Marko Rubio's indignation about the Democrat driven IRS scandal seems rather strange. This is the guy who is pushing very hard for legislation to give amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens. Before long they will become a permanent, hardcore Democrat voting block. If amnesty happens it will soon become impossible for conservatives to become a governing majority. How can Rubio be sincerely concerned about dirty tricks against conservatives when he is stubbornly pushing a plan for conservative political suicide? The Democrats will not have to use dirty tricks; they will have a huge Hispanic voting block that will be much more certain and effective. If Rubio becomes the 2016 Republican Presidential nominee, I and millions of conservatives will not vote for him because we are forced to choose between the lesser of too evils; we have been forced to play that game too often by the RINOs. We will stay home or go third party.

At first I was so proud of the Heritage Foundation for its scholarly work exposing the huge cost of amnesty for illegal aliens. Then this Richwine thing came up. Notice that Richwine was not attacked because his doctoral dissertation was false or wrong but simply because it came to a politically forbidden conclusion. Heritage's cowardly capitulation to the racial psychosis of contemporary thinking is disgusting. Heritage crapped in its pants and threw Richwine under the buss. What Heritage should have done is immediately castigate the left for trying to suppress academic freedom of speech. It should have attacked and exposed the political left for its usual slimy tactics of "winning" an argument by diverting attention from the subject at hand to a fabricated "scandal" about their opponent. It should have simply said that Richwine's views in his PHD treatise were not their views. Now let's get back to our amnesty study, prove where it is wrong. The success of the fanatic left using smears has been reinforced by Heritage's gutless behavior, like paying off a blackmailer encourages more blackmail. I will withdraw my financial support from Heritage to let them know that intellectual cowardice has negative consequences.

Bravo patriots! The "border fence is a joke, in 1997 they voted funds for 700 miles of fencing on a 2000 mile border, to date only 36 miles of that fence has been completed. The Border Patrol, by their own estimate, only apprehends 1/4 to1/3 of the foreigners illegally cashing into our homeland. Patriots, call every congressman, every senator tell them no double talk. No amnesty, no excuses, no double talk. All illegal aliens must leave the country. There is no reason why border security has to be tied to amnesty. Tell Republicans to pass legislation to secure the border, nothing else, just secure the border. Then let the Democrats explain to the American people why they are opposed to legislation that would secure the border.

Bravo patriots! The "border fence is a joke, in 1997 they voted funds for 700 miles of fencing on a 2000 mile border, to date only 36 miles of that fence has been completed. The Border Patrol, by their own estimate, only apprehends 1/4 to1/3 of the foreigners illegally cashing into our homeland. Patriots, call every congressman, every senator tell them no double talk. No amnesty, no excuses, no double talk. All illegal aliens must leave the country. There is no reason why border security has to be tied to amnesty. Tell Republicans to pass legislation to secure the border, nothing else, just secure the border. Then let the Democrats explain to the American people why they are opposed to legislation that would secure the border.

Here we go again; no fence is 100 percent effective so let's not have any fence at all. Let's not do anything to control our Southern border -- right? So why bother with a fence around the White House or a fence around any junkyard? So let's recognize this little piece of logical carp for what it is -- non sense. Hey, how about posting the National Guard and the Army Reserve along the border with authority to apprehend foreign invaders? Of course the open borders lobby will not like that either; no doubt they will say that it doesn't work either or that it will be an abuse of civil rights -- even though the illegal alien invaders are not American citizens but citizens of a foreign power invading our territory. But the open...

Here we go again; no fence is 100 percent effective so let's not have any fence at all. Let's not do anything to control our Southern border -- right? So why bother with a fence around the White House or a fence around any junkyard? So let's recognize this little piece of logical carp for what it is -- non sense. Hey, how about posting the National Guard and the Army Reserve along the border with authority to apprehend foreign invaders? Of course the open borders lobby will not like that either; no doubt they will say that it doesn't work either or that it will be an abuse of civil rights -- even though the illegal alien invaders are not American citizens but citizens of a foreign power invading our territory. But the open...

this is to finish my last post: all things conservative and they have the common sense not to support amnesty (any legal status for illegal aliens).

I like the idea of Ted Cruz or Michelle Bachmann for President. There are "conservatives" who keep trying to push Rand Paul or Marko Rubio. Both of these guys are for amnesty. Rubio and the "gang of eight" and Paul's juvenile, naive "trust but verify." The "verify will never happen." If the Paul and Rubio adoration people shove either of them upon real conservatives like me it will create a bitter civil war within the conservative movement; the result will be a liberal/Marxist victory. Any amnesty is political suicide and we will never accept any politician who tries to sell suicide via amnesty. We want to win and save our country. Cruz or Bachmann should be good compromose candidates because they always fight for all things...

Why are most politicians always making excuses to give legal status (ANY LEGAL STATUS IS AMNESTY) to illegal aliens? Why does border security have to be tied to legal status? Why can not the Republicans in the House pass legislation only for border security? just that, nothing else in the bill. Then let the Democrats explain to the American people why they are opposed to border security.

If over the last two generations conservatives had not accepted the liberal monopoly of our universities and the subsequent news media hostility as a fait accompli, if instead they had been fighting pitched battles with the crazy left for control of the nation's classrooms, today 60 percent of Americans would not believe the Marxist's garbage about "fair" distribution of wealth. They would know that under totalitarian (always socialist) regimes wealth is heavily concentrated in the dictator's hands. They would understand that in free, capitalist, societies everybody is "rich" and it is irrelevant if somebody has more than they do.