RINO Rubio

The Establishment Candidate, Marco Rubio. Their Last Great Hope for NO Change.

John Hawkins: Marco Rubio may not be a squish on most issues, but it doesn’t change the fact that his Gang-of-8 Amnesty Bill is unforgivable. 

I know I haven’t forgiven him for it. Or forgotten.

You want a Minority and Conservative, Ted Cruz is your guy. Not this Pseudo-When-I-Need-to-Get-Elected one.

Nobody would be campaigning harder against Marco Rubio today than Marco Rubio back in 2010 when he desperately needed to convince Tea Partiers he was tough on immigration to get elected. You could write a whole article on how bad Rubio’s bill was (In fact, I did), but let me cut to the chase for you.

A)Rubio’s sell-out on immigration was the biggest betrayal of conservatives since George Bush’s dad said, “Read my lips, no new taxes” and then raised taxes. How do you trust Rubio on any issue after he so blatantly lied on immigration? Rubio running for President today is like Benedict Arnold running for President in 1788.

California has 605,000 Illegal Voters!! Just in California. They are Illegal because the Liberals gave them Driver’s Licenses. And what do you need to Vote? And gee, weho are they going to vote for??

Now spread that Nationwide!

You get what I’ve been saying for years about Illegal Immigration.

B) The Gang-of-8 Bill was little more than a Democrat wish list with a couple of bells and whistles slapped on to give cover for squishy Republicans to support it as well. The bill legalized illegals before adding in any kind of security and despite Rubio’s dishonest hype, it would have done little to secure the border. Between giving citizenship to illegal aliens and massive increases in legal immigration, Rubio’s bill would have demographically marginalized conservatism in America.

If Rubio becomes President and implements something like his Gang-of-8 Bill, then liberals will be destined to win in the future on every issue that matters. I’m not someone who believes you win in politics by losing, but it’s entirely possible that 4-8 years of Hillary Clinton decimating the country and stacking the Supreme Court would do far less damage to the country than the immigration plan Marco Rubio would likely implement if he becomes President.

C) Rubio’s excuses for his betrayal are ridiculous. Oh, we have ISIS now; so we have to secure the border. Well, we had Al-Qaeda then. Stopping that terrorist organization from getting across the border wasn’t important? Rubio also claims that he gave the Democrats almost everything they wanted in hopes that the House would improve the bill. In other words, Rubio was willing to turn the Senate bill into little more than Barack Obama’s wish list in hopes that John Boehner of all people would negotiate a tough conservative plan? You’d have to be dumber than Meghan McCain to believe that the same guy who caved every time he went up against Obama was going to come up with a great bill after Rubio made him negotiate from a position of weakness. In actuality, Rubio was hoping the pro-amnesty leadership of the House would ignore the Hastert rule and would push an immigration bill through with a few moderate Republicans and all the Democrats helping out. When a guy shoves a knife in your back that deeply and won’t even come clean about it, how do you trust him?

D) Even today, Rubio fully admits that he wants to give citizenship to illegal aliens – and that’s during a Presidential race. You really think that sounds like someone who is going to get tough on illegal immigration or build a wall if he gets elected? Keep in mind that if Rubio becomes President and is perfect in every other way, but is lying on illegal immigration again, it means the end of the conservative movement in America. Choosing him as our nominee would be like playing Russian Roulette with 5 bullets in the chamber.

Of course, the Republicans in the establishment are happy to play that game and have decided that “Lil Jeb” is their chosen candidate.

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
So it’s onto Marco.

In large part, that’s because they expect him to betray conservatives on amnesty again, but it’s also because they don’t believe Rubio will shake things up too much.

He won’t. He’ll be passive aggressive with the Democrats and give them alot of what they want because he doesn’t want to rock the boat too much, like most RINOs.

They don’t think he’ll roll back Obamacare, they don’t think he’ll kick any connected consultants off the gravy train, they don’t believe he’ll listen to those “wackobirds” that John McCain hates so much. After the most radical President in American history has stomped all over the Constitution for 8 years to drag the country to the Left, is it worth risking the country on someone backed by the establishment Republicans because they believe he’s a go-along-to-get-along status quo candidate?


Oh, but the establishment Republicans say Rubio is the most electable candidate. Of course, that’s what they always say about whoever their golden boy happens to be. It’s what they said about Dole, McCain and Romney. They were wrong about them and they’re wrong about Rubio, too.

“electable” is code word for acceptable loss.

Don’t get the wrong idea. Rubio could certainly win, but he probably wouldn’t be as electable as Cruz or God help us all, even Kasich despite his solid head-to-head numbers against Hillary.

Or even Trump.


Keep in mind that Rubio can’t win a general election unless he gets the support of the 30-35% of GOP voters that currently support Donald Trump. Do you really think that after supporting Trump for months, those voters are going to fall in line behind an establishment candidate who is best known for betraying the people who supported him to push amnesty and open borders?

The Establishment thinks so.

Moreover, consider the fact that 60% of GOP voters have consistently been going for the outsider candidates (Trump, Cruz and Carson). Do you really think all those people are going to shrug off this entire crazy primary season and eat the same old crap sandwich from the establishment again?

Nope. But that’s an acceptable loss if The Establishment keeps it’s power.

Beyond that, although Rubio is generally a solid debater, he turned in one of the worst debate performances anyone has seen with his “Robot Rubio” performance. What if it happens again in a general election debate? He’s also generally very scripted, inauthentic and his pathetic non-response to every genuine attack on his record is , “That’s a lie.” Furthermore, maybe we should consider the fact that a candidate who wants the NSA to snoop on our phone records, showed terrible judgment in supporting the overthrow of Libya and who comes off like he can’t wait to get in another ground war in the Middle East isn’t going to be wildly popular with the American electorate in 2016.

It has been an unpredictable election season and we still don’t know who the GOP nominee will be. However, if it turns out to be a guy who did the same thing to conservatives on immigration that Jane Fonda did to the troops during Vietnam, the Republican Party will richly deserve to lose.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The Difference


Via John Hawkins at Townhall:

10) Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with guns and that right cannot be taken away by any method short of a Constitutional Amendment, which conservatives would oppose. Liberals believe by taking arms away from law abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals, who aren’t going to abide by gun control laws, from using guns in the commission of crimes.

9) Conservatives believe that we should live in a color blind society where every individual is judged on the content of his character and the merits of his actions. On the other hand, liberals believe that it’s ok to discriminate based on race as long as it primarily benefits minority groups.

8) Conservatives are capitalists and believe that entrepreneurs who amass great wealth through their own efforts are good for the country and shouldn’t be punished for being successful. Liberals are socialists who view successful business owners as people who cheated the system somehow or got lucky. That’s why they don’t respect high achievers and see them as little more than piggy banks for their programs.
7) Conservatives believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child and since we believe that infanticide is wrong, we oppose abortion. Most liberals, despite what they’ll tell you, believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child, but they prefer killing the baby to inconveniencing the mother.6) Conservatives believe in confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens. Liberals believe in using law enforcement measures to deal with terrorism, which means that they feel we should allow terrorists to train, plan, and actually attempt to kill Americans before we try to arrest them — as if you can just send the police around to pick up a terrorist mastermind hiding in Iran or the wilds of Pakistan.

5) Conservatives, but not necessarily Republicans (which is unfortunate), believe it’s vitally important to the future of the country to reduce the size of government, keep taxes low, balance the budget, and get this country out of debt. Liberals, and Democrats for that matter, believe in big government, high taxes, and they have never met a new spending program they didn’t like, whether we will have to go into debt to pay for it or not.

4) Conservatives believe that government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry. That’s why we believe that the government that governs least, governs best. Liberals think that the solution to every problem is another government program. Even when those new programs create new problems, often worse than the ones that were being fixed in the first place, the solution is always….you guessed it, another government program.
3) Conservatives are patriotic, believe that America is a great nation, and are primarily interested in looking out for the good of the country. That’s why we believe in “American exceptionalism” and “America first.” Liberals are internationalists who are more concerned about what Europeans think of us and staying in the good graces of the corrupt bureaucrats who control the UN than looking out for the best interests of this nation.2) Conservatives, most of them anyway, believe in God and think that the Constitution has been twisted by liberal judges to illegitimately try to purge Christianity from the public square. We also believe, most of us anyway, that this country has been successful in large part because it is a good, Christian nation and if our country ever turns away from the Lord, it will cease to prosper. Liberals, most of them anyway, are hostile to Christianity. That’s why, whether you’re talking about a school play at Christmas time, a judge putting the Ten Commandments on the wall of his court, or a store employee saying “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays,” liberals are dedicated to driving reminders of Christianity from polite society.

1) Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they’re pragmatic and because they work. Liberals believe in pursuing policies because they’re “nice” and make them feel good. Whether the policies they’re advocating actually work or not is of secondary importance to them.

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
abolished slavery-hate

Sanctuary Sanctimony

More “mean”, “heartless” “racism” from “white privilege” ahead…After all the Border is more secure than ever and complaining about illegal immigration is blatantly racist.

Justice: Another murder of an American by an illegal, another shrug from our nation’s leaders. A local police chief was right to see a “trail of blood” from the latest killing and those who made the killer’s spree possible.

This has been increasing of late, but the media is too busy snorting a Trump-high to care.

Speaking to Fox News’ Greta van Susteren, Santa Maria, Calif., police chief Ralph Martin denounced the rape, torture and murder of Marilyn Pharis in her bed by an undeported illegal alien with a long record of violent crime, saying, “I am not remiss to say that, from Washington, D.C., to Sacramento, there is a blood trail into the bedroom of Marilyn Pharis.”

Santa Barbara County authorities say a man in the country illegally has been charged in the rape and fatal assault of a 64-year-old woman at her home in Santa Maria.

Prosecutors say Marilyn Pharis was attacked with a hammer and sexually assaulted in her home on the morning of July 24. She later died of her injuries.

Twenty-nine-year-old Victor Aureliano Martinez was arrested shortly after the attack.

Martin pointed out that the “brutal and vicious attack” of the 64-year-old Air Force veteran in her home was the result of federal and state governments that work almost as a tag team. Each uses the other’s laws as reasons for refusing to act against criminal illegals, and both sides write off the inevitable crimes that result as just a case of a criminal “falling through the cracks.”

And if you try to do anything, you’ll be sued by the DOJ and dragged through the mud as “racists” like Gov. Brewer and the State of Arizona.

If the Feds want to ignore the problem, you can’t do anything about you racists!

As a result, hundreds of Americans are being killed by hardened criminals who should not be in this country, with no effort to halt them. If the broad-daylight killing of 32-year-old Kate Steinle as she strolled with her father on a tourist pier in San Francisco wasn’t sickening enough, the alleged rape, torture and murder by Victor Aureliano Martinez-Ramirez may be more horrific.

But the Left doesn’t care. It won’t even dent their sanctimony.

Martinez-Ramirez had been let out of jail just a few days earlier on a drug and violence offense, with no detainer issued by the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He’d been arrested six times for similar offenses in the last 15 months in Santa Maria alone, and an unknown number of times elsewhere.

Martinez was arrested July 16, but ICE opted not to lodge an immigration detainer, citing his lack of felony convictions or deportations.

All those previous convictions and arrests just vanished in a puff of ideological smoke!

In a statement, ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice said that ICE “is monitoring the case closely” and that the agency has asked to be notified if Martinez is transferred or released.

He was no “looking for a better life” liberal sob story. He was and is a harden criminal. But yet the Left has an Agenda and an ideology and they will NOT deviate from it even at the cost of YOUR life.

Sadly, he was protected by Santa Maria’s sanctuary city laws, shielded by state laws blocking the Feds. Like others, he was eligible for free education and college tuition, could get a driver’s license and subsidized health care, and no matter what he did, his immigration status provided protection.

And then there’s $15/hr!🙂

Combine it with the White House’s refusal to enforce immigration laws, even against violent criminals — some 30,000 have been released in the U.S. to prey on citizens — and it’s no surprise he concluded that he could do what he wanted with total impunity.

Just like the Iranians!🙂

“We can all point fingers locally at each other,” said Martin. “ICE can point the finger at the sheriff, they can point it everywhere else, but the reality is it starts at the very top, and it’s not going to get fixed until it gets started at the very top and reached the local levels.”

That’s where the trail of blood leads, and it’s time to hold the White House accountable.

But the holiest of holy men, Barack, is a saint and cannot be impugned by you low, grubby little hate-filled tea-bagging cracker RACISTS!🙂

This guy was obvious just a poor, oppressed migrant who just wanted a better life…

A life of drugs, crime and death.

He got it.

We got him.

And Marilyn got an early retirement bonus courtesy of The US Government.

And everyone on the Left is joyous about their sanctimony. And the Feds are willing to push their Agenda to very last drop of YOUR blood.

Now that’s Progressive.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Fast & Furious 2015

On May 4, 2015 Nadir Soofi and Elton Simpson drove from Phoenix to Garland, Texas to carry out a terror attack against conservatives hosting a Mohammed cartoon contest. When they arrived on scene, they were immediately shot and killed by police after opening fire outside the building.

Remember, they weren’t radical Islam believers (there is in fact no such thing as radical islam and certainly not any terrorists), guns kill people, and the border is “more secure” than ever.

It turns out Soofi purchased his gun under the Holder Justice Department’s Operation Fast and Furious back in 2010. As a reminder, Operation Fast and Furious was a program that ran from 2009-2010 in which federal agents purposely allowed the sale of thousands of weapons, including handguns, AK-47s and .50-caliber rifles, to known drug cartels. Agents deliberately allowed weapons to be trafficked and lost in Mexico. Now, Barack Obama’s bloodiest scandal has hit home once again. Richard Serrano at the LA Times has the incredible details:

Five years before he was shot to death in the failed terrorist attack in Garland, Texas, Nadir Soofi walked into a suburban Phoenix gun shop to buy a 9-millimeter pistol.At the time, Lone Wolf Trading Co. was known among gun smugglers for selling illegal firearms. And with Soofi’s history of misdemeanor drug and assault charges, there was a chance his purchase might raise red flags in the federal screening process.

Inside the store, he fudged some facts on the form required of would-be gun buyers. What Soofi could not have known was that Lone Wolf was at the center of a federal sting operation known as Fast and Furious, targeting Mexican drug lords and traffickers. The idea of the secret program was to allow Lone Wolf to sell illegal weapons to criminals and straw purchasers, and track the guns back to large smuggling networks and drug cartels.

Soofi’s attempt to buy a gun caught the attention of authorities, who slapped a seven-day hold on the transaction, according to his Feb. 24, 2010, firearms transaction record, which was reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Then, for reasons that remain unclear, the hold was lifted after 24 hours, and Soofi got the 9-millimeter.

In other words, ATF and the FBI pushed through a shady gun sale that ultimately was used in a terror attack against Americans on U.S. soil.

The Liberal media will ignore that, once they’ve finished burying the Planned Parenthood story until 20,000 feet of bullshit.

Not surprisingly the FBI has been stonewalling information about Soofi’s firearm and the guns used during the Garland attack for months. They did the same when Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed by Mexican drug bandits in Arizona on December 15, 2010. The guns used in his murder were also sold as part of Operation Fast and Furious. More from Serrano:

A day after the attack, the Department of Justice sent an “urgent firearms disposition request” to Lone Wolf, seeking more information about Soofi and the pistol he bought in 2010, according to a June 1 letter from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, to U.S. Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch.
Though the request did not specify whether the gun was used in the Garland attack, Justice Department officials said the information was needed “to assist in a criminal investigation,” according to Johnson’s letter, also reviewed by The Times.
The FBI so far has refused to release any details, including serial numbers, about the weapons used in Garland by Soofi and Simpson. Senate investigators are now pressing law enforcement agencies for answers, raising the chilling possibility that a gun sold during the botched Fast and Furious operation ended up being used in a terrorist attack against Americans.

Keep in mind not a single person involved in Operation Fast and Furious has been fired. In fact, many Department of Justice officials and ATF supervisors have been promoted. ATF agents who exposed the scandal, however, have faced extreme retaliation in addition to career and personal sabotage. 

Exposing the Agenda to criticism is not permitted. You shall not embarrass, or be seen to embarrass, The King, Barack Hussein Obama I.

More “inconvenient truth” to hide.

And it’s Bush’s fault anyways…🙂

Lawyering Up

Define Rich

But first a Border Update:

El Paso, TX — Border Patrol agents will no longer serve as interpreters when local law enforcement agencies request language help; that according to a new decree issued by the department of homeland security.

From now on language assistance requests will be referred to private companies.    

Before, if another agency needed language assistance the border patrol would be called per protocol.

Immigration advocates have complained in the past Border Patrol agents ask people questions about immigration and in some cases arrest immigrants suspected of being in the country illegally.

The Problem: Border Patrol agents might actually ask questions about the Illegals Illegal status and then have to arrest them!!

OMG! The Horror!!!

“The concept of language access should be without people being questioned about their immigration status,” said Jorge Baron, executive director of the Seattle-based Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, a legal aid organization.

So, the solution, just don’t have them ask the question in the first place!!!

Now that’s doing your job!🙂 (when your job is to NOT do your job and arrest people illegally in this country that is)

Talk about “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell”!!!!!🙂

Now, isn’t that special….

Victor Davis Hanson:Who exactly were the rich who, as the president said, were not “paying their fair share”? The rapper Jay-Z (net worth: nearly $500 million)? The actor Johnny Depp (2011 income: $50 million)? Neither seems to have heard the president’s earlier warning that “at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

Could both zillionaires simply have quit making money at $10 million — and thereby given their poorer audiences a break on ticket prices?

With all the talk of raising taxes on the supposedly conservative rich who make more than $250,000 per year, why not levy a $3 surcharge on tickets for movies, concerts, and sporting events to “spread the wealth” from multimillionaires? That way, LeBron James (approximate annual earnings: $53 million) or Oliver Stone (net worth: approximately $50 million) might at last begin to “level the playing field.”

Is Michael Moore (net worth: approximately $50 million) a one-tenth-of-one-percenter? If so, why do mansion-living-grandee movie directors like Moore and Stone need state subsidies and tax breaks to produce their films, when most states are nearly as insolvent as the federal government?

Warren Buffett likewise did not heed the president’s advice that after 2008 it was not the time to profit. Did he pay any attention to Obama’s additional warning that, “if you own a business, you didn’t build that”? Apparently not.

Otherwise, Buffett would not think that his own expertise and hard work had built Berkshire Hathaway, or that he has the right to leave his $50 billion fortune to nonprofit institutions of his choice — thereby shorting the Internal Revenue Service billions of dollars in lost estate taxes. With a trillion-dollar-plus annual federal deficit, either the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Department of Health and Human Services surely could use Buffett’s loot far more than the already well-endowed Gates Foundation.

If the country is going to turn redistributionist, then we might as well do so whole-hog — given that eight of the wealthiest ten counties in America voted for Obama. Why not limit mortgage-interest deductions to just one loan under $100,000 — while ending tax breaks altogether for second and third vacation houses?

Under the present system, the beleaguered 99 percent are subsidizing the abodes of Hollywood and Silicon Valley “millionaires and billionaires” — many of whom themselves have been railing against the 1 percent. Should the government provide tens of thousands of dollars in tax breaks for a blue-state 1-percenter to live in tony Palo Alto or Newport Beach when there are plenty of fine homes far cheaper and sitting empty not far away in Stockton and Bakersfield?

Blue states usually have far higher state income taxes that are used as deductions to reduce what is owed on federal income tax. Why should working folks in Nevada or Texas have to pay their fair share, while Wall Streeters get huge federal write-offs from their New York or Connecticut state income taxes?

With the new obsessions over income and net worth, we might as well also means-test all federal programs. Should anyone — do we remember Solyndra? — be eligible for federal cash loans if he makes over $250,000 per year? Why would affirmative action apply to the children of millionaires like the offspring of Eric Holder, Susan Rice, or, for that matter, Barack Obama, while excluding the destitute children of Appalachian coal miners and the poor clingers of Pennsylvania?

Remember the revolving door that Barack Obama once promised to end? The former head of his Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, used his title and insider contacts to walk right into a Citigroup fat-cat banker’s job that pays him an estimated $2 million to $3 million a year. 

Clinton administration apparatchiks such as Jamie Gorelick, James Johnson, and Franklin Raines — without much banking experience — reaped millions of dollars working at Fannie Mae as it went nearly bankrupt. If you leave government and immediately make more than $1 million, why not pay a 50 percent tax on your income for five years — given that “somebody else made that happen”? Why does Google have tax havens in the Caribbean, and why do six-figure-income college presidents have their taxes paid by their universities?

For much of 2012, Obama waged a veritable class war against conservatives, as if they were all right-wing clones of Donald Trump and the Koch brothers. But modern Democrats — Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Steven Spielberg, Brian Williams, or Oprah Winfrey — are as likely to be very wealthy as are Republicans, who increasingly better represent small-business owners desperately struggling to become affluent.

Next time around, Republicans might remind us of that paradox by nominating a small-business scrapper, who — unlike millionaires such as Al Gore, John Kerry, or Barack Obama — did not go to prep school and the Ivy League. And they might find better ways for those in academia, entertainment, sports, big law, and the media to pay their fair share.

And I would add The Democrats favorite money bag- Unions.

And 7 of the Top 10 richest in Congress are Democrats.

But remember, it’s evil to be rich, but only if you’re not a Democrat.🙂

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

 Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson


There is Only Me! There is no U.S.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

“Beyond the pandering, beyond the politics, beyond the process is simple constitutional decency. This is out-and-out lawlessness. You had a clip of the president himself say months ago ‘I cannot do this on my own because there are laws on the books.’ Well, I have news for the president: The laws remain on the books, they haven’t changed,” syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said on “FOX News” tonight.

“He proposed the DREAM Act of which the executive order is a variation. He proposed a DREAM Act. The Congress said no. The Congress is the one who makes the laws. What the administration does is it administers law. And in fact, what it’s pretending to do is to use discretion, that’s what the Homeland Security Secretary said,” Dr. Krauthammer said.

“This is not discretion,” he said. “Discretion is when you treat it on a one-by-one basis on the grounds of extenuating circumstances. This is the declaration of a whole new set of criteria, which is essentially resurrecting the legislation that the Congress has said no to.”

“And I think this is not how you run a constitutional Republic. This ought to be in the hands of Congress, and it is an end-run. What’s ironic of course is for eight years, the Democrats have been screaming about the imperial presidency with the Bush administration, the nonsense about the unitary executive. This is out-and-out lawlessness. This is not how you govern. And I think that’s the first issue that should be on the table,” Krauthammer concluded.

MSDNC:“This is just so unprecedented and outrageous, that you have to ask the question, would the right-wing be doing this if we had a white president there?” MSNBC guest and Democratic strategist Julian Epstein said on the channel this afternoon.

So you’re a racist if you oppose Executive Fiats by a black president.

America, What A Country.🙂

“They play in our neighborhoods, they’re friends with our kids, they pledge allegiance to our flag. They are Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one — on paper,” President Obama said in the Rose Garden about his policy change in deporting young illegal immigrants.

Ah, look ma, it’s the old Liberal guilt hoary of “it’s for the Children”…ah isn’t that special… <<Barf>>

Gee, I guess “I will selectively enforce laws, make new laws up on my own, and disregard laws anytime I want if it is to MY OWN Personal political advantage” is now the new standard.

Krauthammer is correct, it’s lawlessness because now the law serve the politics not the people.

And that Illegal alien/Hispanic Racist Activist/Squishy Liberal/For the Children Vote is far more important than any legal American white racists after all.

And the Border patrol has a new mission. If you see an Illegal who’s under 16, (or a pregnant woman) you don’t arrest them, you give them a work permit, say “Welcome to America” to take the job (cheaper) than the American who was here legally.

Now that’s fair! isn’t it?

Mr. Obama angrily shot down a reporter for the conservative Daily Caller who interrupted his remarks with the question, “Why do you favor foreigners over American workers?”

After all, that’s a racist question. The President is Black, so he cannot be questioned. He must simply be obeyed without fail.

RUSH: I have a name for this new Obama immigration policy. In case you haven’t heard, folks, very quickly. The regime today told the border agents: “If you catch young illegals, let ’em go and grant ’em work permits.” No more deportation of illegal immigrants. They are to be given work permits and they can stay in the country. So what this is is “Catch, Release, Vote.

I mean, he’s being literally reamed over the speech. And I’ll tell you what’s coming next. Here we go. We just went through the brief overview. First, War on Churches. Second, create (as part of it) a phony Republican War on Women. And then go after Mitt Romney and Bain Capital. Then come out for gay marriage.

And now: Don’t deport the young illegals; give ’em work permits.

What’s that gonna do to the unemployment number? Are we gonna count ’em looking for work or not? If we don’t, the number won’t drop. If we do, the number will go up. What’s it gonna do for those of you trying to get work to learn that 800,000 new illegals are in the job market who will work cheaper than you do? And what’s next is home mortgages and student loans. Those are the next two things that are gonna fall. They’ll throw it all up against the wall. You watch.

And we’ll completely ignore the Drug Runners, gun runners, human smugglers and violent felons and murders. They don’t exist. It’s “for The Children” only. They are the only ones that exist.

La Raza and MeCHA and groups like that now run the Democrats.

After all, you don’t want to be a racist now do you?🙂

For years the administration had said it didn’t have the authority to make such a move, saying it couldn’t decide to stop deporting wide categories of people on its own without approval from Congress.

But on Friday President Obama says administration now interprets the law to give it the discretion.

Because his own Political needs supersede everything else in life.

“Effective immediately, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people,” Mr. Obama said in an appearance in the White House Rose Garden. “Over the next few months, eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.”

“This is not amnesty,” Mr. Obama said.


“This is not immunity.


This is not a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely, while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people. It is the right thing to do.”

<<Barf Overload!>>

But at least he’s sowed up the Illegal Alien/Radical Aztlan Hispanic Vote!🙂

“I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana—and the reason is, because it’s against federal law. I can’t nullify congressional law.”

But I can go around it and that’s all I ever do anymore because I want what I want when I want it. So there! :)-

“I can’t ask the Justice Department to say, ‘Ignore completely a federal law that’s on the books,’” the president continued,


“What I can say is, ‘Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage.’”

But only if it serves my own personal political needs. Everyone else can just get screwed!

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, said the new amnesty will become “a magnet for fraud,” and will end up letting jobs go to current illegal immigrants.

“How can the Administration justify allowing illegal immigrants to work in the U.S. when millions of Americans are unemployed?” Mr. Smith said. “President Obama and his administration once again have put partisan politics and illegal immigrants ahead of the rule of law and the American people.”

Because it’s all about HIM, that’s how.

Reason.com writer, Mike Riggs, also questioned the difference between the two positions. In a blog post“Why Can Obama Bend the Law for Young Immigrants but nor for Drug Users?,” he wrote, “Today’s immigration announcement makes a compelling case that Obama is capable of using his executive powers to *not* enforce the law, and will do so when it’s politically advantageous.”

As I have said many, many times before, Liberals have no morals or ethics and their Ends justifies the means, no holds barred hubris is just how they are.

Like a 3 year old, they want what they want when they want it and no one is going to stop them from getting it. Morals, Ethics, Laws, who give a rip about those when I want what i want when I want it and because I want it and I want it NOW!

If it “feels good” do it. If it’s good for ME, do it.

F*ck you and your objections. I am vastly superior to you and I have sanctimonious Self-righteousness on my side.

And if that doesn’t work, well, you’re just a racist anyhow so you’re not important.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy