Lindsey Graham: Either we kill some camels in Syria or Charleston could get nuked by Iran!

The adjectives for this level of idiocy escape me.

South Carolina U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham says he’s convinced that Syrian President Assad used chemical weapons on his own people...

He says if there is no U.S. response, Iran will not believe America’s resolve to block Iran from developing nuclear weapons [and] those nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists could result in a bomb coming to Charleston Harbor.

He says he’s working to convince South Carolinians weary of war that the situations in Syria and Iran are linked. Graham says Syria could destabilize the entire Middle East...

So, Lindsey, firing a "shot across the bow" -- in Obama's words -- will somehow deter a nuclear Iran?

So, Lindsey, launching an attack "just muscular enough not to get mocked" will subdue Iran?

You're a joke, Senator Graham. You're a joke and a disgrace. And you need to go. My hope for 2014 is that a primary challenger will emerge and defeat you.


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

NOT A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC: Police Barricade McCain-Flake "Public" Meeting on Amnesty

As Mark Levin has consistently observed, we no longer live in a Constitutional Republic. Our representatives do not represent us. They pass laws they haven't read. And they consistently operate without the consent of the governed.

We have what the brilliantly prescient Alexis de Tocqueville called "democratic despotism", exemplified perfectly by a "public meeting" with U.S. senators at which the public was not welcome.

As senators representing a border state, one would think that Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake would be strong proponents for demanding legal immigration as well as for securing our borders. Instead, they have been not just vocal advocates of illegal immigration, these two GOP border state senators made up ¼ of the ‘Gang of Eight’ that crafted the bill to push amnesty on the American people.

There has been much controversy surrounding the route which immigration reform should take in America. Some are calling for amnesty for the tens of millions of illegals in this country. Others are adamant that either we are a nation of laws or we are not and do not support amnesty. Still others are torn between what to do with those who crossed the border illegally as children due to the decision of their parents.

Wherever you stand on the spectrum of beliefs on the topic, one would think that your elected officials would welcome the voice of anyone who wants to be heard regarding this issue that would have enormous economic repercussions on America. That is not the case with Arizona Senators McCain and Flake. On the very important issue of immigration reform, they chose to hold a ‘closed door, invitation only event’, which was labeled not as a town hall, but rather as a ‘Conversation on Amnesty’...

...While the story from the Arizona Republic states that this is a public event, the event was clearly marked as a private event and those without a ticket were only allowed to go so far...

...This decision to leave the people out of this ‘conversation’ resulted in a protest organized by Riders USA outside the Mesa Arts Center, where the ‘private event’ took place. The Arizona Republic did cover the event inside as well as provide pictures of the protest outside. If you look closely, based upon my comparison of the pictures on the Arizona Republic’s website, it appears that the McCain/Flake closed door, invitation only event took place in the Virginia G. Piper Repertory theater. That portion of the facility holds 550 people and, if you look at the picture below from the Arizona Republic, there were plenty of seats still available with a near empty upper level...

But we have an antidote, my friends.

We have a gift bequeathed to us by the founders.

It is Article V of the United States Constitution.

It is an escape hatch from an all-powerful central government that has grown out of control, just as de Tocqueville predicted.

We have an antidote and now is the time to begin reestablishing the Constitution.


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

Will Mark Levin Actually Moderate the GOP Debates? Exclusive Interview with RNC Communications Director Sean Spicer

A few days ago Sean Spicer, the Communications Director of the Republican National Committee, made a surprising statement: he said that Mark Levin should moderate the GOP debates. Levin has formally accepted the offer. To explore this issue and a few others, I made a few attempts to get a hold of Mr. Spicer and, after a time, was able to synch up with him this evening.

Ross: Sean, thanks very much for taking the time out of your schedule to meet with us. Give us a little bit of background on yourself and how you arrived at the RNC and rose to such a key position.

Spicer: I got involved in several Congressional campaigns, House races in the nineties... after a time, I became the Republican National Congressional Committee's Retention Director. Three years later, I became a spokesman for the House Budget Committee. More recently, for the last three years of the Bush Administration I had a very lengthy title, but was really a trade spokesman.

Ross: Sean, a recent statement you made really caught conservatives by surprise -- and in a positive way. You said you thought Mark Levin and perhaps other conservative thought leaders should moderate GOP debates. How serious was that statement and did the reaction catch you by surprise?

Spicer: That was a very serious statement. Obviously, we're not at a point yet of picking debate forums or moderators, but we are definitely committed to energizing the conservative base. It's common sense: anyone's who listening to Rush, Levin, Hannity... they are addressing the issues that the grassroots are concerned with.

What I also find absolutely unbelievable is that in 2008 Chris Matthews, of all people, moderated two GOP debates. Yet why wouldn't we insist on the converse situation?

Ross: Mark Levin and other conservative pundits have been pretty harsh on the GOP leadership. Where, in your view, is that criticism legitimate and where do you think it's off-base?

Spicer: I'm not sure what the question is... what are you asking?

Ross: One of the many things that seems to aggravate the grassroots is the apparent disdain the RNC has for the conservative base. Is this an unfair impression and, if so, why?

Spicer: Look, we cannot win without the Tea Party, Constitutional conservatives, etc. And anyone who doesn't understand that isn't paying attention. We know the importance of the grassroots.

Ross: Fair enough, but we look at races like Dick Lugar vs. Richard Mourdock, Karl Rove attacking Christine O'Donnell, Lisa Murkowski going after Joe Miller, John McCain attacking Ted Cruz, etc. It seems as though when an establishment Republican loses to a conservative in a primary, they often do everything they can to sabotage the Republican side in the race. Yet when a conservative loses in a primary, the reverse seldom (if ever) happens. Is that accurate or inaccurate in your view?

Spicer: I would dispute the accuracy of that. Picking out individual situations involving Dick Lugar and Karl Rove... those aren't the RNC. We're not defending John Boehner or John McCain. We're not there to promote or defend particular policies or issues.

What I will tell you is that we have a huge fight on our hands and we need as united a front as we can get.

Ross: Where is the outreach to bloggers? I've been around nearly 10 years now and haven't seen much formal outreach to the folks I know. Am I missing something? Is there some formal program or platform that's needed?

Spicer: We are definitely connected to some of the major bloggers. We're not perfect, for sure, but we have regular dealings with RedState, Guy Benson, Katie Pavlich, etc. So, factually, I'm not sure that's totally accurate. Our staff is trying to reach out, and we'd like to help.

We also don't view it as a one-way street. If you need content, if you need messaging, ask us. We understand that it's not just spamming out messages, we want to help the blogosphere.

Ross: What was a very energized conservative base in 2010 now appears, in my view, very dispirited and unlikely to turn out (at least at this point) for the mid-terms. This could spell disaster for the GOP and literally could permanently eradicate the Republican Party by returning control of the House to Nancy Pelosi.

Some sample reasons for a major decline in morale:
- A year after the attack in Benghazi and despite a huge majority of Republican House members signing on for a Select Committee, the Speaker refuses to dedicate staff and funding, despite this being a very common way to address controversial tactics by an administration
- One of the articles of impeachment for Nixon related to his political handling of the IRS; yet Congress hasn't called for a special prosecutor
- Likewise, unlawful attacks on the press -- from the AP to James Rosen -- have been largely ignored
- Obamacare law is being systematically rewritten by the president, with no less a commentator than George Will labeling it an impeachable crime

So the impression of the base is that our constitutional system of checks and balances is being systematically dismantled, and there's virtually no visible efforts by the House to push back. Instead, they want to slide Amnesty -- of all things -- by the American people.

Spicer: Look, our current immigration system is broken --

Ross: And who broke it? Congress --

Spicer: But ultimately the system needs to be fixed --

Ross: And that's what I don't understand. Pew indicates that 7 out of 8 of legalized illegals would vote Democrat. Why would the GOP want to commit political suicide?

Spicer: Look, we are well aware that border security is paramount.

Ross: But everything we read indicates that there's an effort to break the Senate bill into little pieces to make it appear border security will come first, when in fact it will all end up in a conference committee and a Schumer-Reid Amnesty Bill would emerge --

Spicer: But that's pure speculation, and truly not in my wheelhouse. We know how important border security will be, we know it's critical.

As for a Select Committee on Benghazi, I've been told the normal committee process is working... that's not in my wheelhouse to be sure, but --

Ross: But a Select Committee, with an experienced prosecutor --

Spicer: Again, that's not really my area, but I can assure you there is focus.

Ross: Well, Sean, I know you're short on time, but I do want to thank you for your willingness to open lines of communication here.

Spicer: Just to reemphasize, we both want the same things. We want to get the system back under control. We may differ on some of the tactics, but we have to figure out how to cooperate, because if we don't, the other side wins. And we all know what that means.

Ross: Thanks, Sean.

19 Illegal Immigration Facts You'll Never Read in Legacy Media

Guest post by Michael Snyder

Should we roll out the red carpet and allow millions upon millions of thieves, rapists, gang members and drug dealers to come waltzing into this country any time they would like? Should we broadcast a message to the rest of the world that anyone that can find a way to enter this country and somehow get to a “sanctuary city” can sign up for a plethora of welfare benefits and live a life of leisure at the expense of hard working American citizens?

Yes, those questions sound absurd, but what I have just described will essentially be official U.S. government policy if the immigration bill going through Congress becomes law. And unfortunately, Democrats now say that they have the Republican votes that they need to get “immigration reform” through the House of Representatives. If this amnesty bill becomes law, it will encourage even more illegal immigration and it will be one more step toward making the U.S. border essentially meaningless.

Right now, we desperately need the American people to contact their representatives in Congress and demand that they vote against this bill. Sadly, this is not likely to happen because most Americans have absolutely no idea how negatively illegal immigration is affecting this nation.

The following are 19 very disturbing facts about illegal immigration that every American should know…

#1 57 percent of all households that are led by an immigrant (legal or illegal) are enrolled in at least one welfare program.

#2 According to one study, the cost to U.S. taxpayers of legalizing current illegal immigrants would be approximately 6.3 trillion dollars over the next 50 years.

#3 The Obama administration has distributed flyers that tell illegal immigrants that their immigration status will not be checked when they apply for food stamps.

#4 The Department of Homeland Security says that it has lost track of a million people that have entered this country but that appear never to have left.

#5 One out of every five children living in Los Angeles County has a parent that is in the country illegally.

#6 In one recent year, taxpayers in Los Angeles County spent 600 million dollars on welfare for children of illegal immigrants.

#7 Thanks to illegal immigration, California’s overstretched health care system is on the verge of collapse. Dozens of California hospitals and emergency rooms have shut down over the past decade because they could not afford to stay open after being endlessly swamped by illegal immigrants who were simply not able to pay for the services that they were receiving. As a result, the remainder of the health care system in the state of California is now beyond overloaded. This had led to brutally long waits, diverted ambulances and even unnecessary patient deaths. At this point, the state of California now ranks dead last out of all 50 states in the number of emergency rooms per million people.

#8 It has been estimated that U.S. taxpayers spend $12,000,000,000 a year on primary and secondary school education for the children of illegal immigrants.

#9 It is estimated that illegal aliens make up approximately 30 percent of the population in federal, state and local prisons and that the total cost of incarcerating them is more than $1.6 billion annually.

#10 The federal government actually has a website that teaches immigrants how to sign up for welfare programs once they arrive in the United States.

#11 The Obama administration recently introduced the very first “unmanned” border station along the Texas-Mexico border.

#12 The Obama administration has sued individual states such as Arizona that have tried to crack down on illegal immigration.

#13 According to the FBI, there are approximately 1.4 million gang members living in our cities. Illegal immigration has been one of the primary factors that has fueled the growth of these gangs.

#14 As I have written about previously, there are only about 200 police officers assigned to Chicago’s Gang Enforcement Unit to handle the estimated 100,000 gang members living in the city.

#15 Mexican drug cartels make approximately 6.6 billion dollars a year “exporting” illegal drugs to the United States.

#16 It is an open secret that Mexican drug cartels are openly conducting military operations inside the United States. The handful of border patrol agents that we have guarding the border are massively outgunned and outmanned.

#17 According to the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center, Mexican drug cartels were actively operating in 50 different U.S. cities in 2006. By 2010, that number had skyrocketed to 1,286.

#18 Overall, more than 55,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico since 2006. That same level of violence will eventually show up in major U.S. cities unless something dramatic is done about illegal immigration.

#19 It is being projected that the Senate immigration bill will bring 33 million more people to the United States over the next decade.

One of the very few things that the federal government is actually required to do by the U.S. Constitution is to defend our borders, and unfortunately the Obama administration has willingly chosen to leave our borders completely wide open. In fact, you can go down to the Texas border right now and watch illegal immigrants hop right across the Rio Grande.

Several retired Border Patrol agents recently drafted an open letter to the American people on the subject of illegal immigration, and what they had to say was quite startling. The following is an excerpt from that letter that was in a recent Breitbart article…

“Transnational criminal enterprises have annually invested millions of dollars to create and staff international drug and human smuggling networks inside the United States; thus it is no surprise that they continue to accelerate their efforts to get trusted representatives in place as a means to guarantee continued success,” the Border Patrol agents wrote.

“We must never lose sight of the fact that the United States is the market place for the bulk of transnational criminal businesses engaged in human trafficking and the smuggling, distribution and sale of illegal drugs. Organized crime on this scale we are speaking about cannot exist without political protection.”

According to those retired border agents, by refusing to secure our border the Obama administration is openly facilitating the trafficking of drugs into the United States…

“Most heroin, cocaine, meth, and marijuana marketed in the United States is produced outside of our country, and then smuggled into the United States,” they wrote. “The placement of trusted foreign employees inside the United States is imperative to insure success in continuing to supply the demand, and returning the profits to the foreign organization. Members of these vicious transnational crime syndicates are already well established in more than 2,000 American cities and their numbers are increasing as networks expand and demands accelerate. These transnational criminals present a real and present danger to all Americans, and they live among us.”

Sadly, in politically correct America you can’t even talk about the problem of illegal immigration these days without being labeled as a “racist”.

For the record, I believe that all people deserve love and respect no matter what they look like or where they are born. God created us all and He loves us all very much. I have long been a very strong advocate for racial reconciliation in this country, and I will continue to be.

And there are tens of millions of Latino-Americans in this country that are hard working, law-abiding citizens. They have done things the right way, and it is extremely unfortunate that they often get lumped in with millions of illegal immigrants that willingly choose to break our laws.

Unfortunately, we have a system of immigration today that greatly rewards lawless behavior. We have made coming into this country through the front door exceedingly difficult, but we have left the back door completely wide open.

So hard working, law-abiding people that want to do things the right way are kept out, but those that want to come here and commit crimes or abuse the system are free to come on over any time that they would like.

What sense does that make?

Our immigration system is completely broken, but these days we cannot even have a rational debate about these issues. In politically correct America, illegal immigrants have become a “favored class” of people that you are never supposed to say anything bad about.

In fact, one activist recently went out and actually got people to sign a petition that said that we should let illegal immigrants out of prison no matter what crimes they have committed…

What in the world is happening to this country?

If you want to make a difference, please call your member of Congress now and tell them to vote No on Amnesty.

15 Photos From the #MarchForJobs Rally (Bringing Together Blacks, Hispanics and Whites) You'll Never See In Legacy Media

Stunning that I haven't seen these photos from the DC March for Jobs on Al Sharpton's MSNBC comedy show.

Hat tips: U.S.News, Breitbart, and WWNC.

Massive Billboard Rips Lindsey Graham

Lindsey Graham, along with John McCain and Marco Rubio, were the primary co-conspirators with malevolent Statists like Chuck Schumer and Robert ("Hey, little girl!") Menendez in crafting the latest Amnesty bill. And some of his constituents are more than a little peeved.

A brand-new Georgia billboard proclaiming South Carolina’s alleged affinity for illegal aliens is raising eyebrows this week.

The sign, posted in Canton, Ga., declares: “South Carolina welcomes the undocumented. Sen. Lindsey Graham says his state has a labor shortage and wants more immigrants. For job tips, call his office at (864) 646-4090. Located in Pendleton, S.C. Only 2 hours from Atlanta!”

Sen. Graham, R-S.C., sits on a bipartisan committee that just passed a sweeping immigration-reform bill.

“These people must have been off the planet for the last five years,” said D.A. King, an immigration activist... “We don’t need more workers. We need more jobs.”

Isn't it amazing that 20 million people who stole into this country illegally are honored and catered to while the hundreds of millions citizens who pay the bills are ignored and tormented?


Hat tips: BadBlue News and BB.

SHELL GAME: GOP immigration plan devised by Communist Party to build "permanent progressive majority"

Guest post by James Simpson.

The U.S. Senate’s “Gang of Eight” immigration-reform plan, as well as a strikingly similar plan now being backed by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and a bi-partisan House “Gang,” both offer the “roadmap to citizenship” originally conceived and carefully developed by members of the Communist Party USA working within the Democratic Party and the radical left activist network for the purpose of using amnestied illegals to build a “permanent progressive majority.”

That is the inescapable conclusion readers will draw after reading the forthcoming book by acclaimed researcher and blogger Trevor Loudon, titled "The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress" Although not yet published, Loudon agreed to allow our readers to preview one chapter, titled "Latino Immigrants: Tools to Ensure a ‘Governing Coalition’ for the Left."

In the book, Loudon exhaustively documents the Left’s longtime agenda regarding illegal aliens and how its activists have gone about implementing it. He provides irrefutable proof that the entire immigration-reform movement was the brainchild of American communists and that their goal has long been to establish unchallengeable political supremacy.

According to Loudon, the Communist Party USA has influenced U.S. policy toward illegals since at least the 1960s. He traces the history, showing how communists and communist-founded organizations slowly built the movement from the ground up. While other groups certainly joined the effort, the communists were always at the center.

For example, he tells the story of CPUSA member Bert Corona, the “Communist Father of the ‘Immigrants Rights’ movement.” In 1964, Corona, Cesar Chavez and future Democratic Socialists of America member Dolores Huerta forced Congress to end the guest worker “Bracero” program. Later, Corona sought ways to address “problems confronting Mexicans in the United States who had no visas or citizenship documents” – in other words, illegal aliens – including “how to defend persons detained by immigration authorities and how to help immigrants acquire disability and unemployment insurance and welfare.”

Along the way, Corona founded and/or led numerous organizations, such as the Mexican American Political Association, or MAPA, Centro de Action Social Autonoma, or CASA, and La Hermandad Mexicana Nacional (the National Mexican Brotherhood), all influential in the “immigrant rights” movement. The Communist Party still has strong influence in MAPA, which acts as a king-maker for Democratic Party candidates in the Los Angeles area.

Antonio Villaraigosa, former Los Angeles mayor and 2012 chairman of the Democratic National Convention, got his start with CASA. He was also a former member of the Communist Venceremos Brigades and worked with the Brigades in Cuba. As mayor of Los Angeles, he was “the most pro-illegal immigrant mayor the city has ever seen.”

Lorenzo Torrez, a long-time organizer of the Arizona Communist Party, paved the way for Communist-backed Congressmen Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva to win congressional seats in Arizona. He organized opposition to Southwestern states attempting to prevent illegal immigration and also helped change voting patterns across the entire region.

Loudon’s book identifies many influential communist and socialist politicians holding positions of influence in Congress and state and local governing bodies. For example, Rep. Judy Chu, D.-Calif., writes Loudon, has “a thirty-year history with the now defunct pro-China Communist Workers Party (CWP) and its surviving networks.” Chu is an advocate for “progressive” immigration reform and was a co-sponsor of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill introduced by Rep. Luis Gutierrez in 2010. In 2012, Chu served as co-chair of President Obama’s reelection campaign.

Today’s Communist Party USA cites the current amnesty effort as its top legislative priority. Its official position is virtually indistinguishable from that of the Democratic Party:

As Congress begins to draft legislation, immigrant rights groups and the labor movement including the AFL-CIO and its constituent organizations, SEIU, Change to Win, and many faith-based groups are mobilizing for comprehensive immigration reform with legalization, a path to citizenship and workers’ rights …

This legislative and political battle is also at the top of the agenda of the Communist Party USA and Young Communist League. Our program includes stopping deportations now as legislation is being adopted, and calling for legalization with a clear and speedy road map to citizenship for all 11 million. Future workers who come should have the same opportunity.

But it was left to Eliseo Medina to let the cat out of the bag. Medina, writes Loudon, “is both the country’s most influential ‘immigration reform’ activist and a Marxist. He is an Honorary Chair of Democratic Socialists of America”:

Medina learned voting strategies from Fred Ross, a Saul Alinsky-trained activist and the brains behind Cesar Chavez. Ross was to eventually have an impact on the national stage. Fred Ross conceived the voter outreach strategy that not only elected Communist Party affiliate Ed Roybal as Los Angeles’ first Latino Council member in 1949, but also laid the groundwork for the Obama campaign’s Latino voter outreach campaign in 2008 …

Medina worked hand in hand with UNITE HERE President John Wilhelm, to change AFL-CIO immigration policy at the 1999 Los Angeles Convention. Then, claiming U.S. immigration policy is “broken and needs to be fixed,” the AFL-CIO on February 16, 2000, called for a new amnesty for millions of undocumented workers and the repeal of the 1986 law that criminalized hiring them …

According to the SEIU website, Medina has played the leading role in uniting Change to Win and AFL-CIO behind the immigration reform movement …

In 2009, Medina said, “We reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three? If we have eight million new voters … We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle …”

Republican support

But why would Republicans get behind such a plan? Some astute political observers advise that when politicians appear to be promoting agendas against their own interest, follow the money. As Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian put it, “It’s no surprise that the Republicans supporting this thing are the ones with ties to the Chamber of Commerce, not ordinary voters.”

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and others have also stuffed the Senate bill with special perks for their backers – in Graham’s case, a provision granting more visas to workers for South Carolina’s meat industry. Rubio supposedly sought an amendment to assist Florida’s cruise-ship industry although he insists this is untrue.

But even if big business benefits, the cheap labor advantages are only temporary. Once illegal aliens are fully legalized, businesses will be required to provide just as much in pay and benefits as they pay American workers. In the meantime, however, it is widely assumed those workers will take jobs from American citizens, depress wages and increase unemployment. Moreover, in many key swing states, projected amnesties will swamp the rolls of the unemployed (see table).

Proposed Senate legislation delays full citizenship for 13 years, but if a bill passes, follow-on legislation is expected to accelerate that timeframe.

However, it is not even necessary for illegal aliens to achieve citizenship to significantly impact the vote in key districts. As a recent report for Capital Research Center detailed, Democrats are already employing illegals to boost get-out-the-vote efforts among Hispanics and won a major victory in a local Arizona election in 2011. They hope this strategy will win them key swing states, especially Texas, whose electoral votes will, many calculate, provide guaranteed Democratic presidents for the foreseeable future.

House Speaker John Boehner, R.-Ohio, has made much of his intention to ignore the Senate proposal and “do our own bill.” What the House has come up with, however, is considered by most to be “Rubio Lite.”

Boehner has enlisted former Republican VP candidate Ryan to promote the House plan. Ryan and the Republicans are working with some far-left House Democrats, including Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a former member of the Marxist-Leninist Puerto Rican Socialist Party, and Xavier Becerra, both members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and both longtime amnesty activists.

In an interview following Senate passage of the Gang of Eight bill, Fox News’ Sean Hannity pounded Ryan on the issue of border security:

HANNITY: So, my sources have been telling me, Congressman, that you guys are considering a five-year temporary legal status, and then [if] the border security measure is not met in five years, that that would be revoked.

RYAN: That’s right. That’s right.

HANNITY: I don’t believe that would ever happen.

RYAN: Well, look, they can’t get – what a person would want to have, is they would come out of the shadows, they get put on probation, they pay taxes, pay fines, learning English, learning civics. If they break the terms of their probation, they can be deported. And if the border is not secure by that time, if the verification system is not up and running, they can’t get – not only does that status go away, they can’t legal permanent residence …

So, illegal aliens would be granted legal status immediately, but five years down the road, if the fence still isn’t built and e-verify still isn’t being used, then their legal status would be revoked. Given that the Department of Homeland Security is already allegedly ignoring border security –with immigration and customs agents suing their own agency for failing to enforce the law – many voters place little confidence in political promises of future enforcement.

Boehner has announced a closed-door meeting with the entire Republican caucus, scheduled for tomorrow, Wednesday, July 10, to decide the immigration issue, a meeting Politico calls “the most important day for immigration reform.”

Although this meeting was originally requested by Rep. Steve King, R.-Iowa, to air grave concerns shared by many Republicans over this “reform,” it is unclear if this meeting was the House speaker’s answer to King or his own idea. In either case, many fear Boehner will use the meeting as a vehicle to impose the plan as though it were a done deal.

In the meantime, Senate and House opponents have been painstakingly highlighting what they consider to be glaring flaws in these proposals:

• Every single border security provision in the Senate bill, including the hire of 20,000 Border Patrol agents, denying amnesty to criminals, building fences and installing surveillance devices, can be waived by the Homeland Security secretary.
• Both the House and Senate proposals emphasize the path to citizenship – the centerpiece of communist efforts – while making border security both vague and secondary.
• Both bills provide a $5,000 incentive for companies to hire the newly legalized illegal aliens instead of Americans, since the aliens would not be subject to the Obamacare coverage mandate.

Although politicians and the media have settled on the claim that there are 11 million illegal aliens, the actual number may well be closer to 20 million to 30 million. There were 10 million in 1996, a mere 10 years after Reagan’s amnesty, and it is doubtful only one million more have been added in the ensuing 17 years. Since 1990, Border agents have apprehended on average more than 1 million illegal aliens per year, almost all from Mexico.

When the Reagan amnesty became law, the intention was to naturalize only 1.2 million people, but the actual figure turned out to be 2.7 million. Statistics on illegal immigration have longed tended to be underestimated, sometimes vastly so.

Thus, current proposals provide a path to citizenship for as many as 20 to 30 million illegal aliens here now, plus relatives who will be brought in through chain migration and at least 75 percent of those who will come in the future – virtually endless amnesty – while efforts to secure the border are almost certain to be insufficient.

Representatives Steve King, R-Iowa; Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.; Trey Goudy, R-S.C.; Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.; and others – 70 House members in all – as well as senators Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.; Mike Lee, R-Utah and others have sought to highlight the dangers of this legislation, with Rep. King recently stating:

If the House passed border security and interior security and sent that over to the Senate, Harry Reid is not going to take that up. Chuck Schumer has said that citizenship has to be part of the deal. It’s not going to go to the president’s desk, so why would the House take up anything if there’s no prospect that we’re going to improve the immigration situation, just the prospect that they’re going to jam amnesty on us?

With polls showing more than two-thirds of Americans don’t believe “immigration laws would be enforced in the future if illegal aliens were given amnesty,” it is clear that passage of the current Republican-backed bill may indeed fulfill the agenda of its communist originators – the creation of a permanent Democrat voting majority, guaranteeing permanent control of the United States government by leftist progressives.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE NOW AND LET THEM KNOW YOU ARE COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THIS COMMUNIST-DESIGNED AMNESTY BILL

Flag image: Picture of U.S. Flag Upside Down and Below a Mexican Flag at California High School

The Life of Julia, Legalized Illegal Alien Edition

Courtesy of CIS, enjoy a story of your tax dollars and legislators at work... against you.

View a List of the Center's Must Read Articles on S.744

Hugh Hewitt Shreds John Hoeven: "If I were La Raza, I could make sure this fence never gets built"

I'm guessing that Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) regrets agreeing to discuss the Corker-Hoeven Amendment -- the faux border security measure passed by the Senate -- with Hugh Hewitt. Hewitt, an expert attorney with a strong legislative and Constitutional background, quickly determined that the border security aspects of Corker-Hoeven are just as enforceable as, well, our current immigration laws.

And read to the end, because I've included Hewitt's interview with Ted Cruz in which he truly gets to the bottom -- and I do mean bottom -- of this abysmal cluster of a miserable bill.

HH: Now Senator... I just wanted to be up front about it. I do not like your amendment at all, because I think it guts the border fence.

JH: No, we actually require a total of 700 miles of border fence, and also 20,000 more border patrol agents, $4.5 billion technology plan on the border that includes sensors, radars, drones, helicopters, planes... in addition to a national, mandatory national E-verify and electronic entry/exit systems at airports and seaports.

HH: But Senator, I want to stay focused just on the fence, if you don’t mind, in our few minutes.

JH: Okay, all right. Yeah.

HH: At Section 5b, it says the Southern Border Fencing Strategy, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this act, the secretary of Homeland Security shall establish a strategy to be known as the Southern Border Fencing Strategy, to identify where 700 miles of fencing, including double layer fencing, infrastructure and technology, including ports of entry, should be deployed along the southern border.

First question, of those 700 miles, how many miles must be double layered?

JH: Well, it requires what’s called the pedestrian fencing. That’s the minimum, okay? But it requires 700 miles of fencing, and then you’ve got about a 2,000 mile border there, obviously. The Secretary can determine where on that 2,000 miles the fence is most effective, or DHS can, but they have to make it 700 miles of fence. It can’t be the vehicle barricades.

HH: But is it fair to say that there is a zero mile minimum for double layered fencing?

JH: It doesn’t. It has to be at least the pedestrian fencing. It doesn’t specify that it has to be the double layer. That’s correct, Hugh.

HH: Okay. Now how big does the pedestrian fencing have to be?

JH: I’d have to look back at the specs, but it’s, you know, I mean, it’s impressive fencing. It’s not the double layer you’re talking about, but it’s a significant barrier.

HH: Now Senator Hoeven, there aren’t any specs. This is my problem. I’ve read…

JH: No, see, there’s existing pedestrian fence on there, and so when we say pedestrian fence, it has a definition as to the fencing that’s already there. So…

HH: But it doesn’t, it actually doesn’t. I’ve been through the law very carefully. I bring my lawyer’s, not my MBA to it, but I look at it as a Constitutional lawyer. They actually don’t have to do anything. In fact, I was going to ask you, what if they don’t turn in a strategy in 180 days? What’s the law’s penalty?

JH: They’d be breaking the law.

HH: But what’s the penalty?

JH: Well, you’d obviously have to enforce the law, but I mean, it’s like, it would be like saying any law, what…they have to follow the law. They’re required to follow the law, and we would undertake an action to make sure that they do. That’s...

HH: That’s true, but they would also not have their permanent residence revoked. And I was all in favor of this law, don’t get me wrong. If you guys had written in the requirement for the fence, I’d be selling this law. But as I read this, I go on to read, limitation on requirements notwithstanding paragraph 1, nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to install fencing or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing in a particular location along the southern border if the secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the southern border at such locations.

JH: Right, and when I read through that with my lawyer, he said because the earlier section is the controlling section that requires a minimum of 700 miles of fencing, this only gives some discretion as to where on that 2,000 [mile] border is placed so it’s put in the most effective areas. And I’m happy to go back and check on the controlling section and find out exactly what the sanctions are. I don’t know what it is off the top of my head, but I’m happy to go back and check it and get back to you.

HH: Senator, you’ve got to fire that lawyer, because honest to God, I have been doing Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act litigation for 22 years. I still do it. I’ve argued it before the 9th Circuit. There is absolutely nothing here that compels the construction of a fence. And the savings provision, and I want to read that for the audience…

JH: But the section you’re talking about, Hugh, again, just modifies the controlling section that requires a minimum of 700 miles. And I’ll go back and check on that section for you, and we’ll be back in touch.

HH: Okay, Senator, okay, that’s simply not correct, but I’ll let you check on it... Nothing in this paragraph, meaning the entire section 5, may be construed to create or negate any right of action for a state or local government, or other person or entity affected by this subsection. As you know, Senator, because you were the governor of a big state, whenever you need to cross a water of the United States, or impact critical habitat for an endangered species, you need the permission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, you need the permission of the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, and if you don’t get it, or even if you do get it, citizens can sue to block that. That’s why no ‘notwithstanding any contrary legal authority’ language was omitted from this, and I do not understand why you guys didn’t make this fence mandatory on a schedule without regard to any other law?

JH: Well, Hugh, again, we require the fence. Like I say, it’s one of the triggers that has to be met before there’s any green cards. And furthermore, the only discretion we put in was to try to get it in the places where it would be most effective on that 2,000 miles border. But it doesn’t mitigate the requirement that at least 700 miles are built. So…and remember, that’s just one of the five triggers that we have in place to defend the border.

HH: Well, see if you understand where I’m coming from, because if in fact I’m right, and they don’t come up with a plan, or when they come up with a plan, they want to put in a minimum pedestrian fencing that is easily breeched and easily crossed, and not double fence… And it doesn’t have to be any particular height. It just must obstruct a pedestrian, and it’s not the traffic barrier. So it’s better than a traffic barrier, but it really doesn’t work, Senator. And 700 miles, do you have, I mean, why is that a magic number for you guys, because it’s a 2,000 mile border, and I’ve never seen anything that said it had to be 700 miles, nothing.

...Senator, this is where I’m at a loss. It would have been so easy to write a specific mandatory, absolutely as to mapping, construction standards, specifications, timeline, citizen standing to enforce, the denial of citizen standing to obstruct. It would have been so easy to write it, that given the fact that it is so opaque, so that someone like me, who’s a fence proponent looks at it and says this doesn’t do it, and I wanted to support this bill. I really did. No one can deny that. I’ve had Senator Rubio on the show like 15 times. But then this comes up, and I look at it and say you guys weren’t serious about this, and that…

...Senator, Bill Kristol and I agree on this. We don’t want this to go to a conference. We do not trust a conference. We do not believe that if this is the best that the Republicans could to on security, on the border fence and other issues, we don’t want the House to pick this up. I think you guys killed immigration reform by not taking conservative demands for border security seriously in substituting, and I debated this with Senator McCain once. We wanted a fence, an honest to God, big, double layered fence with an access road with specs spelled out, and you guys blew through it in five paragraphs, and anyone can avoid this. Anyone with a, I mean, maybe not your lawyer, but I certainly can go to work for the enviros to stop this, and if I was a La Raza type, I could make sure this fence was never built, even it was only three feet and it could be hopped over. I mean, it’s a disaster...

JH: 20,000 border agents, we’re going to double the number of border patrol agents on the border.

HH: I don’t care, because anything, and I want you to understand, anything that can be turned on can be turned off. Anyone that can be forward deployed can be sent backward. It’s sort of like the DREAM Act. The President didn’t want to enforce the immigration laws last year, so he didn’t enforce them. You can’t not enforce a fence once it’s built, and I’m just curious, last question, Senator…

...Senator, I appreciate your time. Send me anything. Send me your lawyer, because I would really love to spend…

JH: I’m going to do it, Hugh. We’re going to check it out and we’ll be in touch.

HH: And let him come on the air with me and tell him to get his resume ready.

Hewitt had earlier interviewed the enormously popular senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, a formidable litigator in his own right and a staunch opponent of this Amnesty bill.

HH: ...look back at your time as a law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist and ask yourself if he would recognize the federalism doctrine employed today by Anthony Kennedy in the DOMA case.

TC: I don’t think he’d recognize it at all. It was, well, let’s be fair. He actually would recognize it, but he would be deeply disappointed, because it’s part and parcel of a pattern we’ve seen the past several decades of the Court of repeatedly the Court substituting its own policy judgments on contested area of social dispute for the preferences and decisions democratically expressed through the people. And I think the decisions today were regrettable. In the state of California, the people of California went, and they voted in Proposition 8 about how to define marriage in the state of California. And the Supreme Court today allowed instead for the courts to set aside that judgment of the voters of California, and impose a very different definition of marriage than the definition that the voters of California chose, which is a traditional marriage of one man and one woman.

...The only way I think to do so [fix this judicial activism] is to insist upon nominees who will follow the law, who don’t view being on the federal bench as an invitation to be a platonic philosopher-king, to have nine unelected lawyers decreeing what our answer should be, what our policy position should be on every hot button issue of the day. I think it is a much sounder approach to say let the people decide, let’s vote on it, and you know what? The people in California will come to different decisions than will the people in Texas or Florida or Vermont, and that’s the beauty of our federalism. We’ve got 50 states, and people with different values, different morays. And why had this all over to unelected federal judges to impose their values on all 50 states?

HH: Now Senator, in our brief time, I want to talk to you about the immigration bill, which I used to be in favor of, but I now oppose after Corker-Hoeven, the amendment which gutted the fence. And I’m going to talk to Senator Hoeven next hour about this. But am I correct, do you agree with my legal analysis that there’s absolutely nothing compelling the construction of even one mile of double layered fencing, and probably not even a single mile of any kind of new fencing?

TC: No, that’s exactly right. I mean, as you know, federal statute has required since 2006 the construction of 700 miles of double fencing, and the federal government simply hasn’t complied. They’ve constructed about 36 miles. And the amendment that was touted as a border security amendment weakens the requirement of federal law, and just like the prior requirement, we can expect with considerable certainty that it will be disregarded as well.

HH: There is in the Corker-Hoeven amendment a savings clause, which also, I think, preserves citizen standing to bring Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act challenges against fence construction, and an empowerment of the secretary of Homeland Security to simply declare herself not bound by any report that comes back. Am I reading this wrong? Because I think I’m reading it the way a litigator opposed to the fence would read it, and they would laugh, Ted Cruz, at this.

TC: I think you’re exactly right, and you know, this bill has roughly a thousand waivers in it. And I mean, much like Obamacare, just about every major provision gives Janet Napolitano or another member of the Obama cabinet the ability to waive any of the law enforcement in the border security provisions. And we have certainly seen with the IRS, with Benghazi, we’ve certainly seen ample reason to trust waivers given to this cabinet and their fidelity to law. And I think this current bill, if it is passed, if the House passes it, I don’t think the House is going to pass it, but if it did, I think it would make the problem worse. It continues the pattern we saw in 1986 of legalization first and then border security maybe someday in the future. And what happens is the border security never happens.

HH: Now Senator Cruz, I agree with Bill Kristol that I hope the House does not pass anything. I don’t want a conference. I do not trust it. I watched your colloquy today with Patty Murray trying to preserve the conference on the budget from running amok, and I was not satisfied that she was being candid with you. I think you’ve got their number on this. Would you trust a House-Senate conference on the immigration bill?

TC: Well, it was, there would certainly be considerable reason to have concerns, especially the one danger of something passing in the House that really does damage on immigration is it something comes out of conference and ends up passing with all the House Democrats and a tiny handful of Republicans. And that’s one way this Gang of 8 bill could pass, and I think it would do enormous damage. You know, one of the most perverse aspects of this bill, as you know, is its intersection with Obamacare puts in effect a $5,000 federal tax penalty on U.S. companies that hire U.S. citizens or legal immigrants, and basically sets up a hiring preference for those who are here illegally. And I think that would only drive up unemployment, particularly among young people, among African-Americans, among Hispanics. And it really is indefensible to put a penalty on hiring U.S. citizens, and on hiring legal immigrants who follow the rules and come in the right way. And it’s indefensible to give essentially a preference to those who broke the law and came here illegally.

HH: Senator Cruz, continue the good fight. 30 seconds, I know you’ve got to run. Do you see support gathering or falling away from the Senate bill?

TC: I think support is falling away from the Gang of 8. For one thing, people are coming together enormously. We’ve launched a national petition at www.securebordersnow.com. Over 100,000 people have signed up in the last week insisting we actually fix the problem. Secure the borders first. Don’t go down the road of legalization first and never securing the borders.

Sign the petition now.

Passage of the Amnesty Bill Will Spell the End of Our Republic

Guest post by James Simpson

On Monday, June 24, 2013, the U.S. Senate passed a cloture motion (which ends debate) on the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven Amendment to the Gang of Eight's horrifying illegal alien amnesty bill - mislabeled "immigration reform."

The true purpose of this amnesty proposal is to capture future votes for the Democratic Party. Those who do not acknowledge that blatantly obvious fact either suffer from some debilitating mental illness or are working for the other side.

On rare occasions, even the Left admit the objective. Eliseo Medina, the honorary Chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, and International Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), said in 2008:

...If we reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have ...even two out of three, if we get 8 million new voters... we will create a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.

The "governing coalition for the long term" refers of course to the "permanent progressive majority" Democrats have fantasized about for decades.

The number of illegals in this country is repeatedly cited as 11 million. This is almost certainly an underestimate. In reality the number is 20 to 30 million or more, according to a 2007 study in Social Contract. Bear Stearns estimated about 20 million in 2005. When amnesty passed in 1986, official estimates were 1.2 million illegals. There were actually 2.7 million - more than double. Within ten years, INS estimated the illegal population had grown to 10 million. It is delusional to believe the number has only increased by another 1 million in the 17 years since. Furthermore, when amnesty passes, the newly-legal aliens will invite their relatives to come, further inflating that number through chain migration.

Herein lies the real reason Democrats are slavering for this amnesty bill to pass and are tickling themselves pink that there are Republicans stupid and gullible, (or corrupt) enough to help them realize their dream. And make no mistake, an increase of 30 million in the Democrat Party voter base will guarantee Democrat majorities in the U.S. House, Senate and Presidency for the foreseeable future.

Despite the impossibly bizarre belief by some Republicans that amnesty will make illegals "like us," a high level Congressional source recently acknowledged to me that passage of this bill will spell the end of our Republic and that we literally have only weeks to stop it. Despite House Speaker John Boehner's somewhat ambiguous assurances, this bill is likely to get a vote in the House.

The original Gang-of-Eight bill was really bad, as became readily apparent quite quickly. The overtly fraudulent Schumer-Corker-Hoeven Amendment was offered as a fig leaf to reassure fools that the original bill -- which already promised in-and-of-itself to enhance border security - would actually enhance border security. But in reality it makes things worse. The amendment:

• Legitimizes illegal immigration: Section 2302 says if you overstay your visa in the future you can still apply for a green card and become a citizen. It is permanent lawlessness... They cannot do that legally under current law!
• Has no requirement to deploy technologies: The Corker amendment would give the Secretary of Homeland Security full discretion as to how technology would be deployed, or whether it would be deployed at all.
• Has no fencing requirement: Similarly, building a fence is left to the discretion of DHS. (Note: since a fencing law, with money attached, passed years ago, and has been blithely ignored by the Obama administration, the amendment simply codifies Obama's open defiance of current law.)
• Increases fees on visas for legal immigrants, but keeps the same low fees and fines for those applying for amnesty - favoring illegal over legal immigrants.
• Under the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment, the American taxpayers are on the hook for $38 billion. (The Gang-of-Eight claims the bill is fully funded by immigrant fees).
• Delays promised hiring of 20,000 new Border Patrol agents until somewhere between 2017 and 2021.

The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven Amendment, by the way, is one of the factors that convinced Bill O'Reilly to support this legislation. Bill reminds us of P.T. Barnum's timeless adage, "there's a sucker born every minute," but only on Fox News does one get a prime-time show, and only in the U.S. Senate do they get hailed as "moderates."

In a conference call Monday evening, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that most people don't realize this bill operates in tandem with Obamacare and amounts to de facto affirmative action for illegals. He said that Obamacare will raise the cost of American citizen or legal immigrant workers by roughly $3,000, but the amnesty bill exempts illegals . This creates an incentive to fire legitimate employees or reduce them to part-time status and replace them with illegals.

He added soberly that if American people do not stand up now, no senator or group of senators has the clout to stop this thing from passing.

In this same conference call, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-OK) said that the Congressional Budget Office predicts the bill will lower wages and raise unemployment. He also said the bill doubles the number of guest workers allowed. Because approximately 40 percent of illegals here have overstayed their visas, this will increase the number of visa overstays.

But it gets even worse than this. Betsy McCaughey has pointed out other horrors:

• Similar to Obamacare's "Navigator" requirement, this bill contains provisions for funding leftwing ACORN-like "community organizations" to teach illegal aliens about citizenship and no doubt convince them to become good Democrats while they're at it.
• All illegals would be eligible for DREAM Act in-state tuition once their application has been approved and they become "provisional residents."

The 1993 National Voter Registration Act, aka Motor Voter, calls for voter registration at public assistance, motor vehicle and other public offices, and allows groups like ACORN to engage in voter registration activities. Is there any doubt that these community organizations will take advantage of their taxpayer funded operations to register all these budding democrats once they become eligible? Will they even wait for that?

Of course all Democrats voted to invoke cloture on the amendment. Following are the mindless (or corrupt) Republicans who went along with them:

Lamar Alexander, Kelly Ayotte, Jeffrey Chiesa, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch, Dean Heller, John Hoeven, Mark Kirk, John McCain, Lisa Murkowski, Marco Rubio, and Roger Wicker.

No matter what state you live in and whether or not your senators are Republican or Democrat, let them know just what you think of this lousy bill and their betrayal of the public interest: call 202-224-3121 and ask for your Senator.

Furthermore, sign Ted Cruz's petition. About 100,000 have signed to date. Call and email Senators and House members. Urge your friends and neighbors to do the same. If this passes the Senate our last chance will be the House. We need to let them know now what we think.

James Simpson blogs at American Thinker.

Eric Sevareid’s Law

Excerpted from Thoughts on Immigration into the United States, by Albert A. Bartlett:

When we’re searching for solutions to the problem of growing demand exceeding supply, we should never forget Eric Sevareid’s Law. Sevareid was a national journalist, and he observed that:

“The chief source of problems is solutions.”

As an example: the actions of the Congress to encourage domestic production of ethanol from corn were offered as the solution to the problem of impending shortages of automotive fuel that are the result of population growth. Corn is being diverted from the food supply to the fuel supply. As a direct consequence, the price of corn has risen rapidly and this affects the prices of all manner of food items. The higher food costs are the new problem caused by the solution to the problem of the impending shortage of automotive fuel. In the U.S. and abroad, this higher cost of food is a hidden tax on all who eat.

Ronald Reagan, in one of the finest speeches of the last century, put it this way: "For three decades, we've sought to solve [these] problems... and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan."


Hat tip: Lee.

GENIUS: Senate Republicans pass yet another immigration bill that the Obama administration is certain to ignore

I know why the Democrats want Amnesty for illegals: it guarantees them a brand new voting bloc dependent upon their big government handouts.

But perhaps the geniuses John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio -- ostensibly Republicans, but in truth of unknown political affiliation -- can explain the following to me. Why would an administration that has gleefully flouted and ignored existing immigration laws decide to rigidly enforce this latest monstrosity?

That's a rhetorical question.

Just minutes ago, the RINO establishment teamed with the hard left Democrat Party to pass the Corker Amendment that not one member of the Senate has read or understands. The vote was 67-27 to advance this Obamacare-like bill.

Here is the Hall of Shame: These are the 15 RINOs who betrayed the trust of the American people.

Corker        Alexander        Ayotte          Chiesa
Collins       Flake            Graham          Hatch
Heller        Hoeven           Kirk            McCain
Murkowski     Rubio            Wicker

The American people are orders of magnitude smarter than their representatives: Rasmussen reports that only 28 percent believe the administration will secure the border if the Rubio-Schumer Amnesty bill passes.

BETSY McCAUGHEY: The Rubio-Schumer Amnesty Bill Will Be "the End of the Two Party System in America"

Interviewed last night on the Mark Levin Show, former New York Lt. Governor and current legislative expert Betsy McCaughey offered several startling insights into the catastrophic Rubio-Schumer Amnesty bill.

1. The word comprehensive is a synonym for unread.

2. Sec. 2106 of the bill outsources the job of guiding aliens through the amnesty process from DHS to Democrat front groups. These partisan, activist groups -- like La Raza and the SEIU -- are certain to utilize the aliens for their own (likely illegal) voter registration and absentee ballot schemes to benefit the progressive agenda.

McCaughey says that this particular section of the bill will "be the end of the two party system in America."

Funding for these groups comes from the American taxpayer. Worse yet, these left wing activitists effectively become a fifth branch of government, performing many of the roles that the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) perform today.

3. Sec. 2531 of the bill sets up a "Citizenship Foundation" run by another bunch of community organizers. This foundation will develop "citizenship preparation" programs to teach American history and civics. Suffice it to say that these new educational materials will teach the progressive agenda and dependence on government; not the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, private property rights and the beauty of the free market system.

4. A TV ad starring Marco Rubio insists that aliens with provisional status will have to support themselves. That's a lie: Sec. 245C(b) of the bill waives the "public charge" requirement for the unemployed, students, those in job training, those caring for a child, and anyone over 60. Which means no one will be required to support themselves and virtually every alien will be permitted to begin drawing tens of thousands of dollars each year in federal benefits.

5. Finally, many of the bill's key provisions are described as "emergency legislation". This is Congress' method for avoiding its own "Pay As You Go" law (which requires that mandatory spending programs are offset by reductions in other programs or tax increases). Amnesty is anything but an "emergency".

I'll put it simply, in terms even Johnny Boehner, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and Mitch McConnell can understand: anyone who supports this madness is a traitor to the American citizenry.

As Karl Denninger puts it -- and McCaughey confirms -- this bill will destroy America.

Contact your Senator now and demand that they kill this bill. Before it kills us.