The more the truth surfaces about the gang of eight-amnesty bill the sicker I get. I should have known better. I had a great teacher on how bills become law. How back room deals are cut. Hell I am kicking myself in the butt for believing this Bullshit that comes outta politician’s mouths. Father Jack Flynn took me under his wing in 1988 and showed me as well as taught me what really goes on in Congress. Yes, it was on a smaller scale in New Mexico but still these same principles apply on the national level.
Father Jack would refer to this as horse-trading. You have something I want and I have something you want so let’s work out a deal that benefits both of us. The problem is this. We the People get screwed.
The truth is this is power politics and about who can stay in power not what is best for the state such as New Mexico or the country. Very few politicians are concerned about what is best for the country they are only concerned about staying in power over their little thiefdom. This is what politics is about in New Mexico. I sat in those back room deals and saw how all of this crap was done. Father Jack taught me well.
All these people care about is acquiring power and keeping it. In New Mexico it is all about cutting deals so you can fill your pocket with the taxpayers money. Just ask Manny Aragon, Les Houston, Eddie Lopez, or Tom Rutherford just to name a few. The state of New Mexico was carved up into little theifdom’s so these people could stay in power and control the people and our money. This is the same principle used by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, John McCain, and the rest.
Shame on me for forgetting the lessons taught to me by Father Jack Flynn.
Marco Rubio is doing the same thing. He is the front man for a bill he knows is bad for the country. Rubio can use as an excuse these people have lied to me. Look Marco, you knew this going into this deal. You went in with your eyes wide shut. Yet you chose to ignore the truth and this why you are a dangerous man. English Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was warned about the real truth behind what Adolph Hitler was doing. Chamberlain signed the peace deal with Hitler and seven million of my people were murder by the Nazis. Chamberlain signed a worthless piece of paper. You are doing the same thing to this country. You are murdering my country. I hold you accountable if this bill passes as well as Obama, and The Demo-Republican Party.
The death of America is on your hands Marco Rubio.
This is taken from the National Review online.
At the press conference introducing their bill, the Gang of Eight evoked the spirit of Ted Kennedy. But the 24 pages of the 844-page bill (pages 370–94) dealing with “immigrant integration” stand as a rousing tribute to Saul Alinsky. If this bill becomes law, you can be sure, as night follows day, that federal dollars will pour into radical left-wing activist groups to promote “immigrant integration.”
On the surface, the bill’s provisions to “integrate” newcomers appear reasonable enough. Various projects are established to foster the “linguistic, economic, and civic integration of immigrants.” A public-private partnership is created; a pilot project is launched to provide funds to states, localities, and nonprofit organizations; and grants are awarded for the purpose of assisting “aliens who are preparing an initial application for registered provisional immigrant status” (i.e., legalization) and “legal permanent residents seeking to become naturalized United States Citizens.”
How will the “immigrant integration” section of the Schumer-Rubio bill work in practice? Let us examine how “immigrant integration” currently works in two states: Illinois and Maryland.
The State of Illinois established a Governor’s Office of New Americans (GONA) in 2006. The director of GONA declared, “Immigrant integration in the State of Illinois is made possible through our Strategic partnerships with community based organizations, local governments,” and various state agencies. GONA’s website specifically highlighted that its “strategic partnership” with the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR) receives “national recognition.” The ICIRR will undoubtedly become a major beneficiary of the Schumer-Rubio proposal.
The major figure behind the ICIRR is longtime radical activist Joshua Hoyt. Stanley Kurtz in his powerful exposé Radical-in-Chief noted that Hoyt collaborated with Barak Obama and former terrorist Bill Ayers on issues related to the Woods Fund of Chicago, as it dispensed funds to radical groups such as ACORN. Hoyt was associated with the original Saul Alinsky front group, the Industrial Areas Foundation. Under Hoyt’s leadership, the ICIRR led successful campaigns to gain state support for illegal immigrants’ access to in-state college tuition, preschool, and health benefits, and secured recognition for foreign-consular (matricula consular) identity cards. Hoyt and ICIRR also supported Islamic groups that were resisting law-enforcement examinations of suspicious Muslim charities, and they worked with others to pass an Illinois law mandating that detainees for immigration violations have access to “religious counseling” (often from radical imams.)
On July 8, 2012, the ICIRR hosted “Electoral Organizing training designed for people who are planning to run electoral or issue campaigns in 2012.” Participating in the ICIRR’s electoral training was a close ally (listed on the ICIRR letterhead as an affiliated organization): the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago (CIOGC). This group works closely with the Islamist (and Muslim Brotherhood–aligned) Islamic Council of North America. The CIOGC, along with the ICIRR, as well as the radical Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which is another official “strategic partner” of the Governor’s Office of New Americans, will clearly play important roles in any “immigrant integration” in Illinois.
At the center of immigrant integration is CASA de Maryland (originally Central American Solidarity Association) and its executive director, Gustavo Torres. CASA has tremendous influence in state politics both with the legislature and with Governor Martin O’Malley. Torres was co-chair of O’Malley’s transition team. He is a key member of the Maryland Council for New Americans, which advises O’Malley, and he chairs its working group on citizenship issues.
Torres left his native Colombia to support the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua in the 1980s. According to the Washington Post, he was a Sandinista journalist who met his first wife, an American Sandinista sympathizer and “advocate for reproductive health,” in Nicaragua. The Sandinistas, it is worth remembering, were officially Marxist-Leninists — that is to say, Communists. In other words, during the Cold War struggle against Communism, Gustavo Torres of CASA de Maryland was not on the side of the free world, and he continues to this day to be a critic of Reagan’s anti-Communist policies.
Torres became executive director of CASA in 1993 and a U.S. citizen in 1995. In 2007 he spoke at a Chávez-funded conference in Venezuela on “revolution” in Latin America. Shortly thereafter, from 2008 to 2010, CASA received $1.5 million in funding from the Chávez regime. Besides Chávez, CASA’s funders include the Maryland state government, the U.S. government, the Ford Foundation, and George Soros’s Open Society Institute.
CASA’s major activities consist of opposing federal, state, and local enforcement of immigration laws. Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.) has charged CASA with “aiding and abetting criminal activity” by teaching illegal immigrants “how to circumvent the law.” On May Day in 2008, CASA organized a demonstration that included contingents from the American Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party. Not surprisingly, CASA and Torres are strong supporters of the “Cuban Five,” five Castro spies convicted by the American government, whose cause has become trendy for the international Left.
We can be sure that “immigrant integration” will work in the Senate bill the same way it currently works in the states. The left-wing groups that will benefit from the “Alinsky” section of the Schumer-Rubio bill include the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Service Employees International Union, La Raza, the Asian Law Caucus, the National Immigration Law Center, CASA, the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, and various organizations supported by Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood. National Review readers have been alerted to the activities of these groups particularly through the writings of Stanley Kurtz, as well as David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin, co-authors of The New Leviathan.
As Lenin used to say, Cui bono? Who benefits? So who benefits from pages 370–94 of the Schumer-Rubio bill? Schumer knows. Does Rubio?
This story will never see the light of day in the state run and state controlled media.
The only way I found out about this story was from http://www.marklevinshow.com/
Obama goes to Mexico and blames Mexico’s gun violence on America.
Real Clear Politics- “Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States,” President Obama said during a speech at Mexico’s Anthropology Museum. “I think many of you know that in America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms. And as president, I swore an oath to uphold that right, and I always will.”
“But at the same time, as I’ve said in the United States, I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people. That can save lives here in Mexico and back home in the United States. It’s the right thing to do,” Obama added.
CNSNEWS filed this story. President Barack Obama, speaking in Mexico City on Friday, said the United States is responsible for much of the crime and violence in Mexico because of the demand for drugs and the illegal smuggling of guns across the southern border.
He told the crowd, “We understand that the root cause of violence that’s been happening here in Mexico for which so many Mexicans have suffered is the demand for illegal drugs in the United States.” He later added, “We also recognize that most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States.”
Obama acknowledged the illegal smuggling of guns into Mexico by American criminals, but did not mention the Justice Department’s Operation Fast and Furious that allowed the flow of about 2,000 U.S. guns to Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Fast and Furious began in the fall of 2009 and was halted in December 2010 after two of the weapons from the DOJ gun walking program were found at the murder scene of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.
“In the United States, we understand our responsibilities. We understand that the root cause of violence that’s been happening here in Mexico for which so many Mexicans have suffered is the demand for illegal drugs in the United States,” Obama said. “So we’ve got to continue to make progress on that front.”
Obama opposes legalizing drugs, but wants to approach the matter beyond just law enforcement.
“I’ve been asked, and I honestly do not believe that legalizing drugs is the answer,” the president said. “But I do believe that a comprehensive approach, not just law enforcement, but education and prevention and treatment, that’s what we have to do. We’re going to have to stay at it, because of the lives of our children and the futures of our nations depend on it.”
Here’s a news flash for you Marco Rubio- OBAMA LIES. How can you trust him to keep his word? YOU CAN’T!
Now Obama trashes our country. Rush Limbaugh had this to say about Obama. This is taken from www.rushlimbaugh.com
RUSH: So let’s go to the audio sound bites this morning in Mexico City at the Anthropology Museum, present Obama speaking to Mexican college students…
OBAMA: (godlike reverb) Our attitudes sometimes are trapped in old stereotypes. Some Americans only see the Mexico that is depicted in sensational headlines of violence and border crossings — and let’s admit it. Some Mexicans think that America disrespects Mexico, or thinks that America is trying to impose itself on Mexican sovereignty or just wants to wall ourselves off. And in both countries, such distortions create misunderstandings that make it harder for us to move forward together. So I’ve come to Mexico because I think it’s time for us to put the old mind-sets aside. It’s time to recognize new realities, including the impressive progress of today’s Mexico.
RUSH: Right. You note the God echo is back, the God reverb. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I think this is an outrage. We had the president of the United States apologizing to Mexican college students for the way illegal immigrants in this country are disrespected. We take in millions and millions of them here, in violation of law. We feed and clothe and educate them and provide them health care.
The president of the United States is in Mexico apologizing for the attitudes of some Americans, that many Americans convey the old stereotype of Mexicans as illegal border crossers. He then apologized to these college students for America trying to impose itself on Mexican sovereignty. What? Would somebody explain that to me? I do not understand how we are trying to impose ourselves on Mexico.
It would seem, if we want to discuss this, that it might actually be the opposite. Now, this is the kind of thing that Democrats say when we go to Iraq or when we engage in military activity to liberate the oppressed, the tyrannized. Democrats never like that, such as Iraq. They always run around saying, “We’re trying to impose our way of life on people! We shouldn’t do that. We shouldn’t try and impose freedom.”
But it’s usually in the context of armed combat that they make this complaint. Now, we are not at war with Mexico. We haven’t invaded. Quite the opposite. So I really don’t understand the president apologizing to Mexican college students on behalf of people in this country because of the stereotypes in which you engage in when you talk about Mexicans, and for the attempt to impose America on them. I’m at a loss, I must tell you.
RUSH: Now, folks, this sound bite that I just played, if you have, despite my expert talents in explaining things, if you have not yet grasped the Limbaugh Theorem, it’s right here in this sound bite. Grab audio sound bite number one and play it again. There is a specific claim made by the president in this piece that illustrates the Limbaugh Theorem to a T. As you listen to this, I want you to remember that Obama’s not campaigning for office, that he is the president of the United States of America. He is the face of this country, and he has been for four and a half years.
OBAMA: (godlike reverb) Our attitudes sometimes are trapped in old stereotypes. Some Americans only see the Mexico that is depicted in sensational headlines of violence and border crossings — and let’s admit it. Some Mexicans think that America disrespects Mexico, or thinks that America is trying to impose itself on Mexican sovereignty or just wants to wall ourselves off. And in both countries, such distortions create misunderstandings that make it harder for us to move forward together. So I’ve come to Mexico because I think it’s time for us to put the old mind-sets aside.
RUSH: All right, that’s enough. Now, if he goes to Mexico as a candidate in 2008 and says that, that’s one thing. He has been president for four and a half years, and he’s down in Mexico talking about a country, America, that he has nothing to do with, it appears. If this country is attempting to impose itself on Mexico, who the hell would be doing that? There’s only one man who has that power. I can’t impose anything on Mexico. Neither can you. Nor can John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. Only one man can impose America on Mexico.
So here is Barack Obama going down to talk to the Mexican college students and sounding like he is as distant from the powers of America as the students are. (imitating Obama) “Well, you know, a lot of people in my country are doing this. A lot of people in my country think this, and the people of my country, five years they’ve been trying to impose, uhhhh.” Who’s the imposer? This is the Limbaugh Theorem illustrated to a T. Whatever America’s doing, it hasn’t anything to do with him. He’s got nothing to do with it. Whatever’s happening in America, it isn’t his fault. He’s got no connection to it. He’s down talking to these Mexican students as though he’s campaigning for office. As though he wants to fix all of these things wrong with America, but he’s been in charge of it for four and a half years.
So here’s the sitting president of the United States of America traveling to Mexico speaking to Mexican citizens, apologizing and criticizing the country he leads and has been leading for four and a half years. This criticism is offered in such a way that that audience will not associate him with any of the complaints that he has about the country. Thus Obama can never be seen governing. His fingerprints can never be on anything. This is how he gets away with constantly criticizing this country and for often apologizing for it. But in reality he’s criticizing himself. In reality he’s apologizing for himself, in addition to this notion that America is trying to impose itself on Mexican sovereignty? What is that? No, I don’t know what it means.
If he’s trying to make some disjointed connection to the way we are opposing immigration, and therefore opposing what Mexicans wish to happen, Mexicans want to come here but we’re saying we got some blockheads this country: “No, you’re not allowed here. We don’t like you. We don’t want you here.” That’s what he’s trying to convey. I think it’s outrageous, folks. I think it’s utterly outrageous to lie like this and to act as though he is not even involved in this country. Here’s the next sound bite. This is drug violence in Mexico. Guess what? America’s problem.
The reason why Romney lost wasn’t due to the Hispanic vote. Romney lost because white voters stayed home because they were tired of the same old bullshit Republican Party.
Rush explains this.
Now, Byron York in the Washington Examiner: “After six months of mulling over November’s election results, many Republicans remain convinced that the party’s only path to future victory is to improve the GOP’s appeal to Hispanic voters. But how many Hispanic voters do Republicans need to attract before the party can again win the White House? A lot. Start with the 2012 exit polls.
“The New York Times’ Nate Silver has created an interactive tool in which one can look at the presidential election results and calculate what would have happened if the racial and ethnic mix of voters had been different. The tool also allows one to project future results based on any number of scenarios in which the country’s demographic profile and voting patterns change. In 2012, President Obama famously won 71% of the Hispanic vote to Mitt Romney’s 27%.”
However, the Hispanic vote was 7% of the electorate. This is not talked about much, but I think it’s kind of important. Obama and Romney split 7% of the electorate. Obama got 71% of it; Romney got 27% of it. “If all other factors remained the same, how large percentage of the Hispanic vote would Romney have had to win to capture the White House? What if Romney had won 44% of the Hispanic vote, the high-water mark for Republicans achieved by George W. Bush in 2004?”
No Republican has ever, in a presidential race, gotten more. So plug that number in. What if Romney gets 44% of the Hispanic vote — which, again, is 7% of the electorate. “As it turns out, if Romney had hit that Bush mark, he still would have lost, with 240 electoral votes to 298 for Obama. But what if Romney had been able to make history and attract 50% of Hispanic voters? What then? He still would have been beaten, 283 electoral votes to 255.” Okay, so let’s get really big here.
“What if Romney had been able to do something absolutely astonishing for a Republican and win 60% of the Hispanic vote? He would have lost by the same margin, 283 electoral votes to 255.” Okay, so let’s go all-in! Let’s give Romney 70% of the Hispanic vote. It’ll never happen. That’s what Obama got. Let’s give Romney the Obama percentage of the Hispanic vote. Let’s give Romney 70%. “Surely that would have meant victory, right? No, it wouldn’t. Romney still would have lost, although by the narrowest of electoral margins: 270 to 268.
“(Under that scenario, Romney would have won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College…) According to the Times’ calculator, Romney would have had to win 73% of the Hispanic vote to prevail in 2012.” What does this tell you? It tells me that the Hispanic vote’s not the problem, and I never have thought it’s the problem. You and I know what the Republican problem was in 2012. We just heard it late last week. It was a Pew Center poll. If the “white vote” had shown up in the same percentage and voted for Romney in 2012 as it voted for McCain in 2008, Romney would have won.
Obama got many fewer votes in 2012 than he got in 2008.
The difference-maker was, a lot of white voters stayed home.
Well, I’ll tell you.
A lot of Republicans think that white voters stayed home because conservative talk radio during the primary season demanded that Romney be a rigid, card-carrying conservative. And because the right-wing conservative talk radio host demanded that Romney be something that he wasn’t, it turned off a bunch of moderate Republicans.
That’s not what happened. What happened was — well, who can know for certain. My best guess at what happened was, why the white vote stayed home, they didn’t think the Republican Party was conservative enough, but there was also a disgust, who are these people? They’re the bitter clingers. It’s one thing to hear Obama denouncing ’em. It’s another thing to hear Republican Party going after everybody but them.
They’re listening to both candidates’ campaign, making appeals here and appeals there, making a generic economic appeal. And I think there was just a general sense of disgust or resignation, just throw their hands up in resignation. None of this relates to me, but the point is the Republicans are now accepting what the Democrats and the media are telling them, that they lost because the Hispanics don’t like ’em. The Hispanics think that you Republicans want them to go away. The Hispanics think that you Republicans want them to self-deport. And if you don’t self-deport, they think you want to kick ’em out of the country. So you Republicans, you better get with it, and you better make the Hispanics understand that you like ’em.
So the party’s doing that. They’ve got this new pathway to citizenship immigration bill. They’re saying all the right things. But, again, remember, the percentage of the electorate that was Hispanic in 2012 was 7%. Obama got 71% of it; Romney got 27%. And if you reverse that, Romney gets 70%, he still loses. The highest percentage of the Hispanic vote any Republican president’s ever got was Bush at 44. So the point of saying that even if Romney gets 70% he would still lose, it tells you that the Republican Party’s problem is not the Hispanic vote.
It goes far deeper or is far more diversified than that. No doubt about it. How else would you read this? If you give Romney 70% of the Hispanic vote and he still loses, with everything else in 2012 being the same, then what are they doing? They’re following the advice of their consultant class. They’re following what the media’s telling them.
They’re following what the Democrats are telling them, what the conventional wisdom inside the Beltway is. I found it fascinating.
And like lemmings following the leader Rubio has jumped off the cliff and into the abyss. Except his face and finger prints are all over this bill. Now Marco Rubio and the Demo-Republican Party are leading us like lambs to the slaughter.