The House of Representatives took a symbolic vote to cancel President Obama's illegal amnesty for illegal aliens.  (Yes, I was compelled to awkwardly use the word "illegal" twice in one sentence – once to describe those who cross the border without permission and demand "rights," and a second time to describe how a president asserted powers he didn't have, like a tinpot Latin American dictator with access to better golf courses.)

The vote was symbolic because it is expected that the Senate will not accept the measure, and, as per history, John Boehner will soon start negotiating with himself to produce one concession after another until he twists himself into such a pretzel that he is ready for Obama to spray him with mustard.

But the noteworthy thing here is that even for a symbolic vote, 26 Republicans voted against a key amendment that would nullify not only President Obama's most recent amnesty to illegal aliens, but also his 2012 amnesty to "young migrants" – i.e., children of illegal aliens.  (I simply love the Times' headline on this – "House Measures Defies Obama on Immigrants" – as if the House were voting against all immigrants, not just the illegal ones.)  The reasons the 26 Republicans couldn't vote even for this symbolic measure were lame, at best.

Republicans who voted against the most unforgiving provisions said that while they believed the president had overstepped his authority, deporting children was a step too far.

Deporting children alone?  Their parents, who are also here illegally, are free to go home with them.  Why is that "too far"?

“These children came to our country through no fault of their own,” said Representative Charlie Dent, Republican of Pennsylvania.

So the new standard is that if they don't commit the actual crime, but only benefit from it, they're not to be punished?  If a man robs a bank and immediately gives the money to his children, does that mean the bank cannot recover the money because the children were not the ones who stole it?  If a man enters our country illegally, and immediately gets medical, educational, and welfare benefits for his children, does that mean the government cannot stop paying for those children because it was not the children's idea in the first place?

You see how ridiculous this becomes.  But there is a larger issue here: Republicans never reverse anything Democrats do.

Republicans will not create Obamacare (except Romney).  Republicans will not create a "right" to gay marriage.  Republicans will not pass laws to shut down power plants, or pass a law to expand Medicaid in a disastrously financially unfeasible way, or vote to pay for operations where men cut off their genitals or women get sausage implants, but once these things are passed, Republicans will almost never, ever vote to repeal any of them.

Republicans will never cut a dollar of spending approved by Democrats.  They will never shut down a single agency or bureaucracy or new government "mission" created by Democrats.  They will tinker at the edges, perhaps, but however big Democrats made the government, Republicans will not trim its size.  However many powers Democrats give the government, Republicans will not reduce them.

And why is that?

Because Republicans, most Republicans, actually like what the Democrats are doing.  As Mark Levin has frequently noted, the Republican Party has been taken over by the Chamber of Commerce.  They're financed by Big Business, and Big Business benefits by having a Big Government, with tentacles running throughout the economy to grant Big Business all kinds of favors.

Republicans can't publicly say they're in favor of Big Government; that would be too alienating to their base.  That's why they put on this dog and pony show of phony symbolic votes.  But when push comes to shove, with real, authorizing legislation, like Boehner's Cromnibus bill, they give Democrats 99% of everything they want and cut nothing of substance.

So the only difference between most Republicans and most Democrats is that Republicans don't have the courage to be honest about what they support.  It's a sad commentary that for the most part we have only two choices: a liberal party and an extreme left one.  It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where the aliens Kang and Kodos, who both plan to conquer the Earth, run together for president of the United States while pretending to be Bob Dole and Bill Clinton.  When Kang wins and humanity is enslaved, Homer says, "Don't blame me.  I voted for Kodos!"

Pedro Gonzales is editor of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.