Maybe there are honorable Democrats in Congress and in the administration, but there names are not well-known; there certainly are no Daniel Patrick Moynihans or Harry Trumans among them. The Democrats have presented themselves as either seriously mentally challenged (Reid, Pelosi, Biden, Wasserman, Schumer, Waters, Waxman, Jackson, etc.), employed above their pay grades (any of the cabinet or White House staff), or liars (Holder, Carney, Obama, Clinton, Rice, Sharpton, etc.). Yet against that bounty of political weaknesses, the Republicans are floundering about, searching for principles, rhetoric, and leaders. They have just a few months before campaigning for 2014 begins.

On a larger scale, his family is the MSM, and the dog is the nearest underling.

Agreed, but individuals' morals form the collective law - or are supposed to. And no law guarantees the moral behavior of an individual. I find it odd that for most of my life, it was the liberals that were hypersensitive to government intrusion into the rights of individuals. Now, it is the liberals that sponsor a big government that passes any legislation or regulations that might earn re-election brownie points. And the current administration is right out of Orwell. It's too bad that today's Democrats seem no more than lemming-toadies for the likes of Reid and Pelosi, and that the Repubs have little clue.

There is a continuum in the origination and application of morals. Societies are governed by laws, and what are laws but moral statements? On the other hand, when government gets fat and happy, bored legislators begin to fine-tune society by imposing extra-moral and/or immoral rules, which are either patently unjust (yes, a moral judgment) or a step down the slippery slope of stupidity and/or tyranny.

Read the Web page. You don't have to believe it, but perhaps it will help dispel the "instant amnesty" misinformation.

You may wish to read the info on Rubio's home page under "Myth Busting": http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/myth-busting Does that make everything peachy? Maybe, maybe not. But it beats what Rubio calls the tacit amnesty of doing absolutely nothing, i.e. the BO Administration policy.

“It’s also worth noting, however, that the Gang of Eight draft summary says those newly legal workers won’t be eligible for either ObamaCare or most other welfare benefits for at least a decade, and maybe longer.” (Editorial, “The Immigration Windfall,” The Wall Street Journal, 4/16/13) “Immigrants granted provisional visas would not be eligible for public-welfare benefits, and could not apply for tax credits when filing their taxes.” (Dan Nowicki and Daniel González, “Senators unveil outline of immigration-reform bill,” Arizona Republic, 4/16/13)

"How can you trust a people that will break the law in the first place." Uh, weren't you breaking the law by hiring non-citizens? If we would enforce the laws prohibiting employing illegals, stop giving them public benefits, and introduce a bracero-like program, the immigration problem would disappear quickly.

You're going to have to cut Ransom some slack on this one. After what seems an eternity of Obama Progressive horror, we non-socialists now have a glimmering hope that the low-information voters will not continue to ruin the country with their smirking, grossly negligent ignorance about, well, everything. Please allow us a day or two of giddiness while we gather our thoughts.

"Currently, the average illegal alien gets about $24,721 in taxpayer-funded benefits and pays about $10,334 in taxes." We don't know what time period that covers, and it is unclear whether that is per person or per household. Suppose that's per person, per year. That means that we are now paying roughly 300 billion a year to the 12m illegal aliens in public benefits. Sounds like our primary problem may be the people who pass out public benefits, not the illegals. Also, can anyone confirm whether or not the Rubio bill places restrictions on "legalized" illegals regarding public benefits?