Monday, January 26, 2015

Editorial: Do Immigration Patriots only want to vent about non-enforcement of laws?


Do Immigration Patriots only want to vent about non-enforcement of laws?

According to

Debate over some bills is running longer than expected, so it's still uncertain when Sen. McConnell will bring the House-passed DHS spending bill to the Senate floor. But, Politico is reporting that GOP Leaders are looking for alternative solutions to stopping the President's executive overreach should the DHS spending bill not pass.
"Top Republicans are exploring ways of escaping their political jam on immigration, with steps that could avoid a funding cutoff for the Department of Homeland Security while letting conservatives vent their anger at President Barack Obama."

-- Politico, "GOP seeking Plan B on immigration", Jan. 21, 2015
NumbersUSA President Roy Beck protests that thinking:
We aren't interested in venting anger; we're interested in results that protect American workers and their families from the wage depression of Mr. Obama's actions.

Obama Threatens to Veto Pro-Life Bill to Completely Ban Taxpayer Funding of Abortions

An interesting story from about the VETO threat against banning tax payer funded abortions. This follows this post about pro-choice Catholics. For  two very interesting books click HERE
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.

Obama Threatens to Veto Pro-Life Bill to Completely Ban Taxpayer Funding of Abortions

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | | 1/23/15
Yesterday, the House passed legislation that will put in place a complete ban on taxpayer funding of abortions that ensures abortions are not directly funded in any federal governmental program or department. The president says he will veto it.
The legislation combines several policies that must be enacted every year in Congressional battles and puts them into law where they will not be in jeopardy of being overturned every time Congress changes hands from pro-life lawmakers to those who support abortions.
The House voted 242-179 for the bill with 239 Republicans and three Democrats voting to ban taxpayer funding of abortions under HR7 while 178 Democrats and one Republican voted against it.
Despite strong support for the bill and expected passage in the Senate, as well as strong public opinion , pro-abortion President Barack Obama says he will veto the legislation.
barackobama19“I am deeply committed to protecting this core constitutional right, and I believe that efforts like H.R. 7, the bill the House considered today, would intrude on women’s reproductive freedom and access to health care and unnecessarily restrict the private insurance choices that consumers have today,” Obama said in a statement objecting to the bill.
Obama thinks the common sense legislation infringed on a “woman’s freedom to make her own choices about her body and her health.”
“The federal government should not be injecting itself into decisions best made between women, their families and their doctors,” he said. “…Today, as we reflect on this critical moment in our history, may we all rededicate ourselves to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as our sons.”
But, according to a Marist poll released today, 68 percent of Americans oppose using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion.
The bill has been around a few years but has only been approved in the House thanks to a pro-abortion Senate. The House voted 227-188 for the bill in 2014 and, on May 4, 2011, the House passed HR 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, on a 251-175 vote with Republicans voting 235-0 for the bill and Democrats voting 175-16 against it.
Now that Republicans have taken over the Senate from pro-abortion Democrats, the bill is finally expected to receive a vote in the upper chamber.
Congressman Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican who is the lead sponsor of the bill, spoke on the House floor during debate and said it would help hold President Barack Obama accountable by ensuring no taxpayer funds are used to pay for abortions.
A majority of Americans object to the use of taxpayer money for funding abortion, according to numerous polls — including a survey CNN conducted in early April showing Americans oppose public funding of abortion by a margin of 61% to 35%.
The bill will also mitigate concerns about abortion funding in the various loopholes in the Obamacare national health care bill that various pro-life organizations warned about during debate on the law. The legislation did not contain language banning funding of abortions in its provisions and the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would fix that problem.
The National Right to Life Committee sent a letter to House members urging support for the legislation that explains how the bill will help:
At the time Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, an array of long-established laws, including the Hyde Amendment, had created a nearly uniform policy that federal programs did not pay for abortion or subsidize health plans that included coverage of abortion, with narrow exceptions. Regrettably, provisions of the 2010 Obamacare health law ruptured that longstanding policy. Among other objectionable provisions, the Obamacare law authorized massive federal subsidies to assist many millions of Americans to purchase private health plans that will cover abortion on demand.
Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that between 2015 and 2024, $726 billion will flow from the federal Treasury in direct subsidies for Obamacare health plans. In September, 2014, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report that confirmed that elective abortion coverage is widespread in federally subsidized plans on the Obamacare exchanges. In the 27 states (plus D.C.) that did not have laws in effect that restrict abortion coverage, over one thousand exchange plans covered abortion, the report found. (See “GAO report confirms elective abortion coverage widespread in Obamacare exchange plans,”
Some defenders of the Obamacare law originally insisted that this was not really “federal funding” of abortion because a “separate payment” would be required to cover the costs of the abortion coverage. NRLC and other pro-life groups dismissed this as a mere bookkeeping gimmick that sharply departed from the principles of the Hyde Amendment. This discussion of the significance of the “separate payment” has been rendered rather academic, since it has become evident that the Obama Administration is ignoring the two-payment requirement anyway.
taxpayerfunding3During 2013, in the same ignore-the-law mode, the Obama Administration interpreted a provision of Obamacare to authorize the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to collect health care premiums from members of Congress and their staffs, along with subsidies from the legislative branch bureaucracy, for purchase of private health insurance plans that cover elective abortions. The OPM (under instructions from the White House) has gone forward with this plan despite a longstanding law (the Smith Amendment, after sponsor Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ) that explicitly prohibits OPM from spending one penny on administrative expenses connected with the purchase of any federal employee health plan that includes any coverage of abortion (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). The Smith Amendment is the law that continues to prohibit inclusion of abortion coverage in the health plans of over 8 million federal employees and dependents. Yet, according to research conducted by the office of Congressman Smith, of 70 plans now available to members of Congress and congressional staff, 59 cover elective abortions.
H.R. 7 would codify the principles of the Hyde Amendment on a permanent, government-wide basis, with respect both to longstanding federal health programs (Medicaid, SCHIP, FEHB, etc.) and to the new programs created by the Obamacare law. Under H.R. 7, for plan years beginning after December 31, 2015, exchange-participating health plans that cover abortion would not be eligible for the federal subsidies. Until then, the bill will revise Obamacare language to eliminate secrecy about abortion coverage, allowing consumers to be fully informed about abortion coverage and the surcharges for such coverage on plans sold on the exchanges.
Among the longstanding provisions to be codified by H.R. 7 is the “D.C. Hyde Amendment,” which is the prohibition on the use of government funds to pay for abortion in the Federal District (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest), which for decades (with brief interruptions) has been part of the annual appropriations bill that covers the District. Most of the objections to this policy misconstrue or misrepresent the constitutional status of the District of Columbia. Under the Constitution, the District is exclusively a federal jurisdiction. Article I says that Congress alone exercises “exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” over the Federal District. “Non-federal funds” are a fiction, because under current federal law, all government funds in the Federal District are governed by the federal appropriations bills.
A Member’s vote on H.R. 7 will essentially define his or her position, for or against federal funding of abortion, for the foreseeable future.
Pro-life groups including Americans United for Life, the Susan B. Anthony List, Liberty Counsel and Family Research Council also support the legislation.

Wknd Box Office: The Boy Next Door, Mortdecai, Two Days, One Night

Here is an interesting article from reviewing some of the movies that came out over the past weekend. This follows this post about some of the movies from last week and THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to choosing good movies to watch yourself!

Wknd Box Office: The Boy Next Door, Mortdecai, Two Days, One Night

By Debbie Schlussel
Another abysmal set of choices in new movies debuting at theaters today.


* “The Boy Next Door“: Absolutely awful. Yet another in a long line of horrible movies starring J-Lo a/k/a Jennifer Lopez. This movie reportedly had a $4 million budget, and it looks like it. Lopez plays a high school teacher who has sex with a 20-year-old high school student who just moved in next door (he is 20 and still in high school because he took time off after his parents both died). The 20-year-old begins stalking, threatening, and blackmailing her because she won’t have a relationship with him. And he begins inserting himself into her life. Not only is the story absurd and the lines cheesier than a double cheeseburger, but the movie seems to make excuses for all of the female teachers who’ve had sex with their high school students. The movie seems to say that these teachers are the victims, that they are stalked and preyed upon by crazy male students. Incredibly stupid and high quality Gitmo torture material.

* “Mortdecai“: This wasn’t nearly as bad as I expected, but it was still bad enough and kind of lame. Most of the humor wasn’t funny, but there were a few funny lines and moments. It stars the two self-hating Americans In Name Only (AINOs) and Europhiles Johnny Depp and Gwyneth Paltrow, both of them loathsome. In this movie, both get to be what they pretend to be in real life: pretentious, wealthy English people. The movie is in the style of the late ’60s and early ’70s Peter-Sellers-style madcap comedy, but doesn’t even come close. Most of the jokes are dopey and lame, along with the “plot.”
Depp is an English lord who is a scoundrel underworld art dealer, nearly broke and in debt to the tune of millions in taxes to the English government. An MI5 agent, known to Depp and his wife, Paltrow, enlists Depp to find a stolen painting on which the Nazis reportedly put the numbers to a Swiss bank account. Depp flies all over the world to try to get the painting and secure it away from a Syrian-trained terrorist and keep the terrorist from getting the money in the Swiss bank account. Accompanying Depp is his butler/bodyguard (Paul Bettany).
Believe me that my description makes this movie look much better than it is. I’m being very generous when I give it . . .

* “Two Days, One Night [Deux Jours, Une Nuit]“: This French film with English subtitles takes place in Belgium. It’s your typical left-wing anti-business movie. 9/11 truther Marion Cotillard plays a woman who has been on sick leave from her working-class factory job, due to depression. While she was away, her employer realized it could get all of the necessary work done with 16 employees, rather than the usual 17 including her. And the plant foreman doesn’t like her.
When she seeks to return to work, the union has a vote between a large bonus or allowing Cotillard to get her job back. Most employees vote for the bonus. But Cotillard’s employer allows a second vote, and with the encouragement of her devoted husband, Cotillard visits her fellow employees over the weekend to try to convince them to vote for her to keep her job instead of them getting the bonus. Throughout, she’s tearful, whiny, and popping pills.
Not only is it depressing, but it’s your typical anti-capitalist, anti-free-market movie depicting the narrative of “evil” businesses pitting poor working-class employees against each other in order to try to fight for their jobs. And the movie is slow and boring, to boot. No way I’d pay to see this.

Friday, January 23, 2015

World News and Trends: Saudi oil and U.S. dependency

An interesting article from about Saudi Arabia. This follows this post about sodomy. This follows this post about abortion. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.

World News and Trends: Saudi oil and U.S. dependency

Printer-friendly version

With the Middle East holding the majority of the world's oil, what's to come when conflicts boil over?

The recent death of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia created some concern from those nations that are dependent on Saudi oil. A top Saudi diplomat reassured all oil-dependent countries that the Saudis would pump oil "to the best of our capability, with a reasonable price" (CNN, Aug. 2).
"Saudi Arabia holds a quarter of the world's known oil supplies, and crude futures set a new record of $61.57 a barrel after news of Fahd's death. 'I would like to reassure you of our government's pledge to continue King Fahd's legacy of providing the world with a stable and secure source of energy,' Rihab Massoud, the Saudi charge d'affaires in Washington, told reporters" (ibid.).
On March 24, 30 prominent Americans wrote a letter to President George W. Bush about an impending oil crisis. Former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, former CIA Director James Woolsey, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney and others, including 12 retired generals and admirals, five former secretaries of defense and several retired senators and representatives signed the letter.
Oil is critical for the future of the Western world. Yet the Middle East, rich with that lifeblood of the world's economy, is a boiling stew of conflict of almost every kind. Bible prophecy tells us that it will eventually boil over, igniting a horrendous end-time conflagration that will bring the human race to the verge of extinction.
The only thing that will spare us, in fact, is Jesus Christ's return to earth to save us from ourselves (Matthew:24:21-22). If you'd like to learn more, request or download our free booklet The Middle East in Bible Prophecy . (Source: CNN.)
Nobody has commented yet. Be the first to kick off the discussion!

Youth Misery Index Grows More Than 50% Under Obama Administration

A timely post about from about the Youth Misery Index. This follows this post about race-based programs.  
You can follow me here.

Youth Misery Index Grows More Than 50% Under Obama Administration                Posted by Ashley Pratte

YAF logo PR Clear
Youth Misery Index Grows More Than 50% Under Obama Administration
The Dismal Reality for Our Nation's Young People
RESTON, VA- Young America's Foundation has released its Youth Misery Index (YMI) numbers for 2014, and it's a record high of 106.5. The Youth Misery Index (YMI) is calculated by adding youth unemployment, student loan debt, and national debt (per capita) numbers.  Young people are experiencing hardships like never before under the Obama administration, and this generation is especially suffering the consequences of this administration's leftist policies.
Youth unemployment in 2014 was 18.1 percent (18.1 on YMI), with almost six million young people between the ages of 16 and 24 not in school or work.  Many young people are simply giving up on finding employment.
Student loan debt for 2014 rings in at a record-breaking $30,000 (30.0 on YMI).  Student debt has risen at an average of six percent per year since 2008, and today, 70% of college seniors graduate with student loan debt.  In addition, the job market still hasn't recovered, leaving many recent graduates with little or no income to pay back their loans.
National debt per capita for 2014 is the highest it's ever been at $58,437 (58.4 on YMI).  Young people will be stuck paying for government debt they had no part in creating, and they'll have to do it with less discretionary income than ever before because of record high levels of student loan debt.
Add it all up and the YMI comes out to an astonishing 106.5 up from 98.6 in 2013. 
As government continues to expand under President Obama's leadership, so does the Youth Misery Index.  Since 2008, the YMI has increased by 53.7 percent, the highest increase under any President, making Obama the worst President for youth economic opportunity.

For further information or to request an interview, please email Ashley Pratte at

Thursday, January 22, 2015

The Supreme Court Decision on Sodomy: Answerable to a Higher Court

An interesting article from about sodomy. This follows this post about abortion. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.

The Supreme Court Decision on Sodomy: Answerable to a Higher Court

Printer-friendly version
Posted July 9, 2003

Sodomy is now legal all over America, following a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that struck down anti-sodomy laws in 13 states. Other states had already changed laws that went back centuries...

Sodomy is defined in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary as "carnal copulation in any of certain unnatural ways." Clarke’s Standard Reference Dictionary (UK, 1982) defines it as "any sexual intercourse held to be abnormal, as between a person and an animal or between two persons of the same sex."
When most people think of sodomy, they think of sexual acts between people of the same sex, but the legal definition is clearly broader than that. The Bible also shows us that the sins of Sodom were many. The Old Testament prophet Ezekiel described them as "pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me . . ." (Ezekiel:16:49-50). Certainly, sexual sins were included among these.
The word sodomy comes from the biblical city of Sodom, notorious for its vice and corruption. Sodom, along with its sister city Gomorrah, were destroyed by God because of the sinfulness of its people.
You can read an account of the circumstances that led up to this destruction in Genesis 18 and 19.
When Abraham realized that God had determined to destroy the twin cities "because their sin [was] very grave" (Genesis:18:20), he appealed on their behalf, bargaining with God's messengers. He asked: "Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked?" (verse 23). "Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous that were in it?" Abraham was assured that if there were 50 righteous left in the city, the city would be spared.
On second thoughts, Abraham realized that there might not be 50 righteous inhabitants left, so he asked again, this time wondering if the city would be spared if only 45 God-fearing citizens remained. He was assured the city would be spared. Eventually Abraham got down to 10. And the Lord said, "I will not destroy it for the sake of ten" (verse 32).
In the next chapter we see the cities destroyed. Clearly, there were not even 10 righteous people left.
The incident that preceded the final destruction of Sodom involved homosexual rape. When the two messengers from God were staying with Lot, "the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to [Abraham's nephew] Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally [sexually]". Rebutted, the men "pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door" (verses 4-9).
Immediately after this incident, God took action to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (read the rest of the chapter). After witnessing their sin for a very long time, His patience had run out and He chose to remove them from the face of the earth.
Could the same fate befall the United States of America?
Since the "sexual revolution" of the 1960s, America and other Western nations have progressively moved further and further away from God and His standards of morality as defined in His Word, the Bible.
The sexual reforms of the '60s and subsequent decades have contributed greatly to the breakdown of the family, the increased spread of sexually transmitted diseases, millions of HIV/AIDS infections, an epidemic of drug-taking and increased crime and violence. Despite this fact, the greatest legal authorities in the land have reacted with yet another "reform" that takes the country further away from God’s laws for mankind.
As with Sodom and Gomorrah, when will God pull the plug on our immoral society?

The GOP Leadership Believes Obama’s Amnesty Is Unconstitutional, Why Can’t They Even CONSIDER Impeaching Him?

An interesting article from about the U.S. president. This follows this post about a movement for people to turn their backs to Obama. This follows this post on HOW amnesty is funded in ways other than the DHS. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.

The GOP Leadership  Believes Obama’s Amnesty Is Unconstitutional, Why Can’t They Even CONSIDER Impeaching Him?
Obama Announcing His Unconstitutional Amnesty
The GOP House Leadership finally passed some immigration legislation that would be useful if it were actually designed to be implemented. Unfortunately, it’s simply a show for the rubes—the party Establishment has no intention of serious opposition to President Obama’s unilateral Amnesty/Immigration Surge.
But they have set themselves a trap by inadvertently exposing just how radical and unconstitutional Obama’s actions really are. And as the President moves to retake control of the legislative agenda with the upcoming State of the Union address, the GOP is going to have to give their voters something other than empty rhetoric if they want to have a chance in 2016.
The House voted to block funding for Obama’s unilateral amnesty and, in a narrow 218-209 vote, passed a repeal of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) law that enabled Obama’s staged “Central American refugee crisis” [House passes bill to defund Obama’s immigration orders, by Rebecca Shabad and Cristina Marcos, The Hill, January 14, 2015] The Main Stream Media, (what the German protesters of Pegida have taken to calling the Lügenpresse, or “lying press”) immediately collapsed into effeminate hysteria, charging that the Republicans were just nasty bigots:
The problem with House Speaker John Boehner and his cohorts is more than political, it is moral: these are not good people. For them, when it comes to immigration, hate always comes first.
[The House vote to overturn President Obama’s immigration actions can hurt immigrants’ vital role on ‘Main Street,’ by Albor Ruz, New York Daily News. January 18, 2015]
Perhaps to preempt such nebulous charges of “hate,” Speaker John Boehner delivered an uncharacteristically powerful and widely-circulated speech which charged the President had, “on at least 22 occasions… said he does not have the authority to do what he did.” Boehner thundered that President Obama’s unilateral Amnesty/Immigration Surge was “an executive overreach…an affront to the rule of law and to the Constitution itself” [‘Enough is enough!’: Boehner fills House chamber with high drama as he lashes out against Obama in high-stakes immigration battle—and throws his own words back in his face, by David Martosko, Daily Mail, January 14, 2015]
Following this logic, the Republican reaction isn’t so much about immigration policy, but about the Executive branch knowingly usurping the power of the Legislature, thus violating the Constitution.
Of course, the inevitable question that follows such a tirade is “And what are you going to do about it?” The answer seems to be “Not much.”
In the Senate for example, recently re-elected Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) helpfully noted that six additional Democrats would have to join the Republicans in order to pass the House’s immigration legislation and that Congressmen should not expect “miracles.” Even more depressing, his second-in-command John Cornyn, who survived a nominal primary challenge from an immigration hawk, is already signaling the legislation will be changed by amendment. [McConnell to House GOP: Don’t expect miracle on immigration, by Alexander Bolton and Scott Wong, The Hill, January 15, 2015]
A charitable observer might conclude that the Republicans did they best they could and are simply bowing to political reality. But in fact the Republican Establishment clearly wants the issue to go away. After all, McConnell’s guiding principle for the new Republican Congress is “don’t be scary” and his main policy objective is getting “measured conservative wins, particularly against environmental regulations.” [New Senate majority leader’s main goal for GOP: Don’t be scary, by Paul Kane, Washington Post, January 4, 2015]
This is the kind of beyond-parody battle cry that can only come from the brain trust of Conservatism Inc.
The GOP has options plenty of options even if it can’t muster 60 votes to specifically repeal Obama’s actions and DACA. One is a shutdown. After all, the rationale for the #CROmnibus bill was that the GOP needed to wait until the new Congress convened so that it could use its financial leverage over the Department of Homeland Security to force concessions.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t work if the Republicans are completely unwilling to force a shutdown over the issue. They can’t even use the threat as a negotiating tactic because Senator John Thune already went ahead and promised that the GOP would not shut down the government over a DHS funding bill [John Thune: We’re not going to shut down Homeland Security in February over executive amnesty, by Allahpundit, Hot Air, January 5, 2015]. Republicans apparently don’t want to be seen as defunding the DHS, even though the President himself has all but destroyed the department.
As Daniel Horowitz pointed out (not at RedState anymore, naturally), another option would be for Republicans to fully fund “lawful activity at DHS, but not one red cent for violations of statues that never passed Congress.” The Republicans show no signs of doing this either.
Yet Horowitz notes Republicans have still another card to play.
[N]otice how McConnell and Cornyn never commit to Plan B advocated by conservatives: blocking all executive and judicial nominees until the order is rescinded. This is something that can be accomplished with just 51 Republicans and will not “risk” a shutdown of government agencies.
[The Hershey Kiss for Obama’s Amnesty by Daniel Horowitz, Conservative Review, January 16, 2015] 
As Horowitz says, McConnell and Cornyn refuse to put this option on the table.
Republicans are discussing their own border security bill introduced by House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul. This legislation would ostensibly beef up border security and impose mandates on the Department of Homeland security to achieve “operational control” of the border.
But this would do nothing to reverse what Barack Obama has already done. Furthermore, Senate Republicans like Ron Johnson of Wisconsin are making ominous noises that border security bills have to be coupled with “reform [of] the nation’s immigration laws. [Michael McCaul to pitch border bill to Republican Study Committee, by Seung Min Kim and Burgess Everett, Politico, January 16, 2015]
Bottom line: the GOP Leadership has maneuvered itself into a trap. As a party, they have made a strong case that Barack Obama superseded his authority. Yet the response thus far is simply sound and fury and the party seems incapable of agreeing on a common approach. And even pushing for greater border security will run smack into the Beltway Right’s desire to quietly legislate amnesty to satisfy the Cheap Labor Lobby.
What’s the solution? Ironically, the easiest response may be the one shunned as the most extreme—impeachment. After all, thanks to Speaker Boehner, the Republican Party’s leadership is now on record that the President of the United States has done nothing less than assault the Constitution. The party has to respond in order to retain any kind of credibility with its own voters.
The GOP may be divided on immigration, but impeachment over Obama’s lawlessness wouldn’t force the Republicans to have to adopt a unified immigration policy. It simply requires an acknowledgement that President Obama has, by his own admission as documented by Speaker Boehner, violated his oath of office.
But what if Republicans do nothing? Well, then we know they aren’t serious about either immigration or the rule of law. And it will be pretty hard to see why we should care if Republicans ever win an election again.
James Kirkpatrick [Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.