Posts Tagged ‘Marco Rubio’

Real Amnesty Snow-Job Begins: Time to Flip the Script

Thursday, June 20th, 2013

Marco Scrubio

On Wednesday evening, Marco Rubio(R-FL) appeared on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News to reassure viewers that there would be a vast improvement in border security through an amendment he expected to be introduced by Thursday morning. Ladies and gentlemen, the fact that Rubio made this move indicates just how bad it’s gotten for him, but it’s also a part of the snow-job.  Rubio knew that he would take heat over his involvement with this bill, but he knew it would need to be amended to move or face outrage across the nation.  The problem is that whatever is in this promised amendment will amount to token measures that will rely upon the executive branch and Barack Obama for their enforcement.  I have a simple counter-proposal for the Senator if he’s got the guts, and he’s sincere about wanting security at the border first: Scrap the bill as it exists and just implement the security portion now.  If over the next four years, the security measures are diligently enforced, it should be no problem to come back to the American people to argue: “See, we’ve done as we’ve promised.”  Otherwise, we have every reason to believe this is yet another snow-job, just like it’s been every time before.

No sir, we need the security first, and independent of any other measures.  No more triggers, no phony commissions, and no more schemes to trick us into going along.  In 2016, Senator Rubio should be up for re-election, so that if he delivers on four years’ worth of promised improvements in security, deportation, E-Verify, physical fencing, electronic monitoring and surveillance, along with a massive increase in the number of agents, it should be no problem to demonstrate a success.

The obstinate truth of this issue is that we no longer trust you, Senator Rubio, nor do we trust most of your colleagues, and we have every reason to suspect that no matter what security provisions your promised amendment may put into place, this President and his rogue Attorney General will do everything possible to confound the law, confound the security measures, and otherwise undercut the promises you have made and seem to be making anew.

It’s a promise versus performance problem, and we simply don’t trust Marco Rubio, or much less anyone else in Washington DC to get this even approximately right.  The only viable solution after decades of intransigence on the part of legislators and Presidents is to deliver the security first.  If legislators will pass an enforcement law putting teeth into the measures we have previously passed, adding new measures to augment the effort, come some day four years hence, when Senator Rubio will have been re-elected on the strength of promises kept, I assure you that the American people will be far more amenable to considering reform of the immigration system.  This means passing a mechanism for enforcement into law, and doing so in a way that instructs the executive branch on its duties with respect to carrying out the law.

News laws can be passed at any time.  It is conceivable that new enforcement mechanisms will be such a thorough success that we will be ready to consider immigration system reforms sooner than four years, but we must first see a good faith effort that does not rely on a bunch of triggers and other trick language to move automatically from an enforcement phase to an immigration reform phase, because each and every one of the promises of previous Congresses have been violated and abandoned, but worse, we now have a President who has no problem ignoring the law altogether.

This is your put-up or shut-up moment.  This is your chance to build a legacy and good will for election cycles to come, and if you can meet this challenge, the American people will support you, but this must not be passed under the quid pro quo assumptions required in the current iteration of the legislation.  There must be no “this for that,” but instead merely a “this” in the present to be followed up at some future date with a “that.”  Do this, and you will have my support if you can carry it into execution.  Do this not, and I will oppose and dog you every step of the way, and with you every last legislator who follows along.

This is our country, and its security and sovereignty are not bargaining chips in their legislative tool kit. They have sworn an oath, and it’s damn well time they carry it out first, and without conditions or further considerations from the American people who have been entirely too patient on this matter. That patience has finally worn too thin, so that if legislators think they can present a bill that was a throw-away from the outset, tinker with it around the edges with loose legislative language, repackaging it at this late date for a quick second sales pitch, they are wholly mistaken to believe that approach will work this time.

To Senator Rubio and all the other purveyors of “comprehensive immigration reform:” Put up or shut up.  Security nowImmigration reform later. That’s the only deal you will get, and it’s the best Congress and the Obama administration have any plausible right to expect.


DC’s Legalized Anarchy

Monday, June 17th, 2013

Lawful Lawlessness

Jeb Bush tells Americans by implication that we’re not fertile enough, either as breeders or as business creators.  Meanwhile, Marco Rubio’s aide argues on behalf of bringing in more immigrants because American workers “just can’t cut it.”  In truth, they likely agree with Barack Obama’s sentiment that we “didn’t build it,” though as a matter of good politics, they couldn’t admit it at the time.  Imagine what it must be like to hang out among this band of brigands, who on the one hand seeks to impose their notions of compassion upon us, permitting millions of otherwise able-bodied Americans to languish as dependents on the welfare-state, who if challenged, might well be found to “cut it” very nicely.  What Bush really means is that those of you who get up and go to work every day aren’t fertile enough, and that since they wish to continue growing the welfare-state, they need more workers who can be slaves to their system.  After all, as Marco Rubio’s aide reminds us, the American worker just “can’t cut it.” These people are building a perfect anarchy, in which Americans struggle simply to make it through another day, and all the while, the elite subsist on the backs of our efforts.

The revelations of such a mindset should be all we need to understand why we’re losing the country, but as if all this is not bad enough, the Supreme Court has now ruled that Arizona can’t require voters to verify eligibility to vote.  These people are stealing our country, right alongside the liberals, in league with them, and all we do is sit around watching it happen.  Maybe they’re right… Maybe we don’t “cut it.” So let us consider this as we consider the fact that not only are we forbidden from verifying the eligibility of somebody who appears on a Federal election ballot, but we must also ignore the eligibility of those who seek to complete one.  There is no effective border, and no effective restraint on anything except the American people, who are told they may not choose their own doctors, their own healthcare plans, or even their own address.  Slowly but surely, and it’s quickening now, the entire American experiment in liberty is crashing down because we’ve had a century of organized, planned, anarchical plotting by those who would lead us.  Our question, and indeed our demand must be: “Lead us where?”  The answer may be as Joe Hakos suggests over at the Dryerreport.

A nation cannot exist without borders. A nation cannot last if its laws are not enforced.  A nation will not stand that verifies neither the eligibility of its candidates nor the eligibility of its voters.  The United States has been a nation built by immigrants, and always will be so long as we remember that immigration without restraint leads to anarchy.  This is the singular aspect the DC establishment class has chosen to ignore, and it is at our great peril that we permit them to do so any longer.  This is still our country, and we have every reason to defend its institutions, its legitimacy, and its ethos as established over the last two centuries.  We cannot permit the insiders whose interests are best served in other ways to prevail upon us to yield our liberties, our standard of living, the rule of law that has acted as a brake on tyranny and violence, or any of the other facets of American life we have come to take for granted.

Of course, this may be the problem:  For too long, too many Americans have take it for granted.  For too long, too many of us thought it was all automatic, and if only we trusted the people in Washington DC, it would all work out for the best.  It hasn’t worked out, at least not for us, and surely not for our children and theirs.  This monstrous, decaying system in which the people who bear all the burdens matter least is the most despicable of all.  Where else in the world can one go that the citizens of a country get the last crumbs on a table of plenty they have set?  I don’t care if you’re a union laborer, or a white-collar, middle-management employee, but if this is permitted to continue, we will all be eating the table scraps at the feet of the anointed.  No country can survive a collapse of law and lawfulness from the top downward, no matter how great and courageous its people may have been or may remain.

Notice that our nation suffers not from a lack of laws, but from the will to enforce them.  Notice that in a country of 320 million souls, the twenty million of them who are here illegally are being served by a class of people who intend to profit from the efforts and exertions of another million-score of suckers.  Even if our economy were booming, and it’s far from that, we shouldn’t permit people to come into this country in order to be exploited any more than we should permit them to be exploited for their votes.  That isn’t what America is about, because done right, immigration can provide a nation with an influx of new ideas, renewed dedication to purpose, and fresh eyes on a whole universe of old problems, but this immigration bill, crafted by and for the lobbyists does nothing but undermine the republic that had made their existence possible.  Let us not delay the matter for another day.  Let us say it now, and with the conviction of the ages:  This immigration bill must not be permitted to become law because it is the death of us all, and all we have labored to build.  It is the diminution of a nation by inflation.  It is the death-knell of a republic.  This “Gang of Eight” bill gives Barack Obama precisely what he wants: Legalized anarchy. This is the death of nations, and ours is not exempt from that inflexible rule.

Friday, Mark Levin captured it well here(H/T Daily Caller):

Rubio Aide: American Workers “Can’t Cut It”

Monday, June 17th, 2013

Rich Lowry, writing for NRO Sunday, posted a bit of an exchange between Chuck Schumer’s staff and Marco Rubio’s staff on the haggling over the immigration reform bill.  In that exchange, the Rubio aide, purportedly said:

“There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it. There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer. There are people who just can’t get it, can’t do it, don’t want to do it. And so you can’t obviously discuss that publicly.”

I’d like to address this sentiment, but for the purposes of this discussion, I am going to assume that Lowry’s reporting as well as the source materials he’s relying upon are accurate.  Rather than direct my ire at Senator Rubio for employing such a dolt, or assuming that he shares the twisted reasoning of his staffer, I simply wish to direct this to the staffer in question:

You take a salary month after month, and month after month, the American worker is the poor rube paying it.  The “American worker” is defined by men and women of all ages and races, including those who have been naturalized as citizens.  To say that the “American worker can’t cut it” is the most intensely disdainful remark you could make about the people your boss was elected to serve!  The people who keep the lights on in your office are the American worker.  You defame the people who get up each morning and who beat you to the Starbucks, who also seem to “cut it” as they’re making your coffee.  The people who keep the traffic flowing as you make your way to work seem to “cut it” as you move on down the road.  The poor bastards who keep the lights burning certainly “cut it.”

You and your boss along with the ninety-odd other dolts and their staffs seem to have no problem with the American worker “cutting it” when it comes to spending their money, and spending their future earnings.  No, I suspect the American worker “cuts it” just fine in that context.  Your boss wasn’t elected to represent the Chamber of Commerce or to take their position on the immigration bill, but then again, maybe he was. True, there is no presumption that we’re all star performers, except when it’s time to pay the nation’s bills, but one would think that you’d have the decency to consider them before the interests of the Chamber of Commerce.

Do you want to know what really doesn’t “cut it?” I’ll be happy to tell you, on behalf of all the men and women who will have done more before 8 o’clock this morning than you will have done by day’s end: Foolish, arrogant staff to elected or appointed government officials who along with their bosses hold the American people in disdain don’t cut it!  In short, you don’t cut it.  I can understand why you wouldn’t want your remarks repeated in public.  I can understand why Senator Rubio’s office doesn’t want NRO disseminating the remarks. As reported, what your remarks reveal about the sentiment of those in Washington DC who are pushing this immigration reform boondoggle is that the American people at large don’t “cut it” in your view.

Screw you.  The very idea that you would take such a position in an argument against the American worker should tell voters everything they need to know about you, and about your boss.  It surely didn’t take the space of four years for your boss to become captured by the machine, of which you are a part.  The truth may be that he had been captive all along, and ultimately, he bears responsibility for employing you. We’re going to need to see what we can do about that, although I have no doubt that even if dismissed, you’ll wind up working for a lobbying firm, perhaps arguing on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce that the American worker “can’t cut it.”

In my nearly half-century, I have watched the American worker “cut it” under the most egregious of conditions at times, and while it is always true that there may be some person in some job who is not quite up to it, the fact is that the American worker has managed to create trillions upon trillions of dollars worth of wealth during that span, much of which you and your boss and those with and before him have squandered.  Naturally, in a free market, you will get only as good as you give in most cases, but that’s a two-way street.  Over the last decade, costs have risen for businesses, but for consumers, they have risen even more.  How much has the average American’s wage increased?

There is nothing wrong with the American worker that the free market can’t fix, but sadly, you wish to tinker with the free market to the degree it still exists in the United States by changing the rules, in this case seeking to flood the market with millions of new employees.  All of this is because your real bosses – the people for whom you work while we who “can’t cut it” pay you – want bargain prices for labor and because your opposites on the political spectrum want more votes.  The truth is that you’re all a gang of criminals.  What this Immigration Reform bill will do to the American people, particularly the American worker, and to the American polity is and should be considered a criminal act.  I view it as treason.  How well does treason pay in Washington DC?  Apparently, quite well, with the tax-payer footing the bill.

It’s finally time the American worker taught you just a little bit about who runs this frigging show.  You wizards sit there in Washington DC, looking out over the land, imagining yourselves as captains of industries you could not build, you could not grow, and you certainly could not staff.  You dispense with our liberties and property and our wealth as though it had been yours to do by right, but when there are budget shortfalls because you spend our wealth like there’s no tomorrow, you undoubtedly conclude it’s because we, the American people, simply “can’t cut it.”

Here’s a little tip, and I hope you and your boss and all your analogs all over Capitol Hill will understand: This immigration reform bill stinks, and if you pass it, we who allegedly “can’t cut it” are going to send your asses home.  If there’s one thing to be learned in all of this, it is that we have left it in your hands far too often and without the oversight your intransigence has earned, in large measure because in the crippled economy is making it increasingly difficult to “cut it” as we pay our monthly bills while still funding your bloated salary.

“Can’t cut it?”  This comes from a staff member of an institution that has done nothing in more than five years to substantially relieve the burden on the American worker.  This comes from a glorified civil servant who enjoys the best benefits the government offers.  This sorry notion is born in a city that disposes of Americans and their wealth without the first thought to the morality of having done so.  This idea is the byproduct of a select club of people who cannot(or will not) balance a budget, fix the welfare-state bearing down on the American worker, or even protect the rights of the average American who simply wants to go about his life and business in peace.

This legislation was crafted as a compromise between big labor and big business, neither of which give a damn about the American worker. Sir, what doesn’t “cut it” is your legislation. What doesn’t “cut it” is your point of view.  That which doesn’t “cut it” is your deal-making with or on behalf of everybody under the sun except those who pay the freight on this whole mess.  What doesn’t “cut it” is the manner in which you so recklessly dismiss and disregard the hopes, the dreams, and the tireless exertions of the American worker. What doesn’t “cut it” is how you talk about us when we’re not in the room, which is most of the time, because we’re too busy trying to “cut it” in this mess of an economy you have made.  That doesn’t cut it.  You don’t cut it.

There’s a good deal more I could say to this staffer and all those like him on Capitol Hill who look with disdain or outright contempt upon the American people and the American worker, but most of it is not fit to print.  I dearly hope the American people will wake up to what this latest amnesty attempt will do to their lives and to their country, but I know that under these economic conditions, they’re awfully busy trying to “cut it.”

Amnesty AssClowns

Monday, April 29th, 2013

An Unenforced Law

Speaking of the people who are fiddling while the nation burns, here’s a group happily stoking the fire.  While average Americans struggle to keep their heads above water, inside the DC beltway, the same crowd Sarah Palin observed “yukkin’ it up” at the White House Correspondents Dinner are actively plotting the end of the republic.  After all, it’s a new week and therefore a new opportunity to shove despicable legislation down throats of the American people to which most of them stand opposed.  As Byron York has pointed out in the pages of the Washington Examiner, your criticisms of the bill are being ignored.  They know you’re opposed, but they’re pretending not to hear you.  As York also reported, despite the fact that the response has been overwhelmingly negative to a page put up by Marco Rubio(R-FL) to take suggestions for improving the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, there has been no indication that Rubio or other members of the “Gang-of-Eight” have any intentions of backing down.  Yes, if there is anybody in Washington DC who is completely out of touch with American people, the Amnesty AssClowns are at the head of the class.

One friend today quipped that the reason Barack Obama is pushing so hard for an amnesty bill is that he will avail himself of the law, but one needn’t make jokes about the President’s questionable origins to get the real point across: If an amnesty bill passes the Congress, the Democrat Party will own the keys to the  kingdom in perpetuity.  Nobody is more conscious of that fact than Barack Hussein Obama.  It represents the opportunity to demolish  conservatives in the mid-terms next year, in which a large  number of fast-tracked illegals would move down the proposed “path  to citizenship,” offering Democrats an opportunity to pass any bill  they please.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the attendees at the White House Correspondents Dinner are indeed out of touch with the mainstream of America.  In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon Bombings, Americans have been reminded how a lack of enforcement of existing laws has made us more vulnerable at home, so they’re understandably in no mood for loosening immigration policies.  Despite the promises of politicians like Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Marco Rubio and the other members of the “Gang-of-Eight,” the American people understand that making allegedly tougher laws with hundreds of gaping loopholes will not improve our security, in part because it’s a logical farce, but also because more than three decades of promises on the issue have yet to be delivered.  After all, apart from a majority of New Yorkers, who really believes Charles “Chuck-U” Schumer(D-NY) has the best interests of the nation in mind, rather than the furtherance of the aims and agenda of the Democrat Party?

This week, the Senate will try to move this legislation, and they will try to do it without amendments if Harry Reid can find support.  This bill is the Holy Grail for Democrats, but as I explained on Saturday, the reasons so many Republicans are going along is because they’ve either been sold a bill of goods by the Beltway political class, or because they’re out to negate the influence of conservatives in the electorate.  There really can’t be any other reason apart from ignorance, or perhaps money, and if you don’t understand how Republicans could sign on for the extinction of their own party as an electoral force, you need only consider the party shift of 1995, in which Democrats moved over to the Republican Party for their electoral survival, not because their views had changed so much as because they wanted to remain in power.  Many Democrats who had barely survived the surge of 1994 merely changed horses.  If this amnesty bill goes through, you can expect the same thing in 2014, only this time, it will be Republicans jumping ship to join the Democrats.

It’s going to be a difficult fight, and conservatives should expect that the permanent political class in Washington DC will do everything it is able to ignore any outcry arising among the American people, but after more than a week for facts about the Boston jihadis and their subsistence on welfare as legal immigrants, this may turn out to have been the worst possible time for the DC “ass-clowns” to move this legislation.  If your response is ferocious enough, Harry Reid could be forced to shelve the legislation to await a more opportune moment.  Some blue-state conservatives have confided that they don’t bother calling their senators any longer, because staffers are frequently rude and obnoxious, but the truth is  that the members need to hear from their constituents particularly if they’ve been inclined to support this bill.  Besides, it’s time to make good on the promise to turn Barack Obama into a lame-duck President.  We need this win – America needs this win – and we shouldn’t let the Amnesty AssClowns deter us from being heard.


Make sure to go by Marco Rubio’s site and politely offer your suggestions. I offered mine, but they’ve yet to be approved.

My Response to Senator Rubio: Not Good Enough

Tuesday, April 23rd, 2013

The Hard Sell

On Tuesday, FoxNews published an op-ed by Senator Marco Rubio(R-FL) discussing his views on immigration.  I have some thoughts on what Senator Rubio has discussed, and I find some of his article misleading and disappointing.  Rather than simply summarize his column, I am providing a link to its full text as well as taking it on, point-by-point here. The article is entitled Here’s the Truth About My Plan for Immigration Reform, and I suppose I could start with the title: Senator Rubio’s column does much to characterize his plan in a generous light, but those characterizations do not seem to match the bill’s substance. He opens:

“Americans believe in the value of immigration. We are the most generous nation on earth to immigrants, allowing over one million people a year to come here legally. They come here in pursuit of what we recognize as the American dream – the chance to live in freedom and have the opportunity to work hard to make a better life for themselves and their families.”

Like Senator Rubio, and most Americans, I too believe in the value of immigration.  My own wife is an immigrant, as were my grandparents and great-grandparents.  The United States is the most generous nation on Earth toward immigrants, but this may be part of the problem.  Sometimes, our naive generosity leads to policies that permit people who have malevolent designs land on our shores.  Not all native-born Americans recognize the American dream, much as they might like to, in part because they are forced to carry the burdens of politicians’ generosity with the public treasury.  The chance to live in freedom is a glorious thing, but I suspect that if one were to survey immigrants who have come here legally over the last three decades, liberty is in marked decline in part because our immigration policies have and continue to inflict a serious burden on the American people.  It is the job of Senator Rubio and his cohorts to explain why Americans ought to bear more burdens on the behalf of immigrants. Such explanations should come in terms of concrete legislative language rather than flowery prose. Senator Rubio continues:

“The problem is that our legal immigration system has been broken for decades. It has enabled 11 million people to come here illegally or overstay visas. It is a bureaucratic and inefficient system that does not address the needs of our economy.

All this has further deepened the American people’s mistrust in the ability of their government to perform basic functions.”

Our legal immigration system has been broken for decades. It is not, however, the laws that are malfunctioning, but instead the bureaucracy that is entrusted with executing them. There are only 11-20 million illegal immigrants because this government has taken no concrete steps to enforce the laws already on the books. To the contrary, this president and his predecessors have intentionally undermined those laws, or in the case of the current president, actively set out to ignore them by issuing orders preventing their enforcement.  The purpose of the immigration system is not to address the needs of the economy.  Its purposes are to serve the needs of the nation in all aspects, not merely economic, but also security, cultural, and moral.  Senator Rubio seems focused on the economic aspects at the expense of even our national security, much as the recent attacks in Boston demonstrate.  That our current system permitted those two to gain entry to the nation and to remain is a damning rebuke of our current system, but unfortunately, because Sen. Rubio’s bill is more focused on economics than on security, this is not likely to be addressed by his bill. Sen. Rubio warns us:

“Leaving in place a broken immigration system -– and the millions of people whose identities are a mystery to us –- is simply not an acceptable option. This must be fixed.”

Our current immigration system is broken, but what is more broken is our immigration enforcement systems.  As examples in opposition to Senator Rubio’s claim, the Tsarnaev brothers were legally in the country and we knew who they were.  The 9/11 hijackers were legally in this country and we knew who they were.  It is not merely the identities of illegal aliens that is a problem, but it is critical to remember it is a separate problem from legal visitors who overstay visas, or legal immigrants who are permitted to stay despite convictions for crimes and applications to welfare systems.  The problems born of the bureaucracy are clear, but they are separate and apart from the conscious decisions by those responsible for carrying our laws into execution who for whatever reasons or pretenses simply fail or even refuse to do so.  Senator Rubio’s bill does absolutely nothing to address a bureaucracy and an executive branch that refuses to carry out the law.

“That is why I am advocating for securing our borders, improving enforcement, modernizing our legal immigration system and changing it so that it prioritizes welcoming people to the U.S. based on skills, not just on whether they have a family member already living here.”

Senator Rubio says he is for securing our borders and improving enforcement.  If I take that on faith, let me suggest that the Senator could do a good deal to remedy the distrust he laments by taking these steps first.  As in medicine, when addressing something one claims is an emergency, one must evaluate the problem.  We cannot assess the true scope of the problem until there has been a good faith effort on behalf of the United States Federal Government to improve enforcement and to secure our borders.  Otherwise, what Senator Rubio herein promises is a preposterous reiteration of existing law that condenses to the sentiment: “We are going to pass a law to tell our government to more forcefully enforce existing law.” This is an absurd proposal, inasmuch as a government that cannot be entrusted to enforce existing law certainly cannot be entrusted to enforce a more stringent one.  It’s akin to claiming, “OK, well, we’re really, really serious this time.”  As much as anybody, I think immigration ought to include certain tests as to what skills a person brings to the game, but is Senator Rubio seriously suggesting that people from India are less-skilled than those from Central and South America?

Senator Rubio continues, ticking off a laundry list of measures:

“And that is why I support a process to identify and register those who are here illegally. They will have to submit biometric data in order to pass multiple national security and criminal background checks, pay $2,000 in fines, pay taxes, and learn English and American civics. They won’t be able to get any federal benefits like welfare or ObamaCare.

Fines?  Most of the people immigrating to this country can’t afford $2.00 in fines, much less $2000.00. Will there be waivers for the fines?  Will President Obama simply sign an extra-statutory waiver to fines, like he did with Obama-care?

“Before they can even apply to become permanent residents, they will have to wait at least ten years. They will have to get in line behind those who are trying to come the right way.”

Why should they be permitted into line at all? After violating the laws of the United States, why aren’t they prohibited? More, what is the real chance that somebody who is told they won’t get permanent resident status for at least ten years deciding voluntarily to “step out of the shadows” and be liable for fines and a ten year wait?

“They will have to wait until we have a system in place to prevent illegal immigrants from being hired.”

What will make them wait?  The same farcical enforcement exhibited by the Obama Administration?

“They will have to wait until we have a system in place to track people who overstay their visas.”

People who overstay their visas?  Those are people who started out with legal status, having arrived here legally. That’s an entirely different law enforcement problem from the immigrant who had sneaked into the country in disregard of our laws from the outset.

“And they will have to wait until we implement plans to spend at least $5.5 billion dollars to secure the border through more border patrol officers, more technology and more fencing.”

We’ve been promised all of this before.  In 1986, and several times since, we’ve been promised all sorts of improvements, and yet despite a mass amnesty in 1986, the Federal Government has managed to let another 11-20 million people come into the country. The truth is that the number may be even higher, but we can’t know, since in 1986, and all the years since, this government has not kept its promises.  What Senator Rubio here offers is another promise.  I’m afraid that I must insist that government finally fulfill its past promises before we consider any more, in the name of decency, and in the name of holding my government to its word.

“I thought long and hard before taking on this issue. I understand how divisive it can be. I’ve seen how the left has used it to accuse opponents of their version of reform of being bigots and racists. And I would much rather be having a debate on the more fundamental ways we can grow our economy and get our debt and spending under control. But with or without us, the president and the Democrats who control the Senate were going to bring this issue up.”

Sadly, even Senator Rubio’s spokesman uses the language of division. As many noted on Monday, your own spokesman, Mr. Conant, abrasively and dishonestly compared the status of immigrants to that of slaves.  Is the Senator seriously suggesting that his spokesman is a leftist, or only that his spokesman has resorted to the dishonest tactics of the left? The President and his friends in the Senate do not control the House, so that any such bill could be stopped there if Republicans weren’t insisting on shoving bad legislation down the throats of an unwilling American people.

“And I believe conservatives need to fight for the ideas and policies we believe are critical to fixing our immigration system.”

I agree that conservatives need to fight for the ideas and policies that are critical to fixing our immigration system, but they must be the right ideas, and they must conform to conservative principles and the rule of law.  Sadly, Senator Rubio’s proposal does no such thing. I am anxious for the day when we can eliminate undue burdens inflicted on lawful immigrants, but I will not flex or move so much as one inch on the legal liabilities of those who have already broken the laws of our country. More, before I will accept any movement on this, there must be a good faith enforcement of the laws of our nation, and a keeping of promises already made.

“The opponents of reform raise important points about not rewarding the violation of the law. I, too, have felt the frustration many feel that our nation’s generosity has been taken advantage of by some.”


“But policy-making is about solving problems. And to pick the right solution, you have to weigh the realistic alternatives. Deporting all illegal immigrants is not a practical solution. But ignoring the fact that they are here is just as bad.”

Are we to take from this that while the Senator finds those points raised by opponents to be important, he’s perfectly willing to dismiss them?  One needn’t talk dismissively of the idea of deporting all illegal aliens immediately and at once, but one must explain why a good faith effort isn’t being made to deport as many of them as reasonably possible.  I have tired of this dismissive approach to the issue as expressed here by Senator Rubio and some others, who derisively suggest that we cannot deport all of them.  The country that launched three men to the moon cannot deport people illegally in the country?  Preposterous!  The country that invented the Atom-Bomb cannot deport people who have come into the country illegally? Nonsense.   Nobody expects the US Government to flip a switch and instantaneously corral 11-20 million people, pushing them out of the country the next day, but if there are 11-20 million of them, it shouldn’t be too hard to find one-tenth of them.  This insulting line of dismissal is one of the reasons there is a distrust between the American people and their government on this issue, a distrust Senator Rubio laments, but herein promotes. Who has been ignoring the fact that they are here?  The American people are too well aware of the presence of millions of illegals, because while they allegedly hide in the shadows, they seem to fill our emergency rooms and our schools and our courtrooms.  Who is ignoring it?  The American people, or their government?

“For example, passing a law that only focuses on modernization and enforcement and leaves for another day the issue of those here illegally is not a good idea. Because as the enforcement measures kick in, millions of people living here illegally will be unable to work and provide for themselves and their families. The resulting humanitarian impact will then force us to scramble to address it. It is better to address it now as part of an orderly and measured process.”

Again, this expectation that we will force 11-20 million people to pack their bags in one day is preposterous.  Can we not begin with a somewhat less ambitious number and work our way up?  No, you see, the Senator is concerned first and foremost with the economic impact on the nation, and businesses that employ illegals may be hampered if they cannot continue.  Welfare workers would have less to do, and therefore justification for their jobs. Senator Rubio should not take such liberties in assuming that we are so desperately stupid and childish as to believe enforcement could come at once and immediately in complete perfection.

“The only solution I know that can work is to reform legal immigration in a way that is good for the economy, do everything we can to secure the border, and allow illegal immigrants to eventually earn permanent residency by passing background checks, paying a fine, learning English and waiting at the back of the line for at least 10 years, at the same time that border security and enforcement measures are put in place to prevent this problem from happening again.”

Again with the economy?  I have news for Senator Rubio: The economy is doing poorly already. The easiest improvement to the economy by virtue of our immigration policy is to be gained by deporting as many as we can, and preventing those here from making use of our welfare state.  That would address many issues, including our deficit and exploding national debt. The benefits to our economy and to our fiscal condition would be immediate.

“The bill I helped write is a good starting point, but it is not a take it or leave it proposition. I am open to any ideas others may have on how to do this, and I’ve been listening to the legitimate concerns people have raised with the expectation that we will be able to improve the bill as this debate continues.”

I am glad that Senator Rubio views this law as a proposal open to amendment and revision.  If he’s serious, he could scrap the 800-plus page bill and offer a simpler one, as an act of good faith on the part of the United States Government keeping its past promises to its citizens.  He can draft a resolution stating that before any easing of immigration requirements can commence, the current laws of the United States must be in full force for not less than five years, at which time the American people can re-evaluate the government’s efforts to earnestly enforce the law and secure our border.  In short, get back to us when you show you can enforce the current law, a law you claim is not even as stringent as your new proposal.  If the new law is so much tougher, it should be a simple matter indeed to merely enforce current law.

“We must do something to end today’s de facto amnesty, and conservative Republicans should lead on this issue. Because without conservatives at the table and in the fight, we are ceding this issue to President Obama and his allies in Congress. And as the last four years have proven, that is never a good idea.”

Senator Rubio should grasp that conservatives have no need or reason to come to a table to negotiate in good faith when past promises have been broken and previous laws ignored.  If the Senator is serious about his concerns regarding the prospective actions of President Obama, he should surely join in the open opposition to the President and his allies in Congress.  Perhaps rather than preach to conservatives as to how they must accept the “inevitable,” Senator Rubio could instead join with other senators in sufficient numbers to prevent its inevitability.  I recognize the fact that Senator Rubio has worked hard at pushing this legislation, but given what we’ve learned about the concrete legislative language in this bill, he should perhaps consider spending more time on the bill’s reformulation than on salesmanship.  Sufficiently addressing the former would certainly ease the chore that will be the latter.  It is on this basis that I oppose this bill, because if a serious proposal were brought forward that would address the concerns of conservatives, complying with their cherished principles without dismissively deriding them as unrealistic, conservatives might well go along.  Until then, I must respectfully disagree with the Senator’s bill. Simply put, it’s not good enough.

Rubio Joins Forces With Norquist, CATO on Immigration Lie

Monday, April 22nd, 2013

Breitbart is reporting that a number of secret emails demonstrate that Senator Marco Rubio(R-FL)  is conspiring with Grover Norquist and the libertarian, pro-open-borders CATO Institute on messaging for the upcoming Immigration Reform bill.  Incredibly, they actually intend to use the Boston Marathon Bombers as an argument for the legislation, rather than as a condemnation of it. In this article, the talking points of Senator Rubio are outlined. From the article, H/T Breitbart:

The message contained three talking points from Sen. Rubio, the first of which argued that the immigration bill would prevent people like the Boston Marathon terrorists from getting into or staying in the country.

“These terrorists came here under the existing system, the one opponents of reform want to leave in place,” Sen. Rubio wrote in his first talking point.

The second Rubio talking point argued that the terrorists “didn’t cross the border” to get into America.

In his third talking point, Rubio argued that authorities only know who the terrorists are because they came here legally to begin with.

Let’s take these one at a time. These terrorists did indeed come here under the existing system, as the talking point asserts, but what the talking point leaves out is that the last four presidents’ administrations have done nothing but undermine the existing laws in a grotesque dereliction of their duties to uphold the law.

Rubio would argue that the terrorists “didn’t cross the border.” What he’s suggesting here is that they were in the country legally, but as a matter of fact, anybody who enters the US is crossing the border, whether they do it legally or illegally.  If our immigration laws had been enforced, they might well still have made legal entry, but after the domestic violence conviction, the elder Tamerlan Tsarnaev would have been deported at the very least.  Rubio’s twisted attempt to dismiss these facts by dishonestly characterizing the problem with the bombers actually exposes the fatal flaws in his proposed legislation: One would have to believe that this president (or any other) would actually act in earnest execution of that office to deport criminals.  We have more than two decades of evidence that this would not happen.

Rubio’s last argument is the most preposterous of all.  He implies that by legalizing various people, we would know “who they are” but the fact is that we knew who the two Boston bombers were and it did nothing to prevent their criminal, terroristic acts.  He pretends that  “knowing who they are” would have improved things, but the salient truth is that because we were not tracking or monitoring them as immigrants, we didn’t know who they were with respect to these bombings and other crimes until they were identified by virtue of footage at the scene of their crimes.  It is an embarrassing attempt to deflect criticism of the immigration bill, in part because  all he offers is excuses for how the new proposal would improve security despite all the evidence that makes it plain his proposition is fanciful at best.

It’s not uncommon for Charles “Chuck-U” Schumer(D-NY) to lie to the American people, and to attempt to push bad law on the basis of worse arguments, but to see Senator Rubio joining in this tactic is disappointing to say the least.  If Senator Rubio had any sense, he’d flee from this as quick as quick can, but it seems as though he’s been captured rather quickly by the Washington DC establishment that rules against the will of the American people.

The  plain fact is that the terrorist bombings in Boston should act as a natural brake on this immigration reform bill, but once again, it’s easier to lie to the American people and push ahead with a law they are bound and determined to shove down our throats.  I’m sick of it.  I’m sick of the betrayals.  I’m sick of finding that alleged “Tea Party Senators” are nothing of the kind when it comes to the issues.   Where is Senator Rubio’s jobs bill?  Where is his budget-cutting proposal?  Did he have secret emails with Norquist and CATO over those issues?  Hell no.  No,  instead, he conspires with the likes of Lindsey Graham(anti-Republican, SC) and Chuck-U Schumer(Communist-NY) to give us a “bipartisan bill” that is really an example of one-party rule.  It’s the Party of Washington DC, and they generally win, while the American people lose and get stuck with the bill…and the bombings…and the bodies.


The Insufferable GOP Establishment Is Now Whining

Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012

The Establishment Fears You

An article appeared in the Tampa Bay Times that should strengthen your resolve and hearten your efforts to defeat the Romney machine.  It’s titled Analysis of Rubio-Bush-Ryan Plan to Stop Rick Santorum,  and if ever you wanted to know what it looks like when the GOP establishment crowd is made to sweat, this is it.  The author, Marc Caputo, fairly gushes over the three well-known GOP politicians Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Paul Ryan.  When an article starts out this way, you have to know that it’s a real sob story:

Marco Rubio sounds worried. So do Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan.

Their candidate, Mitt Romney, is losing to President Barack Obama. The GOP primary is becoming “counterproductive.”

The assumptions made here are sickening.  First, there is the entitlement mentality, that suggests these guys have some right to expect their candidate to be the nominee.  What they know is what you should already know:  Romney’s presumed nomination is in trouble, as they’ve looked at the numbers and realize that 1144 delegates could be out of reach if Rick Santorum can make it through the month of April and into May.  The article acknowledges what I’ve been reporting about a potential brokered convention too:

“They are saying the only way they can win this race is by having a floor fight in Tampa in August,” Sen. Rubio said Wednesday of the “recipe for disaster” on Fox News. “I think that’s a recipe to deliver four more years to Barack Obama. And our country — forget about the Republican Party — our country cannot afford that.”

Senator Rubio is simply wrong. A floor fight isn’t a recipe for disaster unless you’re a Romney supporter.  They way the establishment has controlled, manipulated, and rigged this process is a disaster for the country.  A real recipe for disaster in November would be for Mitt Romney to lose the election because he is incapable of positioning himself to defeat Barack Obama in any argument in a general election.

Predictably, this is where the article turns its attacks on Santorum, prefacing the assault this way:

“It’s as if Obama’s campaign is writing Santorum’s attack lines about how Romney is virtually indistinguishable from the president.”

Really? It’s as if a DNC ad-man wrote the article.  Media bias is what it is, but I have tired of people purporting to be part of News organizations, posing as journalists of some sort who make statements like this:

“If Romney loses Florida, he probably loses the election. If Santorum stays in and wins the huge Texas primary May 29, it’ll continue to make Romney look uninspiring and like the weakest of frontrunners.”

Note to Mr. Caputo:  Mitt Romney is uninspiring.  He is the weakest of front-runners. He won’t win Texas.  Of course, the absolutely most laughable part of this whining, pathetic plea is this:

“Santorum and Gingrich bear some responsibility for Romney’s problems. So does gaffe-prone Romney. Also, this poll and others indicate that the GOP’s stances on contraception and abortion have hurt the party’s brand among women and independent voters. The improving economy has worked against Romney and in Obama’s favor as well.”

It’s Santorum and Gingrich who are to blame for Romney’s inadequacies?  Mitt Romney has spent tens of millions of dollars on ads absolutely hammering his opponents, and we should blame his opponents for his unpopularity and his continuing inability to sew up the nomination?  Caputo’s article concludes with a plea that should embarrass anybody who is actually in the news business:

“Will Santorum give Romney the chance to make that case in time?”

Mr. Caputo should understand, as should the whining GOP establishment: Conservatives have no obligation to cede the race to Mitt Romney, or make it easier for him, or in any way enable his candidacy.  He hasn’t shown any inclination to get out of their way either, and I want to know only one thing from Mr. Caputo and those like him:

“Will Romney give Santorum and Gingrich the chance to make the case against Barack Obama in time?”

No? Then shut up and fight.

You’ll notice how the idiotic questions they pose for conservatives are never offered to the establishment.  They hope sincerely that we will not notice the fact that every question of this sort that they throw at conservatives could be turned around and thrown right back.  For instance, they are always demanding:  “But you will support Romney if nominated, right?”  I have yet to hear anybody in the big media ask Romney: “But you will support Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul, if nominated, right?”  Of course we won’t hear that question, because it would imply Romney could lose.  Newsflash:  He could lose.  Caputo’s article is proof of that fact.



Marco Rubio Says “Yay Romney!” – Says No to Brokered Convention

Wednesday, March 28th, 2012

Rubio Endorses Romney

Marco Rubio endorsed Mitt Romney on Sean Hannity’s show a few minutes ago on FNC.  Let me get this guy some pom-poms.  I’m not interested in hearing anything more about Rubio as a Tea Party guy.  He’s a Bushie.  Those of you who have seen him as a Tea Party guy?  I’ve got news for you: WRONGO.  He was a Tea Party guy because he needed your votes to overcome Charlie Crist, not an altogether terrible outcome, but let’s not overdo this Tea Party narrative.  It had also been people connected with Senator Rubio who pushed Florida’s primary forward and got out the vote for Mitt Romney in that state, with South Florida winning that state for Mitt Romney.  Remember, it was Florida that caused the four early states(IA,NH,SC,UT)  to move their primaries up to January.

This endorsement has been a fait accompli for some time, the only reason for its public unveiling is to afford some plausible deniability to the freshman Senator.  The truth is that he’s part of the same old crowd that helped to make Florida Jeb Bush country, and still runs that state’s machine.  I warned my readers some time ago that you can learn a good deal from an endorsement, and it’s usually about the endorser more than the recipient of that endorsement.  This is no exception.  Rubio rattled on about wanting to avoid a brokered convention.

Here’s the problem, Senator Rubio:  Some of us want a brokered convention because we think Mitt Romney is a horrible candidate even when he chooses you as his running mate, as we’ve known since Florida that he will.

You’ll do nothing to improve that.

I’m waiting a little longer before I pronounce my final judgment on this race, but the truth is that the establishment is making its big push for Romney now, and you can expect a string of endorsements to come out in the coming weeks to give some false momentum to Mitt Romney.

Note: And then there’s this, for Republicans who hate the so-called “birther” controversy: I keep getting emails from a guy who insists Marco Rubio’s parents were not citizens at the time of his birth, thus making him ineligible to be President or VP, and that this is the “real reason” the GOP establishment has participated in “shouting down investigations into Obama.”  I don’t assign any particular credibility to this guy’s charges, except that I can see a fuss coming if Romney does get the nomination and does pick Rubio. Both are still big “ifs” in my book.

Will we now be forced to endure that indignity too?


Rubio Neutral or ‘Stealth’ Romney?

Wednesday, January 25th, 2012


Senator Marco Rubio, (R-FL,) may have given a clue to his true attachments.  Rubio ripped Newt Gingrich over an ad being aired on Spanish-language in Florida that accuses Romney of being anti-immigrant.  Said Rubio: “This kind of language is more than just unfortunate. It’s inaccurate, inflammatory, and doesn’t belong in this campaign,” according to the Miami Herald.  Rubio has behaved as though he’s been on Team Romney all along, since Romney endorsed him in 2010, and he also doesn’t mention that it had been one of his top staffers who was behind the scenes pushing Florida to move its primaries forward, thus driving Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to move their contests forward.  The Rubio camp denied it, but it was assumed moving the early states up would give Romney an opportunity to wrap up the nomination race early.

It’s not surprising to see Rubio pick sides in a fight like this, since in truth, he chose sides long ago, but to see him continue to fly under the radar with his leanings toward Romney, it’s pathetic to see this otherwise promising young Senator, himself the son of immigrants, make of himself a shill for the most liberal Republican remaining in the race.  I think he should openly endorse Romney to unmask himself fully, but since he depends upon Tea Party support, you shouldn’t assume Rubio would be forthcoming.  According to the Miami Herald:

“Rubio plans to stay neutral in the race. He’s a potential running mate whom both candidates would love to have on the ballot. And he’s gaining iconic status among many national Republicans who see him as a face of the future in a nation that’s growing more Latino.”

I don’t see how Rubio can claim to remain neutral.   I don’t remember hearing from him when Romney was spending millions on ads in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina(never mind Florida,) that had been fraught with inaccuracies and downright untruths.  Where was “Senator Neutral” then?  He’s out there attacking Gingrich, and defending Romney, as in this Tampa Bay Times story:

“Mitt Romney is no Charlie Crist. Romney is a conservative. and he was one of the first national Republican leaders to endorse me. He came to Florida, campaigned hard for me, and made a real difference in my race.”

This statement by Rubio makes me question his integrity.  To pretend that Romney is a conservative is simply dishonest, and one would ordinarily assume the Florida Senator would know better, but at least he did mention here the obvious reason for his bias, despite the ludicrous claims to “neutrality.”  Rubio has also denied he is angling for the bottom of a Romney ticket, but it’s clear that at least with respect to the 2010 endorsement by Romney, for his Senate campaign, Rubio is on the hook for 2012.  I wonder how much “help” Rubio might have gotten, but I do note that according to,  among both Romney’s and Rubio’s top 25 contributors, there’s some interesting overlap, including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, and JP Morgan Chase. Now of course, this doesn’t prove any conclusive connections, but it clearly shows there is a some funding similarities, although it’s true to say that these same contributors show high up on the list of many politicians’ contributors, and in both parties.

Don’t misunderstand my criticism of Rubio. I’m not suggesting he has some obligation not to take sides, but he’s taking sides to a degree that challenges his alleged “neutrality.”  While he may not endorse for the Florida primary, he ought to simply say which direction he’s leaning in some form.  Otherwise, it looks like he’s being a stealth advocate for Romney, but doing a rather poor job of being stealthy.  His reason for supporting Romney is likely no more than Romney’s endorsement of his candidacy in 2010, but then say it.  I think it’s important that particularly in his home state’s primary, he should play straight with voters who are interested to know his opinion, or at least how he will vote when the time comes.