Sunday, June 30, 2013

Paul Ryan needs to back away from this issue...

Paul Ryan Leading House for 'Amnesty' Deal

Paul Ryan, the Republican congressman and former vice-presidential candidate best known for his war on spending, is emerging as his party's leading champion of immigration reform in the U.S. House of Representatives.

With Senate passage of a sweeping immigration bill imminent, Ryan has been meeting with House conservatives to persuade them that reform of the immigration system, including a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, is an economic necessity and critical to fixing the nation's fiscal problems.

Ryan, a potential 2016 presidential contender, sees himself as a "bridge builder" between immigration advocacy groups and reluctant Republicans, he said in an interview with Reuters.

He argues that the immigration system is broken and must be overhauled. "It doesn't work for national security. It doesn't work for economic security," Ryan said.

While bi-partisan support is propelling comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate, the Republican-controlled House will take a piecemeal approach, with passage of any "pathway to citizenship" a longshot, at best.

Supporters believe the 43-year-old lawmaker, who hails from a moderate district in southern Wisconsin, two hours north of Chicago, can make a difference because of his stature as a leading conservative voice and a possible White House candidate.

Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist said the sheer amount of time Ryan has spent talking with House Republicans about budget issues gives him the credibility to court them on immigration reform.

"I would bet you a nickel that he has had more face time with each member than anyone else in the caucus," said Norquist, an influential conservative who also believes immigration reform is vital to the economy.

Republican strategist Whit Ayres calls Ryan "one of the most effective messengers the Republican party has in the House," adding that "If Paul Ryan talks, the House Republicans will listen."

That assessment may be overly optimistic, considering the large number of House Republicans from conservative districts who see legalization of illegal immigrants and offering them a path to eventually become U.S. citizens as an "amnesty."

But Ryan said a Republican-backed amendment to the Senate bill to boost security on the U.S.-Mexico border improves the chances that the House and Senate could ultimately agree on a compromise version of the legislation.

The amendment "brings the Senate bill closer to the House's position and that gives me the belief that we have a better chance at getting this law fixed at the end," he said.

Unlike Republican Senator Marco Rubio, an architect of the Senate immigration bill and a potential rival for Ryan if both seek the presidency, Ryan is not writing legislation or participating in a congressional working group on the issue.

But both Ryan and Rubio face risks from the divisiveness of the immigration issue among Republicans.

Support for immigration reform could cost either man votes with conservatives who will nominate a 2016 Republican candidate. On the other hand, the influence of Hispanic-Americans in U.S. elections could make it harder for any candidate who opposes immigration reform to win the White House.

Mitt Romney, who chose Ryan as his running mate in 2012 to shore up his conservative credentials, won less than 30 percent of the Hispanic vote, prompting Republican leaders to re-think the party's traditional wariness of immigration reform.

Should Ryan run in 2016, his support for immigration reform will distance him from Romney's position during the campaign that illegal immigrants ought to "self-deport."

Pressure on Republicans from shifting demographics are evident in Ryan's own Wisconsin district, which has the second largest Latino population among the state's districts.

But Ryan is not a new convert to immigration reform and he says politics are not driving his embrace of it. His work on it goes back to his days as an aide to Jack Kemp, the late congressman who saw immigration as part of a free-trade agenda.

In April, Ryan teamed up with his friend, Democratic Congressman Luis Gutierrez, who is a staunch supporter of immigration reform, to tout the issue at an event in Chicago. He has also co-sponsored immigration reform bills in the past.

Like Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, Ryan talks of the work ethic of immigrants and the high proportion who start businesses. He often tells of his Irish ancestors who fled the potato famine in the 1850s and started a family farm in Wisconsin.

In the interview, he cited future budget deficits as a reason for urgency on immigration reform. With 10,000 baby boomers retiring from the workforce each day, "our economy is going to need more labor in the future," he said.

Ryan said he believes the country needs a system "designed for the economy, to bring workers in to do jobs that people won't do or to bring their high-tech intellectual capital."

The fiscal argument helped fuel momentum for the Senate immigration bill when the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would reduce deficits by $197 billion over a decade because of additional workers paying income and payroll taxes.

If Ryan is worried about a conservative backlash on immigration, he is showing no signs of it.

He has offered to debate anyone who says an "earned" path to citizenship is the equivalent of amnesty.

And the man who has sparred for years with Democrats on budget issues believes he can play a role in getting the two parties to work together. "I think when you get Democrats to listen to Republicans and Republicans to listen to Democrats you can find the common ground," he said.

Alex Nowrasteh of the libertarian Cato Institute said Ryan could give other Republicans political cover to support immigration reform. "Nobody is going to question the conservative credentials of Paul Ryan," he said.

The Cost of War – on Coal

By: Bob Beauprez / Townhall Finance
War always has a cost.  The War on Coal declared last Tuesday by Barack Obama is no different.  The costs will be real, substantial, and be felt in every American household.

Barack Obama says there is no more time to wait around for Congress to act.  Seeking the once fashionable Consent-of-the- Governed would take too long.  The President ridiculed those with dissenting opinions – including a growing number within the scientific community; "We don't have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society," he said in his speech at Georgetown University.

The "Flat Earthers" apparently include 16 of the most highly credentialed environmental scientists in the world who jointly penned an editorial in the June 28, 2013 Wall Street Journal explaining that, "There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy."

Obama justifies both his unilateral action and cost of the War on Coal with the same explanation Progressives use for virtually every item on their agenda.  We simply must "combat this threat on behalf of our kids."  It's always for the children, isn't it?

As we said in a post yesterday, "Obama's new War is a war against ourselves.  Virtually all of the coal is domestically produced supporting American jobs, families and communities, and providing a huge portion of the affordable energy necessary to support citizens and businesses throughout the nation."

A team of Heritage Foundation Scholars analyzed and quantified the cost of Obama's War on Coal for just the first years from 2015-2030.  Led by David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D., Research Fellow for Energy Economics and Climate Change, the Heritage scholars confirmed our assertions from yesterday's blog post.  Obama's war "with no compelling scientific argument" to justify it, will most certainly have tangible, harmful consequences for every American citizen.

Here's a link to the entire Heritage report, and below is a key excerpt with the summary findings:

While it may not be clear exactly which policies will be used, it seems clear that zeroing-out coal-fired electric power plants is a goal of this Administration’s environmental team. This paper will analyze the economic impact of setting such a target. We look at the first 16 years of a 20-year phase-out of coal power: 2015–2030.

The analysis shows significant economic losses extend beyond the obvious areas of coal mining and power generation. In particular, we find that by 2030:

          • Employment falls by more than 500,000 jobs;
          • Manufacturing loses over 280,000 jobs;
          • A family of four’s annual income drops more than $1,000 per year, and its total income drops by $16,500 over the period of analysis;
          • Aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) decreases by $1.47 trillion;
          • Electricity prices rise by 20 percent;
          • Coal-mining jobs drop 43 percent; and
          • Natural gas prices rise 42 percent.
After Tuesday’s testimony in the George Zimmerman trial by star witness Rachel Jeantel some of my white devil, honky, gringo, pasty skin, mackerel snatchin’, Caucasian buddies got all up in arms about Rachel Jeantel stating that “creepy ass cracker” is not a racial slur.
  First of all, Rachel, and I hate to break it to you, sister -- and I use that word “sister” in the strictest biblical sense of the word -- but “creepy ass cracker” does, historically, denote derision towards the pigmentally challenged of this world.

By pointing this out to you, I do not mean to demean or berate you. It’s just a friendly FYI I’m putting out there for you to consider, for future reference, because it does offend some of my tribe’s more genteel members.

That said, it really doesn’t offend me. Matter of fact, I prefer cheeky ass cracker to creepy ass cracker as the former borrows capital from British slang and merges it with an 18th century Floridian colloquialism, making it at least a quasi-compliment for this 21st century, brutish wordsmith; while the latter denotes a middle-aged white dude who comments way too much on a cute teenage girl’s Facebook page. Or a teenage boy’s Facebook page, for that matter. But I digress …

Another thing that got a lot of my WASPY buddies miffed by your testimony last week was the fact that the media isn’t Paula Dean-ing you for your use of an obvious racial epithet. To that I would suggest just forgiving them if they tweeted you something untoward, as some of my buddies are arriving a little late to the party and it’s just now dawning on them that the media is unsympathetic to their genome’s plight.

Thirdly, I’d watch it calling someone or something “retarded.” A lot of folks, especially those with special needs friends and family members, take umbrage to that phraseology. It’s just a suggestion to consider. Seriously.

Another thing to ponder if you happen to get called to the stand again, is to get your stories straight while you’re giving testimony or it could turn out better for the defense than the prosecution.

And finally, I know you didn’t ask for this type of spotlight to bear down on you but, if I were you, I would really, really dial down on the rude answers and the obtuse facial expressions, as it sure didn’t look great on television, and at the end of the day, we all have to get along.

Saturday, June 29, 2013

Facebook bans Fox News' Todd Starnes over post supporting NRA, Paula Deen, Jesus

After posting a message on his fan page supporting the National Rifle Association, Paula Deen and Jesus Christ, Fox News' Todd Starnes found himself banned from the social media site and his post deleted, Fox News reported Saturday.

“I’m about as politically incorrect as you can get,” Starnes wrote on his Facebook page. “I’m wearing an NRA ball cap, eating a Chick-fil-A sandwich, reading a Paula Deen cookbook and sipping a 20-ounce sweet tea while sitting in my Cracker Barrel rocking chair with the Gather Vocal Band singing ‘Jesus Saves’ on the stereo and a Gideon’s Bible in my pocket. Yes sir, I’m politically incorrect and happy as a june bug.”

According to Starnes, the post went viral, generating hundreds of comments.

But Facebook claimed it violated their rules and standards.

“We removed this from Facebook because it violates our Community Standards,” Facebook told Starnes. “So you’re temporarily blocked from using this feature.”

Starnes said he was perplexed.

“Does Facebook have a bigger problem with Jesus or plump juicy chicken breasts?” he asked.

Facebook not only banned Starnes from posting, the site also prevented him from posting a daily Bible verse called “Morning Glory – Start Your Day Inspired.”

But after an outcry from fans and supporters, Facebook lifted the ban and apologized.

"They said one of their staff members 'accidentally' removed the posting," Starnes wrote on his page.

"'Accidentally on purpose', as my grandfather used to say!" one person responded on Facebook.

"Glad to be part of this God-fearing, Amercia-loving front porch!!"

A number of other Facebook users expressed support for Starnes and his message.

We reached out to Facebook earlier today for comment, but did not receive a reply.

As Starnes observed, this is not the first time Facebook has punished conservatives for little to no reason. Earlier this year, Facebook punished Florida blogger Diane Sori for a link to a beheading picture she never posted after applying a rule that holds all administrators responsible for what any administrator posts regardless of the circumstances.

Many other conservatives have been punished or banned for much less.

Twitchy noted the irony of Starnes' banning, considering the site permits pages calling for the murder of George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer on trial for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

As a result, over 125,000 have migrated to Tea Party Community, a Facebook-like alternative that gives conservatives a site where they can exercise free expression.

Other sites like Online Fiends and United Patriots have also sprung up, and a Facebook event calls on users to stay off the social media giant on Independence Day.


Newsmax                                                        Obamacare Ruling: Religious Employers Must Provide Birth Control Coverage

By Todd Beamon

The White House ruled Friday that employees of religious-affiliated, nonprofit institutions would receive insurance coverage for birth control under Obamacare, ensuring more legal challenges to the rule.

"[Friday's] announcement reinforces our commitment to respect the concerns of houses of worship and other nonprofit religious organizations that object to contraceptive coverage, while helping to ensure that women get the care they need, regardless of where they work," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

Early last year, the Obama administration said that universities, hospitals, and other employers with a religious affiliation could avoid paying directly for contraceptives.

Under that Obamacare arrangement, insurance companies would instead provide coverage and pay for it.

The rule requires an institution's health insurer or third-party insurance administrator to notify employees about birth control benefits and provide beneficiaries with direct payments that cover the cost of contraceptive services.

The announcement by Sebelius puts into effect a requirement that has been beset by more than a year of talks between administration officials and religious employers.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other denominations oppose contraception on religious grounds and have protested against the requirement, along with conservatives.

"We have received and started to review the 110-page final rule," New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the conference’s president, said in a statement. "It will require more careful analysis. We will provide a fuller statement when that analysis is complete."

While the rule took effect on Jan. 1, the White House gave nonprofit employers five more months to adjust to the new regulations by having them apply to plans beginning on or after Jan. 1 of this year.

Other employers have been required to make contraceptive coverage available to their workers since last August.

Meanwhile, women's advocates applauded the decision as a milestone that could have profound impact on the education and economic opportunities of women, including college students.

"Birth control is basic healthcare for women, and this policy treats it like any other kind of preventive care," said Planned Parenthood President Cecile Roberts.

Opponents say the policy, part of President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, violates religious tenets of both nonprofit and for-profit employers, particularly coverage for the morning-after pill to stop pregnancy and other types of contraceptives, which they view as tantamount to abortion.

Employers have had legal successes, raising speculation that the lawfulness of the rule may eventually be tested by the Supreme Court.

Religious organizations and businesses have filed more than 60 lawsuits against the requirement — and the courts have granted nearly 20 private businesses temporary relief from the law while their cases proceed in court.

Earlier this month, a federal judge in Pennsylvania granted the same relief to a religiously affiliated nonprofit for the first time in the case of Geneva College, which was established by the Reform Presbyterian Church.

The Friday ruling came a day after a federal appeals court in Denver ruled that Hobby Lobby, the family-owned arts and crafts chain, may be exempt from offering contraceptive benefits to its 13,000 full-time workers.

Hobby Lobby's lawyer, Kyle Duncan, of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said his organization filed an emergency request late on Thursday asking a federal district court to take immediate action on the company's request for an exemption from the mandate.

The retailer, based in Jensen Beach, Fla., was excused by a federal judge on Friday from paying up to $1.3 million a day in fines for not providing coverage.

10 Takeaways From The Senate Immigration Fiasco  
By: Hugh Hewitt/ Townhall Columnist

It was a fiasco -- the worst possible result: A terribly flawed bill that, of all the GOP's Senate superstars, only Marco Rubio could support. All the other rising stars -- Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and John Thune -- voted "no," as did Leader McConnell and Whip Cornyn.

Worse yet, the jam down created a toxic environment around immigration reform, greatly complicating if not dooming the effort in the House for this session.

For reasons I discussed with Bill Kristol (transcript here) and Mark Steyn (transcript here) on the day of the vote, the Speaker needs to find a way to distance the House from the Senate train wreck.

Perhaps a quick vote down would be the best way, or a "no" vote on the same day the House passes its own "first step" border security bill. Who knows? As Robert Costa notes this morning, the Speaker plays his own game. But the Senate bill is political poison, and the Speaker and the Leader have no intention of surrendering their majority by embracing this fiasco of a bill.

How much of a fiasco? Read my interview from Wednesday with a very good guy and a serious conservative, Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota. It is pretty clear he got terrible advice on how statutes actually work when interpreted by the courts, and worse advice on what the fence meant to border security conservatives. We too often assume that legislators actually know how the laws they think they are drafting will actually work. There wasn't a member of Congress in the early '70s who knew how the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and Clean Air Acts would turn out to be twisted engines of anti-growth extremism, and as the Hoeven interview made clear, one of the authors of the key amendment actually thought he was mandating a fence that would work when he was doing exactly the opposite.

The job of immigration reform now falls to House Judiciary Chair Goodlatte and some key House members, among them Raul Labrador. But with proponents of smart, comprehensive immigration reform losing at half-time, here are ten key things to keep in mind -- the first five on the substance of the subject, the latter five on the politics.

1. The need for real reform is enormous for all the reasons Senator Marco Rubio has repeatedly stated, among them the national security issues of porous borders and millions of illegal immigrants already in the country, with more headed this way.

2. The humanitarian issue is real and pressing -- Catholics, evangelicals and other people of faith are pressing for relief for the millions of honest, hard-working illegal immigrants living in fear of deportation and separation from their families. We should continue to press for serious legislation while realizing that many opponents of the Senate bill share these concerns and wish only to solve these problems. Without real border security, the humanitarian situation will only deteriorate further. The solution begins with a strong fence.

3. The connection between Obamacare and the regularization process is real -- and it needs a true remedy, not a glossing over. If the illegal immigrant population is regularized, it cannot be eligible for Obamacare (the cost would be staggering). Neither should this ineligibility become a reason for employers to prefer the newly regularized over citizens and legal residents with green cards.

4. The demand for a fence is real, and it must be mandated with specific language. It must extend across tribal lands where necessary, it must contain citizen standing to sue for enforcement, it must trump all contrary laws which contain citizen standing provisions that could be used to block it, and it must have detailed construction specs and mapping. The fence is the first line of defense against a recurrence of this problem, not pie-in-the-sky alleged technology breakthroughs, no matter their detail. The new technology is very nice, but double-layered fencing works where it is built, so build it across vast stretches of the 2,000 mile border. There is nothing sacred about the 700 miles used in the 2006 law that has been ignored.

There has never been an explanation for the number; it is a classic Beltway convention without any substance behind it. Put in writing on a map where and why the double-layered fencing will be built and the where and why it won't be built. In no other business in the world would such sloppiness on such a key issue be tolerated, but the Senate just waived the whole thing off and then proposed to empower Janet Napolitano to waive even more of it off. The very worst part of the very bad Senate bill was Section 5(b). Read it and weep over the fact that either (a) the GOP staff lawyers are so bad or (b) the Democratic staff lawyers are so good.

5. No bill is better than a terrible bill, or even a badly flawed bill, or even a decent bill without a fence that will simply recreate the problem with bigger numbers over a shorter period of time.

6. Senator Marco Rubio remains a GOP superstar who will be in much demand in 2014 and a very serious contender for the GOP presidential nomination if he chooses to be. And his candidacy will be greatly enhanced by this. He has marked out his reformist credentials on a key issue and can go as conservative as he wants to on every other issue. Thanks to his immigration efforts, the media won't be able to paint him as an extremist as it is trying to do with Ted Cruz right now. The immunization process is painful, but Rubio's a pretty tough character. In addition, the noise from the extreme wing of the anti-immigration reform movement is wildly amplified by the media. Here's a test: Ask any elected official you know if they'd like to have Senator Rubio headline a fundraiser for them next month. They will all say "Yes!" Almost everybody in the GOP still loves Rubio, but many disagree with him on this key issue. Big deal. Recall that W had the same issue with things like ports and immigration reform but never lost the GOP base.

7. Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and John Thune all helped their national ambitions as well, should they decide to pursue them, because they all participated in a very smart way in the Senate debate. Cruz was an eloquent, precise lawyer with style and energy. Paul kept up his campaign to be taken seriously as a legislator known for candor and responsiveness. Thune offered the sort of simple, clear border fence amendment that appeals to those of us who long for legislators to do their jobs with precision and transparency, not with talking points. Along with Governors Christie, Jindal, Kasich, and Walker, the GOP has a deep bench of potential nominees for 2016. None have been damaged by this debate.

8. No House GOP member at all afraid of a primary can support the Senate bill. Period. That's why it was wildly reckless as a matter of party politics for GOP senators to push it forward without a real fence. The border fence remains the physical expression of a national resolve to stop not just illegal immigration, but also terrorism and trans-national crime. Refusing to build it -- turning their collective back on the clearest part of GOP agreement -- was hurtful to the House GOP in a way that borders on contempt.

9. Read Jonathan Alter's new book The Center Holds (or at least my interview with Alter from Thursday's show) to discover details of the 2012 campaign in Spanish language media. Ignore that "campaign-within-a-campaign" if you will, but understand this: There are states in play in 2016 that will be decided based on what happens between now and the fall of 2015 on immigration reform. The Supreme Court, which figured so prominently in this week's headlines, will be fundamentally recast by 2020. If the GOP wants to compete in 2016 --if it cares about the country's role in the world and the make-up of SCOTUS -- it must get immigration reform done.

10. But for the politics of the immigration reform to be good, the substance of immigration reform must be great, not terribly flawed as it is in the Senate bill.

That's where we are at the close of the first chapter of the immigration reform debate, one written largely by Chuck Schumer. (Even most of the paragraphs allegedly written by Republicans were ghosted by Schumer's troops.) Senator Schumer is very, very smart. Perhaps the House Republicans will find a way out of this corner into which their Senate colleagues have sent them, but that will require a great deal more innovation and energy than they have shown thus far.

For months now I have written extensively in numerous national publications about the treacherous legislation that is the “scamnesty” bill that will pass out of the U.S. Senate this week.

When you have a “gang” writing legislation you get gangster government just like this.

All of the people -- and by all I mean all -- claiming to be conservative who are either still advocating scamnesty or defending those that are fall into one of four categories:

1) Woefully uninformed to the point that they should no longer criticize anyone else for being a low information voter, and should perhaps have to pass a drug test before ever voting on anything other than a chili cook-off ever again.

2) More concerned about preserving their seat at the GOP establishment table than they are the future of our Constitutional Republic.

3) More concerned about preserving Marco Rubio’s flailing presidential ambitions than they are the future of our Constitutional Republic.

4) Traitors to the cause actively looking to undermine the base of patriotic Americans that put them there, so they can stuff the ballot box with more Government-Americans that won’t stand in the way of more gangster government.

This legislation is so bad it’s actually worse than Obamacare and TARP, because it takes the gangster government, anti-Constitutional principles of both and then registers to vote millions more people who will just turn right around and vote for more of the same until the light of liberty is lost for good.

So what should we do instead?

We are in dire need of immigration reform in this country. But this scamnesty will not reform anything, for anything that locks in amnesty before promises of future border enforcement (which have always been broken in the past) are fulfilled will just make the situation worse.

If I were advising the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives this would be what I urge them to do next:

1) Whatever you do, do not pass any comprehensive immigration reform package out of the House of Representatives this year. Not even a good one.

The reason for this is that any House version of comprehensive immigration reform will then be sent to Conference Committee where the details of it will be hashed out alongside the Senate’s scamnesty plan. That means even a good plan out of the House will be polluted with the Senate version, and a
little bit of leaven ruins the whole loaf.

2) It’s not border enforcement first -- it’s border enforcement only.
Instead of a comprehensive immigration reform package, the GOP-controlled House should instead pass a stand-alone bill that puts teeth on real border enforcement and send it to the Senate to call their bluff prior to the 2014 election cycle. By teeth I mean public Congressional certification within one year that our borders are secure, and that requires a secondary and unanimous assent from all border state governors and state legislatures as well.

3) Promote a Meritocracy.
We do have demographic reality to confront, and that demographic reality is created by the more affluent and educated having fewer and fewer children as well as erasing over 50 million Americans before they were born. We have corporations running commercials on television begging for more skilled workers. We also have a bevy of labor the American people no longer want, or no longer want to do for the job’s current price point. Given those two realities, there are no good reasons to have 10-20 million illegals living and working in the country while at least 4 million are waiting to immigrate here legally. We need to modernize and streamline our legal immigration system, where waits currently last years if not decades, and we should give preferential treatment to those whose skills are proficient in what our industries need (especially math and science). At a time when our government indoctrination system is producing a generation of Government-Americans believing they’re entitled to other people’s prosperity, an import of those who obey the rule of law and have a skill-set to offer would promote American Exceptionalism.

4) Only after these measures are met should the question of what to do with those already in the country illegally be confronted.

The idea that we have to deal with this right now is a childish premise put forth by gangster government politicians who never want to let a good (phony) crisis go to waste. It’s been six years since we last had this argument in 2007, so if this was really a cataclysmic event, how come it took us six years to have it again?

This has been a problem for decades going back to the Reagan amnesty of 1986, so I doubt setting it aside for a few more years until we adequately put the foundation in place will be the end of the world. Once those real solutions are implemented, then and only then should there be a conversation about what to do with the illegals already here.

I suggest a four-point plan:

1) Instant and irrevocable deportation for all illegals that have committed any additional serious misdemeanors or felonies during their stay other than breaking the law by coming here in the first place.

2) Instant and irrevocable lifetime disqualification of welfare state benefits (including so-called “Dream Acts”) for all illegals except as it directly relates to emergency life-or-death situations.

3) The establishment of a real national guest-worker program complete with e-verify so that folks who are just working here and sending money home can be accounted for and regulated.

Furthermore, there should be punitive punishment for corporations caught hiring illegals once this program is implemented.

4) Any current illegals who wish to still become citizens after all these measures are taken, and who can speak English as well as prove they have a skill or trade to offer, are then put into the legal immigration system starting at the back of the line. Of course, given that all their welfare state benefits have evaporated, it’s highly unlikely this number will be nearly as high as it currently is. If they make it through the process and are naturalized they are then barred from ever voting in any election for as long as they live as restitution for breaking the law.

This is a better idea of restitution than having them pay fines that will just confiscate their productivity and make them more a drain on the system. I don’t believe mass deportations are either practical or moral.

I believe this plan is a mixture of both grace and law. There are both consequences for breaking the law and mercy for those whose intent wasn’t malevolent but only to escape the kind of squalor blessedly most Americans can’t even fathom. On the other hand, the rule of law must be upheld, and the productivity and prosperity of the American people must be protected.

I believe this plan does that.
A dream sidetracked by a case fueled by hate
By: Diane Sori

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

And so said great American Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on August 28, 1963...a dream that all men of conscience long for...a dream sadly perverted and twisted by those who feed the flames of racial hatred...racial division...and 'supposed' racial inequality.

And notice I said 'great American' NOT great Black American because I judge Dr. King by the 'content of his character' NOT by the color of his skin.

But it's so sad that this great man's dream has been dishonored and ignored by a legion of today's 'supposed' black leaders who revel in using their blackness to spew hate...leaders who put aside everything Dr. King stood for and hoped leaders the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, and the worst of all...Barack HUSSEIN Obama...all who (I believe) have knowingly, willingly, and with malice, set race relations in this county back 50 years or more...and I would safely say that Dr. King would shake his head in disgust for this was NOT his dream.

All these men make everything about race whether it deserves to be or NOT...all these men maneuver their way into affairs they have NO business butting into...all these men twist and distort facts to play into their hatred of anyone NOT black, and use misplaced jealousy and perceived feelings of injustice at the hands of whites to make any and everything a racial issue.

And all these men get away with this because they know most cower in fear of the race card being used against they throw the hopes and dreams of Dr. King aside to push forward with their hate-filled agenda.

A perfect case in point is the ongoing Trayvon Martin murder case...a case in which all these men have put their two cents into. Instead of keeping their thoughts to themselves...instead of closing their eyes to the color of the skin of those involved these men took a simple case of self-defense and turned it into a theater of the absurd where it became all about race instead of about the facts and the evidence involved.

All these men spoke in the public venue damning the killing (without knowing the facts) as a white man killing yet another black boy just because he was black and for NO other reason. All these men kept at it...fueling the hatred on...forcing George Zimmerman, the accused killer, into fear for his life from people...people like the New Black Panthers...who condemned him, convicted him, and put a bounty on his head by finding him guilty without so much as a trial...just because he was white and the victim was black, and for that reason alone.

But the facts speak otherwise including facts that the bleeding heart liberal judge will NOT allow into evidence...facts like the oh so sweet picture of Treyvon blasted all over the media and the internet was 5-years old and NOT the person killed that night. The Trayvon killed that night was a young man recently suspended from school for drugs (in fact here are photos of home-grown pot plants, him smoking dope, and holding a gun all in his cell phone)...a young man who had bulked-up, was strong, and a devotee of the martial arts...a young man who knew NO one in the gated townhouse community he was 'supposedly' cutting through, yet there he was aimlessly wandering around in that gated community that had recently reported a rash of break-ins and robberies to the police.

And none of this is allowed to be said.

And notice I say NOTHING about the color of Trayvon's skin for the color of his skin has NO bearing on this least it doesn't for those of us who look at the evidence and the facts NOT at the fabricated racial garbage spewed out by the media, the left, the rabble-rousers, and all 'those men' who are fueled by racial hatred alone.

And what of George Zimmerman...the man who was clearly overpowered by the young bulked-up, strong, martial arts devotee...the man who had his head pounded into concrete by someone possibly hyped-up on drugs...the man whose injuries can be clearly seen in hospital and police photographs as being on the receiving end of a brutal beating...that man is being charged with second degree murder for acting in self-defense for shooting a young man many claim was just in the wrong place at the wrong time...but I don't think so for I believe, and it's my opinion alone being said here, that Trayvon Martin was in that gated townhouse community to break-in and commit robbery to feed his drug habit, and that Zimmerman caught him.

There, I said what many are thinking and without a mention of anyone's skin color because this was NOT a racially motivated killing but a killing in self-defense by a man being brutally beaten by a person he suspected as being there to commit a crime.

And as the trial unfolds my supposition about why Trayvon was in that gated community (where he knew NO one) seems more and more plausible for the star witness for Trayvon was told over this past year NOT to mention the case to anyone...yet she has been all over twitter showing a side of herself that as Treyvon's girlfriend speaks volumes about Trayvon himself for one doesn't 'hang' with people like this without being like this themselves...and again the color of the people's skin involved plays NO part in this.

The bottom line in all this is that if the parties involved were reversed...if George Zimmerman had been killed by Trayvon Martin...we would NOT be hearing a word for in Florida shooting someone in self-defense is justifiable, and the media would NOT have turned a black on white crime into a three ring circus. But that was NOT the case here as the color of the victim's skin alone fueled a non-case forward by the very hate-mongers out to divide this country, and that is a disgrace NOT only to this country but a disgrace to the legacy of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Friday, June 28, 2013

President Kennedy proposed the idea of preferential treatment in 1961 when the nation was in the midst of radical changes regarding civil liberties. It was a time when the injustices imposed upon minorities were beginning to be recognized, and people wanted to make up for the years of oppression that served as a barrier for the advancement of minorities in America. At the time, the idea was morally justified and socially appropriate. While it is still a morally commendable effort today, the system has become an attempt to atone for the sins of our country’s past, and a double standard that threatens every citizen’s liberties.

The first problem with affirmative action is that it is an attempt to end discrimination with discrimination. When a company or university discriminates against a white male for the sake of bettering the outcome of another racial group, an injustice occurs. Affirmative action is the governmental legislation of the active discrimination of one person over another, an unacceptable double standard.

Secondly, affirmative action seeks to reconcile the injustices of the past. The atrocities of the past of slavery and the refusal to grant women and minorities the right to vote, cast an ugly shadow on the history of our nation. But affirmative action cannot erase what our ancestors did years ago. Instead of trying to reconcile the oppression of the past, we should try to lend a hand to young minorities that want to learn and be successful, but lack the resources they need to accomplish their goals.

Another issue concerning affirmative action is the stigma attached to the minorities themselves. Minorities are capable of getting the best jobs, obtaining admittance to the most prestigious schools, and being as successful as any white male has ever been. The problem occurs when people view them as inferior because of affirmative action the attitude of “You couldn’t do it on your own.” These implications have a lasting, damaging effect on the mental well-being of minority students. How can anybody feel truly accomplished when a lingering doubt about the legitimacy of his achievements exists?

People from a variety of different cultures and racial backgrounds have a lot to teach one another, but affirmative action is not the best way of going about this, there are other ways of promoting diversity. Parents of all races need to encourage children at home from a young age to pursue their goals and obtain a good education. Understanding and accepting diversity is not the issue in question; the issue is the best way of going about creating a society where minorities and non-minorities alike can be judged based on merit and character, and not on the color of their skin.

The Supreme Court case that has put affirmative action back in the news, a reverse discrimination lawsuit against the University of Texas, focuses mainly on the same debate about fairness to various racial groups that has gone on for more than 40 years.  Unfortunately the court punted the case back to the lower court instead of reversing this outdated form of reverse discrimination.

The supreme court and a ruling on the affirmative action case by a 7-1 vote the high court sent the case back to a lower federal appeals court effectively raising the bar for the use of affirmative action in admissions.  Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said a federal appeals court needs to subject the University of Texas admission plan to the highest level of judicial scrutiny. The opinion said the court must be satisfied “that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity.”

The admissions program has been changed so that now only the top academic 8 percent of Texas high school graduates gain automatic admission, regardless of their race. The remaining approximate 20 percent admission slots are based on applicant factors combined of grades, ACT scores, legacy, and race preferences through Affirmative Action.  More than 8 out of every 10 African-American and Latino students who enrolled at the flagship campus in Austin in 2011 were automatically admitted, according to university statistics.  In all, black students with 5.6 percent and Hispanic students with 23.1 percent made up more than a quarter of the incoming freshmen class. White students constituted less than half the entering class at 45.8 percent, while students with Asian backgrounds and other backgrounds were over twenty five percent at 25.5 percent .
United States Demographics               University of Texas Demographics
Non-Hispanic White       
Non-Hispanic White      
45.8 %
African American           
African American              
5.6 %
4.7 %         
19.5 %
3.0 %       
6.0 %
The United States demographic of non-Hispanic whites is 63.7 percent, yet the acceptance rate with the University of Texas for Caucasian students is 45.8 percent.  With over 54.2 percent of all enrolled freshman being of minority races one must wonder if the diversification of the campus implementing Affirmative Action has taken a Negative role towards top white academic applicants or are these numbers a reflection of the failing of the United States in Educational Rankings?

Mark Steyn on banning of Spencer and Geller from UK: "Freedom of speech is dead in England...No good will come from this."

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Steyn is right. May claims to be working for the public good and trying to quell violence, but by closing off legitimate debate about jihad and Islamic supremacism, she is inciting violence: the jihadists will see that they can act with impunity, and frustration will increase among those few who are standing against them.

Meanwhile, those putative opponents of jihad and "Islamic extremism" in the UK who have remained silent about this probably think they are avoiding being sullied by the taint of association with us -- as the defamation and libel to which we have been relentlessly subjected has undoubtedly had its effect. What they do not realize, however, is that the same attack will eventually be directed at them, and all their efforts to keep their hands clean will turn out to have been in vain. The Left and the Islamic supremacists will brook no opposition whatsoever to the jihad.

No one will ultimately be spared or excused from their campaigns of personal destruction -- even (and perhaps especially) those who think they have found the perfect formula of words and actions to satisfy the demands of politically correct dogma.

Sign the petition asking that we be allowed into the country here.

"One Step Forward, Two Steps Back," by Mark Steyn at NR's The Corner, June 26 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
Three snapshots of western liberty: 1) A few weeks ago, I wrote about a Canadian police department’s diversity enforcer attempt to shut down a Pamela Geller speech by getting her bounced from a Toronto synagogue. In Britain, the shut-up-he-explained crowd cut to the chase: They went to the (supposedly Conservative) Home Secretary, the ghastly Theresa May, and got Miss Geller and Robert Spencer banned from the entire country on the grounds that their presence in the United Kingdom would not be “conducive to the public good“.
By contrast, the presence of, say, Anjem Choudary, philosophical mentor of the Woolwich head hackers and a man who calls for the murder of the Prime Minister, is so “conducive to the public good” that British taxpayers subsidize him generously and provide a half-million-dollar home for him to live on. Mrs May’s Home Office has just admitted to the UK Muhhamed al-Arefe who advocates wife-beating. Perhaps Mr [sic] May will try out Imam al-Arefe’s expert advice on the beneficial effects of “light beating” on Theresa this weekend – or is spousal abuse only “conducive to the public good” of Muslim women?
The reflexive illiberalism of Britain’s so-called liberals – the urge to ban the debate rather than win it – is now so deeply ingrained they will soon be hungry for new victories. Nearly four centuries after Milton’s Areopagitica, freedom of speech is dead in England. In denying her charges access to dissenting ideas, Mrs May is inviting them to find alternative means of expression. No good will come from this.

Please sign this important petition...don't let the muzzies win again

UK's Express manipulates photo to smear Spencer and Geller

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Expressphoto.jpgWhich one's Pamela?

"Anti-Muslim speakers BANNED from entering UK to speak at EDL rally" in the Express, June 27, is just another viciously biased mainstream media report, but I was particularly amused by the photo above. While both Pamela Geller and I are named in the caption, neither of us are actually in the photo, which actually depicts a menacing-looking yob, his face contorted with rage -- in an apparent attempt to illustrate Home Secretary Theresa May's false claim that our entering Britain would not be "conducive to the public good."

The story, meanwhile, is little better, starting with the headline. Calling us "anti-Muslim" is like calling opponents of Nazism "anti-German." And while the story contains copious quotes from the Home Office and the fascist group Hope Not Hate, there is nothing from Pamela Geller or me except the brief statement from our websites yesterday. The Express made no attempt to contact either of us.
Just another day at the office for the hardcore Leftist propagandists who are doing their best to demonize all opposition to jihad terror and Islamic supremacism.

Sign the petition asking that we be allowed into the country here.

Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Says Obama Economy is in a Depression

By:Donald Lambro / Townhall Columnist
Forget everything you've been told by President Obama about the economy getting "stronger" or heard on the nightly news about the "solid" recovery.

The economy is slowing down and getting weaker, and millions of Americans, as a result, are suffering.

It isn't getting the attention it deserves from the national news media, who seem to play up all the "good" numbers while ignoring the weaker economic data.

CBS News anchor Scott Pelley regularly covers modest housing starts (that still are at basement levels) and rising home prices as if they prove the economy is booming. It isn't.

The cold reality is that the Commerce Department this week slashed its previous 2.4 percent first-quarter economic growth estimate to a meager 1.8 percent annual rate. This follows a pathetic 0.4 percent growth rate in the last three months of 2012.

Virtually all of the categories that go into measuring GDP growth rate were lower. Consumer spending was revised downward from the exaggerated 3.4 percent estimate to a more modest 2.6 percent.

Slower growth means fewer jobs created, that the unemployment rate will remain at very high levels for the foreseeable future, and that businesses large and small will be struggling to survive.

It's not going to get better under this administration's anti-growth policies. "Many analysts think growth has slowed in the April-June quarter to an annual rate of 2 percent or less," the Associated Press reported this week.

Don't take my word for it -- listen to Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who this week used even tougher language to describe the Obama economy.

Terms like "modest recovery," "slow recovery," or even "recession", do not begin to describe what we're actually going through. "We're still very much living through what amounts to a low-grade depression," says the liberal economist who was one of Obama's earliest supporters.

It isn't the first time Krugman has sharply criticized the Obama economy. Last year, as the 2012 campaign was getting underway, the Princeton professor wrote that "Things are not O.K. -- not remotely O.K. This is still a terrible economy..."

Krugman took Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to task in one of his columns for suggesting that the economy was on the mend and that the Fed would soon be reducing its bond-buying stimulus efforts.

He fears, as many other economists do, that "this is very much the wrong signal to be sending given the state of the economy" and that "the Fed's bad messaging reduces the chances that we're going to exit that depression any time soon."

I have never agreed with any of Krugman's ideas about how to improve the economy (he wanted Obama to double his $800 billion stimulus in 2009). But he gives Obama no slack about the severe jobless rate we've endured over the past five and a half years of his presidency.

Yes, measured unemployment is down (to 7.6 percent), "but that mainly reflects a decline in the number of people actively seeking jobs, rather than an increase in" the number of jobs that are available, he says. Exactly.

Nearly 90 percent of the decline in the national jobless rate, by some estimates, is due to the millions of long-term unemployed workers who've stopped looking for a job and are no longer counted among the unemployed.

We see that in the labor force participation rate that has dropped precipitously under this administration's watch. The ratio of adult workers between the ages of 25 and 54 who are employed plunged from 80 to 75 percent in the recession and remains essentially unchanged.

Some of these displaced workers will be coming back into the work force, as they now hope the economy will improve. But with the economic growth rate falling and consumer spending, business investment and U.S. exports growing more slowly than was previously estimated, the job market is going to remain sluggish.

All of this is the result of Obama's policies. Businesses are reluctant to invest in new equipment or hire workers because of the higher health care costs mandated under Obamacare that will kick in next year.

But Obama's anti-growth agenda is only just getting started. He unveiled a global warming agenda Tuesday that will impose tighter regulatory controls on coal and gas-fired utilities and raise strict new obstacles to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

He intends to impose new EPA standards on all power plants and wage war against the coal industry by setting stricter carbon emissions to do his best to drive it out of business. Utility costs will rise and so will energy and fuel bills for businesses and homeowners who are struggling with high gas prices.

It will make America more dependent on foreign oil and manufacturing, where the number of new jobs have stalled in the past year. This is going to make a weak economy even weaker.

Missing from most of the reporting about Obama's economy is the human cost in sub-par economic growth and fewer job opportunities. Democrats never talk about it, let alone Obama. The network news shows won't even touch the subject out of fear that it will anger the White House.

College graduates and younger adults can't find jobs commensurate with their training and are unable to make it on their own. This is especially severe among minorities.

"With the economy lagging in the past few years, 39 percent of adults ages 18 to 34 say they have had to move in with their parents in recent years," the Washington Post reported Thursday, citing a study by the Pew Research Center. The study found that "more adults are now living in multi-generational households than at any time since the 1950s."

Even more disturbing has been the sharp increase in suicides among middle-aged Americans, with the highest rise among largely jobless men in their 50s, according to data released in May by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Their suicidal rate increased by nearly 50 percent.

The economic downturn is cited by experts as one of the key factors behind this little-reported human tragedy in the Obama economy.
Forget Paula Deen. There are far more dangerous bigots and poisonous haters spoiling the American landscape. They cook up violent rhetoric and murderous plots against our troops, our citizens and our allies 24/7. And they have direct access to the White House.

Earlier this week, the indefatigable Investigative Project on Terrorism blew the whistle on the Obama administration's latest flirtation with Muslim jihad. Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayyah bragged on his website that he had met with Team Obama on June 13. IPT reported that bin Bayyah was invited by National Security Council official Gayle Smith "to learn from you and we need to be looking for new mechanisms to communicate with you and the Association of Muslim Scholars."

Someone associated with bin Bayyah deleted his website reference to the meeting, but the Internet is forever. The White House has now 'fessed up to the confab. According to Fox News, a senior official spun the troubling event as a discussion about "poverty, global health efforts and bin Bayyah's own efforts to speak out against al-Qaida."

Bin Bayyah's moderate Muslim costume shouldn't fool anyone. This sharia thug, who has worked with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to boost his progressive-friendly cred, lobbied the United Nations to outlaw all mockery and criticism of Allah. He raised money to benefit the terror group Hamas. He is a top lieutenant of Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf Qaradawi, who exhorts followers to kill every last Jew; sanctioned suicide bombings and the killing of our soldiers; expressed support for executing apostates and stoning gays; and declared that the "U.S. is an enemy of Islam that has already declared war on Islam under the disguise of war on terrorism and provides Israel with unlimited support."

As jihad watchdogs have reported, the administration has rolled out the red carpet for dozens of Muslim Brotherhood officers, flacks and sympathizers. IPT noted last year: "White House visitor logs show that top U.S. policy-makers are soliciting and receiving advice from people who, at best, view the war on terrorism as an unchecked war on Muslims. These persons' perspectives and preferred policies handcuff law enforcement and weaken our resolve when it comes to confronting terrorism."

No kidding. Another Qaradawi cheerleader, Hisham al-Talib, was welcomed last spring at the White House by Obama's Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Four days later, White House officials welcomed a foreign delegation of the radical sharia-enforcing Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt. As I reported previously, al-Talib is an Iraqi-born Muslim identified by the FBI as a Muslim Brotherhood operative and a major contributor to the left-wing Center for Constitutional Rights, the group of jihadi-sympathizing lawyers who helped spring suspected Benghazi terror plotter Abu Sufian bin Qumu from Gitmo.

Al-Talib is also a founding member of the SAAR Foundation and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). FBI and Customs officials believe SAAR/SAFA laundered money for a plethora of violent Muslim terrorist groups, from Hamas and Hezbollah to al-Qaida and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Investigative journalist Patrick Poole reported recently that the Obama DOJ dropped planned prosecutions of IIIT leaders including al-Talib, despite being "targeted and repeatedly named in the 2003 U.S. Customs Service search warrant application by Customs Agent David Kane targeting the SAAR Foundation/SAFA Group terror finance network."

IIIT was also a demonstrated unindicted co-conspirator in the feds' Holy Land Foundation terror financing case and supported convicted terror aides Sami al-Arian and Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi. Al-Amoudi was the first president of the Islamic Society of Boston mosque, where Boston bomber jihad brothers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, used to worship.

We need a zero tolerance policy for jihadist infiltrators and coddlers in Washington. Let's make the most transparent administration ever live up to the hype. I suggest the White House be required to raise the black flag of Islamic jihad at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue every time President Obama welcomes these treacherous visitors.

Even better: Let's take a page from Kanye West and project the names of all the Ikhwan-linked goons who are allowed to darken the White House doorstep onto the side of the Old Executive Office Building for all to see -- along with their most infamous hate videos and fatwas against Jews, infidels, gays, women and U.S. soldiers. No more play dates with Muslim jihad behind closed doors. Light 'em up.

Immigration Bill passes the Senate...and Rubio's presidential hopes come to an end  
By: Diane Sori

“Shouldn’t we give them the same chance that we’ve given wave after wave of immigrants?” said Senator John McCain after today’s Senate vote on Immigration Reform.

In a word, 'NO'...and NOT because of who they are but because of how they came here...ILLEGALLY. And the word 'ILLEGAL' itself means 'criminal' in breaking the law.

But apparently to some that doesn't matter as yesterday, in a vote of 68 to 32 (with 14 Republicans joining ALL the Democrats) the Senate passed the 'Gang of 8's' Immigration Reform Bill. While it will have ILLEGALS dancing in the streets, unfortunately, and it hurts me so to say this, it has signaled Marco Rubio's presidential death knell...the man who most likely would have gotten the Republican nomination in 2016 is now finished.

While I still honor and respect Rubio for the simple reason that his heart was in the right place, he went against the wishes of the party majority and his own constituents by aligning himself with RINOS extraordinaire...John McCain and Lindsey Graham. And the party hierarchy and 'We the People' will NOT forget this.

Rubio could have voted NO in the end for the bill passed in the Senate is NOT the bill he originally wrote. His original was bastardized by his new found RINO buddies, and yet he sided with them and for what, as the ILLEGALS will NOT vote Republican even with this...they will still vote Democratic for the freebies and handouts. Rubio had an out with this simple fact if none other, and yet he did NOT take it, and to make this worse he knows damn well that before any talks go forward or legislation implemented our borders MUST be sealed...NO ifs, ands, or buts.

In his heart Rubio knows that very well and in his heart he knows he's done...and for what...for criminals who knowingly and willingly broke our laws to get here...for criminals who have taken jobs away from LEGAL Americans...for criminals who have raped our healthcare and welfare systems...for criminals who with this bill will in the end be rewarded for their criminal act instead of being punished for it.

And while I wholeheartedly believe that the Republicans need to control the immigration in better we control it than the Democrats control it...controlling it means sealing and locking down the borders BEFORE anything else is in a bit of isolationism before we move forward with this issue at all.

Locking down and sealing the borders...if Israel can successfully do it so can we.

But I am smart enough to know that this issue does need to be addressed for we will NOT be rounding up 11+ million people and shipping them back to their home countries...although many wish we would...but that is a reality that simply will NOT happen.

And so one by one the Senators voted from their desks, called out 'yea ' or 'nay' as Vice President Joe 'Bite Me' Biden presided in his constitutional capacity as head of the Senate. But, thankfully, the bill still faces an uphill battle in the House where in this Senate form, it's likely to it should. 

And while Republicans in the House are divided over then immigration issue, especially after the GOP's major loss among Hispanics in the 2012 election, many top Republicans have come to realize that some form of a so-called 'pathway to citizenship' for the 11+ million ILLEGALS...'undocumented residents' in political correctness a must. But still the votes in the House aren't there for this Senate bill because for most Republicans sealing the borders first is paramount to any bill being passed in the House at all, and the Senate bill does NOT meet that requirement as it skirts the issue, if even that.

Besides, the House is working on its own immigration reform bill. In fact, House Speaker John Boehner said the House will NOT even vote on this Senate bill. Speaking at a press conference yesterday, Boehner said a bi-partisan coalition to get to 235 votes is not enough...that an immigration bill has to have the support of the majority of the GOP House members.

“Apparently, some haven’t gotten the message. The House is not going to take up and vote on whatever the Senate passes. We’re going to do our own bill through regular order, and it’ll be legislation that reflects the will of our majority and the will of the American people. And for any legislation, including a conference report, to pass the House, it’s going to have to be a bill that has the support of the majority of our members.”

Now lets see if Boehner has the courage to follow through with the pretty words he spoke.

But what say our traitor-in chief to the Senate bill's a White House statement, Obama hailed the Senate vote as "a critical step" toward fixing what he called a broken immigration system, saying the bill was a compromise, adding that "we just need Congress to finish the job."

'Finish the job' to Barack HUSSEIN Obama means making sure those 11+ million become loyal Democratic voters...'finish' the job means the American melting pot of assimilation will be NO more as America will become a nation of 'them' vs 'us'...'finish the job' means if by some chance this horror of a bill passes the House our beloved America will sadly become unrecognizable to us LEGAL Americans thanks to the leftist agenda of the man the media 'anointed' as our this bill adds another nail in America's coffin.

But for me the biggest disappointment in today's vote...the one that personally hurts the most is that Marco Rubio, who I worked so hard for when he ran for Senator, has NOT only let me down but let down his party, his constituents, and his country...oh what could have been...