Gay Patriot Header Image

And Some People Say Obama Can’t Be Trusted with Border Enforcement

Posted by V the K at 6:25 am - March 10, 2014.
Filed under: Illegal Immigration

Under new rules developed in cooperation with radical Reconquista groups, the U.S. Border Patrol is under orders to run away when illegal immigrants and drug smugglers throw rocks at them, and are not allowed to impede illegal immigrants and drug runners from fleeing arrest in vehicles.

“Agents shall not discharge firearms in response to thrown or hurled projectiles… agents should obtain a tactical advantage in these situations, such as seeking cover or distancing themselves,” said the instructions, issued Mar. 7, under the signature of Michael Fisher, chief of U.S. Border Patrol.

Agents were also directed to keep their weapons holstered when drug smugglers drive by.

So, this Administration’s policy is apparently to arm Mexican Drug Gangs with weapons that they want to make illegal for law-abiding Americans to own, and let all the illegal immigrants, coyotes, and drug smugglers know the Border Patrol is not allowed to shoot back when they are assaulted.

And yet, John Boehner still has a Raging Amnesty Boner and wants to give the Obama Administration a blank check to import more undocumented Democrat voters; just like he wrote Obama a blank check on the debt ceiling.

OTOH, it is not as though George W. Bush was any better.

Saturday Morning Content Dump

Mainly because I couldn’t bear the thought of Chris Hayes talking about teh buttsecks being the top item on the blog all weekend, here’s a few news stories to discuss.

Oh, BTW, have you heard the hypocrites at A&E are running Duck Dynasty marathons all Christmas week? You know, Phil Robertson gave the interview two months ago, and there was an A&E “minder” present during the interview. So, now this all comes out? Lends credence to the theory that the suits at A&E hated Duck Dynasty and were looking for a way to kill the franchise.


Stupid Party is Stupid

The Republican Party was actually having a pretty good couple of weeks. Obamacare was imploding. The generic ballot flopped in favor of Republicans. 2014 was beginning to look like 2010, and maybe… just maybe… control of the senate was tantatlizingly within their grasp.

And then it’s like the Party Leadership got together and said, “O.K., How can we screw this up?”

The next day, John Boehner hired John “Landslide” McCain’s chief advisor on (illegal) immigration to help him push Amnesty through the House.


Is there anyone left who doesn’t hate the Republican Party? Is the Leadership of the GOP really stupid enough to believe that Amnesty will help them win elections? Do they really think Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin are pushing Amnesty because they think it will help make Republicans more competitive.

If Mitt Romney had gotten 60% of the Hispanic vote in 2012, he’d still be known as the out-of-touch rich guy who lost to Barack Obama because idiot voters thought he wanted to outlaw tampons. (Also because Obama and the Democrats were promising more free stuff from the Government, which is sugar to Hispanic voters.)

But four more percentage points among white voters … especially, the working class “Reagan Democrats” whose wages have been devastated by the influx of cheap illegal labor …. and he would be known as “President Romney.”

And he probably would be pushing for some kind of Amnesty right now.

Le sigh.

Update: Harry Harry Reid says Boehner will cave on Amnesty. He is probably correct. (Also, the Hill seems to have found a reporter even less butch than Chris Hayes.)

Obama’s Constant Strawman Shell Game

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 11:08 am - June 24, 2013.
Filed under: Illegal Immigration,Immigration Reform

Quick guess!  Did Barack Obama make the following remarks about  (A) his beloved Obamacare legislation, or (B) the Gang of Eight immigration legislation?

“[It] would reduce our deficits by almost a trillion dollars over the next two decades. And it will boost our economy by more than 5 percent. . . .”

If you said (B) — you win!

But if you said (A), you’d be right too.  You see,  Barack Obama has consistently governed by OVER-promising and UNDER-delivering in magnitudes of distances that the solar system would be proud of.

And now the Illegal Immigrants Get A Pass Bill of 2013 has become the new panacea for all of America’s economic woes.

I call bullshit.

RELATED QUESTION WHICH I WOULD LIKE ANSWERED: “Why Are Illegal Immigrants More Important Than American Citizens?

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

My Simple Immigration Plan

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 5:48 pm - April 22, 2013.
Filed under: Illegal Immigration,Immigration Reform

I tweeted a shorter version of this a few minutes ago.  But here is the longer version.

My plan: Any reform of United States immigration laws should be NO WEAKER than the weakest immigration laws of our two NAFTA partners – Canada & Mexico. 

My understanding is that Mexican immigration law is one of the toughest in the Western Hemisphere (irony alert).  And Canada has a very impressive guest worker/visa program that prevents the ridiculous influx of illegals like we see in the USA.

That’s it.


-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Immigration Reform & NC Medicaid Proposal

Two lip-smackingly fun issues that I have posted on today at my other locales.

  1. How About Immigration Reform That Makes America Smarter? – Ricochet
  2. NC Gov. McCrory Unveils Sweeping Medicaid Reform – WatchdogWire, NC

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Betting on Illegal Immigration

President Obama was in Las Vegas yesterday, pitching his plan for “comprehensive immigration reform” and claiming credit for Monday’s “bipartisan” proposals on that matter.  Although it cost a fortune for him to make what is essentially a campaign stop in Nevada just to make a speech that he could have made in Washington, the implications of the speech having been given in Las Vegas, a city best known for gambling, were not lost on me.

The more I think about it, the whole idea of “comprehensive immigration reform” as a way of addressing the problem of illegal immigration is really the consequence of a number of bets made by members of both political parties and by the illegal immigrants themselves.

Here’s a summary of a few of them, along with a quick assessment of some of the odds involved in each.

Obama is betting that he can snooker enough Republicans into going along with what is essentially a ploy to secure a large voting bloc for the Democrats, a bloc that will partake of many government services and will continue to vote for the expansion of government power.  He is betting that with enough illegal immigrants rewarded with legal status and placed on a path to citizenship, he will be able to turn “swing states” such as Nevada and Florida into reliable states for Democrats and that he may even be able to chip away at Republican margins in strongholds such as Arizona and Texas.   And if he gets everything he’s asking for (and the way the current reports sound, he just might), his odds of achieving all of those things seem pretty good, indeed.

He is also betting, though, that if he doesn’t get everything he wants, or even if he gets some of it, he and the Democrats will have another issue with which to bludgeon the Republicans.  The odds of this happening are excellent.  Any Republican attempts to oppose his proposals will be branded as racist and xenophobic, and Democrats and their allies in the media will be able to attack Republicans over this issue for years and years to come.  In fact, I’d say that the president has already won this side of the issue, just by getting a few Republican lawmakers to come to any sort of “bi-partisan” agreement concerning immigration reform.

Then there are those Republican lawmakers who were part of this agreement.  Their motives are mixed, but at least a few of them are betting that if the “bi-partisan” proposal passes both houses of Congress and illegal immigrants are granted some form of amnesty and some are put on a path to citizenship, then suddenly, out of the blue, a large block of these new voters will start voting Republican for reasons that no logical or well-informed person could rationally believe.  Furthermore, some of them appear to believe that if Republicans compromise with Obama and enact “bi-partisan immigration reform,” then suddenly the Democrats and the media will stop saying so many bad things about Republicans.

Do I even need to explain why both of these are bad bets and why any Republican who goes along with any “bi-partisan” “comprehensive immigration” proposal endorsed by Obama is going to regret it down the line?

YouTube Preview Image

Finally, there are the illegal immigrants themselves.

A few years back, I rented a film called The Visitor on DVD. The film is intended to be a parable about illegal immigration. A college professor from Connecticut goes to his apartment in New York to find an illegal immigrant couple squatting there without his knowledge. At first he asks them to leave, but then when he realizes they have nowhere to go, he invites them to stay.


SCOTUS Split Decision on Arizona Immigration Law

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 12:24 pm - June 25, 2012.
Filed under: Illegal Immigration,Supreme Court

Here’s the definitive summary of the ruling from SCOTUS Blog.  (If you don’t follow the SCOTUS Blog, you should be… shame on you!)

Here is a rundown on the Court’s ruling with respect to each relevant challenge:

1. Police Checks. Section 2(B) of the law requires the police to check the immigration status of persons whom they detain before releasing them. The Court held that the lower courts were wrong to prevent this provision from going into effect while its lawfulness is being litigated. It was not sufficiently clear that the provision would be held preempted, the Court held. The Court took pains to point out that the law, on its face, prohibits stops based on race or national origin and provides that the stops must be conducted consistent with federal immigration and civil rights laws. However, it held open that the provision could eventually be invalidated after trial.

2. State Law Crime of Being In The Country Illegally. Although federal law already makes it illegal for someone to be in the country without proper authorization, Section 3 of the Arizona statute also makes it a state crime, subject to additional fines and possible imprisonment. The Court held that this provision was preempted and cannot be enforced. The Court held that Congress has left no room for states to regulate in this field, even to implement the federal prohibition.

3. Ban on Working In The State. Section 5(C) of the statute also makes it a state crime for undocumented immigrants from applying for a job or working in the state. It is also held preempted as imposing an obstacle to the federal regulatory system. Because Congress obviously chose not make working in the country without proper authorization a federal crime, states cannot enact additional criminal penalties Congress decided not to impose.

4. Warrantless Arrest Of Individuals Believed To Have Committed A Deportable Crime. Section 6 of the statute authorizes state law enforcement officials to arrest without a warrant any individual otherwise lawfully in the country, if law enforcement officials have probable cause to believe the individual has committed a deportable offense. The Court held that this provision is preempted. Whether and when to arrest someone for being unlawfully in the country is a question solely for the federal government.

Very interesting…. SCOTUS has left no doubt that immigration laws should be the realm of the Federal Government. 

One major ruling left for this year… the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.  That will come Thursday.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

A Nightmare Over

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 1:58 pm - December 18, 2010.
Filed under: 111th Congress,Illegal Immigration

Before we all get jubilent over the impending repeal of DADT (oh, and we will), let’s also take a moment to celebrate this morning’s defeat of the preposterous DREAM Act.

With our Nation’s borders breached so frequently these days by criminals entering our Country illegally and the current Administration having the cajones to actually sue a border state for doing its job, can we pause and agree that rewarding criminals by guaranteeing their progeny legal citizenship status is a bad idea?

Just a thought before we throw our caps in the air over DADT’s repeal later this afternoon, that there are other reasons to celebrate today also.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)

Susan R. Bolton Hands GOP A(nother) Campaign Issue

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:06 pm - July 28, 2010.
Filed under: Illegal Immigration,Legal Issues

While at the gym earlier today doing cardio, I watched to see the various CNN anchors and reporter jubilant that Clinton appointee Judge Susan R. Bolton striking down the most “controversial” provisions in Arizona’s immigration law.

Given that poll after poll after poll has shown that a sizable majority of Americans support this law, this can only strengthen the hand of Republicans going into the fall elections, particularly given the Democratic Administration’s grandstanding opposition and successful suit.

Here, you have two issues, immigration and judicial overreach redounding to Republicans’ benefit.

(South) Lake Tahoe Is Fortunate:

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 9:18 pm - May 20, 2010.
Filed under: Conservative Ideas,Illegal Immigration

I have watched this video of Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA4) three times and still have yet to find anything to which I object. (Transcript follows the jump.)

As with my new fat best friend, here’s a guy who says what needs to be said:


Palin Bashed US Apology in China Over AZ Immigration

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 4:27 pm - May 18, 2010.
Filed under: Illegal Immigration,Sarah Palin,Strong Women


On Fox News this morning, State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley became the third Obama administration official in short succession to admit that he hadn’t actually bothered to read Arizona’s 10-page long “secure the border” bill before condemning it and criticizing Americans who support Arizona’s necessary efforts to do the job the Obama Administration should be doing. Crowley’s statement follows similar admissions from Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.

At first blush this revelation seemed unbelievable, but maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. This now seems “the Washington way” of doing things. If the party in power tells us they have to pass bills in order to find out what’s actually in them, they can also criticize bills (and divide the country with ensuing rhetoric) without actually reading them.

Still I can’t help but feel outraged on behalf of Arizona’s citizens for the incompetence shown by these Administration officials. Arizonans have the courage to do what the Obama administration has failed to do in its first year and a half in office – namely secure our border and enforce our federal laws. And as a result, Arizonans have been subjected to a campaign of baseless accusations by the same people who freely admit they haven’t a clue about what they’re actually campaigning against.

The absolute low point of this campaign came last Friday, when a U.S. State Department delegation met with Chinese negotiators to discuss human rights. Apparently, our State Department felt it necessary to make their Chinese guests feel less bad about their own record of human rights abuses by repeatedly atoning for American “sins” – including, it seems, the Arizona immigration/pro-border security law. Asked if Arizona came up at all during the meeting, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner answered:

“We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.”

Note that he said “We brought it up” – not the Chinese, but the U.S. State Department’s own delegation. Instead of grilling the Chinese about their appalling record on human rights, the State Department continued the unbelievable apology tour by raising “early and often” Arizona’s decision to secure our border.

Arizona’s law, which just mirrors the federal law, simply allows the police to ask those whom they have already stopped for some form of identification like a driver’s license. By what absurd stretch of the imagination is that the moral equivalent of China’s lack of freedoms, population controls (including forced abortions), censorship, and arbitrary detentions?

Surely our U.S. Ambassador to China, John Huntsman, must disagree with the Obama Administration’s continued apology tour? We have nothing to apologize for. If Administration officials want to apologize to anyone, apologize to the American people for the fact that after a year and a half in office, they still haven’t done anything to secure our borders, and they join our President in making false suggestions about Arizona’s effort.

Sarah Palin (via Facebook)

GP Ed Note – I added the BOLD to Palin’s words.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Taylor’s No Carrie

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 8:31 pm - May 17, 2010.
Filed under: Illegal Immigration

Did America witness another Carrie Prejean moment last night?

Miss Oklahoma, Taylor Treat (great name if she needs, um, a different line of work) was asked a question by judge Oscar Nunez (I had to Google him to find out he’s some sort of b-rate commedian and actor) this weekend at the Miss America pageant. Nunez started his question about the new Arizona anti-illegal immigration law that, according to him “authorizes law-enforcement authorities to check the citizenship of anyone they believe may be in the country illegally.” At this point, the reaction from the crowd grew to a point he couldn’t ignore, and he implored the audience to “now, listen to the question before you boo.”

Perhaps they were booing because Nunez was (just like the press, and the president) misstating what the law said. Likely he (just like the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security) hasn’t even read it, but will gladly criticize it.

While Treat’s response starts out pretty good (“I’m a huge believer in states’ rights. I think that’s what’s so wonderful about America.”), she tends toward the more can’t-we-all-get-along mushyness toward the end.

Meh, what can you do? It’s just a silly beauty pageant.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Cinco de Mayo – I Nearly Forgot

I’m a day behind this week for some reason.  Anyway, I was going to put this post up first thing tomorrow thinking that today is May 4th.  Nope.

So to illustrate how meaningless Cinco de Mayo is to me, I’m going to link to this slasher post about the “made for beer” holiday

If it weren’t for beer companies, most Americans wouldn’t know about Cinco de Mayo, a celebration of – well, I’m just not sure. It originated as a commemoration of the anniversary of a victory on May 5, 1862, by the Mexican Army over the French at the Battle of Puebla. (Wow, if everyone celebrated when they defeated the French military, fighting thousands of miles from home, in a desert… half of Africa would be celebrating Cinco de Mayo.) But in recent years it’s become a celebration of victimhood, partially by those here illegally, at the hands of the evil white people who built up the Welfare, Medicare, and Education systems and wanted to spread goodwill towards those who seek a better life in America.


So, instead of this being another beer holiday where we loosely celebrate another culture such as St. Patrick’s Day… Cinco de Mayo has become a full-on assault of American culture. Speakers at rallies across the country will proclaim that the rest of us are racists and that obeying the law should be the last to do. I’m not saying that those here illegally should all be rounded up and sent back especially, as Ann Coulter said, “smoking-hot Latin guys who stand around not wearing shirts between workouts.” But at LEAST get some better border protection to mitigate against an even bigger crises.

Nor should we forget the richness that legal Mexican immigrants (and their decendants) have added to American culture. But I will not feel guilty about wanting to protect that American culture… and American laws.

I’ll drink to that!


-Bruce (GayPatriot)

On Immigration, First, Let’s Secure the Border

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:06 am - May 3, 2010.
Filed under: Illegal Immigration

Just before I learned we got hacked on Friday, I had planned a couple of posts, the first on immigration, pointing out my ambivalence on the Arizona law which has caused such hysteria in the media.  In an ideal world, I would oppose such legislation, but, in the real world in states like Arizona, I understand that sometimes we must take drastic action to confront an increase in crime.

The Arizona legislature thought this action was necessary to protect their citizens.  Provided safeguards are in place to ensure that police do not randomly stop citizens because of their ethnic background or foreign accent, a law requiring an individual to provide verification of his immigration seems a reasonable precaution.

If it’s such a bad thing to ask for such verification, Mark Hemingway wonders whyDemocratic leaders have proposed requiring every worker in the nation to carry a national identification card with biometric information, such as a fingerprint, within the next six years, according to a draft of the measure.

The Arizona law would like be unnecessary if the federal government secured our border.  And U.S Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) is right on the money when he says, “President Barack Obama should force on securing the border before bringing up immigration reform“, saying

. . . that border security would have to precede any conversations on comprehensive immigration reform, for which an outline of legislation was released by Senate Democrats this week.

“When the border’s secure, then we can deal with people illegally here, and how they become citizens or not,” Alexander said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Once the border is secure, we can move onto the more difficult issues of how to deal with those who are already here.  The problem with “amnesty” is not just rewarding those who have broken the law to come here, but also that it encourages other people to follow suit.  If the border is closed, that would make such journeys much more difficult.

(What) Was Connie Mack Thinking?

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 7:28 pm - April 29, 2010.
Filed under: Illegal Immigration,Republican Embarrassments

You’re subscribing to NRO‘s Morning Jolt from Jim Geraghty (I always have to cut-and-paste his name…that spelling is beyond me), right?

Yesterday he had a great piece in his daily newsletter that outlined the much more moderated, level-headed, and sober criticism of Arizona’s new immigration law. (You know, the one MSNBC declared “Makes it a Crime to be [an] Illegal Immigrant”.) I’ll cut and paste at length below the jump.

Well, leave it to Connie Mack, a guy who represents the 14th CD of Florida (which includes not a border with a dangerously unstable narco-nation, but, rather Naples) to destroy the concept of a temperate and reasoned objection (of which, admittedly, there are some):

This law of ‘frontier justice’ – where law enforcement officials are required to stop anyone based on ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they may be in the country illegally – is reminiscent of a time during World War II when the Gestapo in Germany stopped people on the street and asked for their papers without probable cause

Perhaps Representative Mack should do some investigating before he opened his mouth. The part I highlighted above is completely untrue and misrepresents the law totally. It could have come from Keith Olbermann. Maybe it did.

Clearly put, the law requires law enforcement to check citizenship only while engaged in “lawful contact, i.e., pulled over already for, say, speeding or hazardously driving. Can this law perhaps be abused by bad cops? Abso-freakin’-lutely. But so can all the laws up to now. Not that this isn’t a legitimate concern, but to characterize this as some sort of Hitler-esque Stasi move is ridiculous and below a Congressman. Espeically a Republican one. Having an issue with this and it making one feel uncomfortable is fair. I’m not totally sold on it myself. But come on, Connie.


Obama’s Agenda: Castro’s Dream

Much will be made, no doubt, about this article, noting how Communist thug Fidel Castro considers the Stalinization of Health Care Act of 2010 (is my name for it starting to make sense now?!) a “miracle” and “about time”.

Now, ask any Tea Partier and he’ll tell you you can’t choose your fans any more than you can choose your family members. Fair enough, but look at what else Fidel wants the US to do, post haste:

…the Cuban leader also used the lengthy piece to criticize the American president for his lack of leadership on climate change and immigration reform

Hm… climate change

Hm… immigration reform

Now, I’m not one to suggest that Obama is taking his cues from our nearest Communist dictator. Just that it surely is curious that he’s pretty much doing just what his “amigo” suggests he should.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)

Is The United States In a “Low Grade” Civil War?

It is a chilling question and one that has been troubling me for about two weeks.  I read the “low grade civil war” phrase as a declarative statement from a commenter on a news story about the Congressional Town Hall meetings and it has been rattling in my brain ever since.

I’ve been wanting to post about this question and today seemed like the right time since now I’m not the only one worried about this question.  In today’s Washington Times, actor/activist Jon Voight makes this statement:

“There’s a real question at stake now. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?” Mr. Voight tells Inside the Beltway.

“We are witnessing a slow, steady takeover of our true freedoms. We are becoming a socialist nation, and whoever can’t see this is probably hoping it isn’t true. If we permit Mr. Obama to take over all our industries, if we permit him to raise our taxes to support unconstitutional causes, then we will be in default. This great America will become a paralyzed nation.”

“Do not let the Obama administration fool you with all their cunning Alinsky methods. And if you don’t know what that method is, I implore you to get the book ‘Rules for Radicals,’ by Saul Alinsky . Mr. Obama is very well trained in these methods.”

Now this is old news to anyone who really studied Obama’s past.  And I’m not as concerned about this kind of argument, nor the “birthers” distraction.

Here are my real fears about the United States heading into a civil war:

  1. There is a clear distinction between those who want a more authoritarian/socialist nation versus those who want to preserve the capitalist/democratic America we live in.
  2. There is a clear distinction between those who understand the principles and guidance and importance of the representative legislative process versus those who hide behind the Constitution as an excuse to create laws from the bench.
  3. There is a clear distinction between those who favor strong national security vs. those who want a borderless, global government.
  4. There is a clear distinction between those who hold US Constitutional principles dear (1st, 2nd, 10th Amendments in particular) and those who are ignorant or want to subvert those principles.
  5. There is a clear distinction between those who want to maintain a sensible fiscal policy versus those statists in Washington who spend our tax money with reckless abandon.
  6. There is a clear distinction between those who see themselves as Americans first versus those who want to segregate themselves into communities and ignore the national identity.
  7. Despite his promises, surveys show that Americans have elected one of the most divisive Presidents since Richard Nixon.

These are serious issues that fundamentally challenge the formation of the Republic itself.  Don’t buy into the childish arguments that every criticism of the Federal Government is based in racism.  That is ignorant and simple-minded talk.

I hope I am wrong, but my perspective has been reinforced by my reading of a 1997 book called “The Fourth Turning”.  I’ll do a review later, but needless to say — it is a chilling book that talks about unmovable historical cycles.  We are in The Crisis period now, according to the authors.

I’m anxious for a vigorous and respectful discussion on my question posed here.  No Americans in 1773 knew there would be a Revolution; no Americans in 1857 knew there would be a bloody Civil War; no Americans in 1928 knew there would be a global Depression and a 2nd global war.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

New SF Supervisor: Openly Gay, Former Illegal Immigrant

Ah, only in the City by the Bay would a Federal law-breaking gay guy be named to the Board of Supervisors by the California law-breaking Mayor.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom swore in openly gay attorney David Campos to replace Tom Ammiano on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Ammiano won his election to the California State Assembly on Nov. 4, carrying a Victory Fund endorsement.

Campos, who will represent the city’s ninth district, came to the United States at the age of 14 as an undocumented immigrant from Guatemala. He became an American citizen in 1997, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

“I might be the first undocumented person elected to the Board of Supervisors,” Campos said to cheers. “I think it’s only fitting in this very difficult time to be an immigrant that something like this would happen in San Francisco. It says a lot about the city.”

Arghhhhhhhhh.   Is there some way to saw off San Fran and allow it to be its own country?  Which is worse?  The fact he was an illegal immigrant…. or that he’s a lawyer?

By the way, The Victory Fund folks want me to be happy cuz he’s openly gay.  I guess gay trumps “rule of law” now.  

And just exactly what is so interesting about a gay guy on the San Fran Board of Supervisors?  I’d just assume they were all gays or lesbians by now.   Is there gay discrimination in elections in San Fran? 

/sarcasm off

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Another Reason Why Obama Is Not Worthy Of The White House

So enforcement of US immigration laws is terrorism to Mr. Obama? Oh my. Such an audacious display of shameless pandering could be admirable, as far as practical politics go, if it didn’t betray the utter cluelessness of the man. Ed Morrissey from Hot Air asks a very pertinent question that the Obamessiah needs to answer:

[I]f that’s what Obama thinks of ICE, why has he done nothing about them during the three years he’s been in the Senate?

Well, Senator, what say you? Surely if ICE has behaved in such a nefarious manner as you suggest they have it would be incumbent upon a man of your position to do something to stop them. What exactly have you done about this, other than campaigning for the highest office in the land after only a year’s experience as a junior senator?

— John (Average Gay Joe)