Search This Blog

Friday, April 19, 2013

Rubio Explaining Himself

* I'm trying to refrain from venting about liberals getting away with blaming right wing extremists as they always do - how many times do you ever hear them wonder if it's a left wing group? Never. It doesn't matter that we now know the bomber are Islamist militants and aren't right wing after all: people will remember that right wing extremism "is violent." As if! When a left wing group is guilty of some crime, the press studiously ignores them. Like this abortion doctor who killed breathing babies in Pennsylvania. Or like the anarchist who shot Gifford.

On to new topics.

Marco Rubio is rightfully getting a lot of flak about his involvement in immigration reform (for more links see previous pages on Drudge). He gave an interview to Rush Limbaugh yesterday, and while I don't think any conservative was satisfied as to his answers on immigration, his correlation to other things on Capitol Hill did make sense.
RUSH:  Why, why can't we just defeat it? Why do we have to address it because they raise it?
RUBIO:  If they raise the issue of immigration we can't just vote against it.  I think one of the things unfortunately that's happened in the past is, for example, Obamacare was raised. 
RUSH:  Well, we did gun control.  We just voted down gun control.
RUBIO:  Well, not only voting it down, we've offered very good alternatives.  For example, one of the things that was voted down yesterday was an amendment by Senator Cruz and Senator Grassley that actual is meaningful stuff that focuses on the real problem, which is not guns, the real problem is violence.  And we have an alternative that actually focuses -- of course, people didn't hear about this because the mainstream media won't report on it, but we actually offer some very good alternatives about increasing prosecutions for criminals that are violating the background check, existing background check laws, you know, how to strengthen our mental health systems, et cetera, and no one's reporting on that stuff. So it's important to have an alternative and, I think, unfortunately, on immigration, if it arises, we need to have an alternative, too, because we do have things that are wrong with the immigration system. 
Yet if all that he said about alternatives to gun control is true, they're not even utilizing conservative sites to get the word out because this is the first I've heard of it! On the other hand, Rubio is making a big push to get the word out directly to conservatives about immigration. Why not about gun control?

Marco Rubio is a politician to his core. I don't take anything he says at face value any more than I do for Obama or Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, whether or not Marco Rubio actually believes what he says.

Rush Limbaugh took the time to say after the interview that he doesn't understand how Rubio can be involved in this at all, any more than Ann Coulter or a number of other conservatives.
If the objective is to make Hispanics like you and you turn yourself into Santa Claus, then how do you turn yourself into Scrooge someday when you have to? You can't. Also, the idea that the 11 million or whatever the number is will be quote/unquote legalized, but they won't be able to vote for a while? We all know what Senator Schumer and the Democrats are going to do. Let's say that this happens exactly as Senator Rubio spells it out.
Within two months, Senator Schumer and the Democrats are gonna run to the microphones and cameras and they're gonna start tugging at people's heartstrings by saying, "How in the world can we be so cruel as to not let them vote? We've just legalized them. We've just welcomed them to our country. We've just created a pathway to citizenship for them. They are paying taxes, and they're working. It's unconscionable that they can't vote." And -- voila! -- they'll be able to vote.
Then, the fact that 70% of them vote Democrat becomes relevant. The fact that after the '86 amnesty... There's no doubt. There's a correlation. We passed the '86 amnesty, and the Republican Party lost California. Some of you are not old enough to recall it. The Republican Party used to own California. The Republican Party used to define it. Politically they used to own it, very close to it. The '86 amnesty was the beginning of the end, and it's gone now. It's literally gone.
It goes to the thing I was asking him about. When Democrats propose something, why do we have to accept it and then offer alternatives? Why can't we just say, no? Why can't we just opposed it? What would have happened if we'd really tried to oppose Obamacare? I mean, we opposed their gun control efforts. The NRA does that, not the Republican Party. The NRA does that. But we get to the point that, after all the efforts they make, only 4% of the American people support Obama and Obama wants.
Only 4% support immigration the way Obama wants. I mean, the Republican Party is sitting on two gold mines here. They're sitting on two great, tremendous opportunities. Ninety-five to 96% of the American people oppose "path to citizenship," amnesty, or what have you. The Republican Party is sitting on a golden opportunity to define itself, to demark itself, to contrast itself with the Democrat Party -- with 96% of the people already on their side before they do anything! 
All good points. He goes on. Did you know, for example, that a path of citizenship would be open to those who have been deported? Overstayed their visas?

Consider the amount of crime that comes from these sorts of people already why should we want them to be legal citizens? Why would we believe that a government background check would be adequate? I don't trust the federal government to act in the best interest of the American people any longer. Only political party operatives to act in their own best interest whether real or misguided.

No comments:

Post a Comment