HER HIGHNESS HITLERY: “THERE IS NO NATIONAL EMERGENCY AT THE BORDER!!”

When trying to determining if that which is now taking place at our southern border might actually qualify as a national emergency, who better to answer that question than Hitlery, that two time loser in the arena of presidential politics.  That said, it was just this past Sunday on something called, “The Circus”, which is broadcast on ‘Showtime’, that Hitlery made it quite clear that President Trump should not declare a national emergency to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border because she argued there is “no national emergency at our border.”  But as is so often the case with Democrats, one person’s national emergency is another person’s voter drive.  Because make no mistake, if we’re being honest here, that’s exactly what’s taking place.

Hitlery said, “I just don’t think you should call national emergencies unless there truly is a national emergency. There’s no national emergency at our border. And he’s frustrated because he can’t even get his own party to support his request. And he shouldn’t be breaking new ground and causing new precedents that really may come back to not only haunt him, but our country. He should go through regular order. He couldn’t get Congress when he had Republican control. He can’t get it now. Then work with Congress. Every Democrat, every Republican wants to do what is right to secure our border. They disagree with his demand that there is only one way to do that.”  I’m sure she sees no need, whatsoever, for any urgent action to be taken.

But if she doesn’t see what’s taking place at the borders as qualifying as a national emergency then I’d like to know what it is that might meet Hitlery’s criteria for doing so. Now keep in mind that Gallup says five million Latin Americans plan to migrate to the U.S. in the next 12 months, and an estimated 42 million more say they want to enter.  To my way of thinking, if that doesn't constitute a national emergency then I don't know what does.  Make no mistake, this is a wholesale invasion of our country, and it must be stopped by all available means.  Because if we fail, we will lose the country and follow in the footsteps of Europe, never to return.  But then, that’s exactly what the Democrats and they’re allies on the left would like to see happen.

Look, you don’t need to be a genius to be able to recognize that it’s the Left in this country that represents a bona fide national emergency!  The Left, of which Hitlery is most definitely a proud member, wants nothing less than to destroy America as we know it, and by any means necessary. And if this onslaught of illegal immigrants is not national emergency then may I ask, what the Hell is?  The Democrats need a new voting bloc, that’s clear. And the RINOs want to keep labor costs down, that’s also very clear. And it’s the behavior of both that should now be considered as being nothing short of treasonous. This is not why we elect these people, but then once they are safely sworn in it matters little why they were elected, only that they were.

For anyone not looking through the prism of politics it’s become painfully obvious that what we see going on at our southern border, and on a daily basis, has now become a national emergency.  We are a sovereign nation, and as such we have borders, and we should be able to keep outside those borders all except those who come with some skill or ability that allows them to contribute to making our country better.  Simply being willing to work for less than those who are born here, or those who come here legally, should not be viewed as a sufficient reason for entry.  Americans are required by our country to pay taxes, abide by the laws and in some cases to give up our children in protecting America. Our country owes us the ability to protect ourselves.

And does anyone doubt that if there was a snowball’s chance in Hell that even a fraction of those coming into this country illegally would be voting for Republicans as soon as they could get their grubby little hands on a ballot, that every single Democrat, Hitlery included, would be screaming at the top of their lungs about there being a national emergency on the southern border and about the need to build a wall as a high as one could be built.  But since that is not the case all we continue to hear from Democrats is about how it’s either immoral to want to build a wall or just plain racist.  Hence we end up where we are with President Trump being left with few options of getting done that which he promised us he would do, build ‘The Wall.’     

Unfortunately, Hitlery, like ex-president Barry, is still doing enormous damage to this nation even though she are no longer ‘officially employed’ in our government. Both are receiving financial support from anti-American, special interest groups and both are working against this nation.  She was selected to complete the destruction of this country that was begun by Barry.  Just be thankful that that didn’t happen. Hitlery needs to go back into the woods. She seems oblivious to the effects of illegal entry across our southern border.  Crime, drugs, people with communicable diseases, job displacement, demands on healthcare and infrastructure, schools, etc. This view by Hitlery is common among Democrats, ALL of whom want open, porous borders.

NOTHING BUT INSULTS FROM SOUTH OF THE BORDER…

I guess I’m going to need somebody to please explain to me what it is that might make the current president, as well as 2 former presidents, of that cesspool that lies just beyond our southern border, think that they are somehow able to dictate to us in America how we can, or how we cannot, determine for ourselves who it is that should be allowed into our country?  Off course I realize that it doesn’t help matters to have a political party in this country offering them encouragement. 

Anyway, it was in an interview published this past Monday that current Mexican el presidente Enrique Pena Nieto, you know the same guy who has a wall along his southern border with Guatemala to keep the riff-raff out, went so far as to actually compare the language of Donald Trump to that of dictators Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, saying it has hurt U.S.-Mexico relations.  From where I’m sitting it’s this guy, Nieto, who more might more closely resemble a dictator.

And it was when asked about Trump, that ‘el presidente’ complained to the Excelsior newspaper about "these strident expressions that seek to propose very simple solutions" and said that sort of language has led to "very fateful scenes in the history of humanity." Pena Nieto said, "That's the way Mussolini arrived and the way Hitler arrived."  Well maybe if this supposed leader were to behave a bit more like a responsible neighbor we wouldn’t even be discussing the need for a wall.

Up until now Pena Nieto seems to have avoided direct comments on Trump, who has pledged to build a wall along the two countries' borders and has said Mexican immigrants bring crime and drugs, let alone diseases, with them to America.   But as the New York businessman has built a lead in the GOP primary, current and former Mexican officials have begun to publicly express alarm.  Ex-presidents Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderon also have alluded to Hitler whenever describing Trump.

In the interview with Excelsior, Pena Nieto said that "there is no scenario" under which Mexico would pay for the border wall, as Trump proposes.  Well I guess we’ll just have wait and see who might be right about that.  He said, "I hope that prudence and restraint will prevail among the voters there, and at the end of the day there will be a government that we can seek dialogue with, as we have done with the government of the United States."  Again, we’ll just have to wait and see,

He went on to say that he would work with whoever eventually wins this year's U.S. presidential election and to maintain a climate "of mutual respect and joint agreements."  Mutual respect?  Apparently he doesn’t quite understand the concept of ‘mutual respect’ when it’s so obvious that he doesn’t respect our country.  It would be much easier to believe that he did if he wasn’t quite so busy assisting so many of his people in their efforts to violate our laws.

And then it was in another interview published Monday, this one in the newspaper El Universal, that ‘el presidente’ actually claimed that he would be "absolutely respectful" of the U.S. political process.  But, he added, "It appears to me that (Trump's comments) hurt the relationship we have sought with the United States."  But how is it that this clown can be seen as being “absolutely respectful” when at the same time he’s working to do all he can to have an effect on it?

This guy would do well to keep his freaking nose out of our business.  And wouldn’t you think that he’d have more than enough to occupy his time there in his little drug-infested-cesspool-of-a-country?  But apparently not.  And as I have said before, if anything has served to damage the relationship between our two countries it has had much more to do with the willingness of such men as Fox, Calderon and now Nieto to actively encourage their citizens to break American immigration laws.

VICENTE FOX, JUST ANOTHER DEMOCRAT???

Don’t you just love it when we have leaders from various third world countries who presume to tell us all what’s best for America?  And how they think they are able to dictate to us how it is that we should go about allowing illegal parasites into our country.  And I find it more than a little irritating when the leaders of these very same countries lecture us when we are trying to do nothing more than what they themselves do when it comes to being watchful of who it is that comes into our country.

And it was none other than the ex-president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, who was the most recent example of those who feel that they somehow are entitled to dictate to us how is it that we are to manage our immigration policy.  And judging by some of his idiotic comments I can only assume that Fox must actually be a card-carrying member of the American Democrat Party.  Because Democrats also seem comfortable with allowing those outside of our borders to tell us who we MUST allow into our country. 

It was just last night that this hypocrite from ‘South of the Border’ made an appearance on the ‘Fox News’ Sean Hannity show.  And when Fox said, "I respect very much America. That's why I intervene, "I thought my head would explode.  This moron went on to say, "Let me start by saying please wake up, America, from this Republican nightmare that is causing a lot of noise outside of United States.  And I say it with clarity that (it) is nothing personal but is really worrying us outside of the United States."

Fox seems to particularly object to Trump's immigration plans.  Trump has said he will build a big, beautiful wall to keep illegal immigrants, as well as drugs, out of the United States. And he says he would deport the millions of people who are here illegally, eventually letting only the "good ones" back in, once a process for doing that was established.  Fox agreed that people are entering America illegally (most from his country). "Of course it (illegal immigration) exists. But you don't finish with that with a stick or with violence or being aggressive."

Hannity noted that Trump isn't calling for violence. "We're just building a barrier. What's wrong with building a wall, sir?"  Fox said, "No, it's your right. It is your right. But walls don't work."  But if walls don’t work, as Mr. Fox so enthusiastically claims, then why is it that Mexico has a pretty substantial wall on its southern border with Guatemala?  And I’d be curious to know why is it that Fox seems to think that it’s ok for Mexico to build a nice big, beautiful wall and yet he sees it as being racist for us in America to want to build one?  

And it was from there that Fox then went on to warn that Trump is "going to take this nation to the desert. He doesn't understand about creating jobs. He only lies and lies and lies and uses whatever is convenient for him without any attention to facts. That's why I say he's an egocentric. He's only looking for himself and not for the rest. He believes in the white supremacy."  White supremacy?  Doesn’t understand about creating jobs?  It was at that point that Hannity, apparently, had had enough, saying, "That's ridiculous, I have to go."

But Fox wasn't quite done.  He continued with his idiotic rant, saying, "That's Hitler. I mean, that's--" And it was then that Hannity interrupted him by saying, “That's Hitler?”  Hannity said, "That's a disgraceful comment, sir, for you to say."  Senor Fox then repeated, "I say, wake up, America."  It is on that point that I can heartily agree with Fox.  America had better wake up, and soon, or we’re not going to have a country left to pass down to our kids.  And we’re already going broke trying to pay for all of those who a flood into our country illegally.

I’d like to ask Fox why it is that he feels America should somehow be prevented from enforcing that which is nearly identical to the type of immigration policy that Mexico has not only established for itself, but has also very strictly enforced for decades.  Does he consider Mexican leaders to also be like ‘Hitler’?  Or is such a sentiment reserved only for those of us in this country simply because we seek only to keep out those who wish to come here and break our laws?  What is it, I’d like to know, that makes Mexico so much better than America?

So anyway, what follows here is but a brief summary, of sorts, of how, when it comes to the subject of immigration policy, Mr. Fox’s own country of Mexico chooses to address the issue. And as you will be able to recognize almost immediately is how what American wishes to do, isn’t all that different from what Mexico does.  And you will also see how Mexico welcomes only those foreigners who will be ‘useful’ to Mexican society.  And that’s something that Senor Fox views as being racist when practiced by the United States.  

So it is then that according to Mexico's central immigration law:

1. Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress."

2. Immigration officials must "ensure" that immigrants will not only be useful additions to Mexico, but that they have the necessary funds to sustain themselves and their dependents.

3. Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics"; if they are deemed to be detrimental to "economic or national interests"; if they have broken Mexican laws; and if they are not found to be “physically or mentally healthy."

4. The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners” if he determines such action to be in the national interest."

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WHAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ‘REALLY’ SAYS…

I’m amazed how it is that so many of today’s so-called “Constitutional Experts”, be they presidential candidates or TV talking heads seem to be anything but. Especially as far as our illegal immigration problem goes.  Because while parts of Donald Trump’s immigration plan may raise serious constitutional questions, the part that has now launched a media firestorm—ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens— most certainly does not.  The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment does not confer citizenship on the children of foreigners, whether legal or illegal.  So this is yet another area of our Constitution where those on the left, and a good many of those on the right, read only what they ‘want’ to read.

Now I freely admit that I’m about as far removed, as anyone can possibly get, from being an expert on the Constitution.  As must be a goodly number of our media commentators who have continued to get this issue so completely, and so thoroughly dead wrong.  And I was somewhat surprise to hear that even Fox News’s Judge Andrew Napolitano, whom I have always held in rather high regard because of what I thought was his apparent knowledge regarding our Constitution, has now said that the Fourteenth Amendment is “very clear,” and its Citizenship Clause commands that any child born in America is automatically an American citizen.  On the contrary, not only is that’s not the law, it never has been the law.  Come on, Judge!

Under current immigration law—found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)—a baby born on American soil to a (1) foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen. This is from the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (INA), as it has been amended over the years. So after all these years is this federal law unconstitutional?  No, it is not!  The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  Today’s debate can be said to turn on the six words, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

As those familiar with history are no doubt well aware, the Thirteenth Amendment—which ended slavery—barely passed Congress because of the large number of Democrats who supported slavery, and it was only through the political genius and resolve of ‘Republican’ President Abraham Lincoln that the proposed amendment passed Congress in 1865.  In 1866, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act to guarantee black Americans their constitutional rights as citizens, claiming that the Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment gave Congress the power to pass such laws. But many voted against the Civil Rights Act because they thought it exceeded Congress’s powers, and even many of its supporters doubted its legality.

It was the Civil Rights Act that included a definition for national citizenship the purpose of which to guarantee that former slaves would forever be free of the infamous Dred Scott decision which declared black people were not American citizens. That provision read, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”  However, nowhere does it say that anyone who is able to sneak across our border, and then able remain undetected in this country for any number of years automatically becomes a citizen of this nation.  Now that may be how some of our politicians read it, but that doesn’t make it so.

That was the original meaning of the jurisdiction language in the Fourteenth Amendment. A person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is a person who is “not subject to any foreign power”—that is, a person who was entirely native to the United States, not the citizen or subject of any foreign government. The same members of Congress who voted for the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 then voted to define citizenship for freed slaves in a federal law in 1866, then voted again months later in 1866—using only slightly different language—to put that definition of citizenship in the Constitution, language that was ultimately ratified by the states in 1868 as the Fourteenth Amendment.

And it was then in 1884 that the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins noted that the language of the Civil Rights Act was condensed and rephrased in the Fourteenth Amendment and that courts can therefore look to the Civil Rights Act to understand better the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Court reasoned that if a person is a foreign citizen, then their children are likewise not constitutionally under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.  In fact, the Court specifically then added that this rule is why the children of foreign ambassadors are not American citizens.  That is why Congress can specify that the children of foreign diplomats and foreign soldiers are not Americans by birth.

The very simple fact is that these individuals are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Congress’s INA does not grant them citizenship; federal law never has.  Which then begs the question, why is a child born on American soil to foreign parents an American citizen by birth?  Because the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is a floor, not a ceiling.  Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, Congress has absolute power to make laws for immigration and for granting citizenship to foreigners.  Congress’s current INA is far more generous than the Constitution requires.  Congress could expand it to grant citizenship to every human being on earth, or narrow it to its constitutional minimum.

The position of many in our state-controlled media demonstrates quite clearly that they lack any serious knowledge regarding what our Constitution actually says about immigration, or anything else for that matter.  As well, that seem to be quite ignorant of what most of us see as being very clearly spelled out in our immigration laws.  This despite the fact that some of the greatest legal minds in this country have discussed this issue nearly ad nauseam. It’s just that no one has ever put any of them on camera to explain it.  Scholars including Dr. John Eastman of Chapman University, and even Attorney General Edwin Meese—the godfather of constitutional conservatism in the law—reject the myth of birthright citizenship.

Nor is rejection of birthright citizenship something this is limited to only we conservatives.  For instance, it was Judge Richard Posner—a prolific scholar who, despite being appointed by Ronald Reagan, is a liberal judicial activist—who wrote in 2003 in Ofoji v. Ashcroft:  We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children. But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship.  A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but somehow I seriously doubt it.  I would have to agree.

The purpose of the rule was to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves, and the exception for children of foreign diplomats and heads of state shows that Congress did not read the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment literally, and literally is how it is read today even by those who should know better. Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense.  It is another question as to whether Congress could strip citizenship from the children of illegals who already have it.  If Congress could do that, then it could also strip citizenship from the many millions of foreigners who came to the United States legally and went through the lawful process to become Americans.

Trump, if elected, could rescind Barry “Almighty’s” executive amnesty, but that executive order did not grant anyone citizenship, and it would be a steep uphill climb in court to try to take someone’s citizenship away.  And if the children already here are American citizens, then they could never be deported.  Some other parts of Trump’s plan face even longer odds.  The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights applies to all “persons,” not just citizens.  And the courts have always held that due process requires any foreigner to be given a “meaningful hearing” in court before being deported, and that would most certainly have an impact on the pace of deportations.

Now I’m not going to do is sit here and make the claim that Donald Trump’s position on immigration hasn’t changed, and pretty drastically so, from his previous positions, just like his past support for socialized healthcare and abortion.  After all, he has not yet explained why he changed his position on immigration, hence the reason that more than a few voters still do not trust that he sincerely holds to his current campaign positions.  But that being said, none of that changes the legality of his immigration proposal.  While parts of it may face legal challenges, the fact is that denying citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is fully consistent with the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.

NO AMNESTY TODAY, NO AMNESTY TOMORROW, NO AMNESTY FOREVER…

"MR AMNESTY"

Meanwhile, demonstrating just how it is that he came to earn for himself the moniker, "Mr. Amnesty", it was old RINO John ‘The Maverick" McCain who told the attendees of a recent immigration conference that the 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States are being "deprived" of rights, including the rights enjoyed by U.S. citizens. Ok Johnny, riddle me this! Just what rights, are there, that any of those who are in this country ILLEGALLY, and therefore are not entitled to, being deprived of? They are breaking our laws by mere fact that they choose to remain in this country!

This gathering to which McCain was speaking was a group called the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) 2014 National Migration Conference in Washington, D.C. And it was where that old RINO John was heard to say, "To have 11 million people living in the shadows of this country is an unacceptable situation, and to deprive them of the rights – of the human rights, much less the rights of our citizens, which unfortunately happens every day, is not acceptable in the greatest nation on earth." Actually what’s unacceptable is that we’re doing precious little to encourage them to go home.

I suppose my response to old RINO John might be to say that there is a really easy solution to their dilemma, I mean if they don’t like living in the shadows, then maybe they should just go back to wherever it was that they came from, illegally. Remember now, McCain was one of the members of the Senate’s "Gang of Eight" which sponsored the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Bill, or S.744. This brilliant piece of legislation was nothing more than a complete bastardization of immigration law and contained more pages than did Obamacare.

Despite the fact that this bill was nothing more than yet another attempt at amnesty, or as this legislation put it, a pathway to citizenship for certain illegal aliens, the Senate passed the bill in June 2013. But the House has not yet taken it up. Not that there hasn’t been plenty of noise coming from not only a number of House Democrats, but also from such Republican notables as Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor, before he was sent packing. Also our illustrious Speaker has was heard making some pretty serious noise for a while about wanting to get ‘comprehensive’ immigration reform passed before the November elections.

Anyway, speaking to hundreds of people whose work involves migrants and refugees around the world and in the U.S. McCain touted "comprehensive immigration reform." He said, "I believe in comprehensive immigration reform for all the reasons you do and more." And he went on to say, "I believe in comprehensive immigration reform, because I think it’s a great boost to our economy." And then in stretching the truth beyond the beaking point, McCain said, "I can show you statistics by the Congressional Budget Office of dramatic increase in Social Security Trust Fund and increases in revenue." He then added, "The GDP will go up."

Hey, I’ve got a novel idea. How about we make this real easy on ourselves? How about we apply to those wishing to enter our country from Mexico, the very same constraints that Mexico places on people wishing to emigrate there? I mean, that would be fair, right? Why should those coming here be treated any differently than folks going there? Why is it that we always need to make things so complicated? And if that’s not to anyone’s likely, how we simply start enforcing the immigrations laws that we already have on the books? This is not rocket science, we can do this. We must do this. We really have no choice.

ON IMMIGRATION, RINOS SOUNDING MORE AND MORE LIKE DEMOCRATS…

It seems that one of our four RINOs who took part in that now rather infamous ‘Gang of Eight’ appears to have now begun to actively spew the same idiotic mantra that we have continued to hear from his fellow ‘Gang’ member, none other than Chuckie Schumer. You see, according to Arizona RINO, Jeff Flake, immigration reform is likely to pass Congress next year, and he’s now joined the chorus of those saying that doing so is absolutely vital if the GOP is to have any chance of winning the presidency in 2016. I think Mr. Flake has been spending a touch too much time in the Arizona sun.

Anyway it was during a Wednesday appearance on Fox News Channel's "Special Report" that Flake said he had expected a comprehensive immigration bill to pass this year, but those hopes were dashed after the primary election defeat fellow RINO, and House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor. Flake said, Cantor's loss to Tea Party challenger Dave Brat was the "death knell" for immigration reform in the current session. So it would seem that the only way those of us who oppose amnesty now have to get our point across is to work toward defeating as many of those as we can who seem to favor it.

Republicans have said, and quite correctly, that the current influx of illegal border crossings prove that Barry wasn't truthful when he said back in 2010 that the border was more secure than ever. His statement was seen as intended to be a pretext for passing a comprehensive immigration bill. Still, Flake told Fox News, in the form of what I’m not was meant as a threat or a warning, that he thinks a bill could pass in 2015. All that means is that the 2014 election just became all that much more important. Because come 2015 we’ll have to way to retaliate. We’d have to wait until 2016.

Flake said, "I'm among those who think if Republicans want a shot at national office, we've got to deal with this in a responsible way. The purpose, he added, is not just to appeal to Hispanic voters, but to appeal to Americans who expect Republicans to be rational, reasonable and responsible. This boob is obviously another one of those on our side who seem to have bought into the myth that somehow all of these newly minted citizens will vote for Republicans. But who these people will be voting for are the ones promising to give them all ‘free’ stuff, otherwise those known as the Democrats!

Flake says that he thinks the solution to the current crisis is to change the 2008 law that prohibits quick deportation of children from non-border countries. The unaccompanied minors flooding the border are primarily from three Central American countries plagued with high poverty and crime. Republicans argue that the crime and poverty, while a real issue in those countries, have not significantly increased over the course of the past few years. Instead, they say, the influx of children has been caused by a 2012 executive order by Barry that gave hope that the children would be granted some form of legal status.

The one area where I do agree with Flake is where he told Fox News, "As soon as we actually take a planeload of children and go back to Guatemala and El Salvador and Honduras, that's what will stop it." He went on to say, "When a parent or relative in those countries who just paid . . . up to $7,000 to a smuggler to take that child into the country, when they see those planeloads of the kids coming back, it will stop." And just yesterday I read where we would be able to send every one of these kids back to where they came from for $8 Million. That would seem cheap at twice the price.

Personally I’m more than a little confused as to why it is that we simply choose not enforce the many immigration laws already on the books. Why is it that those on our side feel the need to agree to some new immigration law? They keep saying that the current system is broken, but from where I’m standing the only part of our current system that seems to be broken is the part that calls for enforcement of present laws. It seems to me that when we have so many other issues in need of attention, this one is consuming far too much time and energy. All we need to do is to properly enforce existing laws and to stop suing the states who are trying to do just that.

ON IMMIGRATION, WHOSE VOICES WILL BE LISTENED TO???

Ok folks, so here’s the $64,000 Question: When it comes to immigration ‘reform’, who is it that the House Republicans will be listening to? Will it be those like Chuckie Schumer, or will it be those who voted them into office voice? Because according to a recent Gallup poll, more Americans think immigration should be decreased rather than increased, by a nearly two-to-one margin, 41 percent to 22 percent. And a third of American adults, or 33 percent, are quite satisfied with the present immigration level.

And if we choose to break things down by party, we would see that those who identify themselves as Republican came in at 50 percent and those who called themselves Independents were at 43 percent. Both were much more inclined to decrease immigration than, of course, were Democrats who came in at only 32 percent. Democrats are more inclined to keep immigration at its current level, with 37 percent of them choosing that option, compared with 34 percent of Republicans and 30 percent of Independents.

And it was only 14 percent of Republicans, 23 percent of independents, and 27 percent of Democrats who said that they would actually be in favor of increasing immigration. But Gallup does make note of the fact that over time, there has been a steady increase in overall public support for increasing immigration, rising from 10 percent in 1999 to 22 percent today. Still, we’re a long way from there being what could safely be considered to be a majority of Americans in favor of actually increasing immigration.

Support for increasing immigration has grown more among Americans with college degrees, those said to be more aware of the apparent need for importing highly skilled workers, than among those with less formal education. So apparently us folks without a college degree are a little brighter than those with one. Because with there being over 90 million fewer Americans in the workforce now than there was when Barry took over, I’d say there’s no need to import any workers, skilled or otherwise.

And in response to another question, "On the whole, do you think immigration is a good thing or a bad thing for this country today?", 63 percent of those surveyed called it a good thing which is down from the high of 72 percent in 2013. But 33 percent called it a "bad thing," up from 25 percent in 2013. I’m with those Americans who view immigration as being a positive thing for our country. But we must decide how best to determine how many new immigrants to welcome each year, particularly when unemployment remains so high.

So I think it’s pretty clear where the American people stand on the issue of immigration. So what remains to be seen here is whether or not any action that may come on this very important issue, is simply based on politics or on the actual will of the people. And for some reason, while most of us out here beyond the beltway are able to see through the idiotic rants of Schumer, those inside the beltway seem to take them far more seriously than they should be. Because unless old Chuckie is now able to channel Nostradamus, he’s just talking out his ass.

YES, BY ALL MEANS, WE MUST BE NICER TO THOSE HERE ‘ILLEGALLY’…

Further proof, as if we needed any, that we now find ourselves up to our armpits in what is yet another election season is the fact that Barry "Almighty", our ‘Dear Beloved Leader’, has now launched what’s being called an ‘internal review’ on how he can better provide additional leniency to illegal aliens inside the United States of America. So apparently we must now be kinder and gentler in how we go about sending those who are here ILLEGALLY, back to their nation of origin.

When Barry promised back in 2008 that his would be the most transparent administration in history, I’m assuming here that most people didn’t realize that what he was really talking about was being transparently political. Because that’s all this move is really all about, trying to garner as many votes as possible for the Democrats who just might wind up losing control of the Senate in just a few short months. And I’m sure that this is just the beginning of the antics that we’re likely to be seeing.

Barry’s little announcement that he would seek to grant more executive amnesty to illegal aliens came after he met with three Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) members on Thursday -- CHC chairman Rep. Ruben Hinojosa and Reps. Luis Gutierrez and Xavier Becerra. Hispanic lawmakers have complained vociferously of late about the number of deportations executed by Barry’s administration. Such behavior makes it pretty obvious that these characters are not living up to the oath they took.

In speaking of this idiotic meeting, a readout of what took place was released by the White House that actually said, "The president emphasized his deep concern about the pain too many families feel from the separation that comes from our broken immigration system." What a bunch of political bullshit! But then, this is the exactly the kind of tripe that we have come to expect from Barry. It demonstrated a willingness to do whatever is necessary if it might gain a few Democrat votes.

A Senate GOP aide made the point that these concerns are really overblown because roughly two-thirds of what the amnesty advocacy community is considering deportations are actually removals of people caught as they were trying to cross the border. And Secretary of Homeland Defense Jeh Johnson essentially admitted as much in a recent congressional hearing. So it should make it all the more obvious that Barry’s new approach here is nothing but typical politics, pure and simple.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is the law enforcement agency that handles deportations from the nation’s interior, reports that 98 percent of 2013 deportations were of convicted criminals, people who just crossed the border, or people who illegally re-entered the U.S. after being deported before. So if this is in fact the case, I guess Barry would like it much better if we were to just turn a blind eye to those poor unfortunate souls and simply allow them to remain.

Barry kicked off 2014 by asserting his executive powers, infamously saying he has a pen and a phone that he plans to use if Congress does not move forward on his agenda. For the last nearly year and a half, since the 2012 presidential election, Barry has pressured Congress to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. The White House worked with the Senate’s bipartisan, four Democrats plus four RINO, "Gang of Eight" to write an immigration bill that passed the Senate but stalled in the House.

Barry has also tried to pressure the House to move on immigration, and after a recent meeting with the president, Speaker ‘Bonehead’ Boehner said the issue they agreed on most was immigration. Gee, big surprise there, right? Even so, it was a majority of the House GOP conference that very vocally stood up against granting legal status to illegal aliens, and massively increasing legal immigration, during this extended period of high unemployment in America.

Let’s face it, we now have in this country estimated 50.5 million working age, bona fide Americans who are now either officially unemployed or not working, but want to work. And yet, Barry and his merry band of liberal/progressive/communist Democrats seek to flood a sluggish job market that’s already in sad shape, with millions of illegal immigrants? Now I ask you, how much sense does that really make? And why, if not for political reasons, would anyone WANT to do that?

And it was in that summer of 2012, and just before the presidential election I might add, that Barry announced in the White House Rose Garden, with then Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano standing by his side, something called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which granted executive amnesty to so-called DREAMer illegal alien minors. And that too, I think it pretty safe to assume, was a move made purely out of politics.

And it is said that any additional executive action now would very likely infuriate House Republicans, even those who are in favor of moving forward with amnesty. For instance, House Majority Leader, and bona fide RINO, Eric Cantor, who supports granting legal status to illegal aliens, criticized the administration’s non-enforcement of immigration laws in an addendum to a 2012 report he released on Thursday. But Cantor is just one more who is far from being able to be trusted!

So, like I said in the beginning, with this being an election year it is virtually guaranteed that, whether we’re talking about Obamacare, immigration, extended unemployment benefits or any number of other politically sensitive issues, I’m quite sure that we will see Barry, and the Democrats, pulling out all the stops in an effort to salvage Democrat control of the Senate. And I guess the only question that remains would be one that asks whether the American people, or enough of them, will actually buy it.

HOUSE ‘GANG OF SEVEN’ IMMIGRATION PLAN GOES UP IN SMOKE…

ANOTHER AMERICA-HATING DEMOCRAT

Apparently today there is also some good news on the amnesty front. Because in a blow to the hopes of passing immigration reform anytime soon, the bipartisan House "gang of seven" plan is probably dead, and almost certainly won’t be introduced this fall as promised, so says a top Democrat member of the "gang." "It doesn’t appear that we’re going to move forward with the group of seven," said Luis Gutierrez, who not all that long ago was touting the fact that he had more than enough Republicans on board to get the plan passed in the House. Gutierrez said, "The process is stalled. I don’t believe we’re going to produce a bill anytime soon."

This undermines what were already the dwindling prospects for reform, because the House "gang of seven" plan, which would provide a path to citizenship but is significantly to the right of the Senate bill, was seen as a ‘comprehensive’ plan Republicans who genuinely want to solve the immigration problem just might coalesce around. But Gutierrez said that House Republicans on the gang of seven, who have been trying to negotiate comprehensive reform that members of both parties can support for a long time, are just not prepared to embrace a final plan. He blames House GOP leaders for not providing Republicans on the gang with sufficient support.

"The bipartisan group just wasn’t getting support from Republican House leadership," Gutierrez complained. "It’s just not gonna happen now." Gutierrez said that he continues to believe there is substantial tacit support for immigration reform even among Republicans, but that the GOP leadership refuses to acknowledge this or try to make something happen. "We need the GOP leadership to acknowledge the votes exist for reform," he said. If this was actually about reform, that would be one thing, but it’s not. What it’s about is granting amnesty and creating millions of new Democrat voters in the process. So this moron can peddle his crap elsewhere.

Immigration reformers had hoped for what they call a "bipartisan moment" on reform in October, after the government shutdown fight is resolved — one that could have involved rolling out the gang of seven plan. But Gutierrez cast doubt on the possibility, noting he doesn’t expect anything to happen with the gang’s bill "anytime in the near future." Democratic sources have said that they believe leading House Republicans on the gang, such as GOP Reps. John Carter and Sam Johnson, both conservatives who risked exposing themselves to potential blowback from the right, are now getting ready to publicly announce that the gang of seven plan just ain’t gonna happen.

So while it has been reported that Republicans on the gang have backed away from reform because they we catching heat from many of their conservative constituents who wanted more assurances on border security, Gutierrez maintains that those Republicans were prepared to support the emerging compromise, but didn’t because they simply didn’t have support from GOP leadership. "We had agreed on virtually everything," Gutierrez says. "The last components were enforcement components" that were down to differences over "nuances" and "language." The passing of any new immigration policy should not be about nuances. It should, first and foremost, be about adequately securing our porous borders.

But that doesn’t mean the battle is over. Instead, reformers are likely to focus on another possibility. House Republicans could roll out a series of piecemeal bills, including border security measures and citizenship for just the DREAMers, which House GOP leaders support. Something that has already been floated by Cantor. If such things were to pass, it’s possible the House and Senate could get to conference negotiations, an outcome some ‘reformers’ want. But really all that’s been presented in public sounds like nothing more than an end run around current objections regarding amnesty and border security. And something that makes me more than a bit nervous is the involvement in the House discussion of Chuckie Schumer.

But for that to happen, House Republican leaders would have to be willing to allow votes on these measures this fall, and more to the point, allow Republicans to enter into conference talks, which could mean further pressure to make concessions and compromise, something conservative opponents of reform are heavily resisting. And while it’s still unclear how House GOP leaders will proceed, they appear unwilling to move anything that isn’t supported by a majority of Republicans, and this is exactly how it should be. Scraping by with a majority of Democrats and just enough Republicans is not going to be acceptable. So Boehner and Cantor should put that little thought out of their heads right now!

So at this point in time it remains very possible that House Republican leaders will choose to simply let reform die, prioritizing their base over what some see as being the need to ‘repair’ GOP relations with Latino voters. But as I have said before, if our only way to entice Latino voters into the GOP is to allow those who have been breaking our laws, potentially for years, a free pass into our country, then maybe they are better suited to be members of the Democrat Party, where the breaking of our laws seems to be no big deal. Latinos have just as much at stake as do the rest of us should the economic and fiscal collapse currently being engineered by Barry and the Democrats takes place. So they need to decide what their priorities really are.

IT’S BECOME AN ALL OUT OFFENSIVE REGARDING AMNESTY…

LUIS GUTIERREZ

The propaganda campaign touting the advantages of passing an amnesty bill recently hit what can only be described as being an all new low, with one of it's primary supporters, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Democrat, telling attendees at a town hall event in Chantilly, VA on Monday, that women will be raped and others may die or be injured if Congress does not grant amnesty to America’s illegal immigrants. Wow, that's some pretty heavy stuff, there Mr. Gutierrez. This lying sack of shit said that if the Senate’s immigration reform bill, or legislation similar to it, does not pass into law, and soon, rape and death will most certainly happen as a result. Ok, and this is supposed to incentivize us to favor amnesty how, exactly?

It was in a video that Mr. Gutierrez was heard to say, "What we need to understand is today, someone is going to die in that desert trying to return to their families; women and men are going to die in that desert." He went on to say, "Someone’s going to lose a finger, a hand, an eye, a life today because an unscrupulous employer is going to put them in harm’s way. Someone’s going to die." He continued, "There’s a woman that’s going to be raped in a field somewhere in America today because she has no rights in this country, and we need to end that." These people are coming here ILLEGALLY! I’m just not sure why it is that I should be all that concerned about whether or not theyh survive the trip.

And then, of course, as is always the case with these sleazy, dishonest Democrats, Gutierrez then encouraged his audience to think of all the poor children saying, "There are children who are going to cry and there are marriages that are going to be destroyed because someone is going to be deported, and there are going to be children that are going to be left orphaned in this country." Adding, "For all of those reasons, we would accept that [the Senate’s bill]." Come on, really? I’ve heard some idiotic arguments before, but this crap takes the cake. Gutierrez, by the way, has been leading the charge in the House Democratic Party's efforts to push for amnesty and claims to have a significant number of Republicans with him.

Ok, so let’s look at this objectively. Contrary to what lying sacks of shit like Mr. Gutierrez, essentially on both sides of the aisle, would have you believe, our country was not founded by immigrants, it was, in fact, founded by colonists who were out to forge for themselves, and those who would come after, a new country out of the wilderness. It is our inheritance, our birthright, and it is willingly being sacrificed/squandered at the table of political correctness. And just as surely as Esau, son of Isaac, gave up his inheritance for a pot of stew, Americans are being forced into giving up their inheritance for the porridge of a false self-righteousness of "multiculturalism" that is nothing more than the death of our way of life and our freedom.

The third world bottom-feeders to whom Socialists, like Gutierrez, wish to grant amnesty as soon as possible, have no history or tradition of natural rights, and in fact they have never heard of the concept. Nor do they understand that our Constitution was an attempt to codify those natural God-given rights. Which makes them completely incapable of understanding what our Founders understood, that men who are drawn to centers of power are by nature the worst among us, and that laws are needed to keep them in check. They neither understand nor do they respect that the Constitution was written as a witness against the fallen nature of man, which has not changed, and will not change, until that nature has become angelic.

The descendants of America's founders are now slowly, but surely, being replaced with what are essentially a foreign people, which was all part of the grand design. The American gun-owning, freedom-loving middle-class was seen as being the biggest impediment to One-World-Government-equally-distributed-misery plans of the ruling elite, and therefore had to, somehow, be removed. So it was no accident that American wages started stagnating in the 1970's and have continued to decrease ever since. Simple supply and demand. Since that wasn't enough, because things were still moving too slow, more jobs were moved overseas and more foreigners were then moved in to take those jobs that were still here.

Ben Johnson said this about the 1965 Immigration Act in an article for FrontPageMagazine in 2002:

The 1965 Immigration Act: Anatomy of a Disaster By: Ben Johnson | Tuesday, December 10, 2002

"Despite the overwhelming assurances of the bill's supporters, the 1965 Immigration Reform Act has remade society into the image its critics most feared. Immigration levels topping a million a year will increase U.S. population to 400 million within 50 years. Meanwhile, exponents of multiculturalism insist new arrivals make no effort to assimilate; to do so would be "genocidal," a notion that makes a mockery of real genocides. Instead, long-forgotten grudges are nursed against the white populace. Native citizens take to flight as the neighborhoods around them, the norms in their hometowns, are debased for the convenience of low-paid immigrants and well-heeled businessmen. All the while, indigenous paychecks drop through lower wages and higher taxes collected to provide social services for immigrants. And this only takes into account legal immigration.

"Americans must realize demographic trends are not inevitable, the product of mysterious forces beyond their control. Today's population is the result of yesterday's immigration policy, and that policy is as clearly broken as its backers' assurances were facetious. A rational policy will only come about when native Americans place the national interest above liberal howls of 'prejudice' and 'tribalism.'"

Sadly, things have only proceeded to get worse, much worse, since Mr. Johnson first penned those words. I think the time as come to call what's going on here by it's rightful name. What we now have and, quite frankly, have had for some time now, is a war against the American People and our culture, and I think it's pretty obvious that those of us who love our country are losing that war, and losing badly. The cards have been stacked against us by those in Washington who are interested in nothing more than permanently skewing the political playing field. And thus appear determined to shove yet another piece of bogus legislation down our throats. The time as come for us to create our own 'red line', but we must be more committed, than our president, in enforcing it.

WHY CAN'T WE JUST SAY NO TO AMNESTY???

Ok, so now I'm a little pissed. Why is it that our guys in Congress feel they need only to listen to those who contribute the largest amounts of money while the rest of us can go suck wind? If that's gonna be the general rule now, then I guess I don't need to contribute my paltry little amount anymore, especially if all that's going to happen is for them to gladly take my money after which I’m simply expected to get lost. Well, I'm hear to tell you I’m through giving money, and I ain't about to get lost. And I am not going to support anything that puts more people onto the government dole. No way! No how!

Look, the only reason I bring any of this up is because, apparently, there were about a hundred, or so, top Republican donors, as well as some rejects from the Bush administration who got together and sent a letter to the House Republicans on Tuesday. The purpose of which was to urge lawmakers to pass a bill that legalizes illegal immigrants, arguing that the current system is already allowing them to stay and so it only makes sense to register them and bring them into the system. Wrong! It makes no sense whatsoever! And there is no way that you can spin it where it does make sense.

The donors, led by former Bush administration Cabinet officials Carlos Gutierrez and Spencer Abraham, also worked to perpetuate the myth that somehow these immigrants are potential Republican voters who can be won over, if only the party can be seen as welcoming to immigrants. "Doing nothing is de facto amnesty. We need to take control of whom we let in our country and we need to make sure everybody plays by the same rules," the donors said in their letter. These immigrants are interested in nothing more that finagling for themselves a free ride, which makes them potential Democrat voters.

These donors aimed their little pitch at House Republicans, who are now trying to figure out a way forward as they find themselves trapped between angry rank-and-file voters, that would be you and me, who say legalizing illegal immigrants amounts to amnesty, and those party elites and donors who say the GOP cannot survive nationally without embracing legalization as part of a strategy to win over Hispanic voters. How stupid is that? I simply do not buy the party-line that says the ‘only’ way for the GOP to survive is to welcome in, and with open arms, those who have willfully broken our laws?

This donor letter happened to come the same day that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, together with some 400 other businesses and umbrella groups, fired off a letter to House leaders of both parties, urging them to pass something, though the business leaders did not specifically call for legalizing illegal immigrants. Both the business leaders and donors appeared to be sensing that the momentum for immigration legislation maybe slipping away, little more than a month after the Senate passed its version of amnesty. Frankly I hope that that 'momentum' is fading! At least until the border is SECURE!

That Senate vote of a month ago served to highlight the divisions within the GOP. While all 54 members of the Democrat Party voted for the Senate bill, Republicans were split, with 14 voting for it and 32 voting against it, including all of the GOP's top leadership in the chamber. And among those of us who had voted for Marco Rubio, there was much disappointment after he showed his true colors by his choosing to ally himself with sleazy character like Chuckie Schumer, 'Little Dick' Durbin and the two RINOs, McCain and Graham, as a member of the "Gang of Eight." And he won few friends for doing so.

It goes without saying that among the national party operatives, there is strong support for legalization, stretching all the way back to President George W. Bush, who, as you may recall, repeatedly tried to get his party to embrace his plans to legalize illegal immigrants. Mr. Gutierrez, a former secretary of commerce who led Tuesday’s donor letter, was point man for that 2007 effort, which failed in a stunning bipartisan filibuster on the Senate floor. A fate that it deserved at the time and a fate that should have been suffered by the most recent attempt to accomplish what is the very same thing.

So now the question on all our minds should be: Who will our supposed leaders choose to listen to? And will they listen to we the people whose votes they need, or will they listen, instead, to the folks who can be relied upon to fork over the big bucks. It would seem to me that you can have the bucks you want, but if you can’t convince folks to vote for you that it doesn't really matter. And I refuse to vote for ANYBODY who supports amnesty and refuses to secure our border. Just like I have no intention of ever voting for Rubio again, I'll not vote for anyone else who sees fit to ignore me!

WHY CAN'T WHAT'S GOOD FOR MEXICO, ALSO BE GOOD FOR AMERICA?

I've been giving this whole immigration thing a lot of thought, and I think that I just might have come up with what could be a pretty good suggestion for the Republicans as they go about working on what they think the immigration policy of this country should look like. How about if they were to use, at least as a guide in formulating their legislation, the Mexican Constitution? Because the Mexican Constitution is pretty specific in how it strictly defines the rights of citizens, as well as the denial of many rights to non-citizens. And, quite frankly, if those policies as spelled out are good enough for Mexico, why shouldn't they be good for us as well?

In Mexico something that's referred to as the General Law on Population, spells out, with very few gray areas, the country’s immigration policy. And even a cursory glance at it should cause any reasonable American to ask one very simple question: Why is our southern neighbor pushing us to water down our immigration laws and policies when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico. Yet if the United States adopted such a law, Mexico would no doubt denounce it as a manifestation of American bigotry.

It would seem that Mexico’s main immigration law welcomes 'only' foreigners deemed useful to Mexican society:
Article 32 - Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress."

Article 34 - Immigration officials must "ensure (that) immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and that of their dependents.

Article 37 - Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence has upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics," if they are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," if they are not good citizens in their own country, if they have broken Mexican laws, or if "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy."

Article 38 - The secretary of governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest."

Mexican authorities keep track of every person in the country:
Article 73 - Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request: i.e., help in the arrest of illegal immigrants.

Articles 85 and 86 - A National Population Registry tracks every "individual who comprises (sic) the population of the country," verifying each individual’s identity.

Article 87 - A national Catalogue of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants, Article 91 - assigning each a tracking number.

Foreigners with fake papers or who enter the country under false pretenses may be imprisoned:
Article 116 - Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned.

Article 116 - Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment.

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
Article 117 - Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished.

Article 118 - Deported foreigners who try to re-enter Mexico without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years.

Articles 119, 120, and 121 - Foreigners who violate terms of their visa may be sentenced for up to six years in prison. Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa (as by working without a permit) can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says:
Article 123 - "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of 300 to 5,000 pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally."

Article 125 - Foreigners with immigration problems may be deported, rather than imprisoned.

Article 126 - Foreigners who "(make attempts) against national sovereignty or security" will be deported

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are considered criminals:
Article 127 - A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison

Article 132 - Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined.

And yet, every single one of the above articles run completely counter to what Mexican leaders keep demanding of the United States. There seems to be a rather stark contrast between Mexico’s immigration practices and its American-immigration preachings which makes very clear the Mexican government’s rather disingenuous, even dishonest, agenda to have what is obviously a one-way immigration relationship with the United States. And in taking the above regulations into consideration I find myself wondering why it might be that someone like a Marco Rubio would be so anxious to accommodate Mexico in that endeavor.

So again, I would like to recommend to the House Republicans, as they begin their own deliberations on the issue that they perhaps use some, or all, of the above articles as at least a starting point for any policy that they may see fit to come up with. And in so doing, I'm pretty sure that they will need nowhere near the thousand or so pages of legislation that the Senate somehow felt was necessary. Of course the one issue that is of much more importance to the United States than to Mexico is the issue of border security. Other than that, I see no reason not to pattern our own immigration policy after that of Mexico's. It only makes sense.

TREY GOWDY DISAGREES WITH 'CHUCKIE' SCHUMER ON IMMIGRATION REFORM...

To say that I like this guy, Trey Gowdy, would be pretty much of an understatement. He's kinda what I thought I was getting when I voted for Marco Rubio. Little did I know that instead, all I was going to be getting for my effort was Chuckie Schumer, Jr. But I've learned from that mistake and will make sure not to repeat it the next time around. Anyway, back to Mr. Gowdy, after all he 'is' the subject of my little piece here. So after hearing 'Chuckie' Schumer Sr. make the claim that the House would, indeed, be passing the Senate's disastrous version of immigration 'reform', Gowdy joked that he was "moved almost to the point of tears by Sen. (Chuck) Schumer's concern for the future prospects of the Republican Party." He also said, on Sunday, the immigration bill passed by the Senate is dead on arrival in the House.

Gowdy told "Fox News Sunday," "The Senate bill is not going to pass in the House. It's not going to pass for myriad reasons." He went on to elaborate, saying, "I'll support immigration reform. I think the current system is broken. But our framers gave us two legislative bodies. And I assume they did it for a reason. And the House runs every two years with the theory being that we will be closer to the will of the people." Gowdy noted that the House has passed four separate bills addressing different facets of the immigration issue, such as enforcement. "So, we are making progress and we will continue to do so. I'm more interested in getting it right than doing it on Senator Schumer's schedule," Gowdy said. Well, I can't argue with that. Now if only our supposed leadership will show itself to be of the same opinion.

I'm sure many of us heard Schumer as he told "Fox News Sunday" that he thinks the House will pass the Senate immigration bill by the end of the year, partly because if they don't, Republicans will be the minority party for many years; and partly because "the bishops, the evangelicals and business leaders" want immigration reform. "And, finally, and very importantly as well, we're not going to let this issue go away." Chuckie also said. "The strong supporters of immigration are going to be at the town hall meetings of Republican congressmen. They're going to be visiting them in their offices. They're going to be traipsing in the halls of Congress. We have seen the power of the DREAM Act kids." But many of those who Schumer describes as being strong supporters of immigration, also support the breaking of U.S. laws.

House Speaker John Boehner has promised to pass a House immigration bill through regular order -- sending it through committee before a floor vote. "And it will be legislation that reflects the will of our (Republican) majority and the will of the American people," Boehner said. Ya I know, I don't trust the guy either. Gowdy has said that the difficulty with the Senate bill lies in its details: "I cannot sell in South Carolina a border security plan where the security comes after the legalization. I can't sell a border security plan where Janet Napolitano gets to tell us the border is secure. I can't sell a border security plan where the executive can turn on and off triggers for political expedient reasons. Nor would I try to sell any of those plans." Yup, I'm with him on that, it just don't make no sense!

Gowdy's primary reason for insisting upon border security before legal status, was really a pretty simply one, trust in government: "There is a diminution of trust among our fellow citizens. And the notion that I can tell them, we're going to provide legalization but trust us on the border security, trust us on the internal security, trust us on E-Verify, that's not going to fly in South Carolina. I doubt it's going to fly in Arizona or New York." Putting security in place shows respect for the rule of law, Gowdy said. "I'm fine with showing humanity. But the order in which it's done is important," he added. And that's the point 'I thought' that my senator understood. But by his choosing to side with Chuckie Schumer, Little Dick' Durbin, and a couple of RINOs, he made quite clear the fact that he doesn't.

Gowdy also noted that the estimated 11 million people who are in the U.S. illegally are not a homogenous group: Some don't want to become American citizens and some couldn't pass a background check. "All of the 11 million are not similarly situated," Gowdy said. "You would agree with me you should have a different level of scrutiny for a child who's been here for 10 years and was brought through no will or no action of his or her own, as opposed to a 30-year-old who's been here for three weeks. You would not want the same scrutiny or the same level of analysis for those two groups. He added, "So, I know it's tempting to think of them as 11 million, as this all one group with the same characteristics. But the reality is, there are a number of subgroups that frankly are worthy of different levels of scrutiny and I hope the House plan will have that." And that, to me, sounds like the right approach.

Gowdy also noted that the House immigration plan would allow state and local law enforcement to help federal agents enforce immigration laws. "Well, that's a non-starter in the Senate," he said. "The Senate is fine with law enforcement enforcing every other category of crime, from child pornography, to murder, to narcotics trafficking, the bank robbery. But heaven forbid they get involved in immigration." This all makes a lot of sense, which should make you wonder why, anywhere in it's over 1000 pages, the Senate bill fails to address most, if not all, of these areas. That's because the goals are different, and makes it all the more important for the House to steer well clear of the Senate bill. The House bill, as currently described, would be intended to address what has been called a broken system, the sole purpose behind the Senate bill is to do nothing more than to create more Democrat voters.

MORE IMMIGRATION MUMBO-JUMBO...

You know, I'm really getting tired of hearing from all these supposed political gurus how the failure to pass immigration reform in the House would somehow be devastating for the Republican Party. Apparently it seems to have been determined by these same gurus that it must now demonstrate to immigrants that it is a "different GOP." Different than what, exactly? Look, I'm still not convinced that we even need some 'new and improved' immigration reform, but if we're going to do it how about we at least do it the right way. Because what I do know is that we DO NOT need the legislation that was recently passed by the Senate, because that most certainly is NOT the right way! 'Rubio's Folly' provides nothing but amnesty, and was thoroughly bastardized from he get-go.

According to Larry Kudlow one of those previously mentioned political gurus, "I don’t think you do this just to get votes." Kudlow then went on to say, "You do this on principle and you do this on border security and economic growth." Still, there is a political dimension. He said Republicans must show the immigrant community they are open to immigration reform, "that this is a different GOP and that many of the prior statements are going to be erased and that the GOP will be a welcoming party." A welcoming party? You see, this is exactly the kind of drivel that I am getting so tired of hearing. Immigrants already have a choice, they can either continue to be lied to by Democrats, or they can finally act like adults and join us in the GOP.

Kudlow, served as associate director in the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan and as chief economist at Bear Stearns, and is now one of those who makes the claim that immigration reform is somehow pro-growth. And while that may be, and I'm certainly no expert, this pork laden immigration monstrosity that was recently shoved through the Senate on a 68-32 vote, actually accomplishes very little, if anything, of what Mr. Kudlow says is now needed. And now we're being told that the House will very likely craft its own document. As well it should. But I gotta tell you, I have very little faith, and even less trust, in Speaker Boehner ability to come up with the type of legislation that accurately reflects what's actually needed.

In making reference to the House, even Kudlow said, "I don’t think it's going to buy into the omnibus Senate package." Immigration reform, if done properly isn't only pro-growth, he added, but also consistent with border security. "I worked for Ronald Reagan, I'm a disciple of Jack Kemp," Kudlow said. "My view is America should always be a shining city on the hill and we should be an example of economic freedom and political freedom. (If) people want to come here, they should be able to come here." Like that is somehow supposed to make a difference? And I don't disagree with any of what he said. But what I do disagree with is that the bill passed by the Senate does anything to accomplish the establishment of a workable immigration policy.

There are controversies inside the Republican Party, but they are "fixable," Kudlow said. "The Senate bill moved the ball in the right direction. Is it perfect? No. Do I understand every page of it? Heck, no," he said. But he seems to feel that the Senate bill does good things, and that America needs a larger labor force if it expects to grow. "That's why we could put legal immigrants to work, whether they're what I call the brainiacs or whether they're the lower income wage people in agriculture and retailing, Kudlow said. "They'll help our country to grow." His statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and sounds eerily similar to what we've heard from those who support the Senate passed fiasco. And what 'good' things does the Senate bill really do?

The bottom line here is that we have had, quite literally, millions of our fellow Americans who have made the move to leave the labor force since Barry first took office, and for no other reason that because they've simply given up trying to find work. And by the way, that would 10 million people, to be exact. And those are Americans who would love nothing more than to have a decent job. So really, his statement about America needing a larger labor force is nothing if not pretty idiotic and really has no basis in actual fact. I'm sorry but in order for me to be convinced that we actually need a 'new' immigration policy, guys like Kudlow are going to need to come up with a much better argument than the labor force one. Cause that one just ain't convincing!

THE FUTURE OF THE GOP, ACCORDING TO KARL ROVE...

Ok, so for the sake of argument, let’s just say that Karl Rove and the growing number of other Republicans are right. That the Republican Party simply has no hope of winning the 2016 presidential election by continuing to focus only on white voters without also securing at least a larger percentage of Hispanic supporters. But I'm still unclear how that makes the ‘Gang of Eight" immigration reform debacle worth my support. Because I think a better question to ask might be, why is it that any ‘new’ legislation is seen as being needed in the first place? Why can't we simply go back to simply enforcing those laws that we already have on the books? Wouldn't that make a whole lot more sense, and, be quite a bit cheaper as well? This really isn't rocket science. Is it?

Anyway, in a recent op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Rove contends that even if the GOP were to win for itself a Reagan-type landslide among whites that would still not secure a victory, since whites now represent a significantly smaller share of U.S. electorate than they did back in 1984. "The upshot is that if Republicans hope to win the presidency in 2016, they need to do better with both white and Hispanic voters," he wrote. Ok, the fact is that while I don't argue with Mr. Rove's point here, but I do take exception to what he recommends that we now go about doing. That, I guess, we just go ahead and pass anything no matter how screwed up it is just to demonstrate to Hispanics that we feel their pain. How transparent would that look? Especially to Hispanics!

A GOP victory, or so Mr. Rove claims, would require a higher turnout of white voters, similar to the 2008 election; a 1 percent increase in the party's share of the white vote; and a "somewhat better" performance among Latinos, or roughly 35 percent. In 2012, our Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, got just 27 percent of the Hispanic vote. Rove said, "If the GOP leaves nonwhite voters to the Democrats, then its margins in safe congressional districts and red states will dwindle — not overnight, but over years and decades." Ok then, so where's the need for us rush headlong into bad immigration reform? And why is the only solution to the immigration 'problem', a 1000 page piece of legislation that is really nothing more than an ill-conceived, knee-jerk reaction?

Rove says that while GOP support for immigration reform would be a winning issue among Hispanics, Republicans also need compelling messages on the other top issues of the day. But in order for these 'compelling messages', to which Rove refers to, actually have any effect, you would first have the difficult, if not impossible, task of trying to convince Hispanics, and blacks, to understand that serious actions are now necessary if we are to successfully prevent ‘our’ country from going over the cliff. And personally, I just don't think that it matters all that much to them one way or the other if the country implodes or not, as long as they keep getting their checks, even if it's right up to the bitter end. Because that's really all that matters most to many of these people anyway.

So I guess, according to Rove, I'm simply expected to go along with this "Gang of Eight" monstrosity regardless of the fact that it is nothing more than an act blatant pandering. Sorry, but it just wouldn't be prudent to go along with what is essentially nothing more than an attempt to push through what is essentially, amnesty. Because, besides being so seriously flawed in so many obvious ways, being far too complicated and the fact that it does absolutely nothing to fix the growing problem of illegal immigration, it's still claimed to be just what we need to fix our current, and very broken, immigration system. If, as so many are saying, that reform is needed, why can't we sit down, and rationally discuss, like adults, what actually needs to be done and do it incrementally.

"Rarely does a political party overcome its challenges by improving just one thing. Republicans must do two things: turn out more white voters and improve their performance among Hispanics, African-Americans and Asian-Americans," Rove wrote. "The GOP has done both in every winning presidential campaign," he said. "The party of Lincoln, to win, must continue to do both." Ok, but what does that mean exactly, by saying that we must continue to do both. What all groups must first have in common is a desire to save the country, no matter what it takes. A task that gets much more difficult with practically each passing day. And yet, I fail to see any real sense of urgency coming out of the various minority communities, where it's seen as being more as a joke.

Look, I’ve argued this point until I'm practically blue in the face. I'm always told how it is that Hispanics, because of their more conservative values, are actually a natural fit for the Republican Party. Well if that were true, which I doubt, wouldn't you think that there would be a natural desire for them to affiliate with the Republican Party without much of anything ‘extra’ needing to be done to ‘entice them? Why not simply articulate how we, as conservatives, need to band together in an effort to address the growing problems that we now face us as a nation? And either they share our concern and our desire to come up with what are real solutions designed to protect their children's futures, or they don't. And if they don't, then I don't think that there’s a 'compelling message' that exists.