By Suzanne Price – Rep. Darrell Issa is not sweeping this criminal act under the rug. He’ll continue with this investigation until it can be handled appropriately.
Barack Hussein Obama has been trying to invoke his “executive privilege” to prevent the documents from being provided to a congressional investigation. Why? What happened to Obama’s promised transparency?
This operation began in the Tucson and Phoenix, AZ area where the ATF “purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them.”
It eventually became known in February 2010 as “Operation Fast and Furious”.
One of these guns, very recently was found in the possession of a Mexican drug lord, a 50 caliber ‘Fast & Furious’ rifle capable of taking down a helicopter was found in ‘El Chapo’s cache of weapons.
Some 6 years after the ‘Fast and Furious’ firearms went missing inside of Mexico.
As reported in September 2011, the Mexican government stated that an undisclosed number of guns found at about 170 crime scenes were linked to Fast and Furious. U.S. Representative.
These very same weapons are responsible for the death of our Border Patrol agent, Brian Terry.
Our nation has a Constitution which is the principle for the ‘rule of law’.
We have a people that took an of Oath of Office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
When any government official breaks our laws, they are not upholding their oath of office. Our laws are not for just for a few, they are for “all” peoples, at all levels of status.
EXCLUSIVE: Issa Says Fast and Furious Docs May Implicate Eric Holder
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) told Breitbart News Wednesday that documents the Obama administration may be forced to produce regarding Operation Fast and Furious could implicate former Attorney General Eric Holder and his staff.
On Tuesday, a federal judge invalidated President Barack Obama’s use of “executive privilege” to prevent the documents from being provided to a congressional investigation, saying that some of the material had already been cited by the administration in public.
The judge will hear more arguments before ordering the documents released.
Issa told Breitbart News that his continuing investigation into Fast and Furious could uncover possible criminality by former Attorney General Eric Holder and his staff, thereby providing a new incoming administration with the facts they would need to bring charges.
The next administration could well choose to deal with people’s crimes, particularly the conspiracy to cover this up, to falsely mislead the American people.
There were a number of areas in which criminal activity could alleged, and as it stands right now the biggest question is that Eric Holder swore he didn’t know about this a number of times. And some of that has been proved wrong.
If we’re able to see that his hand-picked US Attorney Dennis Burke was involved in communicating to people in the justice department that would indicate a number of people testified falsely.
He stressed that he believes it is important to remember the Republican candidates are the ones most likely to pursue charges relating to Fast and Furious.
He said they would do this both out of a commitment to enforcement of the rule of law, and also because evidence of “false statements”–if such evidence is found–would mean that those who made them “knowingly let felons gain access to weapons for crimes.”
Regarding a .50 caliber Fast and Furious sniper rifle discovered at the hideout of Mexican drug cartel leader El Chapo’s hideout, Issa quickly confirmed that the gun is powerful enough to “bring down a helicopter.”
The .50 caliber rifle has a characteristic that the cartels choose it for–which led to the purchase of those rifles during Fast and Furious. To put it simply, a .50 caliber rifle can bring down a helicopter when that helicopter is over a scene. In 2015–and at least once before–helicopters were brought down in Mexico while trying to cover the scene and stop the fleeing of cartel members.
He added that cartels can use the weapon “to stop a vehicle in its tracks by basically blowing away the engine block.”
Fox News reported that 34 of the approximately 2,000-2,200 guns sold and smuggled during Fast and Furious were .50 caliber rifles. The one recovered from El Chapo’s hideout is the second such .50 caliber rifle recovered with ties to Fast and Furious.
A rifle used in an Islamic terrorist attack last year against a Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas also reportedly came from Operation Fast and Furious. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at email@example.com.
Editor’s Note – You know you have really ‘jumped the shark’ when the Huffington Post and NBS report that AG Holder was the one who signed off on the probe into Fox News’ James Rosen and demanded Holder’s head. Is that the fat lady I hear singing? SUA has been demanding Holder’s resignation, impeachment, or arrest for ages, well before Fast and Furious.
Its time to go Mr. Holder – ‘perp walk’ anyone? In a full page posting, the Huffington Post has entered in the largest font we have ever seen the following:
Attorney General Eric Holder personally signed off on the warrant that allowed the Justice Department to search Fox News reporter James Rosen’s personal email, NBC News’ Michael Isikoff reported Thursday.
The report places Holder at the center one of the most controversial clashes between the press and the government in recent memory. The warrant he approved named Rosen as a “co-conspirator” in a leak investigation, causing many to warn that the Justice Department was potentially criminalizing journalism. The warrant also approved the tracking of Rosen’s movements in and out of the State Department, as well as his communications with his source, Stephen Kim.
The Justice Department later said that it did not intend to press any charges against Rosen.
The attorney general is usually required to approve requests to search journalists’ materials, but that rule does not extend to email records.
(Holder recused himself from the investigation into the Associated Press, meaning that he absolved himself of that responsibility.) Holder has previously said that he was not sure how many times he had authorized the search of journalists’ records.
The revelation came hours after President Obama said in a speech that he was concerned about the potential implications of the Fox News and AP investigations. Obama said that Holder would be reviewing the department’s rules for investigations that involve reporters.
“We reject the government’s efforts to criminalize the pursuit of investigative journalism and falsely characterize a Fox News reporter to a Federal judge as a “co-conspirator” in a crime,” Ailes wrote. “I know how concerned you are because so many of you have asked me: why should the government make me afraid to use a work phone or email account to gather news or even call a friend or family member? Well, they shouldn’t have done it.”
It is with extreme sadness that America no longer has four committed civil servants and patriots to walk among us. The terror attack that struck our sovereign diplomatic mission in Benghazi on 9-11 will be remembered for more than just the loss of these men, and the fact that it was an act of brutal, premeditated terror.
Since that day, evolving official explanations have all been proven to be lies. Not just misleading tales or the “fog of war”, not the need to wait for investigations; the narrative that arose from the administration was a designed lie. It was all a lie designed to hide the failed foreign policy of the entire Obama administration.
Today, Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty must now be considered heroes that saved America from a corrupt regime, from a decidedly un-American goal of appeasing Islam and reducing America’s standing across the globe. They did not just die in the line of duty in a harsh and dangerous den of evil, bravely trying to advance American interests without support and security they deserved. Their loss is now proven to have exposed an even greater evil, an enemy ‘inside the wire’.
We mourn the lost of these men and pray for peace and healing for their respective families, but we should also take some solace in the notion that their deaths, with the will of God, may have just altered the future of America. They may have, unknowingly, provided the first step in the restoration of our once great nation and her constitutional rule-of-law tenets. They have, through dutiful professionalism in the field; doing the right thing – exposed those who are unprofessional, self-serving, power hungry, greedy – those who will say or do anything to attain or preserve power.
There is an unknown quantity of components of the terror attack in Benghazi and perhaps some components we as citizens will never know. It is submitted however, that there are a few factual conclusions that cannot be disputed or denied. The Obama administration found no limits on people and conditions to blame or to fabricate lies. Benghazi pointed us back to a deeper, broken system of foreign policy where no associated government agency is insulated from blame, or was employed for nefarious ends. The stories changed so often, it is clear that the administration, all of them, whether by their own design or by obeying orders, practiced a ‘scorched Earth’ policy where nothing was too low or too base to employ in the cover-up.
What is even more egregious is that our standing in the community of nations is deeply harmed. Those who wish to do us harm no longer fear us. In fact, many openly defy us. Ahmen Abu Khutalla and Sulfian bin Qumu members of the terror team that killed and destroyed the good work of so few, not only in Libya but throughout the Middle East revel in their deeds. President Obama told us that justice will be done and yet both of these evil men and other terrorists still openly walk the streets of Libya brazenly, so much so that one even gave a two hour interview to the New York Times.
In support of these heroes, people who take their jobs seriously, did not stop investigating and reporting their findings. They did this while lessor icons of the main stream media not only did not tell the truth to America, they openly tried to buoy the very people who were deceiving America. When a member of the media attempts to correct the record on live television, in a non-factual manner, in an attempt to rescue those deceiving, the contrast is even more stark.
Last night, an example of true journalism appeared for all to see. In a must see Fox News expose of the nightmare in Benghazi, the deceivers were clearly brought into the disinfectant of the bright sunshine so shrouded to date. Bret Baier, Greg Palkot, and James Rosen detailed the facts, exposing just how disingenuous the evolving narrative and conspiracy was perpetrated on the American people.
Not all in Washington were complicit. There were others who stepped up for the people. We must give praise to some lawmakers that are doing stellar work in asking the hard questions. The few that are also exposing the facts that will prove who was complicit and essentially acted as accessories to murder by denying proper protections of civil servants that work in dangerous locations across the globe, especially in Libya.
From lower ranking career employees at the State Department and Department of Defense, on through to the NSC, and rising all the way to the top in each area, including the President – all failed at standing on principle, and defending America. They placed the sensitivities of Islam/Muslims above America’s interests, they did not do the most basic chore; provide for the protection of four Americans to mask a policy so anathema to our survival. Benghazi is one of the saddest days in American history, where Barack Obama tells us it was just not optimal in his political career. Shame on all of them.
‘I do not think,” Nixon campaign aide Jeb Magruder told the Senate Watergate committee in the spring of 1973, “there was ever any discussion that there would not be a coverup.” Mr. Magruder’s lament aptly described the bureaucratic impulse to hide inconvenient facts that seizes every modern White House at some point. His testimony was brought to mind by the growing number of high-profile Republicans accusing the Obama White House of engaging in a cover-up in the Benghazi case.
In Nixon’s day, his crimes did not kill anyone – here, four heroes have sacrificed all, yet the cover-up continues. If America is truly watching – this may prove to be the end for Obama’s chances on November 6th. This also exposes the mindset on all his other issues. What you are being told needs to be viewed through this new lens of clarity. Ask yourself what Joe Biden asked us all in the VP debate: “Look, folks, use your common sense. Who do you trust on this?”
Edited by Scott W. Winchell, Denise Simon is the Senior Research Director at Stand Up America US.
Editor’s Note – Once again, the facts and documents are emerging that completely disprove ALL versions of the Obama administration’s assertions about the Benghazi terror attack that killed four Americans. Obama said:
“Because I would say, even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as all of us being on the same page,” to Jon Stewart on the non-news shows he runs.
Of course it was not optimal, they are covering up, obfuscating, misleading, changing stories, and plain old lying. To that, many responded including Sen. John McCain:
“Well, even from someone like the President, who has never known what these kinds of tragedies are about, and the service and sacrifice that people make, it’s still just — You know, I can’t even get angry. It’s just so inappropriate,” McCain said. “And I’m sure that families of those brave Americans are not amused.”
Its not just inappropriate, it is also beyond disrespectful – ask Mrs. Smith, mother of slain American Sean Smith:
Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, a State Department computer specialist killed in the attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya on the anniversary of Sept. 11, said Friday in an interview with the Daily Mail that President Barack Obama had been disrespectful in his most recent attempt to explain the incident.
“My son is not very ‘optimal’ — he is also very dead. I’ve not been ‘optimal’ since he died and the past few weeks have been pure hell,” she said. “How can you say somebody being killed is not very ‘optimal’? I don’t think the president has the right idea of the English language.”
Now we see the following report – explain this away Mr. Obama. Its at the very least “not optimal” – in fact, its probably the lowest thing your administration has done since the Fast and Furious debacle which is still hanging out there in a court.
BENGHAZI: Documents show Stevens worried about security threats, al-Qaeda
Across 166 pages of internal State Department documents – released today by a pair of Republican congressmen pressing the Obama administration for more answers on the Benghazi terrorist attack – slain U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and the security officers assigned to protect him repeatedly sounded alarms to their superiors in Washington about the intensifying lawlessness and violence in Eastern Libya, where Stevens ultimately died.
On September 11 – the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed – the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”
In the document, Stevens also cited a meeting he had held two days earlier with local militia commanders. These men boasted to Stevens of exercising “control” over the Libyan Armed Forces, and threatened that if the U.S.-backed candidate for prime minister were to prevail in Libya’s internal political jockeying, “they would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi.”
Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.” Writing on August 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time, “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape…The individual incidents have been organized,” he added, a function of “the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”
“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable.”
By September 4, Stevens’s aides were reporting back to Washington on the “strong Revolutionary and Islamist sentiment” in the city.
Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies about a “recent increase in violent incidents,” including “attacks against western [sic] interests.” “Until the GOL [Government of Libya] is able to effectively deal with these key issues,” Stevens wrote on June 25, “the violence is likely to continue and worsen.”
After the U.S. consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing, had “described the attack as ‘targeting the Christians supervising the management of the consulate.”
“Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the ambassador wrote, adding that “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities…”
The documents also contain evidence that the State Department’s denials of requests for enhanced security in Benghazi in the months leading up to 9/11 may have contributed to the ability of the attackers to plan their assault on the consulate and annex grounds without being detected.
“I’ve been placed in a very difficult spot,” said Eric A. Nordstrom, the regional security officer who testified before a House hearing last week, in a February 12 email to a colleague, “when the ambassador [Gene Cretz, at that time] that I need to support Benghazi but can’t direct MSD [a mobile security detachment] there and been advised that DS [Diplomatic Security] isn’t going to provide more than 3 agents over the long term.”
“DS is hesitant to devout [sic] resources and as I indicated previously, this has severely hampered operations in Benghazi,” wrote Karen Keshap, a State Department manager, to main State in Washington the day before. “That often means that DS agents are there guarding a compound with 2 other DOS [Department of State] personnel present. That often also means that outreach and reporting is non-existent.”
Earlier that day, February 11, a colleague of Keshap’s, Shawn P. Crowley, had apologized to her and other officials in an email for “being a broken record” on the subject of inadequate security in Benghazi. Crowley added: “[T]omorrow Benghazi will be down to two [DS] agents….This will leave us unable to do any outreach to Libyan nationals…and we will be extremely limited in the ability to obtain any useful information for reporting.”
These exchanges followed a dire report to top DS officials a few days earlier from Nordstom. In a February 1 memorandum, the officer warned that “Al-Qaida affiliated groups, including Al-Qaida In the Islamic Magreb (AQIM), and other violent extremist groups are likely to take advantage of the ongoing political turmoil in Libya. The U.S. Government remains concerned that such individuals and groups…may use Libya as a platform from which to conduct attacks in the region.”
By February 20, Nordstrom was noting the easy access that neighborhood militias enjoyed to “military grade weapons, such as RPGs and vehicle mounted, crew-served machine guns or AA weapons (23mm),” as well as “AK-47s, heavy weapons, and vehicle mounted weapons.”
In the days leading up to 9/11, warnings came even from people outside the State Department. A Libyan women’s rights activist, Wafa Bugaighis, confided to the Americans in Benghazi in mid-August: “For the first time since the revolution, I am scared.”
The documents were released by two lawmakers who have been active in probing the Benghazi case, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). In a letter to President Obama, dated October 19 and accompanied by the documents, the lawmakers faulted the administration both for providing inadequate security before 9/11, and for allegedly obfuscating the nature of the events on 9/11.
“Multiple warnings about security threats were contained in Ambassador Stevens’ own words in multiple cables sent to Washington, D.C., and were manifested by two prior bombings of the Benghazi compound and an assassination attempt on the British ambassador,” the congressmen wrote. “For this administration to assume that terrorists were not involved in the 9/11 anniversary attack would have required a willing suspension of disbelief.”
At the State Department briefing today, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland declined to comment on published reports alleging that an official working for the Central Intelligence agency had informed the Obama administration on September 12 that the Benghazi murders were an act of terrorism.
Is winning everything? It certainly appears to be, especially in politics. Winning is everything in DC! In fact, in order to win, we have no budget, scandals galore…
Is the Republican party now committing what a very large number of people in America think the Democrats committed in 2008? Nominating people for office that likely broke the rules, the “Natural-Born Rule”? SUA has very high regard for Marco Rubio, but now the questions are being asked…the vetting has begun.
Vetting our candidates was not an issue to most back in 2008, but it certainly is now.
‘Win at all cost’, or ‘get-mine’ has been a common theme dating back throughout all of our politics.
There is still a great question about how Minnesota’s Al Franken got elected, and the many historical Washington DC political scandals throughout our history including ‘Watergate’ the Tea-Pot Dome scandal and much more.
Then there was Florida in 2000 and 2004, the chads and the soldier-vote.
Americans are perhaps the most competitive people on earth – demonstrated across the board since our inception. It would be nice to say that we always play by the rules, but no one believes that is the case, especially now where so much money is concerned.
In baseball, we have witnessed the “physical enhancement’ era that is still making news over Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. In football, we just witnessed the crazy New Orleans Saints “bounty” scandal, and people like Ron “Meta World Peace” Artest regularly use “cheap shots” in basketball.
That is just America in pro sports, what about Americans in finance, think Bernie Madoff and Jon Corzine‘s scandals, then there is the “birther” question. Did people hide all of Obama’s records and commit fraud to ‘win’, or to keep winning?
In this era of the 24 hour news cycle, the rise of the ‘citizen journalist’, the demise of the reputation of the main stream media, and the extreme situation we are now in, are making people look, at last.
Bret Baier sure stepped into, and now Cindy Williams at the American Thinker has written a great article about this aspect of ‘playing by the rules’.
Maybe now, for once, a true vetting process will be undertaken, by all of our media. Referring to eligibility questions he himself raised, Baier now says: “…this is obviously getting a lot of attention.. so, we think we should do a full piece on the show about it…” Its about time.
NBC never will, nor will CNN, but just maybe if Fox does it, they will also have to put their cards on the table, before ballots are cast…not just after.
Baier mentions there is much “confusion” – of course there is, because so many people and institutions actively tried to mislead the people, many swept it under the rug, some committed alleged fraud, many just looked the other way, but very few actually did the homework. To the true “Constitutional Scholar”, there is no confusion.
When did it become admirable to be ignorant and arrogant about it, where knowledge is demagogued – the ‘new’ paradigm of virtues… to win at all cost!
Those conservatives who argue against “birthright citizenship” have just been thrown under the same bus as the “birthers” — whether or not they like it, or the GOP admits it.
The mainstream media, longtime foes against reform of the anchor baby practice, have been happy to help. And instead of quietly watching while a sizeable portion of the Republican party is run over, as in the case of the “birthers,” we now have the GOP establishment lending the media a hand in brushing aside many immigration reform advocates — by pushing the selection of Senator Marco Rubio for the VP nomination.
“Birthers” have been insisting that not only is Obama not eligible as a “natural born” citizen, but neither is Rubio. Now the media is paying attention. And of course, the media says the “birthers” are wrong. According to Fox News‘s Bret Baier:
The law lists several categories of people who are considered American citizens at birth. There are the people born inside the United States; no question there[.] … They’re all natural born U.S. citizens[.] … Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Bobby Jindal are both eligible to run and become Vice President or President.
Apparently Baier received a lot of feedback as soon as his column was published, because later the same day, he amended it:
Bottom line… this is obviously getting a lot of attention.. so, we think we should do a full piece on the show about it… and maybe have a panel of constitutional scholars… and legal experts to discuss this. There is obviously a lot of confusion.. uncertainty and misinformation out there about this topic. And as I wrote in the blog.. there is vigorous legal debate about the term… so we need to talk about it… and we’ll continue to report all sides [sic].
A needed admission, although still with no real authoritative sources listed.
What about all of the experts, conservative organizations, and Republicans who have argued for decades that more than birth on U.S. soil is required for citizenship?
The need to reform the birthright citizenship practice, considered by many an illegal immigration “magnet,” was addressed in a 2010 American Thinkercolumn quoting George Will, who in turn had cited Professor Lino Graglia — all in support of the idea that the 14th amendment did not mandate an automatic grant of citizenship to every baby born here — at the very least not those born to illegal aliens. The same year, American Thinker’s J.R. Dunn noted the valid arguments against the anchor baby policy and observed the resulting negative media spin, “designed to make a topic so radioactive as to render it untouchable.”
Up to that point, the media taboo seemed to be working. (It certainly did for the “birthers.”) Even the GOP candidates steered clear of immigration reform as much as possible and avoided discussion of birthright citizenship, likely for fear of being called “racist.”
Research into the subject reveals that the birthright issue concerns not only the legality of the parents’ status, for even “birth tourists” are in the U.S. on legal passports. The root of the problem is the status of the parents’ domicile (legal or illegal, permanent or temporary) and allegiance. The birthright practice also results in dual citizens who can remain so for life, unlike naturalized citizens, who are required to renounce past citizenships. Proposed legislation to require at least one citizen parent curtails the anchor baby problem but does not eliminate the dual citizenship issue.
“Birthers” argue that the dual citizenship of Obama disqualifies him from “natural born” eligibility. AnotherAmerican Thinker column documented the lack of academia’s serious attention to the interesting question.
Since 2008, the mainstream asserted that Obama was eligible for two reasons: he was born in Hawaii, and his mother was a citizen. Some argued that only U.S. birth was required, but hardly anyone (other than “birthers”) noted the related fact that many conservatives had been lobbying for years to correct what they considered an incorrect application of the 14th — that more than birth on U.S. soil is needed, not for natural born citizenship necessarily, but citizenship, period. And if arguments against birthright citizenship are legitimate — why not the contention that questionable birthright citizenship, because of allegiance concerns, does not equal natural born citizenship? But a reasonable debate was never permitted, and the “birthers” were ridiculed as kooks.
Fast-forward to today, and the GOP’s realization (thanks to those darned “birthers”!) that neither of VP favorite pick Rubio’s parents were citizens when he was born.
So now the mainstream and GOP establishment argument is that born in the USA (regardless of circumstances) equals “born a citizen” equals “natural born” citizen.
Baier didn’t mention the many conservatives who have long fought against the birthright practice, subtly helping the establishment kick them and their inconvenient assertions under the bus. Yet it was only eight years ago that Fox News noted the valid arguments in this article addressing the “presumed” (Justice Scalia’s description) citizenship of Hamdi in the famous case of Hamdi v Rumsfeld.
A recent Human Eventsarticle by Michael Zak asserts the same position as Baier’s. No citizen parents are needed, and they can be here illegally. Even al-Awlaki could have run for president.
The Georgia Obama ballot challenge ruling and its likely consequences on citizenship arguments was discussed here, which we now see in action.
Baier’s assertion places both Obama with his one citizen parent and Rubio with none on the same “natural born” bus — and that bus ran over not just “birthers” (who actually have been lying under there for quite a while), but also all of the Republicans who have been working for curtailment of the “jackpot” birthright practice as part of effective immigration reform. Because now it can no longer be denied (which “birthers” have been arguing all along) that birthright citizenship and presidential natural born eligibility are inextricably related.
To be fair — nothing much has been written about the status of Rubio’s parents at his birth. WNDpublished Rubio’s father’s naturalization papers (when Rubio was 4), but has it been determined whether Rubio’s parents were here, prior to that, legally, and whether they traveled to and from Cuba? Why so many years to naturalize? Interesting questions all, and answers may alleviate some of the immigration reformist’s concerns. But can they be discussed without fear of “birther” or “racist” labels?
The GOP wants to win on the “issues,” but apparently minus the birthright citizenship issue. A Rubio ticket may appeal to Latino voters, but it may sap more of the enthusiasm of the conservative Tea Party base than the establishment realizes.
In the weeks ahead, we may see either the birthright citizenship opponents aligned with the “birthers” or all of them swept under the rug of verboten conversation — because neither of their arguments fits the current establishment narrative.
Please support our non-profit work at SUA
JOIN/SUBSCRIBE: Please join our team and receive periodic newsletters and announcements securely. (Your information will never be sold or transferred – Opt-out anytime.)
VOLUNTEER: If you are unable to donate your money, your time is just as valuable.
DONATIONS: Please consider a recurring monthly or a one-time donation.