Quotes of the day

posted at 10:41 pm on June 12, 2013 by Allahpundit

With Hannity Wednesday, Rubio explained that he once favored border security before legalization. “When I initially got involved in this effort in December of last year, I initially said let’s make sure everything, including that first step, is conditioned on the border and all these other things,” Rubio said. “Here’s the problem with that: Let’s say that it takes four years to do the border plan. What do we do with the millions of people that are here illegally in the meantime? Do we just ignore them?”

“Second,” Rubio said, “we need funding to pay for all these border improvements, and the way you get it is from the fines that these folks are going to have to pay.”

Hannity seemed skeptical. “Why wouldn’t it be better to just secure the border first totally and then move forward with dealing with the 11 million people or so that are in the country illegally?”

“That’s how I felt at the beginning, too,” Rubio answered, “The problem I encountered is what do I do in the meantime — ”

“How about nothing?” Hannity interjected.


On Wednesday, Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, who has supported forms of immigration reform since he was a House staffer in the 1990s, declared that he would “debate anybody” who calls the current bipartisan effort “amnesty.”

“Earned legalization is not amnesty,” Ryan said during a forum on immigration sponsored by the National Association of Manufacturers. “I will debate anybody who tries to suggest that these ideas that are moving through Congress are amnesty. They’re not. Amnesty is wiping the slate clean and not paying any penalty for having done something wrong.”

Ryan pointed to provisions baked into the Senate bill from the beginning that require those in the United States to pay a fine, back taxes, undergo background checks and enter a years-long probationary period before earning citizenship, a process that can take up to 15 years.

“That,” Ryan said, “is not amnesty.”


“The bill is an amnesty proposal dressed up in feel-good ‘pathway to citizenship’ rhetoric,” Heritage marketing vice president Genevieve Wood said. The Heritage Foundation’s $100,000 campaign is designed to “cut through the spin and show the proposal for what it really is—a rehashed version of the 1986 reforms that proved to be an abysmal failure,” she continued.

One Heritage image features a picture of Rubio and his recent promise to Univision: “First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border.” The ad’s tag line then reads: “Amnesty? Guaranteed. Border security? Not so much.”

“The pro-amnesty crowd is trying every trick in the deceptive marketing handbook—from re-branding ‘amnesty’ as a ‘pathway to citizenship,’ to the old bait-and-switch of promising strong security and delivering nothing but amnesty instead,” Wood added. “We’re trying to shine some light on what the bill really does, so the American people won’t be fooled again as we were in 1986.”


Senate Republicans don’t believe President Obama will enforce the bill’s border-security provisions–and they don’t want to let millions of illegal immigrants begin working their way toward citizenship until they see the president is serious about locking down the borders. That’s why they want those immigrants’ eligibility for citizenship to be contingent, or “triggered,” on the U.S. Border Patrol meeting benchmarks.

But Democrats don’t think Republicans will play fair when it comes to such a trigger. They fear Republicans will hold out for a trigger and then vote against the bill anyway. Or set benchmarks for a trigger that can’t be reached. Or establish a trigger but then deny the Border Patrol the funding it needs to meet the benchmarks…

Graham, something of a Democrat-whisperer for conservatives, may understand better than anyone the strength of the other party’s paranoia. “Here’s the problem for our Democratic colleagues,” he said Tuesday. “If you say 90 percent operational control of the border, it wouldn’t be hard to envision a Republican-controlled wing of the Congress where they undercut the ability to get to 90 percent through lack of funding.”…

Durbin was clear on this point: “90 percent trigger is totally unacceptable.”


Republicans are beginning to condition their support for the whole immigration package on Democrats’ agreement to include Cornyn’s amendment.

“If it goes down, the whole thing’s in jeopardy. If the Cornyn amendment passes, [reform] has a much better chance of getting across the finish line,” said a top GOP aide, adding that the provision is important because of Cornyn’s leadership position and credibility as a Republican up for reelection next year in a border state.

Republicans think they have the upper hand—and the leverage—because, they argue, Democrats have simply overestimated how much pressure the GOP is under to play ball on immigration reform. “Republicans will support this bill if they think it’s good policy, but they’re not going to support it out of political necessity,” a GOP Senate aide said.


“If you’re worried about dialing down conservative blowback, you probably would want to be able to show, here’s how you used your vote and your leverage to improve the bill,” said one aide to a swing-state Republican. “Use the leverage you have, secure some changes to the bill, then once the bill is strengthened some, come out and say, ‘Given these changes, I now feel comfortable supporting this legislation.'”…

Republicans who are moving toward backing the bill are holding tele-town hall meetings and drafting opinion pieces explaining their votes, several aides said, in an effort to lay the groundwork for casting a vote that could disappoint some on the conservative right. Strategists say it’s important for Republicans concerned about their right flank to be able to point to efforts to strengthen border security and other provisions of the bill — a tactic the Senate Republican aide called “prepping the market.” It’s also important to find a few supportive conservative activists on the border enforcement-first side who can be available for media interviews in the wake of any announcement…

“If you have a critical mass of 70-plus, the House has to act,” said one Senate Republican chief of staff. “If you don’t have 70, this thing’s not going to go anywhere in the House. If you don’t have 70, why does [Senator] number 61, 62, 63 walk the plank for something that’s not going to go anywhere?”


Schumer’s main fear is that jamming through a bill with only limited Republican support will embolden GOP opponents of immigration reform in both chambers into derailing the legislation he’s painstakingly worked to produce. And he’s vowing not to unravel the core of the bill as he negotiates with Republicans over the next three weeks of floor debate…

“No one wants to undo the core agreement, but some on the left apparently think we should reject any further Republican amendments and simply dare them to vote against the bill,” said a source close to Schumer. “That would be like spiking the football before we are even in the red zone.”…

At a Tuesday closed-door lunch, Schumer privately told Democrats that intermediaries to Boehner have advised him that winning the backing of more than just a handful of Senate Republicans will carry much greater weight with House Republicans.


A wise Latina, A.J. Delgado, recently explained on Mediaite.com why amnesty won’t win Republicans the Hispanic vote — even if they get credit for it. Her very first argument was: “Latinos will resent the added competition for jobs.”

But rich businessmen don’t care. Big Republican donors — and their campaign consultants — just want to make money. They don’t care about Hispanics, and they certainly don’t care what happens to the country. If the country is hurt, I don’t care, as long as I am doing better! This is the very definition of treason.

Hispanic voters are a small portion of the electorate. They don’t want amnesty, and they’re hopeless Democrats. So Republicans have decided the path to victory is to flood the country with lots more of them!


Suicidal Republicans have supported illegal alien amnesties dating back to the Reagan era. They have paid a steep, lasting price. As bankrupt, multiculti-wracked California goes, so goes the nation. The progs’ plan has always been to exploit the massive population of illegal aliens to redraw the political map and secure a permanent ruling majority.

Now, in the wake of nonstop D.C. corruption eruptions, SchMcGRubio and Company want us to trust them with a thousand new pages of phony triggers, left-wing slush-fund spending and make-believe assimilation gestures.

Trust them? Hell, no. There’s only one course for citizens who believe in upholding the Constitution and protecting the American dream: Stop them.


This morning on the Senate floor, Gang of Eight member Senator John McCain declared that the Gang’s immigration bill needed to pass in order to remove a “very huge stain on the conscience of the United States of America.”


Click the image to listen.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


mika sees a pattern in issa….he talks big but becomes a nothingburger…ugghhh….

cmsinaz on June 13, 2013 at 6:48 AM

cmsinaz on June 13, 2013 at 6:48 AM

Mornin’! Here’s my take for today: “Obama, the Patriot Act, and Chicago Politics: A Story of “Evolving””

kingsjester on June 13, 2013 at 6:51 AM

mika calling a snowden a weasel, but we sure do know if this was under a gop president, she’d be calling him a hero, a whistleblower

cmsinaz on June 13, 2013 at 6:46 AM

Good morning. Don’t be so quick to judge cmsinaz, if anybody knows weasels it is that wretched group on MSNBC you insist on watching.

I heard Rubio on Hannity yesterday afternoon. The tap dancing was so loud you’d think somebody was using an old-fashioned typewriter. His commitment to securing the borders was somewhat tepid IMO, at least when compared to the idea of conferring legal status on the illegals. And he only mentioned how greater border security contributes to national security in passing. In other words, it’s all about pandering to the illegals and the Hispanic groups that want reconquista to happen sooner than later. Well sorry Senator Rubio, some of us have no interest in allowing Mexico to annex the United States.

Happy Nomad on June 13, 2013 at 6:55 AM

but they do want everyone to keep pushing


they have stuff like free fax to congress, etc. there too.

r keller on June 13, 2013 at 3:38 AM

I mentioned last night about what Roy Beck of NUSA said on the conference call, so I won’t repeat it all this morning. There’s positive signs that talk radio is finally coming around (except Sean the sellout Vannity). But outrage from the American people will be the only way to stop it. Call or email you senator every day. Yes, every day and do the same with your Rep. Your pressure has to outweigh that of the RNC/big money donors threatening to withhold campaign funds. This isn’t like Obamacare, which may collapse under its own weight. This is unreversible and will change the culture of this country altogether. Not to mention the overflow of schools, hospitals and especially jails.

It’s time to Churchillian now and never, never, give up.

TxAnn56 on June 13, 2013 at 6:56 AM

John McCain Paul Ryan and the rest of the GOP leadership………Open Borders and big business owned.

ANYONE who is SERIOUS about fixing this will SEAL THE FREAKING BORDER……FIRST!!!

The Dems will NEVER do this……..because 70% of the voters are…….Democrat!!!

No Amnesty !!! no Amnesty!!!

PappyD61 on June 13, 2013 at 6:56 AM

It’s time to go Churchillian now and never, never, give up.

Not enough coffee yet.

TxAnn56 on June 13, 2013 at 6:56 AM

kingsjester on June 13, 2013 at 6:51 AM

morning KJ

Excellent once again….it irks me the lsm is more worried about making sure nothing touches dear leader than what has actually happened to this country…


cmsinaz on June 13, 2013 at 6:57 AM

Happy Nomad on June 13, 2013 at 6:55 AM

morning HN…good point…

disappointed in Rubio…like I just said…they really think this is going to make the hispanics like them more, they are delusional…

cmsinaz on June 13, 2013 at 7:00 AM

What to do with the millions of illegals while we secure the border? Hmmm.I know, Marco.Round them all up and send them back!We certainly wouldn’t want to ignore them while they milk our social services system dry,now would we?

redware on June 13, 2013 at 7:01 AM

Senator Rubio….Some in the Hispanic community are interested a bit more in a path to citizenship……in a different “Republic”.


And yet you, and the republicans in leadership are NOT interested in Border security FIRST???


PappyD61 on June 13, 2013 at 7:02 AM

cmsinaz on June 13, 2013 at 6:57 AM

Thank you, ma’am!

A president’s background matters.

kingsjester on June 13, 2013 at 7:03 AM

What to do with the millions of illegals while we secure the border? Hmmm.I know, Marco.Round them all up and send them back!We certainly wouldn’t want to ignore them while they milk our social services system dry,now would we?

redware on June 13, 2013 at 7:01 AM

Even more offensive, IMO, is the fact that illegal aliens were among those standing behing the rat-eared tyrant as he demanded amnesty. The White House is closed for tours by Americans due to sequestration yet these criminals get to visit? And if you get invited to be a prop for the rat-eared coward, are you really in the shadows? Are you really undocumented considering you have to provide a SSN to even get access to the White House?

Happy Nomad on June 13, 2013 at 7:06 AM

REPORT: Obama’s Snooping Excludes Mosques, Missed Boston Bombers…

via drudge….Not surprised at all…

cmsinaz on June 13, 2013 at 7:07 AM

Happy Nomad on June 13, 2013 at 7:06 AM

pfffft, you don’t need no stinkin SSN at the white house when you are an obama prop….

cmsinaz on June 13, 2013 at 7:09 AM

REPORT: Obama’s Snooping Excludes Mosques, Missed Boston Bombers…

cmsinaz on June 13, 2013 at 7:07 AM

That’s the one question I would have put to Alexander yesterday when he made the claim that they had thwarted dozens of attacks by spying on Americans. Why didn’t they stop the Boston Marathon bombing. They may have not been able to pinpoint the venue but the Tsarnaev brothers should have been on the radar considering Russia approached both the FBI and CIA.

Happy Nomad on June 13, 2013 at 7:09 AM

you don’t need no stinkin SSN at the white house when you are an obama prop….

cmsinaz on June 13, 2013 at 7:09 AM

No, really, you actually do. Unless you are a visiting head of state or something the Secret Service does a background check on guests.

Happy Nomad on June 13, 2013 at 7:12 AM

Happy Nomad on June 13, 2013 at 7:12 AM

should have put a sarc tag on it…so the secret service let them through then?

cmsinaz on June 13, 2013 at 7:17 AM

Happy Nomad on June 13, 2013 at 7:09 AM

yup….here are the needles, but let’s through this other haystack that won’t produce squat…

cmsinaz on June 13, 2013 at 7:18 AM

mika really going on the attack against snowden, he’s not a whistleblower!

calm down chickie

cmsinaz on June 13, 2013 at 7:22 AM

should have put a sarc tag on it…so the secret service let them through then?

cmsinaz on June 13, 2013 at 7:17 AM

I’m saying that they were probably able to supply a SSN. In any case they definitely are not living in the shadows just waiting for the light-bringer to offer them up a path to citizenship.

Happy Nomad on June 13, 2013 at 7:25 AM

mika really going on the attack against snowden, he’s not a whistleblower!

cmsinaz on June 13, 2013 at 7:22 AM

We really need a new term for these critters like Snowden and Bradley Manning. They are definitely not whistleblowers nor are they “leakers.” Maybe we should be calling them neo-traitors. Or Neo-tras for short.

Happy Nomad on June 13, 2013 at 7:29 AM

Mornin’ everybody…

“Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) spoke out against the “Gang of 8” immigration bill. Many complain the bill puts amnesty ahead of border security, but Lee says there are bigger problems in the bill. Even if the border security part is strengthened, Lee claims four other parts remain weak.

The bill limits Congressional oversight of the executive branch, which allows the branch to enact the new laws in their preferred method. Congress is held accountable by the citizens and this bill keeps both out of the loop on immigration.

By passing this bill, Congress would turn over almost all authority to the executive branch to secure or not secure the border, verify or not verify workplace enforcement, certify or not certify visa reforms.

And, of course, the administration will begin the legalization of 11 million illegal immigrants, with no input from Congress, as soon as possible regardless of how much progress has been made on the border and other priorities.

The law would put the Secretary of Homeland Security, a position not elected by the people, in charge of immigration. Lee points out that last year the government published over 82,000 pages of new rules and Congress never saw them. This bill would only make it worse.

This bill will make that problem worse by granting similarly broad discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security to create the rules and regulations that will determine how the bill is implemented, as well as authorize the Secretary, in hundreds of instances, to simply ignore immigration law.

While I can certainly see why members of Congress would not want to take responsibility for the consequences of this mess of a bill, that is not how our republic should function.

Lee explained the bill is unfair to those who did come here legally. One constituent told Lee how she spent years and thousands of dollars to do it the legal way and is on a nonimmigrant visa. The visa expires in 2017 and she hopes it will be renewed. But this bill will punish her and reward those in America illegally.

Meanwhile, those who have broken the law by their illegal presence in the United States will not only be allowed to stay where they are, not only be allowed to live where they now live, not only be allowed to work where they now work, but they’ll be put on a path toward eventual citizenship at the same time that she and many others like her will have to go back to their home country. It seems to be rewarding those who have broken our laws, while, in relative terms, punishing those who have attempted to abide by our laws in good faith.

The most important part, since it affects everyone, is the cost of the bill. The Heritage Foundation reported that it will cost $6 trillion, yet people on both sides disagree with this assessment. Lee argues that, even if people disagree with the Heritage figure, this bill will certainly cost a lot of money:

If they believe the Heritage Foundation is wrong, that’s fine. But they should tell us how much they think it is going to cost taxpayers. So far, we have heard nothing.

There are reports that Democrats have asked the Congressional Budget Office to evaluate the bill, but the report won’t be published until next week. That’s unfortunate. If they are really concerned about the cost, and want it to be part of the debate, this should have been done long ago…”

Video at link:


workingclass artist on June 13, 2013 at 7:31 AM

I use this sports analogy when discussing immigration with my hispanic friends:
Your teams is playing for World Cup qualification. You and your family have waited 4 hours in line in the hot sun for tickets. All of a sudden a bus comes around the corner, unloads and all the occupants go immediately to the front of the line. You ask what’s up and are told those folks were all caught around back trying to climb the fence, and rather than take the time and expense to arrest them, the cops decided to just send them on in by the front door. How would you feel right about then? With immigration, we’re not talking hours and a soccer game, we’re talking years, thousands of dollars and lives.

Count Mahdrof on June 13, 2013 at 7:31 AM

gotcha HN

morning WCA :)

nice analogy CM….do they understand?

cmsinaz on June 13, 2013 at 7:36 AM


“The State Department whistleblower is Aurelia Fedenisn. She worked in the department’s inspector general’s office until her retirement in December 2012. According to USA Today, she has sought protection as an official whistleblower after the State Department directly threatened her, once at her home. It threatened her with criminal charges when she turned over documents to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) showing evidence that the department had watered down her report, in which she alleged that the department at the highest levels had scuttled eight investigations into a range of criminal wrongdoing.

Dallas lawyer Damon Mathias, who represents Fedenisn, said Fedenisn hired him after two diplomatic security agents spoke in a threatening manner to her teenage children at her home in a Virginia suburb of Washington. The agents arrived at the home to talk to Fedenisn about documents Fedenisn had given to Cruz and told the teens that they demanded to speak to their mom immediately, Mathias said.

Mathias says Fedenisn’s claim is that agents from State’s Diplomatic Security and other divisions engaged in very questionable and possibly criminal conduct; the Inspector General has been hampered in performing its oversight role; “and the findings they wanted to put in the report end up being left out,” Mathias said. “So you have a coverup of the coverup.”

When Fedenisn and her lawyers met with lawyers for the Office of the Inspector General, the government lawyers demanded she hand over the documents or they would refer the matter to the Department of Justice and Fedenisn would face criminal prosecution, Mathias said.

“They made it clear that they would go after her criminally,” he said.

“We refused to turn over the documents” and Fedenisn is now seeking whistle-blower protection, he said.

If this online bio is accurate, Aurelia Fedensin is a 23-year State Department officer who also served in the US military reserves as an intelligence officer. That’s not the typical profile of a crank or someone who just makes things up. The allegations Fedenisn’s IG investigation uncovered include the accusation that Obama bundler turned US ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman sought the services of prostitutes routinely, including underage girls. Gutman denies, and State denies any cover-up, neither of which are dispositive of the charges. State’s new spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, worked on the Obama campaign and has a history of saying things that are provably false. She comes to the job with no prior experience in the foreign service at all.

Fedensin’s investigations also include accusations that then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s security detail used prostitutes when they traveled with Clinton on her million mile march around the world. They also include allegations that State Department officials engaged in an underground drug ring in Baghdad, Iraq. The overarching accusation within all of this is that the State Department at the highest levels scuttled all eight investigations. Specifically, that career officer Patrick Kennedy and Clinton loyalist Cheryl Mills engineered the death of those investigations.

The State Department took Fedensin’s whistleblowing extremely seriously. CBS, which originally broke the story without naming Fedensin, reports that ”Two hours after CBS News made inquiries to the State Department about these charges, investigators from the State Department’s Inspector General showed up at [Fedenisn’s] door.” That’s apparently when they threatened her kids.

With all of this swirling around, there’s a decent argument to be made that the State Department’s two scandals — this one plus Benghazi, which has a body count and includes the then Secretary of State blaming a terrorist attack on a movie — make it the top overall scandal going. It has four dead Americans and now at least three threatened Americans, and an inspector general who is now seeking what amounts to asylum in the care of Congress against the executive branch that allegedly threatened her.

It’s hard to say where all of this goes. The US State Department, Justice Department, Treasury Department, National Security Agency and military are all caught up in serious scandals, any of which would dominate headlines if not for the presence and interference from all the other scandals. It looks like our government is in the beginning stages of a collapse…”


workingclass artist on June 13, 2013 at 7:41 AM

Mornin’ cmz…

read the tatler post I linked…They threatened her and her kids.

Incredible…And she went to Sen. Ted Cruz for help.

I think the State Dept. Scandal(s) is about blowup big time.

workingclass artist on June 13, 2013 at 7:44 AM

for cripe sakes…morning joe is implying the ‘shading’ on barack obama in an nra ad is racial….anything to bash the nra ay joe?


cmsinaz on June 13, 2013 at 7:47 AM

workingclass artist on June 13, 2013 at 7:44 AM

will do….i sure hope it blows up but so far…the lsm have been good lapdogs never even mentioning this story on the evening news…been very quiet about it…

cmsinaz on June 13, 2013 at 7:49 AM

for cripe sakes…morning joe is implying the ‘shading’ on barack obama in an nra ad is racial….anything to bash the nra ay joe?


cmsinaz on June 13, 2013 at 7:47 AM

That is the MSNBC template.

Start with a racial conclusion. Then figure out how.

Jabberwock on June 13, 2013 at 7:57 AM

Good article…

“Is Edward Snowden a hero or a traitor? I don’t care. You read right: I don’t give a whit about the man who exposed two sweeping U.S. online surveillance programs, nor do I worry much about his verdict in the court of public opinion.

Why? Because it is the wrong question. The Snowden narrative matters mostly to White House officials trying to deflect attention from government overreach and deception, and to media executives in search of an easy storyline to serve a celebrity-obsessed audience.

For the rest of us, the questions seem to be:

* Are the two programs revealed by Snowden legal and constitutional?

* Are the programs effective? The government says yes, but most Americans don’t trust government. The Obama administration claims National Security Agency spying helped foil a plot in New York, but that claim has been convincingly disputed.

* What else is the government doing to invade our privacy? Until a few days ago, paranoids were people who claimed Washington had cast a vast electronic net over our communications. Who isn’t a bit paranoid now?

* Why did the U.S. government for years debunk what they called a myth about the National Security Agency seizing electronic data from millions of Americans?

* Why did the leader of the U.S. intelligence community mislead Congress in March by answering a question about the program in the “least untruthful manner” — a phrase that would make George Orwell cringe.


* Why do Democratic lawmakers who criticized President Bush for exploiting the post-9/11 Patriot Act now defend President Obama for curbing civil liberties?

* Why do Republicans who defended Bush now chastise Obama for ruthlessly fighting terrorists?

* Rather than fierce oversight, why did the White House and congressional leaders restrict full knowledge of the programs to a few elites, and stage, for the rest of Congress, Potemkin briefings?

* Why does a secret federal court almost always side with the government’s requests to seize information.

* Why didn’t the president find a way before the leaks to tell the public in general terms what he was doing and why? Obama ran on a pledge of government transparency, opposed Bush-era surveillance tactics, and denounced the “false choice” between security and liberty.

No sane American would deny the president and the national security community the best tools to fight a fast-evolving and shadowy enemy. It would be foolish to demand full disclosure of programs that require secrecy. And most Americans, according to polls, are open to trading some privacy for security.

But before perpetuating and immortalizing the Surveillance State, we need to remember that the precedents set today apply to the next president — and the ones that follow, perhaps men and women who aren’t as dedicated to democratic institutions as both Bush and Obama are.

It would help if the Obama administration would stop misleading the public, eroding trust in government that is already at record lows. Four stories today suggest how badly the truth has been victimized.

Scott Shane and Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times documented how intelligence officials for years have denied the existence of programs revealed by Snowden: “Disclosures on N.S.A. Surveillance Put Awkward Light on Previous Denials.”

“Awkward light” is a polite way of describing a lie.

Glenn Kessler slapped three Pinocchios on James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence who spoke a least-untruthful way: “Debates Over NSA Should be Free of Semantic Muddling.”

Semantic muddling is a polite way of describing – well, you get it.

Jack Shafer of Reuters wrote an insightful piece that puts Snowden’s actions into context with the government’s self-serving leaks. “… He’s done in the macro what the national security establishment does in the micro every day of the week to manage, manipulate and influence ongoing policy debates,” Shafer wrote.

Finally, syndicated liberal columnist David Sirota challenged the views of “Permanent Washington” in an analysis arguing that NSA’s actions are illegal and unconstitutional.

He called the Snowden case “a commentary on how political self-interest and partisanship now trumps everything else – even the law of the land.”

Love him or hate him, we all owe Snowden our thanks for forcing upon the nation an important debate. But the debate shouldn’t be about him. It should be about the gnawing questions his actions raised from the shadows.

In the end, fear and politics likely will prevail, as it has in America’s past. Washington elites will close ranks to protect the Surveillance State, to trample out transparency and to mislead the public. Maybe we can talk first?..”


workingclass artist on June 13, 2013 at 8:03 AM

Mornin’ cmz…

read the tatler post I linked…They threatened her and her kids.

Incredible…And she went to Sen. Ted Cruz for help.

I think the State Dept. Scandal(s) is about blowup big time.

workingclass artist on June 13, 2013 at 7:44 AM

James Rosen was on BOR last night talking about this – he obviously knew what a big story this was…

Anti-Control on June 13, 2013 at 8:09 AM

Uhoh…Congress and staff are upset having to live under the laws they pass…

“Dozens of lawmakers and aides are so afraid that their health insurance premiums will skyrocket next year thanks to Obamacare that they are thinking about retiring early or just quitting.

The fear: Government-subsidized premiums will disappear at the end of the year under a provision in the health care law that nudges aides and lawmakers onto the government health care exchanges, which could make their benefits exorbitantly expensive…”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/obamacare-lawmakers-health-insurance-92691.html#ixzz2W66k4FXs

workingclass artist on June 13, 2013 at 8:10 AM

James Rosen was on BOR last night talking about this – he obviously knew what a big story this was…

Anti-Control on June 13, 2013 at 8:09 AM

The last line of the article…

It looks like our government is in the beginning stages of a collapse.

workingclass artist on June 13, 2013 at 8:12 AM

That is the MSNBC template.

Start with a racial conclusion. Then figure out how.

Jabberwock on June 13, 2013 at 7:57 AM

Tactics being what they are with this administration…

Ya’ll don’t pay attention to your imploding government…or your imploding economy…etc.

workingclass artist on June 13, 2013 at 8:15 AM

“In these 1,076 pages there are roughly 1,000 waivers granted to the Department of Homeland Security…” – Sen Ted Cruz

Mickey Kaus immigration cheat sheet excerpts & Sen. Cruz video at link.

” “Multiple triggers”/Legalization is immediate. DHS just has to write border “plan.” The most any “triggers” can possibly do is delay green cards and citizenship.

“90 % effectiveness”/ If not reached, triggers only toothless commission. … Also: “90% effectiveness”–as defined by DHS–is really more like 50%.

“Pay back taxes”/ Only if already “assessed” by IRS (unlikely). Newly legalized may instead get refunds.

“Learn English”/ Only need to sign up for English class.

Clean record”/ Allows two free misdemeanors. Additional misdemeanors (including assaults) can be waived by DHS.

No “public charge.” Must earn 125% of poverty line / They’re going to deport people who earn only 124% or less? Ha.

“Pay a fine”/ Can be waived by DHS

“Back of the line”/ Get to wait out the line while living in the U.S (unlike suckers trying to come here legally)…”

There’s more at the link. ”


workingclass artist on June 13, 2013 at 8:43 AM

The last line of the article…

It looks like our government is in the beginning stages of a collapse.

workingclass artist on June 13, 2013 at 8:12 AM

Oh, I saw that – my point was that Rosen, too, indicated of what a big deal this story was, that’s all…

Anti-Control on June 13, 2013 at 8:44 AM

The mechanics of the bill sound great, unfortunately, it’s the implementation and making this mess of a bill work that’s the kicker. Why does Rubio and Ryan accept the premise that those in the shadows want to come forward into the sunlight? They are not all these wonderful family and God fearing Christian types they are being portrayed as. I’m sure most are just here for a job so they can send money back to Mexico. They come and go as it pleases them. They won’t want to pay a fine and back taxes. We will end up paying for border security, just as we end up paying for everything else. We’re paying for our border security now as we should and shouldn’t expect some quasi-legal illegally here to pick up the tab. If our wonderful leaders stop paying for things like the study of the sex lives of shrimp, we’d have plenty of money for all kinds of security. We all know the dems will forgive the part of the requirement to pay fines and they will give them freebies currently denied, especially learning English. Then where will we be, 1986.

Kissmygrits on June 13, 2013 at 9:36 AM