The Sixties Radical- Rubio is a Well Meaning Fool Who is Willingly Sold a Bill of Lies

Once again we are being led by the nose by the evil forces that are destroying this country. “We The People” are being forced to be slaughtered by well meaning fools who do not understand what kind of people they are dealing with. Marco Rubio is a well-meaning fool that has been sold a bill of goods by Obama, The Left, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, and the statists in the Dem-Republican Party that the immgration system is broken NO SHIT SHERLOCK!  Yet no one asks the real question why is the system broken? In a few simple words- the system is broken because the laws are not enforced. If the current laws on the books are enforced this will clear up ninety to ninety-five percent of the problems we have. Then and only then can we get down the real matters at hand. To quote Mark Levin- secure the border and then get back to me.

This story just broke on the Mark Levin website Saturday May 18. House Republicans have just worked out a deal with The Democrats on their version of the amnesty bill. We have just been sold down the river by John Boehner and his band of Statists. In a matter of days this country will cease to exist. We have just opened the flood gates. Our leaders are governing against “We the People.” Lawlessness is now the law of the land. Mark Levin said it” We are now living in a post Constitution society.” Welcome the Police state called American.

Yahoo News-

A bipartisan group of House members announced a deal Thursday on sweeping immigration legislation, a breakthrough that could boost chances for one of President Barack Obama’s top second-term priorities.

It came after months of secretive talks among the four Republican and four Democratic House members had seemed to stall in recent days even as an immigration bill in the Senate moved forward. The House members met for two hours Thursday evening, emerging to announce they had a deal.

“We have an agreement in principle. We’re now going to work on finishing up the drafting of the bill,” said Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, a leader of the group.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., another member, said over Twitter: “Important breakthrough, some details still to be worked out, but very pleased things are moving forward.”

Carter and others declined to give details, saying they’d agreed among themselves not to do so.

Group members had been saying for months that they were near a deal, but in recent days talks appeared close to breaking down over a few unresolved details. These included a new visa program for lower-skilled workers, and how to handle health care coverage for immigrants in the country illegally who would gain legal status under the bill. Lawmakers and aides suggested earlier Thursday that one option would be for the group to release a bipartisan bill that simply left those issues out, allowing Republicans and Democrats in the group to offer their own plans on those aspects of the legislation.

Meanwhile, members of the group were under pressure to deliver from other lawmakers and outside advocates who feared they would lose their window to have a voice in the debate if they didn’t produce something soon. A bill released last month by leading senators is moving toward a vote in theSenate Judiciary Committee and has become the focus of the immigration debate.

“I am concerned that the bipartisan group has been unable to wrap up their work,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters earlier Thursday, before the group announced its deal. “And I know that there are some very difficult issues that have come up. But I continue to believe that the House needs to deal with this and the House needs to work its will. How we get there, we’re still dealing with it.”

The House group had struggled to come up with a plan that could have a possibility of passing the Republican-controlled House while also satisfying Democrats in the group. They have discussed a path to citizenship that would take 15 years for the estimated 11 million people living here illegally, two years longer than contemplated by the Senate bill, which is backed by Obama.

Overall, the legislation would share the same goals as the Senate plan: boosting border security, an increased focus on workplace enforcement, new means to allow workers to enter this country legally and the eventual prospect of citizenship for millions.

As the House group bogged down, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., separately has moved forward with individual, narrowly focused bills on immigration, including one on workplace enforcement that was discussed at a hearing Thursday.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held its third work session Thursday to plow through some 300 amendments to the Senate immigration legislation. The committee voted down an amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, that would have required the implementation of an electronic employer ID verification system in 18 months, instead of the four years contemplated by the bill.

Republican Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — two of the bill’s Republican authors — voted with Democrats against the amendment, which was defeated 13-5. So did Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a potential swing vote on the bill.

Thursday’s committee action was low-key, but behind the scenes efforts were under way to reach a deal on a series of amendments by Hatch that would benefit the high-tech community by making it easier for companies to access and use H-1B visas, which go to highly skilled workers. The bill increases the supply of these visas but also adds in protections aimed at ensuring U.S. workers get the first shot at jobs, and tech companies have objected to some of those provisions, which have been championed by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a principle author of the bill, was working with Hatch to try to find a compromise but the issue was unlikely to be resolved before next week.

In addition to Carter, Republicans in the House group are Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Sam Johnson of Texas and Raul Labrador of Idaho. On the Democratic side, in addition to Gutierrez, they are Zoe Lofgren and Xavier Becerra of California and John Yarmuth of Kentucky.

We are told a pack of lies by the gang of eight, Obama, and the Demo-Republican Party that if we don’t grant amnesty we are hurting their dignity. If we don’t grant amnesty these illegals will stay in the shadows. If we don’t fix this problem now our economy will not grow. If amnesty is granted this will fix all of our problems. This is a bold faced lie. Rubio you are a liar. Schumer you are a lair. Obama you are a liar. The real truth is that you are pushing amnesty for illegals so you can stay in power forever. This is the real end game. The Democrat wing of the statist party needs a permanent under class to stay in power without serfs and pawns you would lose all your power.

Illegals are not in shadows. They are not living in fear. These people know we will never deport them. This is the lie told by La Raza, Obama, and the statists.

The other end game is to have open borders so the sovereignty of the USA is destroyed and the states of New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas will be returned to Mexico.

In a sane world this idea would be shot down in a second. This is what happens when a nation abandons Adonai’s word.  Yeah I know the argument how can you say this Gee Man for we must treat those who are strangers with respect and help them. This doesn’t mean they move in lock, stock, and barrel and take over our nation and destroy the very soverniety of nation.

National Review nails it on the head. Does Saul Alinsky strike a familiar note.

“In a recent NRO piece entitled “Saul Alinsky and the Gang of Eight,” I discussed how, if Schumer-Rubio becomes law, federal dollars devoted to “immigrant integration” will pour into left-wing and Islamist activist groups to fund their own vision of that process.

Now the 844-page bill has been replaced by an 867-page bill that makes the “Alinsky section” of the legislation even stronger. Under Section 2538, “Pilot Programs to Promote Immigrant Integration at State and Local Levels,” under “Authorized Activities” the bill states that “New Immigrant Councils” could be formed to promote integration locally. Originally this section, B(v), declared that the new councils would include representatives from “non profit organizations including those with experience working with immigrant communities.”

The current bill added the words “legal and advocacy” to this section. Thus, it now reads “non profit organizations including those with legal and advocacy experience working with immigrant communities.” Apparently the senators wanted to make sure that leftist and Islamist advocacy organizations (CASA, La Raza, MALDEF, and CAIR and other Islamist groups) would not simply be grant recipients themselves, but would also be entrenched on the “New Immigrant Councils” that will help guide strategy, funding, and implementation at the local level. One could guess why the four Democrats on the Gang of Eight wanted leftist and Islamist organizations with such “legal and advocacy” experience in behalf of immigrants placed on the new immigrant councils, but why did the four Republicans agree to it?

Schumer, McCain, Graham, The Democrat Party are the same folks who lied to us in 1965 and 1988 about how of we grant amnesty to all the illegals this would fix the problem. Read the Hart Cellar Act and Mazzoli Simpson Act.

This is pure BS.

We The People are the sovereign not the government. We give you the right to govern us. It is not you who are have the power to rule over us it is “WE The People” who have the right to abolish this government or alter it. We have the right given to us in the Constitution known as the right of revolution. See The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles- Edward J. Erler

Erler further states- “Furthermore, the Declaration specifies that when government becomes destructive of the ends for which it is established—the “Safety and Happiness” of the people—then “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” This is what has become known as the right of revolution, an essential ingredient of the social compact and a right which is always reserved to the people. The people can never cede or delegate this ultimate expression of sovereign power. Thus, in a very important sense, the right of revolution (or even its threat) is the right that guarantees every other right. And if the people have this right as an indefeasible aspect of their sovereignty, then, by necessity, the people also have a right to the means to revolution. Only an armed people are a sovereign people, and only an armed people are a free people—the people are indeed a militia.

The Declaration also contains an important prudential lesson with respect to the right to revolution: “Prudence . . . will dictate,” it cautions, “that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.” It is only after “a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object,” and when that object “evinces a design to reduce [the People] to absolute Despotism,” that “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Here the Declaration identifies the right of revolution, not only as a right of the people, but as a duty as well—indeed, it is the only duty mentioned in the Declaration.”

The prudential lessons of the Declaration are no less important than its assertion of natural rights. The prospect of the dissolution of government is almost too horrible to contemplate, and must be approached with the utmost circumspection. As long as the courts are operating, free and fair elections are proceeding, and the ordinary processes of government hold out the prospect that whatever momentary inconveniences or dislocations the people experience can be corrected, then they do not represent a long train of abuses and usurpations and should be tolerated. But we cannot remind ourselves too often of the oft-repeated refrain of the Founders: Rights and liberties are best secured when there is a “frequent recurrence to first principles.”

See above reference from The Erler article.

We The People are having rammed down our throat amnesty, gun control, and Obamacare. This is just the tip of the iceberg. We have a political class that is governing against the sovereignty of the people.

Erler lays out what the Second Amendment is all about. “  The Second Amendment reads as follows: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The immediate impetus for the amendment has never been in dispute. Many of the revolutionary generation believed standing armies were dangerous to liberty. Militias made up of citizen-soldiers, they reasoned, were more suitable to the character of republican government. Expressing a widely held view, Elbridge Gerry remarked in the debate over the first militia bill in 1789 that “whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia.”

The Second Amendment is unique among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in that it contains a preface explaining the reason for the right protected: Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. We cannot read the words “free State” here as a reference to the several states that make up the Union. The frequent use of the phrase “free State” in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), rightly remarked that the term and its “close variations” were “terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a free country or free polity.”

The principal constitutional debate leading up to the Heller decision was about whether the right to “keep and bear arms” was an individual right or a collective right conditioned upon service in the militia. As a general matter, of course, the idea of collective rights was unknown to the Framers of the Constitution—and this consideration alone should have been decisive. We have James Madison’s own testimony that the provisions of the Bill of Rights “relate [first] . . . to private rights.”

See Hillsdale Imprimis Erler The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles.

The key words are private rights.

Erler further states: The notion of collective rights is wholly the invention of the Progressive founders of the administrative state, who were engaged in a self-conscious effort to supplant the principles of limited government embodied in the Constitution. For these Progressives, what Madison and other Founders called the “rights of human nature” were merely a delusion characteristic of the 18th century. Science, they held, has proven that there is no permanent human nature—that there are only evolving social conditions. As a result, they regarded what the Founders called the “rights of human nature” as an enemy of collective welfare, which should always take precedence over the rights of individuals. For Progressives then and now, the welfare of the people—not liberty—is the primary object of government, and government should always be in the hands of experts. This is the real origin of today’s gun control hysteria—the idea that professional police forces and the military have rendered the armed citizen superfluous; that no individual should be responsible for the defense of himself and his family, but should leave it to the experts. The idea of individual responsibilities, along with that of individual rights, is in fact incompatible with the Progressive vision of the common welfare.”

See Hillsdale Imprimis Erler The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles.

This is how the Left twists the language to suit the idea that the common welfare of the state is more important than individual freedom, liberty, and the sovereignty of the individual.  The state’s end game is to control us and take away all of our liberty so we will be forced to live under the tyranny of our leaders.

When we fight to protect our individual freedom this means we must fight for the right to protect our neighbors right as well. This is one of the founding principles of this country.

We are told by the state that we are not the sovereign and individual freedom is bogus. For it is “We The People” have the right to say to who can and can’t live here. Every nation in the world has the right to do this except the USA.  For when we stand up against the rule of tyranny and those who are on purpose destroying this country we are called bigots and racists by Obama, The Demo-Republican Party, The state run and state controlled media, and The Left.

This story appeared on the Drudge Report.

CNSNEWS-    “Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) entered a letter from law enforcement officials nationwide warning of the dangers of the immigration bill S.744 into the judiciary committee record today.

The letter To Congress from the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Council of the American Federation of Government Employees Affiliated with AFL-CIO warns of the discretionary power the bill gives to “political appointees” and takes away from law enforcers:

“Congress can and must take decisive steps to limit the discretion of political appointees and empower ICE and CBP to perform their respective missions and enforce the laws enacted by Congress. Rather than limiting the power of those political appointees within DHS, S. 744 provides them with nearly unlimited discretion, which will serve only to further cripple the law enforcement missions of these agencies.”

They warn that the Senate immigration bill gives DHS Sec. Janet Napolitano “virtually unlimited discretion to waiver” prohibitions on obtaining legal status, such as criminal activity or previous deportation:

“This same section (Section 2101 of S. 744) gives the Secretary of Homeland Security virtually unlimited discretion to waive any manner of crimes that would otherwise make an individual ineligible for legal status––for such expansive reasons as family unity, humanitarian purposes, or what the Secretary believes is in the public interest.”

“At least two of these standards appear undefined by S. 744 or current law, providing political appointees with broad authority to establish their own definitions of these terms and pardon criminal acts under almost any circumstance.”

“The bill states that individuals who have previously been deported or otherwise removed from the country are ineligible to apply for legal status. However, the Secretary is given the ‘sole and unreviewable discretion’ to waive that ineligibility for large classes of qualifying aliens.”

In seven instances, the bill grants “unreviewable” powers.

The letter concludes that ICE officers would continue to be “powerless” to protect the public and do their jobs if the bill becomes law:

“If this legislation were enacted tomorrow, ICE officers would continue to be powerless to effectively enforce our nation’s laws and provide for public safety as S. 744 does nothing to end these dangerous agency- and department-level directives.

National Review On line- “In any Gang of Eight–style caucus, assume that its Democratic members would not wish to endanger the present political realities that have changed the electoral map of the southwestern United States. In cynical fashion, Democrats will grant concessions on guest workers to pacify Republican grandees fronting for business, in exchange for amnesties that will maintain demographic dividends and their own political futures. As a general rule of thumb, any time a Democratic legislator praises a Republican counterpart for being reasonable and sensitive, we can equate such magnanimity with private guffaws about the naïveté — if not greed — of his opposite number. How ironic that the “Latino” vote is probably not what lost the Republicans the last election — instead, it was the working-class whites who stayed home because they sensed that they were not a part of Mitt Romney’s world, and who mostly oppose blanket amnesties unless they come with ironclad assurances of closed borders.

And what about the American people? The public that feels most immediately the social costs of illegal immigration bitterly resents the cynical non-enforcement of the law. Whereas professors in Maine or Wisconsin may see a liberal civil-rights issue, ranchers along the border or parents whose children are at a school in Tulare see only illiberality: the public bearing the social costs of employers’ greed, and an ethnic lobby practicing a disturbing chauvinism concerned not with illegal immigration per se, but only with illegal immigration from Latin America. (Were 1 million Chinese arriving illegally each year, La Raza would be decrying non-enforcement of the law and unfair competition to American workers.)

Solutions? Close the border. Deport illegal aliens who are not working and have been regularly on public assistance, have violated U.S. criminal laws, or have just recently arrived. After that, allow the law-abiding, employed long-term resident to pay a fine and remain on U.S. soil, while learning English and applying for citizenship — from the rear of the line. Aid the transition of American citizens off state support into the labor force; take the moral high ground with Mexico and demand respect for U.S. sovereignty and U.S. laws. Do not be bullied by La Raza, and instead understand the basis of its philological reality. Do not let yourself be demagogued by false charges of nativism and racism. Worry more about unemployed American citizens and stressed taxpayers than about Mexican nationals who are fleeing a nation rich in natural resources and in need of millions of reformers.

All that should be the basis for immigration reform — and thereby will ensure outrage from the special interests that are so heavily vested in the present violation of the law.

US News- Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a newly elected Republican with a penchant for making headlines, filed an amendment that would bar undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States from ever earning citizenship.

There are an estimated 11 million people living in the country illegally, and a bipartisan immigration reform measure would create a pathway to citizenship over the course of 13 years by requiring those people to pay penalties and back taxes, as well as learn English. Conservatives opposed to reform decry the path as amnesty, but Democrats say they will not support reform that does not cope with the immigrants already living in the U.S.

Cruz also filed amendments that he says would “strengthen border security measures; reform the high-skilled temporary worker program; modernize, streamline and expand legal immigration; and prohibit federal, state or local entitlement benefits for those here illegally.”

CNSNEWS- The immigration bill proposed by the “Gang of Eight” in the U.S. Senate includes a provision to create a commission to study the failure of securing the border’s “high-risk sectors” during any or all of the first five years after the 844-page legislation becomes law.

On page 14, Section 4 of the bill, it states that if the Department of Homeland Security certifies that it “has not achieved effective control in all high risk border sectors during any fiscal year beginning before the date that is 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, not later than 60 days after the date of certification there shall be established a commission to be known as the ‘Southern Border Security Commission.'”
The six-member commission would be appointed — two each — by the president, and by the leadership in the House and the Senate.

Under Section 2, Qualification for Appointment to the commission, the bill states members “shall be distinguished individuals noted for their knowledge and experience in the field of border security at the federal, state or local level.”

This is the latest on the amnesty bill.

National Journal The night before Thursday’s marathon committee markup, members of the Senate’s Gang of Eight and their staffs huddled in a room in the Capitol to decide what amendments to their immigration bill they would let live—and what must die.

As a comprehensive immigration overhaul advances through the Senate, its chief architects will remain firmly in control of its fate. This week’s drama at the Senate Judiciary Committee provided a valuable test run for the group, which must protect their bill from changes that undermine the principles they agreed on but accept enough suggestions from their colleagues to garner at least a 60-vote majority, if not more.
It’s that kind of advance planning that helped the gang survive its first major test Thursday: a hostile amendment offered by Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. The Grassley provision would have required that the entire southern border be under effective control for six months before illegal immigrants could register for provisional legal status. The current legislation requires only that a comprehensive strategy for border security be in place.

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a gang member, spoke up first in defense of the current bill, followed by cosponsors Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. They joined with the remaining Democrats on the committee to defeat the Grassley amendment, 12-6.

The margin was not happenstance. Democrats, combined with Flake and Graham of the Gang of Eight, outnumber opponents by a 2-1 margin on the Judiciary panel. It’s why the toughest test for the bill in the Senate will come not in committee, but on the floor after the Memorial Day recess. Still, the committee process is an important exercise as the gang attempts to maintain solidarity and begin broadening out support.

“The eight of us are convinced that we’ve done a very good job of securing the border. That’s not to say it’s perfect, and that’s not to say other suggestions wouldn’t be listened to and we’d have an open mind to adopting them,” Schumer told reporters.

The group did accept eight Republican amendments on Thursday, including six from Grassley and Sens. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and John Cornyn, R-Texas (two were from Flake, a member of the gang).

“But we do have a bottom line, which is that the path to citizenship has to be based on specific achievable goals,” Schumer said. … “To have a sort of elastic goal that the next president, whoever he or she is, could use to block the path to citizenship—that would be a deal-breaker.”

Each evening, the gang will reconvene before the Judiciary Committee meets to analyze the next day’s slew of amendments and decide, collectively, what stays and what goes.

Rubio you are a lair. You have sold us a bill of goods.