a fighting spirit that is far too often lacking from Republican leaders. However, when it comes to the issue of immigration, Paul has deviated from the conservative position and has called for a pathway to citizenship, which in the minds of conservatives, is a pathway to amnesty. Helping Paul among conservatives was the way he confronted Hillary Clinton over Benghazi.

Rubio essentially began his dance with the devil when he joined the gang of eight, which included Socialist Democrats Durbin, Schumer, and Menendez along with RINOs McCain and Graham to cut a deal over comprehensive immigration reform. Rubio's achilles heal with conservatives has long been his rather vague stance on immigration. His decision to join the gang of eight didn't help him much, though to his credit, he is calling for open and robust debate, which just might scare the rest more than the prospect of not getting a deal done. Rubio was also incredibly weak when he had five minutes alone with Hillary Clinton over Benghazi.

Cruz appears to be separating himself from the other two in the pack when it comes to the immigration debate. He understands that until everyone agrees - and then demands / acts on that agreement - to secure the border before any other discussions take place, will get us nowhere, at best. Every time something is done about immigration (Rubio and Rand should listen up), it comes with an empty promise to secure the border after granting amnesty to illegal aliens.

Cruz isn't falling for it. As a result, his stock among conservatives will undoubtedly rise faster than will Rubio or Paul on the issue of immigration, which is a big one.

Via MediaIte:

Must-see Videos: Rep. Trey Gowdy eviscerates ICE Director and DHS Under Secretary for releasing prisoners

When it was learned that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which reports to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), released thousands of illegal alien prisoners and blamed sequestration, it was a source of outrage. That outrage was not lost on Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) who, in his role as a member of the House Judiciary Committee absolutely spanked ICE Director John Morton and DHS Under Secretary for Management, Rafael Borras.

Gowdy is one of the few members of Congress who gives one hope that all is not lost. If only we had this kind of fire from Republican leaders in both Houses.

First up, John Morton...



Next, Rafael Borras...

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.

Why Romney lost the Hispanic vote

Mitt Romney is the latest in a long line of Republican establishment moderates who failed to win elections. George H.W. Bush rode Reagan's coattails into his first term and was sunk by reneging on his 'no new taxes' pledge; it was then Bob Dole's turn in 1996; that was followed by a conservative-talking George W. Bush who won on such talk but governed as a moderate, especially in his second term. We've also learned that his wife is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. In 2008, RINO John McCain was saved from a Walter Mondale-like thumping solely because of the energy Sarah Palin brought to the campaign; he still lost but Palin was blamed by Republican elites, as the reason, which is absurd.

It is that mentality which perhaps best explains the establishment's reaction to Romney's loss. That reaction?  It's the fault of allegedly unyielding conservatives, despite the fact that Romney was the establishment's guy. Those mean, uncompromising conservatives forced Romney to 'twist himself into pretzels' and then blamed him for losing, according to the likes of David Frum.

Make no mistake. This is nothing more than the establishment's unwillingness to admit that moderates don't win elections. A moderate was nominated at a time when a moderate supposedly couldn't lose. Instead of conceding to the reality, establishment types actually blame the base.

House Speaker John Boehner (RINO) now says things like it's long overdue for Republicans to work on comprehensive immigration reform, which is the politically correct way of saying 'lets cave on amnesty to get more votes'.

Boehner is saying this because he's thinking in terms of demographics and that if Republicans want to win more of the Hispanic vote, they'll have to pander to get it. If Boehner was truly concerned about the welfare of Hispanics, he wouldn't have sat by for nearly two years, doing all he could to minimize the work of House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa on Fast and Furious, an operation run out of the Obama administration that led to the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans (even more will die because so many of the guns are still in circulation). It was a scandal that Boehner wanted to dry up an blow away. Though there had been signs throughout, that was made patently obvious when he scheduled the Eric Holder contempt vote on the same day as the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare.

Where was Boehner when it was time for accountability relative to the murder of Hispanics instead of now eagerly pandering to them?

Candidate Romney expressed little to no interest in tackling the Fast and Furious scandal either. Earlier this year, after Barack Obama announced that amnesty would be granted to nearly one million illegal aliens living in the United States, Romney had the perfect opportunity to draw a contrast between an Obama that was pandering to the Hispanic vote with an Obama administration that wasn't coming clean on its role in the murders of more than three hundred Hispanics.

Instead, Romney punted. In so doing, Obama won the argument and his challenger came across as someone who wasn't able to formulate a cogent message.

Take a look at the list of victims in the Fort Hood jihad attack. It is strewn with women and minorities. In fact, one woman - a Hispanic named Francheska Velez - didn't just lose her own life but that of her unborn baby. Yet, when Mitt Romney had the opportunity to ask the President directly in the last of three debates why the massacre that killed 14 and injured 32 has still not been identified for what it is - a jihad attack / act of war - or why none of the victims were awarded purple hearts because the shootings had been identified as the result of workplace violence, he punted again.

Why? Because the establishment's political playbook told him to.

It's a failed playbook and its adherents are doing what too many losers do; they're blaming others.

Simply telling the truth about Democrats would have been a better strategy.

The odds of such a strategy being implemented would have gone up, had a conservative been nominated.

Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano blow off deadline in Senate letter

Four Ranking members of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget - Jeff Sessions, Orrin Hatch, Pat Robers, and Charles Grassley (knows a thing or two about letters being ignored in Fast and Furious investigation) - sent a letter addressed to both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on August 6th. It contained an August 20th deadline that requested a response to five questions.

The problem? Allegedly, illegal aliens are being encouraged to apply for U.S. Government welfare programs.

Via Daily Caller:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano are mum on why the legal requirements that immigrants and visa applicants not be reliant on government assistance have been watered down, according to some lawmakers.

The deadline for Clinton and Napolitano to respond to a letter regarding admission of immigrants on or likely to be on assistance programs from senior Republicans on the Budget, Judiciary, Finance, and Agriculture Committees came and passed Monday.

On Tuesday Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, blasted the pair for their failure to comply.

“It is unacceptable that Secretary Napolitano and Secretary Clinton have not seen fit to respond our oversight letter,” Sessions said in a statement. “It is a sound principle of immigration law that those who come to our country should be able to take care of themselves financially, yet this legal requirement has effectively been waived. Under their agencies’ guidelines, an able-bodied, working-age immigrant could receive the bulk of his or her income in the form of federal assistance and still not be deemed welfare-reliant.”

Here is a list of the five questions posed by the four Senators that went unanswered by the August 20th deadline:

1. An explanation of why receipt of most welfare benefits is excluded from consideration of citizenship eligibility, and how this complies with the (Immigration and Nationality Act) INA and Congressional intent.
2. From 2001 to 2011, how many visa applicants and applicants for admission through the Visa Waiver Program were denied visas or admission because they were deemed likely to become a public charge?
3. From 2001 to 2011, how many visa applicants were found likely to become a public charge but were nevertheless granted a visa and admitted into the United States because they presented an affidavit of support?
4. How many aliens issued visas or otherwise admitted into the United States from 2001 to 2011 became public charges as defined by your agency after entering the United States?
5. If your answers to the above questions are that your agencies do not track this information, then please explain why this information is not tracked.

Again, those questions were ignored when the August 20th deadline came and went.

Gee, for some reason, I'm reminded of the Cloward-Piven strategy. Check out this first paragraph from a Discover the Networks entry:

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the Cloward-Piven Strategy seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward-Piven... on steroids perhaps?

Romney blowing Fast and Furious Opportunity

"Bob, if the president cares so much about the plight of Mexicans who seek a better life, how did an operation like Fast and Furious, in which hundreds of Mexicans lost their lives, take place under his administration"?

Mitt Romney didn't say that... but he should have.

On Sunday, June 17th, Republican nominee Mitt Romney sat down with Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation and had no answer when it came to Obama's Executive Order granting amnesty to a million illegal aliens. He didn't insist that the real issue is Obama's lawlessness and he wouldn't answer the question about whether he would rescind the EO if elected.

Instead, he hemmed, hawed, and remained incoherent in his responses. It was like watching all the incremental gains Romney has made over the last several weeks get washed away thanks to self-inflicted, political cowardice.

The Republican establishment is known to fight with pitter-patter jabs while the left is constantly throwing haymakers. Sunday was the one opportunity for Romney to throw a knock out punch of his own and instead, he covered up. The Sarah Palin wing of the party waved their hands and rolled their eyes.

When the subject of the interview turned to why Romney thought Obama signed the EO, Romney would not overtly say that Obama did so for political reasons, saying only that politics were "certainly part of the equation."

When the Obama campaign decided to make hay over Seamus, the Romney family dog being stuck on the roof during family vacations, the Romney campaign came back with Obama, in his own words, saying that he ate dog in his youth.

When Obama claimed that the reason he granted amnesty to so many illegal Mexican aliens was because he truly cared for them and wanted to embrace their contributions, the Romney campaign should have pointed to the operation that has left hundreds of innocent Mexicans dead in what appears to be an attempt at gun control. Romney could have continued to hammer away at the fact that after 18 months, there are still no answers and even Attorney General himself said that more people are likely to die as a result of the operation. Here he is one year ago admitting as much to Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX):



Additionally, as the details of this scandal have unfolded, it continues to reach the highest levels of DOJ, DHS, State, and even reaches to the White House (Kevin O'Reilly). Romney didn't even choose the safest route, by asking Bob Schieffer why Eric Holder still has a job. Any objection raised by Schieffer could have been met with Romney asking, "Where does the buck stop, Bob"? Instead, Romney played defense.

It's really sad to watch Mitt Romney against Obama at a time when a strong conservative would absolutely be running away with this race right now.

Here is the incoherent, uninspired, and defensive exchange with Schieffer, via Washington Post (relevant portion starts at :20 mark):

Obama in 2011: Executive Order Amnesty Illegal

I'm far more often than not, in agreement with the conservative activists who were at Right Online this weekend, but not this time. Apparently, a consensus among the group was that the Daily Caller's Neil Munro was wrong in challenging Obama at the rose garden as the president's announcement that an Executive Order had been signed to grant amnesty to 2-3 million illegal aliens.

Even if it were conceded that Munro was rightfully chastised, the offense committed by Obama is so much worse that Munro's actions should have been rendered insignificant. In my view, they're warranted. As I've said before, at some point, Obama's actions need to be seen as provoking these responses. The president blatantly lies and breaks the law while the story is how others don't respect the office of the presidency?!

Recap: On September 9, 2009, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouts, 'You Lie' at Obama during a joint session of Congress, after Obama said Obamacare would not apply to illegal aliens. In March, 2011, Obama told Univision's Jorge Ramos that using Executive Orders to grant amnesty to illegal aliens was against the law. On June 15, Obama signed the Executive Order he admitted over a year earlier, was illegal for him to sign.

Let's also not forget that when Obama granted amnesty on June 15th, Joe Wilson was shown to be right.

Yet, Neil Munro is the bad guy?

Here's video of Obama in 2011 saying that what he did in 2012 would be illegal.

Via Freedom's Lighthouse:

POLITICO Reporter: Daily Caller's Munro is a Raciss for Interrupting Obama

The latest from the left wing bunch that insists on operating from a premise that says if you disagree with Barack Obama, you must be a racist. On a day when Obama announced he was breaking the law to grant amnesty to 2 - 3 million illegal immigrants by going around Congress to do it, the Daily Caller's Neil Munro attempted to get Obama to answer questions about how his Executive Order will impact working Americans.

Later in the day, MSNBC's Michael Eric Dyson, who happens to be black, kicked off his interview with POLITICO reporter Joe Williams, who is also black, by referring to him as "Brother Joe." The two then pushed the narrative that Neil Munro must be racist for interrupting Obama on a day that the president broke the law.

Which is the worse infraction?

Williams and Dyson point to the previous incidents of when Joe Wilson shouted, 'You Lie' to Obama during a Joint Session of Congress and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer waving her finger at Obama on the tarmac. Aside from the ironic reality that Obama's actions today, validate Joe Wilson's words in 2009, Brewer is rightfully frustrated with Obama, not based on skin color but based on the fact that he's meddling in her state's business and suing her. Translation: If you're sued by someone who is black and don't take it lying down, you're a racist.

In the 'Heads I win, tails you lose' world of the liberal media, challenging the first black president is far worse because it necessarily means YOU'RE racist, regardless of HIS actions.

Speaking of Obama's actions, in addition to his illegal run around Congress, he's also a confirmed liar when it comes to his denial in 2008 of never being a member of the Socialist New Party.

Pointing these things out, however, could get you branded a racist. At what point do race-baiters take their rightful place as the true racists?

Via NewsBusters:



Since Williams brought up the Joe Wilson incident, have a look at it. Note, that Obama said Obamacare would not apply to those in the country illegally. Wilson responded with, 'You Lie.' Yesterday, Obama announced amnesty for 2-3 Million illegals. Any guesses as to who will pay for their health care?

Newsflash to Dyson and Williams: When people are lied to constantly, they generally don't like it, regardless of what color the liar happens to be. Again, Obama is a L-I-A-R. The New Party flap proves it.



RINO Senator John McCain, whose past words and stances seem to come back to haunt him every time Obama shows who he really is, demanded Wilson apologize at the time. Perhaps it's time for McCain to call up Wilson and apologize to him.



Here is the Daily Caller's Neil Munro with Nicholas Ballasy, explaining what happened from his perspective. Note how Munro admits that he perhaps asked his question too soon because he thought Obama was done speaking. There hasn't been one scintilla of even a faint admission of wrongdoing from the other side:

Video: How Illegal Aliens get big Tax Refunds from IRS

In short, illegal aliens are allowed to work in the U.S. Since they don't have social security numbers, they are issued another type of identification number. With that number, they are allowed to take advantage of what's called an Additional Child Tax Credit. They have figured out that the more children they list on their returns, the more money they get back.

So what do they do? They list nephews and nieces.... who LIVE IN MEXICO!

Via WTHR, h/t Lynn Woolley:

Do you hear Romney's Etch-a-Sketch shaking?

Shhhhh. If you listen closely, you might hear a shaking etch-a-sketch. Two curious things happened on the day that Romney won five primaries going away, all but hammering the final nail in the coffin of any primary opponent hopes. The first was an announcement that Romney had appointed an openly homosexual (arguably activist) man to his team of advisers on foreign policy issues.

Via Christian Post:

Likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has named an openly gay man to his team of campaign advisers on national security and foreign policy issues in a move that is drawing criticism from some conservatives questioning his Mormon beliefs.

Richard Grenell, 45, is an experienced politician who has served as a spokesman for the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and was also appointed by Ambassador John Danforth in 2004 to serve as an alternative representative of the United States to the U.N. Security Council, SouthFloridaGayNews.com reported.

Grenell has been a prominent voice for gay Republicans and has worked for a number of GOP politicians, including New York Governor George Pataki, former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, and San Diego Mayor Susan Golding.

Just at the time when evangelical voters were beginning to reconcile with their reservations about Romney's Mormon religion, this appointment gives many of those same voters additional pause.

Bryan Fischer, however, host of conservative talk-show Focal Point, expressed that this decision makes it clear that Romney cannot be considered a conservative candidate….

…The Mormon church officially defends the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman and counts homosexual behavior as sinful.

"Now, if you don't agree with your church, then why should the evangelical community – why should the pro-family community – give you any support whatsoever?" Fischer added.

Here is Romney from June of last year talking with Piers Morgan about his views on homosexuality as a Mormon.



The second thing that indicated the etch-a-sketch was shaking came out of the mouth of RINO John McCain, who has endorsed Romney. He already seems to be painting Romney as someone who supports Immigration reform.

Via HuffPo:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Tuesday defended former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as an advocate for immigration reform, despite glossing over the fact that the GOP presidential candidate doesn't support a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, a key piece of comprehensive reform.

"He's already said that immigration reform is something that he's committed to," McCain told reporters, in response to a question about whether Romney should make the issue a bigger focus of his campaign.

McCain, who unsuccessfully tried to advance comprehensive immigration reform legislation in 2007 with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), demurred when asked about Romney's opposition to creating a pathway to citizenship. That provision was a central piece of the McCain-Kennedy bill, along with a guest worker program and DREAM Act provisions.

"He said that he's committed to immigration reform," McCain said of Romney. "I think that's a pretty good statement."

The Arizona senator became agitated when asked about Romney having said he supports a self-deportation policy, whereby illegal immigrants would voluntarily go back to their country of origin and then apply for U.S. citizenship.

"No he hasn't. He's said that's one of the options he's looked at," McCain said. "So don't put words in his mouth."

Uh, perhaps Mr. McCain should go back and watch some of the debates where Romney absolutely did say he supports self-deportation.



Shake your booty Etch-a-sketch.

Video Outrage: Illegal Aliens ID themselves as such while disrupting North Carolina legislature

Wanna know how insanely lax our immigration enforcement is? Look no further than North Carolina. At a State Assembly meeting, illegal aliens donned orange shirts that said, "Undocumented and Unafraid" and disrupted the state's legislative business.

In a sane world, such people would be hiding out of fear that they would be deported but in the Obama world, there is no such fear. According one report, none of these people were subsequently deported, which is what should have happened.

As for the mantra on their t-shirts, it apparently hasn't dawned on these illegal aliens that the reason they are so "unafraid" is because they know they can get away with it. If they're so courageous, why don't they go to their home countries and protest their government on issues that cause them to leave in the first place?

It would be a whole lot easier to have compassion for these people if they weren't so arrogant, rude, and disrespectful to the country that is giving them a better life.

How about a dose of humility, whackos?

Via Breitbart:

Video: Arizona looking to sue the Feds over Fast and Furious

The Feds have been going after Arizona for quite some time. First, there was SB 1070, Arizona's tough immigration law. The Feds sued to have it overturned and a federal judge did the next best thing; she blocked it and the law has subsequently wallowed, suspended in its operation. Then, sheriff Joe Arpaio was attacked and harassed by Eric Holder's Justice Department, which charged that he violated the civil rights of minorities.

This could be what we call payback, depending on how far it goes. As the scandal that broke a year ago continues to percolate in two House Committees (Oversight and Judiciary), the state of Arizona is looking into the possibility that the Feds may have violated any of the state's laws. This makes for an interesting development in light of the fact that the head of the state's criminal division for the US Attorneys Office, pleaded the fifth when subpoenaed to testify in front of the Oversight committee.



h/t Hot Air