1. Breakfast 2. Small talk 3. Vote for a comprehensive immigration bill they haven’t read, fucking over not only their base, but all those among the American citizenry who don’t profit directly from cheap labor, depressed salaries, a permanent fund-raising tool calling for effective border control, the potential resurgence of unions (and the union dues that come with them, which are then laundered through the Democrat Party in return for

Sure. But then, he was trying to get elected, and when amnesty was a bad thing, not a noble gesture to allow the best of us to come out of the shadows where racism and xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment (and the threat of having to pay taxes) sadly forced them. Once they jumped the border. Now, though, he wants the Bushies to groom him for bigger things, maybe as a

I already posted this in Twitter — albeit constrained by the 140 character limit — so if you’ve already seen it, forgive me. Here in this venue, though, you have an opportunity to discuss it. So here it goes: The Senate’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform measure is essentially an attempt to institutionalize, on a national scale, the ward politics of the Tammany Hall days. In this striving it mirrors ObamaCare, which

Which is rather shocking until you more closely examine the questions. For instance: 1) Do you support those on an uphill battle to escape tyranny and who yearn to live free? 2) Or are you some sort of fucking racist, nativist douchebag who only wants to see Mexicans when they’re cleaning your hotel room, fixing your roof, or serving you complementary tortilla chips at Chi-Chi’s? 3) Jennifer Lopez has a

Behold, the Hoeven-Corker amendment, up for vote Monday, coming in at 1,200 pages The Hoeven-Corker amendment to the Gang of Eight bill is essentially a new bill. It is almost 1,200 pages long. Some parts of it are identical to some of the provisions of the original Gang of Eight bill, some parts are very different, and some parts are slightly different in ways that could prove very important but

Essentially, McCaughey, a former NY Lieutenant Governor under George Pataki (and later, Democrat challenger for Governor), points out in her appearance with Mark Levin last evening that the laws are written in such a way that funds allocated are set up to be distributed at the state level to political activist groups, who are given the role of helping people navigate the new laws and, importantly, register them to vote.

When something is so broken and so perverse that it literally compresses of its own weight into a nugget of pure and perfect bureaucratic and political evil, should we really be protesting it? Or should we just look upon it with wonder and admiration, like a kind of high art?