St. Louis Tea Party suggests ‘bigoted’ NAACP should be taxed

By Ron Brynaert

An organization devoted to fighting for less government and less taxes drafted a resolution which condemned another group's proposed resolution and suggested that the IRS should reconsider its tax-exempt status.

"A Tea Party group in Missouri, reacting to the NAACP's plan to take up a resolution branding the conservative movement as 'racist,' has drafted a resolution of its own condemning the civil rights group for reducing itself to a 'bigoted' and 'partisan attack dog organization,'" FOX News reports.

The St. Louis Tea Party had an all-hands-on-deck response to the NAACP's reported plan to denounce the nationwide network of activists at its annual convention in Kansas City, Mo. The NAACP as early as Tuesday could take up language to "repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties" and stand against the movement's attempt to "push our country back to the pre-civil rights era."

In response, the St. Louis group drafted and fired off to the NAACP a resolution demanding the organization withdraw its "bigoted, false and inflammatory" statement. The missive accused the NAACP of resorting to political tactics and urged the IRS to reconsider whether it can continue to qualify for tax-exempt status.

At the St. Louis Tea Party blog, leader Bill Hennessy writes, "Normally, we ignore childish hostility from belligerent people and groups. But the NAACP today intends to condemn 20 million tea party activists as racists. The millions of good, decent, and loving Americans who have participated in Tea Party events deserve nothing less than our full condemnation of the NAACP’s hatred and lies"

"At midnight, I forwarded this resolution to the Washington Bureau of the NAACP," Hennessy adds. "I have received no response."

From the resolution:

Now therefore be it resolved that the St. Louis Tea Party condemns the NAACP for lowering itself to the dishonorable position of a partisan political attack dog organization, and,

Be it further resolved that the St. Louis Tea Party calls on similar organizations to join in unanimous condemnation of this despicable behavior, and

Be it further resolved that we demand that the NAACP withdrawal their bigoted, false and inflammatory resolution against the tea party for any further consideration, and

"Be it further resolved that these organizations call on the Internal Revenue Service to evenly apply their standards and consider the tax-exempt status of the NAACP considering the degree to which they are engaging in habitual partisan political behavior," the St. Louis Tea Party resolution continues. "Adopted unanimously, this day, July 12th, in the year of our Lord, 2010."

Four years ago, during the Bush Administration, the NAACP successfully beat off a probe by the IRS which threatened their tax-exempt status.

"The NAACP did not violate the conditions of its tax-exempt status when its chairman gave a speech that criticized President Bush, according to a newly released letter from the Internal Revenue Service to the civil rights group," the Associated Press reported in 2006.

The IRS began looking into the Baltimore-based National Association for the Advancement of Colored People about a month before the 2004 presidential election after a speech by NAACP Chairman Julian Bond that was largely critical of Bush's policies.

Political campaigning is prohibited under the NAACP's tax-exempt status.

In a letter, dated Aug. 9, the IRS said a review of video footage of the speech, as well as other information, indicated "that political intervention did not occur."

Bruce S. Gordon, the president and CEO of the NAACP, said the group was vindicated by the decision.

"It's disappointing that the IRS took nearly two years to conclude what we knew from the beginning — the NAACP did not violate tax laws and continues to be politically nonpartisan," Gordon said in a statement Thursday.

News that the "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People will propose a resolution this week condemning racism within the tea party movement" is not being taken well by some conservatives, RAW STORY reported Monday.

Monday's Raw Story article follows:

NAACP mulls resolution decrying Tea Party 'racism'; Free Republic members respond: 'klan with a tan' and 'pot calling the kettle white'

News that the "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People will propose a resolution this week condemning racism within the tea party movement" is not being taken well by some conservatives.

The Kansas City Star notes, "The resolution, scheduled for a vote as early as Tuesday by delegates attending the annual NAACP convention in Kansas City, calls upon 'all people of good will to repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties, and to stand in opposition to its drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.'"

Complaining that the "NAACP has more of a political agenda now," Brendan Steinhauser, "director of campaigns for FreedomWorks, which organizes tea party groups," tells The Kansas City Star's Judy L. Thomas, "I just don't see racism in the tea party movement. Racism is something we're absolutely opposed to."

Gary Langer, director of polling at ABC News, apparently agrees with Steinhauser, "While our data don't speak to views at the individual level, in the broadest, population-based sense, we don't see it."

We covered the question in our extensive look at the movement in May [link to pdf]. Certainly suspicions of racism are there: We found that 57 percent of people who oppose the Tea Party suspect its members of racial prejudice (specifically, against President Obama). That declined to a quarter of those who are neutral toward the movement, and 10 percent of its own supporters.

Certainly views on race differ among groups, and as we noted at the time, Tea Party supporters are less apt than other Americans to see racism as a major problem. But that view also is associated with attributes other than being a Tea Party supporter - being very conservative, for example, and being white.

....

As we reported: “A statistical analysis indicates that the strongest predictors of supporting the Tea Party are views of Obama, ideology, partisanship and anger at the way the government is operating. Views on the extent of racism as a problem, and views on Obama’s efforts on behalf of African-Americans, are not significant predictors of support for the Tea Party movement.”

At Think Progress, Nina Bhattacharya argues that the tea parties have a "well-documented history of racism and wrongful co-opting of the civil rights movement."

Last year, Tea Party members analogized President Obama to a “monkey.” In March, Tea Party protesters hurled racist epithets at civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) and spat at Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO). At a recent July 4 rally in Lexington, KY, Daily Kos documented Tea Party members selling shirts declaring “Yup, I’m a Racist!”

But, according to the conservative Gateway Pundit blog, the NAACP is a "radical leftist group that labels black conservatives 'Uncle Toms,'" Condemning the entire NAACP over statements made at one press conference, the blog links to a video of a speaker in St. Louis attacking black conservative activist Kenneth Gladney, who was "injured in a scuffle at a health forum" last August.

Back in the day, we used to call someone like that, and I want to remind you, uh, when this incident occurred, I was really struck by a front page picture of this guy, which we called, a Negro, i mean that we call him a Negro in the fact that he works for not for our people but against our people. In the old days, we call him an Uncle Tom. I just gotta say that. Here it is, the day after a young brother, a young man, I didn’t mean to call him a brother, but on the front page of the Post Dispatch, ironically, he’s sitting in a wheelchair, being kissed on the forehead, by a European. Now just imagine that as a poster child picture, not working for our people.

At a thread at the conservative site Free Republic, (which Gateway Pundit hat-tipped as the source for The Kansas City Star report), tea party defenders complain, many of whom call the group the NAALCP, with "L" standing for "liberal":

Pretty funny, coming from an association that is based solely on race.

....

The paid leaders and all the various volunteers are in fact professional racists.

....

The pot calling the kettle white?

....

The only incidents of bad behavior at TEA Party rallies I've heard of have come from imposters. That is, so-called "liberals" and leftist attempting to infiltrate a rally and then foment trouble by displaying previously hidden racist signs and/or shouting racist remarks.

The so-called "liberals" are anything but liberal. They are a desperate and morally bankrupt group without a shred of decency or conscious.

....

To the NAACP, everyone is racist,except the NAACP. The klan with a tan.

An ABC News article posted Monday afternoon shows that the NAACP is working "in coordination with 170 other groups, including labor unions," to protest the Tea Party movement in an upcoming DC march.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, in coordination with 170 other groups, including labor unions, is planning a protest march in Washington, D.C., Oct. 10 as the next step in building momentum against the Tea Party.

The "One Nation" march is designed as an antithesis to the Tea Party, and it's about "pulling America together and back to work," an NAACP spokeswoman told ABC News.

M.C.L Comment: Anybody with good vision can see the tea party is nothing more than a klan rally without the white sheets and hoods. But being the good hypocritically, racist, lying right wing Republican trash that they are they're changing the subject by trying to drag another group into the slime pits with them. You gotta remember right wing logic is in play here, since they're a mostly white and mostly racist group they assume the NAACP is the same way. Forget explaining the history and purpose of the NAACP to these human horse crap pies because they can't wrap their mind around the idea of social injustice that lead to creation of the NAACP. Another factor that why they wouldn't understand the purpose of the NAACP is because Hannity and Rush tells them that it's the white males that have it harder in society. As for the blogger dragging black conservatives to prove his/hers point about the racism of the NAACP come on now white conservatives don't even value black conservatives, the few times the white cons reference their black counterparts is when A. they advocate a certain policy or defend the right wing world view, B. Attack civil rights groups and civil right leaders and C. attack President Obama. Outside that venues white conservatives have no use for them.

Right-wing media push Kyl's flatly denied claim that Obama said he won't "secure the border"

From Media Matters:

Right-wing blogs have seized on Sen. Jon Kyl's (R-AZ) claim that President Obama is refusing to "secure the border" in order to force the GOP to support comprehensive immigration reform -- a claim the White House has since flatly denied. Indeed, the Obama administration has already taken numerous steps to boost border security but argues that "truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution," which is a view shared by immigration experts as well as several Republicans.

Blogs push Kyl's claim that Obama said he won't "secure the border" unless he gets comprehensive immigration reform

Numerous right-wing blogs have seized on Kyl's remarks, which were made at a tea party town hall event. During a June 18 tea party town hall in Arizona, Kyl claimed:

KYL: I met with the president in the Oval Office, just the two of us. I kicked the rest of the people out. ... And we had a discussion ... Here's what the president said: The problem is, he said, if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform. In other words, they're holding it hostage. They don't want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform.

Now, I explained, you and I, Mr. President, have an obligation to secure the border. That's an obligation. It also has some potentially positive benefits. You don't have to have comprehensive reform to secure the border, but you have to secure the border to get comprehensive reform. I said you'd be surprised. Maybe you don't think that there wouldn't be any more incentive for comprehensive reform, but I'm not so sure that that's true. In any event, it doesn't matter. We're supposed to secure the border. That's why it isn't being done. They frankly don't want to do it. They want to get something in return for doing their duty.

White House: "[T]he president didn't say that and Senator Kyl knows it." In response to Kyl's remarks, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer stated: "The president didn't say that and Senator Kyl knows it. There are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the president has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system."

Obama administration has taken measures to increase border security, immigration enforcement

LA Times: Obama admin. "has outdone its predecessor on border enforcement spending and on deportations." The Los Angeles Times reported on June 16 that Obama "agree[d] to dispatch 1,200 National Guard troops to the border and to seek an extra $500 million for border enforcement. That came after 18 months in which the Obama administration has outdone its predecessor on border enforcement spending and deportations of illegal immigrants, all in an effort to build support for a comprehensive immigration plan."

Obama admin. has increased the number of Border Patrol agents. PolitiFact has noted that Obama has been "increasing the number of border patrol officers." The Arizona Republic reported on May 26 that "[t]he Border Patrol today has more than 20,000 agents nationwide, more than 16,000 of whom are assigned to the U.S.-Mexican border" and provided the following graph:

Obama admin. significantly expanded Border Enforcement Security Task Forces. Politico reported on May 6 that "[u]nder the Southwest Border Initiative, the Obama administration has doubled agents assigned to the Border Enforcement Security Task Forces." According to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), these teams "incorporate personnel from U.S. Customs and Border Protection and other key federal, state, local and foreign law enforcement agencies" to "collaborate and share information to fulfill the overarching goal: to interrupt the flow of cash, weapons and ammunition that fuel the illicit trade of the drug cartels."

Obama admin. increased number of intelligence analysts on border. Politico stated that the Obama administration "tripled the number of intelligence analysts along the southwest border" and "sent in new canine teams." The Department of Homeland Security announced these increases in March 2009.

Obama admin. began screening "100 percent of southbound rail shipments." Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 27, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stated that "for the first time ever, the Border Patrol is screening 100 percent of southbound rail shipments for cartel-related contraband. This practice augments the longstanding practice of screening 100 percent of northbound rail shipments."

Recovery Act included funding for Border Security projects. According to DHS, the Recovery Act provided funding for Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Seizures of contraband increased under Obama administration. In her April 27 Senate testimony, Napolitano stated:

Since March 2009, CBP and ICE have seized $85.7 million in illicit cash along the Southwest border, an increase of 14 percent over the same period during the previous year. This includes more than $29.7 million in illicit cash seized heading southbound into Mexico -- a 39 percent increase over the same period during the previous year.

During the same period, CPB and ICE together seized 1,425 illegal firearms, which represent a 29 percent rise over the same period in the previous year. At the same time, CBP and ICE seized 1.65 million kilograms of drugs along the Southwest border, an overall increase of 15 percent.

Additionally, the San Diego DHS Maritime Unified Command -- comprised of U.S. Coast Guard, CBP, ICE and other law enforcement partners -- saw a more than six-fold increase in maritime drug interdictions in the Pacific waters extending from the Southwest border. The Command seized more than 26,000 kilograms of drugs in fiscal year 2009, compared to 4,029 kilograms seized in fiscal year 2008.

Deportations increased in fiscal year 2009. According to DHS, "The number of illegal aliens removed from the United States by ICE in FY 2009 was 298,401 individuals, up from 264,541 in FY 2008." Including "voluntary departures," ICE "removed 387,790 in illegal immigrants in the year ending Sept. 30, 2009, compared with 369,221 in 2008 -- a 5 percent increase," according to The Washington Post. The Post also reported that in fiscal year 2009, there was "a 19 percent rise in deportation of criminal immigrants." From DHS:

PolitiFact: "[S]pending on border security has increased" since 2007. Responding to a statement by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), PolitiFact.com wrote on May 5 that "between 2007 and now, while spending on border fencing has gone down, overall spending on border security has increased" and added:

In 2007, discretionary spending on border security was $6.3 billion. As Pence noted, that was the last year of full Republican control. After that, while George W. Bush remained in the presidency, Congress was controlled by Democrats. But discretionary spending on border security continued to rise year after year. It went to $7.9 billion in 2008; to $9.8 billion in 2009; and to $10.1 billion in fiscal year 2010. President Barack Obama's proposed 2011 budget calls for a slight decrease in discretionary spending on border security, but even at the proposed level of $9.8 billion, that's a 55 percent increase between 2007 and 2011.

Pima County sheriff: "The border has never been more secure." The Arizona Republic reported on May 2 that Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff of Pima County, Arizona, stated: "I hear politicians on TV saying the border has gotten worse. Well, the fact of the matter is that the border has never been more secure."

Immigration policy experts say broken system demands comprehensive approach

Immigration policy expert: Comprehensive reform "will make the border more manageable." The Arizona Republic reported: "Susan Ginsburg, senior policy adviser for an international nonprofit known as Borderpol, which works to make international borders safer, said it is a mistake to require border control as a prerequisite for changing U.S. policies because the existing system created a broken border in the first place. 'Comprehensive immigration reform will help because it will make the border more manageable,' she said."

National Immigration Forum: "We must have comprehensive reform in order to see continued improvement in the control of our borders." The National Immigration Forum states in a document that "[w]e have achieved about as much control of our border as possible without solving the core problem ... We must have comprehensive immigration reform in order to see continued improvement in the control of our borders." The document further states that the problem of illegal immigration "is the product of today's demand for worker and family visas clashing with an immigration system that has not been updated in 20 years."

CATO's Griswold: Controlling the border requires "allow[ing] more workers to enter the United States legally." Dan Griswold, director of CATO's center for Trade Policy Studies, wrote on April 29 that the current immigration system "created the conditions for an underground labor market, complete with smuggling and day-labor operations" and that "If we want to 'get control' of our border with Mexico, the smartest thing we could do would be to allow more workers to enter the United States legally under the umbrella of comprehensive immigration reform":

Requiring successful enforcement of the current immigration laws before they can be changed is a non sequitur. It's like saying, in 1932, that we can't repeal the nationwide prohibition on alcohol consumption until we've drastically reduced the number of moonshine stills and bootleggers. But Prohibition itself created the conditions for the rise of those underground enterprises, and the repeal of Prohibition was necessary before the government could "get control" of its unintended consequences.

Illegal immigration is the Prohibition debate of our day. By essentially barring the legal entry of low-skilled immigrant workers, our own government has created the conditions for an underground labor market, complete with smuggling and day-labor operations. As long as the government maintains this prohibition, illegal immigration will be widespread, and the cost of reducing it, in tax dollars and compromised civil liberties, will be enormous.

[...]

If we want to "get control" of our border with Mexico, the smartest thing we could do would be to allow more workers to enter the United States legally under the umbrella of comprehensive immigration reform. Then we could focus our enforcement resources on a much smaller number of people who for whatever reason are still operating outside the law.

Republicans previously acknowledged that border security requires comprehensive reform of immigration system

Sen. Lindsey Graham: "If all you did was try to secure the border, then that's a false sense of security." From a May 24, 2006, press conference:

GRAHAM: Everybody would benefit if we could solve this problem.

Here's what I've learned from people back in South Carolina, a pretty conservative state. Border security is important, but they know by itself it's a false sense of security.

If all you did was try to secure the border, then that's a false sense of security, because illegal immigration is about employment. So you've got to control employment.

And 35 percent of the people who are illegal immigrants didn't cross the border, they came through visa overstays.

So the American people accept a comprehensive solution. The Senate is going to pass one. The president supports one. I think we can get some House members understanding that it has to be comprehensive. [accessed via Nexis]

McCain: Border security "will not alone ensure our control of immigration." In a June 4, 2007, speech, Sen. John McCain stated that border security measures "will not alone ensure our control of immigration or enable us to know the identity, whereabouts and purposes of the millions of undocumented workers who are in our country now." McCain added that people will come over the border "as long as the job market in our growing economy offers opportunities to immigrants" and said of the undocumented immigrants already in the United States: "Getting these people to declare themselves and prove they have come here for a job, pose no security threat and have no criminal record beyond entering the country illegally will enable our security and law enforcement officials to concentrate their resources on those who have come here to threaten our way of life rather than embrace it." McCain has since changed his position to advocate for a border security first approach.

Bush: "You cannot fully enforce the border" without fixing overly strict limits on legal immigration. On June 1, 2007, President Bush spoke in favor of a comprehensive immigration reform proposal and stated that providing more channels for legal entry "makes it more likely the border will be enforced":

But I would remind people that you cannot fully enforce the border so long as people are trying to sneak into this country to do jobs Americans aren't doing. You can try, but doesn't it make sense to help the Border Patrol do their job by saying, "If you're going to come and do a job, there is a legal way to do it so you don't have to sneak across in the first place?"

If you're interested in border security, you've got to recognize that giving people a chance to come and work here on a temporary basis makes it more likely the border will be enforced.

Alberto Gonzales: "I don't think you can have effective border security unless you're also taking into account those that are here in this country illegally." During a July 18, 2006, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said, "Obviously, border security is very, very important, but I don't think you can have effective border security unless you're also taking into account those that are here in this country illegally." From the hearing:

ATTY GEN. GONZALES: More importantly, the president believes very strongly in comprehensive immigration reform. Obviously, border security is very, very important, but I don't think you can have effective border security unless you're also taking into account those that are here in this country illegally. You need to know who they are, where they're at and why they're here.

And so I think this is a problem that will only get worse over time. We need to deal with it, I think, at once. I think the American people expect the Congress and the president to deal with it at once. We know it's a tough issue, but that's what we're here to do, is try to deal with these tough issues.

Comprehensive immigration reform outline released by Democrats emphasizes border security

Democratic plan sets border security benchmarks that "must be met before action can be taken to adjust the status" of those currently in the U.S. illegally. The "conceptual proposal for immigration reform" recently released by Senate Democrats lists eight border security benchmarks that must be met before the government will adjust the legal status of unauthorized immigrants currently in the U.S.

Democratic plan calls for "Further Fortification of America's Border Enforcement Capability." The plan also calls for "high-tech ground sensors throughout the southern border and for equipping all border patrol officers with the technological capability to respond to activation of the ground sensors in the area they are patrolling." The proposal includes "substantial upgrades" in Border Patrol technology, a new "border patrol auxiliary unit," the "construction of additional ports-of-entry and for the hiring of thousands of new customs and border protection inspectors," and the "implementation of an entry-exit system" to track those overstaying visas. In addition, the plan "provides the Secretary of Homeland Security with the authority to deploy National Guard personnel at our borders when needed." Along with the border security measures, the proposal also calls for, among other things, the creation of "new crimes" for "trafficking and misuse of passports," sanctions on "countries that delay or prevent repatriation of their citizens," increased penalties "for violators of immigration law," and the creation of biometric Social Security cards for employment verification.

New York Times: Enforcement in Democratic plan "would be more far-reaching than anything in place now -- or anything proposed by" Bush. In an April 30 news analysis, The New York Times stated of the Democrats' immigration reform outline: "The enforcement would be more far-reaching than anything in place now -- or anything proposed by the administration of President George W. Bush. It begins with 'zero tolerance' for immigrants trying to enter the country illegally, by tightening border enforcement and by barring them from taking jobs in the United States."

Cornyn: Democratic plan's "emphasis on border enforcement was certainly encouraging." The New York Times reported that Sen. John Conryn (R-TX) "said the 'emphasis on border enforcement was certainly encouraging,' but, he said, Congress should not wait for the whole package to pass before financing new border security measures."

FoxNews.com: "Senate Dem Leaders Take 'Border Security First' Approach to Immigration." An April 28 FoxNews.com blog post reported that the plan outlined by Senate leaders "sets tough border security standards as a precursor to illegal immigrants finding a pathway to U.S. citizenship" and "contains a number of items not previously in reform bills with a heavy focus on border enforcement as a benchmark."

Wash. Post: Dems' plan "includes a slew of new immigration enforcement measures." The Washington Post posted a news analysis titled, "Senate Democrats' plan highlights nation's shift to the right on immigration," which stated:

The Democrats' legislative "framework" includes a slew of new immigration enforcement measures aimed at U.S. borders and workplaces. It would further expand the 20,000-member Border Patrol; triple fines against U.S. employers that hire illegal immigrants; and, most controversially, require all American workers -- citizens and non-citizens alike -- to get new Social Security cards linked to their fingerprints to ease work eligibility checks.

The plan's emphasis on "securing the border first" before taking steps to allow many of an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States to pay fines and apply for legal status was plainly a gesture to Republicans. Even so, no Republican is supporting it, not even Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who has been working with Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) in bipartisan talks over the issue for months.

Conservative bloggers circulate Kyl's claim that Obama said he will hold border security "hostage"

RedState: Obama said "I won't secure border b/c then Republicans will have no reason to support 'comprehensive immigration reform.'" On June 20, RedState posted the video of Kyl's remarks under the headline, "Obama tells Kyl in private Oval Office meeting: I won't secure border b/c then Republicans will have no reason to support 'comprehensive immigration reform.' "

Hoft: "Breaking: obama [sic] is holding the lives of Arizonans, Texans, Californians, etc. HOSTAGE to acheive [sic] his political agenda." In a June 20 Gateway Pundit blog post, Jim Hoft wrote: "Breaking: obama [sic] is holding the lives of Arizonans, Texans, Californians, etc. HOSTAGE to acheive [sic] his political agenda -- Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) told an audience in North Tempe that Obama is holding the border hostage. 'They want to get something in return for doing their duty.' "

Hot Air: "Stunning" that Obama would "be so candid ... in admitting his dereliction of duty." In a June 20 Hot Air blog post, Allahpundit wrote:

Of course The One won't do anything about the border until he gets some political cover from Congress on amnesty; his party wants to build a heavy Democratic majority among Latinos long-term and he's not going to mess that up. What's stunning is simply the fact that he'd be so candid, to a member of the opposition no less, in admitting his dereliction of duty. Sure, he could fulfill his constitutional responsibility and try to enforce federal law -- but what good will that do him politically? If Congress wants to see some action at the border, they need to make it worth his while. And you thought the BP deal was a "shakedown."

Human Events: "Sen Kyl: 'Obama Says No Border Security without Amnesty.' " Human Events posted the video clip on June 20 and commented, "In a stunning revelation at an Arizona town hall meeting this past Friday, Republican Senator Jon Kyl told his constituents that President Obama privately insisted that he will not secure the border until amnesty for illegal aliens passes first."

RealClearPolitics: "Kyl: Obama Said He Won't Secure Border Because GOP Won't Support 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform.' " RealClearPolitics posted the video clip on June 20 under the headline, "Kyl: Obama Said He Won't Secure Border Because GOP Won't Support 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform.' "

Wash. Times: "Kyl: Obama told me no border enforcement before comprehensive immigration reform." In a June 20 Washington Times blog post, Kerry Picket wrote, "Last Friday, Senator Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, told a group of Arizona voters a startling yet still unsurprising piece of information about President Barack Obama's reason for not securing the border."

Fox Nation: "Senator: Obama Told Me He's Not Securing Border on Purpose." On June 21, Fox Nation posted the headline, "Senator: Obama Told Me He's Not Securing Border on Purpose." Fox Nation posted the video and linked to RedState.

— J.K.F.