Kirk Adams Wants To Keep Playing The Lying Game.

Here we go again. 


Matt Salmon's wife, Nancy, sent out a statement the other day refuting the false and deceptive claims from Kirk Adams and his surrogates.

Today, because Adams doesn't ever have an original thought of his own, Adams' wife sent out a rebuttal.

Once again, they are the same tired, desperate, over-used lies.  How many times does a CEO of the company they are claiming Salmon lobbied on behalf of, have to come out and say that Salmon did NOT lobby for them?

We won't even give them the satisfaction of yet another response to those false accusations.


We will, however, point out a few interesting statements made by Adams' wife, JaNae.

1.  Gilbert Watch's "tone and tenor....would make many blush if they read some of its mean spirited claims". 

And then she claims that blogs such as the politcomafioso is "objective and researched"?  Just take a look at who the politicomafioso endorses and it is pretty clear how "objective and researched" he is.

We think it is interesting to point out that someone else likes to use the words "tone and tenor" a lot.  His name is Jeff Flake.

Did JaNae think it was funny when her husband's campaign manager, Chad Heywood, said "DUDE, you have no clue how many older ladies just mailed Kirk Adams their panties ... mail box was full today," 


How about when an Adams/Flake/Worsley supporter (who incidentally, attempted to run for a Vice-Chair position in the Arizona Republican Party this last year) thought it was appropriate to write rude and juvenile comments on his ballot before posting it on Facebook? (In the same Facebook group where the campaign manager made the rude comment above).


What was that about "tone and tenor" again?


2.  "The site also claims SkyMall Founder Bob Worsley is owned by the left". 

What would you call it when radical leftist, Randy Parraz, spends $22,000 on Worsley's behalf which is more than what Worsley has raised for his campaign outside of his personal $50,000 loan?

So, yes, famed "I-ran-SkyMall-into-the-ground" founder Bob Worsley IS owned by the left.


3.  "former LDS leader Jerry Lewis is a liberal."

Certainly Ms. Adams isn't using the LDS church in a political campaign?  Implying that Lewis is a "former LDS leader" in a political statement is not only inappropriate but it is irresponsible.  Of course, we heard throughout the recall that it was Russell Pearce who used the LDS church (although we never once saw any evidence to prove that claim).  We do know that Jerry Lewis and his supporters DID.  We also know that Bob Worsley and his surrogates have been using the LDS church during the campaign as well.

Like here.

Here.

Here.

If/when we see Jerry Lewis

A-  campaign on behalf of a fellow "Republican" (and not a "lewsley" Republican)
B-  decides not to have liberal Democrats on his "endorsements" list
C-  stops showing up at the bottom of the Republican list for his voting record

MAYBE we'll change our mind about the "former LDS leader" being a liberal.













4.  "Jeff Flake is a fake conservative."

-Jeff Flake may be fiscally conservative, but then again, so was Bill Clinton and 52 Democrats in the House.
-Jeff Flake conveniently missed the vote on "Cap and Trade" and then responded by offering his own "Cap and Trade" bill. 
-Jeff Flake's Libertarian view of open borders results in his working with Democrats and Leftist think-tanks on Comprehensive Immigration legislation. 
-Jeff Flake first ran on the platform that he would term limit himself to three terms yet is still running 12 years later.  


That would mean that he is a fake Conservative. 


We can keep playing this game if you would like Mr. Adams.  In the meantime, the voters STILL don't know anything about you other than the fact that you are endorsed by the establishment, take credit for things you didn't do and like to play lame Jr. High games.

Not exactly the qualities of what we need in Washington.

New Immigration "Tone." Or So We're Being Told.

Well, that didn't take long .  Liberals and their new-found "Republican" friends will once again, shove "immigration reform" and a guest worker program down our throats.  Our economy must be BOOMING and our unemployment rate at near 0% if we're discussing guest worker bills again.  

No?

Last week, there were 365,000 new jobless claims filed and according to the Department of Labor, there are 12.5 million unemployed U.S. citizens. Another 12 million are considered "under-employed."  There are an (extremely low) estimated 12 million illegals in the United States. (Is a guest worker program Bob Worsley's idea for creating jobs?)

Last month, Obama granted amnesty work permits to over 1.7 million illegals who will flood the workforce and compete with legal U.S. citizens for jobs.  Not only will illegals be given work permits but they will also have

"complementary access to welfare programs — will also be granted to individuals 'with a significant disability … or [who are] far, far below the national poverty level' " 

 

Spreading the wealth around.

It was almost funny to read in the AZ Central article that lewsley Republicans, Jerry Lewis and Bob Worsley, are considered "influential."  Huh?  What exactly have they even DONE that has been "influential?"  Worsley hasn't even been officially elected as a Senator yet and Lewis was nothing but a pariah for all of one session and who will more than likely lose his short-lived seat in November.  (Too bad Steve Pierce drained the Republican Victory fund to help his fellow lewsley Republican, Rich Crandall, in the primary election). We also thought it was funny that throughout the recent primary campaign, Bob Worsley was so influential that he dropped Bill Montgomery's name dozens of times when he discussed implementing a guest worker program Montgomery evidently supports.  

                                                             (Randy Parraz on left with Todd Landfried at a panel discussion)

The AZ Central article mentioned other illegal alien sympathizers like Tamar Jacoby and Todd Landfried.  For a refresher on Jeff Flake's good friend Tamar Jacoby and Randy Parraz's sidekick, Todd Landfried, visit our previous blog entries HERE and HERE.  In fact, it was Landfried who went to Utah to push for the Utah Compact back in 2010 along with Lydia Guzman from Somos America.  It is Lydia Guzman who is trying to line up discrimination cases in an effort to get the federal government to sue Arizona over SB1070's "show your papers" enforcement.

(Landfried on left, Guzman on right testifying in Utah about the Utah Compact)

Lydia Guzman with Tom Perez from the U.S. Justice Department

Just a quick reminder:


In January 2011, Jeff Flake said this:

 

 " 'Comprehensive' has gotten a bad word. But until we have a better one I'll use that. While we need to enhance border security, that's not enough. You have to have a viable mechanism to deal with the people who are here. My party hasn't come to grips with that.' He explains that his own state of Arizona passed a controversial law that allows for us to 'more easily round people up. But that's not the problem. The problem is what to do about them after we get them.' On a political level, he says the 'tone and tenor of the debate' needs to improve on the Republican side. But the substance remains the nub of the problem. He says the problem is 'more complicated' than his party would like to admit...But given the current politics, I'd like to be optimistic (about reform legislation), but I'm not."

 

 

 

A few months later in March 2011 (right before Flake announced his plans to run for the Senate) and just a month after a special meeting in the Oval Office with President Obama, he did a miraculous 180 and said this:

 

"In the past I have supported a broad approach to immigration reform - increased border security coupled with a temporary worker program. I no longer do...I've been down that road, and it is a dead end. The political realities in Washington are such that a comprehensive solution is not possible, or even desirable given the current leadership.

 

 

We imagine that if Flake is elected Senator, he will suddenly have another change of heart and go back to his desire for a guest worker program along with his fellow Senator, Juan McCain.  It will certainly be easier for them to push immigration reform and claim they are simply following the will of the "majority" (which majority, however, is the question). Given the new leadership and all...

 

 

And what about the statement from the AZ Central article by Jerry Lewis when he said,

 

(enforcement-only approach) "hasn't worked. It doesn't work. Any reform that is based on an enforcement-only platform is bound to fail."

 

Bob Worsley made similar statements during the Primary campaign.

 

Where have we seen this assertion before?

 

Ah, yes. 

 

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God.

 

 

 

This particular statement contradicts what the LDS Handbook states regarding emigration to ANY country.  Also, it seems odd that this same source would essentially imply that their position trumps current law, specifically the 10th Amendment and state sovereignty. 

It would seem strange that this same source would say this about the issue of abortion :

The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.

And yet, the LDS church DOES have a strong opinion of opposing legislation regarding illegal immigration? 

Just so we understand, anti-abortion legislation doesn't qualify for "falling short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God" yet legislation to crack down on those who choose to disobey the law and willingly separate their families is more worthy of an opinion by the LDS church?


The LDS handbook states:

  

"Generally, members are encouraged to remain in their native lands to build up and strengthen the Church....As members remain in their homelands and work to build the Church there, great blessings will come to them personally and to the Church.

 

Experience has shown that those who emigrate often encounter language, cultural, and economic challenges, resulting in disappointment and personal and family difficulties.

 

Members who emigrate to any country should comply with applicable laws.

 

When coming to the United States or other countries on student or tourist visas, members should not expect to find jobs or obtain permanent visas after entering that country."

 

 

This would imply that members of the LDS church who emigrate to Mexico, or Belgium, or South Africa, or anywhere else in the world, should comply with the applicable immigration laws of that country.

The immigration laws of Mexico are far stricter than those in the United States.  Mexican law

"...mandates that federal, local and municipal police cooperate with federal immigration authorities in that country in the arrests of illegal immigrants.

Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals."

Notice that the laws of Mexico allow for cooperation from both local and municipal police with the federal government.  Does the LDS church feel as strongly about Mexico's state enforcement only laws as they do with U.S. state enforcement laws? 

 

In the first unnamed LDS Newsroom source, it implies that those who come to the United States are somehow immune from following the U.S. immigration laws.  It also gives the impression that states are not allowed to protect themselves for fear of being accused of "falling short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God."

Something else that falls short of the high moral standard?  An illegal who steals a 10 year old girl's identity and destroys her credit in order to take a job that should go to a LEGAL citizen.  Or another illegal who uses our country's generous resources (schools, hospitals, etc) and doesn't pay for those services but rather, forces others to pick up the tab. 

Remember this video of an immigration lawyer who teaches others how to NOT hire legal citizens:

 

"Our goal is clearly, NOT to find a qualified

and interested U.S. worker."

We suspect that we will once again see something similar to the Utah Compact paraded around Arizona very soon by radical leftists.  That is, now that the tone and tenor has shifted thanks to liberals who masquerade as Republicans and partner with Democrats, all in the spirit of compromise.

As Van Jones once said, you have to "forgo the radical pose for the radical ends."  Like Van Jones and Barack Obama, the open borders, Aztlan crowd have learned that they will attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.  It appears these infiltrators to our country have learned that they can use "faith-based" organizations to help give the illusion that they just want a new tone and an elevated conversation, when what they really want is JUSTICE.

The Big Black Sharpie: Jeff Flake In His Own Words

As you read the lengthy timeline, notice how often Flake leaves out the word "illegal" when referring to illegal immigration and instead chooses to use terms like "undocumented" or just "immigration".  He even refers to organizations who support enforcement of illegal immigration bills as being "anti-immigrant".   The most jaw-dropping claim of all is when Flake refers to SB1070 as an "imprudent immigration bill". 

Pay particular attention to the order of events and comments from 2010 to the present.

2003
Flake, McCain, Kolbe introduce a Comprehensive Immigration Bill to the liking of immigration activist, Frank Sharry

2005
2nd Annual Immigration Law and Policy Conference
Georgetown University
Sponsored by the Migration Policy Institute, Urban Institute and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network 

Summary of Flake's remarks:

Immigration issues have been magnified and will continue to receive attention for many of the humanitarian reasons that have already captured the public.  His response, the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, attempts to address many of the important and relevant topics in the United States today.  These include:

National Security: A sealed border alone will not prevent future immigrant flows.

Lessons from 1986:  Employer sanctions were unsuccessful and did not acknowledge the need for more workers in the future.

Dealing with Undocumented Population:  Not "amnesty" because those here illegally would pay a "fine".

Flake discussed signs that the politics are changing and improving on the subject.  Organizations favoring border controls have switched tactics.  They are now downplaying the number of undocumented immigrants and in some cases, are grossly underestimating the amounts because they realize that there is no easy answer to deal with such large numbers.  The rhetoric has also changed.  Some anti-immigration organizations are now falling back on far-fetched tactics such as claiming that immigrants are causing an increase in incidents of leprosy in the US. 

(side note:  in all of our research, we have only seen ONE article that discussed the possibility of this "far-fetched" example sited)

Also, while immigration was the cornerstone issue used in numerous Republican party primary challenges in the 2004 elections, the authors of this legislation -including himself and Kolbe, both of AZ, won reelection by nearly 20 points.  As congressional action revolves around reelection, more congressional leaders may be willing to stake out a position on the issue once they learn that advocating responsible immigration reform is a winning strategy.

(Like the story of the boiling frog.)

Flake discussed 3 key elements to ensure action on Comprehensive Immigration Reform:

1.  President's active involvement
2.  Increase the involvement of outside groups including businesses, labor and immigration advocates
3.  Movement on the Senate side, particularly because the House is more polarized on this issue.

(sounds like they have learned how to use the three key elements over the last few years.)

Politics in the Republican Party and Arizona. Congressman Flake described....

in Arizona, the battle is fought in the primary. Many Congressmen take the safe road on immigration issues and utilize popular rhetoric such as “secure the border” because it resonates well in their district. But the state and its political leaders also recognize that Arizona desperately needs workers, not just in agriculture and construction, but throughout the economy. The key to making headway, in Arizona and elsewhere, is the national security argument. To secure the border, Mr. Flake says that we need a legal framework for people to come and go and work.


2006
STRIVE Act
Democratic Congressmen Gutierrez and Flake Unveil Bipartisan Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation

The Migration Institute convened again with Flake, his Chief of Staff, Margaret Klessig, Senator McCain, etc.  Policy recommendations by the Task Force (which Flake and McCain were both members) included empowering the Executive Branch by:

****Naming a White House coordinator for immigration policy, issue an executive order establishing an inter agency cabinet committee for immigration policy, and strengthen the capacity of executive branch agencies to implement major new immigration mandates.

 
2007
Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform breakfast along with Jason "Carl Pizza Patron Jr" LeVecke, where he encouraged people to contact their Congressmen to pass CIR.
(Click on the link to hear his comments)

(This is the time when Flake should have term-limited himself.  If only...Unfortunately, he was just getting started.)


2009:
March- Flake introduced H.R. 1791, the Stopping Trained in America Ph.D.s from Leaving the Economy Act of 2009 (STAPLE Act), which would ease "non immigrant" and immigrant visa restrictions for foreign students who have earned a Ph.D. in the United States.

May -  Immigration is "key issue" Flake says.

U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake...said he is pushing for comprehensive immigration policy reform to end the costly and bitter debate.  "I think Arizonans realize by and large that you have to deal with immigration in a comprehensive fashion," Flake said. 'You just can't say we're going to enforce current law without dealing with border issues and the population that's here illegally now. It's a very complicated issue."

Flake said he expects to be at the forefront when President Obama convenes a summit at the White House in coming weeks.

"It's a bipartisan summit and I assume I'll be involved in that," Flake said.

(A summit was held at the White House on June 17, 2009.)


November - Flake speaks to students at ASU:    The Republican position on immigration, or at least the TONE, has not been good for us politically. Because the tone has been HARSH. And when you look at the vast demographic out there, Hispanic American in particular, you have a HARSH TONE, even if your policy isn't any different than anyone elses, it doesn't serve you well politically.

You can explain it both policy wise, you have 12 million people who are here illegally now, you've got to have a mechanism to deal with that. Bring them out of the shadows. You have to go about immigration in a smart way and a HUMANE way

2010
April -  (posted on Flake's own website)-    
   
Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, called on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

“Congress needs to act on a plan that increases border security and interior enforcement, creates a temporary worker program, and deals with the millions of immigrants in the country illegally. If Congress again fails to act, you’re going to see more states move ahead with imprudent immigration bills, similar to Arizona’s new law.”


August -

"I think those who DON'T agree with my position, who think that it ought to be something different, at least I think they give me a little credit for STICKING with my position."

2011
January 31st- on Comprehensive Immigration Reform

" 'Comprehensive' has gotten a bad word. But until we have a better one I'll use that.  While we need to enhance border security, that's not enough. You have to have a viable mechanism to deal with the people who are here. My party hasn't come to grips with that.' He explains that his own state of Arizona passed a controversial law that allows for us to 'more easily round people up. But that's not the problem. The problem is what to do about them after we get them.' On a political level, he says the 'tone and tenor of the debate' needs to improve on the Republican side.  But the substance remains the nub of the problem. He says the problem is 'more complicated' than his party would like to admit...But given the current politics, I'd like to be optimistic (about reform legislation), but I'm not."

February 15th - Flake announces run for Senate

February 17th - Flake participates in a meeting with the POTUS at the Oval Office

March 23rd - Flake does a 180 on his decade-old Comprehensive Immigration Reform stance

"In the past I have supported a broad approach to immigration reform - increased border security coupled with a temporary worker program. I no longer do...I've been down that road, and it is a dead end. The political realities in Washington are such that a comprehensive solution is not possible, or even desirable given the current leadership. Border security must be addressed before other reforms are tackled."

April 13 - Flake sponsors HR 1507, the Border Security Enforcement Act of 2011 intended to increase security at the border by deploying 6000 National Guard troops.


June-

"We've all wanted, and I believe still, ultimately you'll need a comprehensive solution to this problem that has a temporary worker plan, some mechanism to deal with those who are here illegally, and interior enforcement.  Until we get better security on the border, nobody's going to trust the federal government to move ahead on any of the other items."

(Wait...didn't he JUST say three months earlier that he no longer supported a "broad approach to immigration reform" that included a temporary worker program?)

Full video footage can be found here.


2012

May -  Flake applauds the passage of HR 1299. 

If the legislation becomes law, it would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a comprehensive strategy to Congress within 180 days of the bill being enacted to gain and maintain operational control of US borders within five years.

Is this the reason why Flake is strategically moving over to the Senate? Remember, he himself said that there needs to be movement on the Senate side in order to ensure action on CIR.  One might imagine that his decade-long reputation for being a strong proponent of comprehensive immigration reform and willingness to cross party lines on the issue might be considered an asset over in the Senate.  Especially if he only needed to convince a few more Republicans (and for Flake, preferably freshmen Republicans since they would be easier to sway) in order to get to the 60 votes necessary to pass CIR. 

We already know that Flake doesn't mind being the token "Republican" on or off the court when it comes to playing with Democrats.

We would also like to know what was discussed in his meeting in the Oval Office just a month before his unexpected and unbelievable reversal.  Why the sudden interest in "securing the border"?  Was his proposed border security legislation two months after he announced his Senate run just political theater intended to fool the electorate into believing he really had changed his mind on the issue?

When he said, "The political realities in Washington are such that a comprehensive solution is not possible, or even desirable given the current leadership"  he's not saying he's opposed to CIR, period.  He's just saying it's not possible NOW given who is in office.  That dynamic, however, can change in November.  Does he ignorantly think we are really just that gullible?  Especially when just a few short years ago, he claimed,

"Many Congressmen take the safe road on immigration issues and utilize popular rhetoric such as “secure the border” because it resonates well in their district...The key to making headway, in Arizona and elsewhere, is the national security argument."

Shame on you, Mr. Flake.

Jeff Flake on Jon Kyl's retirement:

"To see someone at the top of their game and to just walk away, doesn't happen that often in Washington..."

Yeah.  We know.

Just think...we're only talking about Flake's comments regarding (ILLEGAL) immigration. We haven't even brought up his statements on cap and trade or his flip flop on sanctions.

Jeff Flake Was For Comprehensive Immigration Reform Before He Was Against It

In 2009, Congressman Jeff Flake spoke to some Republican students at Arizona State University.  One of the subjects was about "Comprehensive Immigration Reform".  In particular, the STRIVE Act which he co sponsored with Luis Guttierrez (D-IL)

He said,

The Republican position on immigration, or at least the TONE,

has not been good for us politically. 

Because the tone has been HARSH. 

 And when you look at the vast demographic out there,

Hispanic American in particular, you have a HARSH TONE,

even if your policy isn't any different than anyone elses,

it doesn't serve you well politically.

You can explain it both policy wise,

 you have 12 million people who are here illegally now,

 you've got to have a mechanism to deal with that.

Bring them out of the shadows. 

 You have to go about immigration

in a smart way and a HUMANE way.

Now, where have we heard words like "tone", "harsh", "out of the shadows" and "humane" before?

Here

Here

Here

As recently as last year, Flake said,

'Comprehensive' has gotten a bad word.

But until we have a better one I'll use that.

The article goes on to say that while Flake understands we need to enhance border security, that's not enough.

'You have to have a viable mechanism to deal with the people who are here. My party hasn't come to grips with that.' He explains that his own state of Arizona passed a controversial law (now the subject of a federal court challenge) that allows for us to 'more easily round people up. But that's not the problem. The problem is what to do about them after we get them.' On a political level, he says the 'tone and tenor of the debate' needs to improve on the Republican side. But the substance remains the nub of the problem. He says the problem is 'more complicated' than his party would like to admit.

But given the current politics, he says,

'I'd like to be optimistic [about reform legislation], but I'm not.'

Two weeks later, Flake announced his run for Senate.

In  2003, members of Arizona's delegation including John McCain, Jeff Flake and Jim Kolbe introduced a proposal to deal with the illegal immigration market-driving flow of immigrant workers.

Remember Kolbe?  He donated to the PAC Judgement Matters in 2008 along with Bill Konopnicki and Farrell Quinlan in an effort to defeat Senator Pearce by supporting Kevin Gibbons....Jeff Flake's immigration lawyer brother-in-law (who incidentally, has had his law license recently suspended).

At least Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum was impressed.  He admited that it would have been unthinkable in the late 1990s for three Republicans from a border state to make such sweeping proposals.

Sharry's reaction?

This is HUGE!

Insert an election year.

Not just ANY election year but one which Flake is now running for the Senate.

Then cue the tack to the right.

"In the past I have supported a broad approach to immigration reform - increased border security coupled with a temporary worker program.

I no longer do," Flake says in an immigration-policy statement that was

 expected to be posted on his campaign website as early as today.

"I've been down that road, and it is a dead end.

 The political realities in Washington are such that a

comprehensive solution is not possible, or even

desirable given the current leadership. Border security must be addressed

 before other reforms are tackled....For those who say that this is a late conversion, I've been supporting these border-security things all along."

Border-security "things"?

Even the Vice President for immigration policy and advocacy at the CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS said,

It's kind of hard for him to walk away from this when he has his fingerprints all over the issue...It's not like he just gently engaged it - he was a full-throttle supporter of comprehensive reform. So it's hard for him to erase what in fact has been written in Sharpie pen.

If only Flake's sudden change of heart were believable.  The reality is, however, that his Comprehensive Immigration Reform platform has trailed as a close second, right behind earmarks, throughout his political career. 

He said as much himself.

For those who don't agree with my position,

or think that it ought to be something different,

at least I think they give me a little credit for

STICKING WITH MY POSITION.

He is betting on the hope that the electorate will have short term memories.  He will continue to insult our intelligence by downplaying his former role when he pushed for Comprehensive Immigration bills alongside the likes of Luis Gutierrez.

Then again, he was FOR self-term limits before he was against it.

Immigration Buzz Words...get to know them.

HUMANE

McCain: GOP needs to address immigration in a 'humane' way

Can GOP accept Newt’s immigration policy?

Interfaith Platform on Humane Immigration Reform

Principles of Humane Immigration Reform

COMPASSIONATE

Christian Group Calls for 'Compassionate Immigration Reform'

Compassionate, prudent immigration reform needed

Americans deserve fair, compassionate and lawful immigration reform By Sen. Orrin G. Hatch

ELCACS1029 - Toward Compassionate Just Wise Immigration Reform


TONE

“The Utah Compact...does not set law, it does not supersede law, it does not change law – it simply sets the tone, the tenor of the conversation."

Politicians Must Change Tone of Immigration Debate

Mexican foreign policy adviser: U.S. must change immigration tone

Evangelicals implore GOP presidential hopefuls to tone down immigration rhetoric

PRACTICAL, REAL AND FAIR SOLUTIONS

Americans are demanding that Washington produce practical solutions to real problems. Comprehensive immigration reform is such a solution

Let's find real immigration solutions

GOP pols urge practical solutions to immigration

Time for a Real Solution on the Illegal Immigration Issue



It is interesting to find that the overwhelming majority of requests to change the tone in exchange for compassionate, humane, real solutions to immigration reform are towards the Republicans.  As if the Republicans are the only ones who must give up all of their values in the "compromise". 

More disappointing is knowing that not only is the charge coming from those outside of the party, but from within the party establishment themselves.

Perhaps the true Republicans should come up with their own "reform" in November 2012.