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.

Must-See Video: Ted Cruz rips RINOs over Gun Control

There are many reasons to like Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). First and foremost, the Sarah Palin effect, which is that the more a political figure is ridiculed by the mainstream media and the left, the more that political figure should be supported by conservatives. The second indicator is when RINOs like John McCain calls you a 'wackobird'.

There is another reason that comes across in this video from Freedom Works and it has to do with the ability to inspire and encourage.

Right out of the gate, Cruz doesn't just tell the audience what he knows they want to hear - that they are 'winning' - but he does it in such a way that it's believable. He then proceeds to make the case by citing what happened in the recent gun control debate. The story he relays from a Senatorial luncheon is classic and has John 'wacko bird' McCain written all over it.

Via NRO:

Look, the Tea Party in particular and the conservatives in general started becoming demoralized and a bit more crestfallen each day it became more apparent that Mitt Romney was going to be the Republican nominee. Rock bottom was hit on election night. Establishment Republicans in office began caving to the Obama agenda almost immediately. Conservatives were so de-energized that they did little more than watch in disgust.

If there has been a consistent theme among conservatives since the election - perhaps even since the 2010 mid-terms - it's been disgust over the Republican Party's willingness to admit the truth and fight the Obama agenda.

Ironically, Cruz said establishment guys who wanted to cave in to the gun control push, yelled at him for not going along with the program. It's a self-evident truth that such political hacks are more comfortable yelling at a principled member of their own caucus than they are at our "Muslim socialist" president.

By the way, those aren't my words; they're Obama's:

Videos: The Banality of Abortion Clinics

It is not an exaggeration to compare what went on in the abortion clinic of Kermit Gosnell to what took place in Nazi Germany. We were told over and over again by the pro-abortion crowd that Gosnell's Philadelphia clinic was an 'outlier.' Now, thanks to Live Action, we have evidence of two more 'outliers' - one in New York City (Video #1) and the other in Washington, D.C. (Video #2). In fact, the people working at these 'clinics' seem to match perfectly the profile of many of the Nazis put on trial at Nuremberg.

Via Doug Linder:

Those who come to the trials expecting to find sadistic monsters are generally disappointed.  What is shocking about Nuremberg is the ordinariness of the defendants: men who may be good fathers, kind to animals, even unassuming--yet who committed unspeakable crimes.  Years later, reporting on the trial of Adolf Eichmann, Hannah Arendt wrote of "the banality of evil."  Like Eichmann, most Nuremberg defendants never aspired to be villains.  Rather, they over-identified with an ideological cause and suffered from a lack of imagination or empathy: they couldn't fully appreciate the human consequences of their career-motivated decisions.

Another characteristic of the Nazis was that the longer they engaged in the heinous behaviors, the less it affected them. The demeanor of this clinic employee says it all. She boasts that she's seen a lot over the eleven years that she has worked there. When you watch how calmly this clinic worker tells her would-be patient to flush her baby down the toilet if she gives birth after being given a treatment but before she can return the clinic, you will know exactly what is meant by the term, 'banality of evil'.

As for Gosnell's clinic being an 'outlier'... Do you honestly think that people who endorse / commit this kind of evil wouldn't lie about it?

Via Live Action:



In this clinic, the male worker essentially admits that if a baby survives a botched abortion in his clinic, they 'will not help it'. This is a violation of federal law, which he seems quite banal about breaking:



Of course, add to these 'outliers' in Philadelphia, New York, and Washington, D.C. this exchange between the Florida state legislature and a Planned Parenthood lobbyist, who clearly has an agenda that includes not helping babies born alive after surviving an abortion.

Why would the largest abortion provider - Planned Parenthood - take such a position in an entire state? Just how many 'outliers' are there in Florida?

Or is that a banal question?

Oh, and then there's this so perhaps we can add Delaware to the 'outlier' list, not to mention all of the other despicable revelations about what Planned Parenthood does.