Marco Rubio, long the heartthrob of much of the so-called conservative media such as the National Review and Fox News, has now been thrust onto center stage as the last best hope of the establishment.  His third-place showing in Iowa this past week was the subject of perhaps the most fawning coverage by the broadcast media in this election cycle.  In some quarters, Rubio and his family were compared to the charismatic John F. Kennedy and his family in the days of “Camelot.”  Further, nearly everywhere one turned, he was touted as nearly unbeatable versus Hillary Clinton.

Conveniently overlooked by these lovestruck sycophants is his checkered past in duping many into believing he was an honest and forthright conservative who just made a minor error in promoting amnesty when he first set foot in the Senate – despite running as an avowed anti-amnesty candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2010.  In a devastating analysis of his record since his election as senator, The Eagle Forum lays out in great detail who this man really is, as well as the lies and obfuscations in his determination to pass so-called “comprehensive immigration reform.”  The summary of the study in part:

There is no single major distinguishing policy difference between Marco Rubio, John McCain or Lindsey Graham. They have the same trade policy, immigration policy and foreign policy.  But on immigration most especially — the issue in which all four have invested the most — there is no daylight separating them.

The difference, then, is one of persona, not policy.  And in the arena of immigration, this translates into a vital difference.  The biggest change from McCain-Kennedy, which could not get out of the Senate, and the Gang of Eight — which was nursed along by conservative pundits despite being to the left of Kennedy’s bill — was the presence of Rubio.  Rubio created the conditions necessary to produce a considerably more open borders bill: conservatives who were invested in the Rubio Brand provided no early pushback but accepted Kennedy’s old talking points, and Rubio gave red state Democrats the political space necessary to support it.  This is how it got 68 votes in the Senate.

The stakes of course are raised considerably if Rubio is President or Vice President. Rubio would have a much, much better chance than Obama of getting an open borders bill through Congress — while Boehner could refuse to bring up Obama’s mass immigration/amnesty bill for vote in 2014, Ryan would never refuse Rubio’s bill.  Rubio’s presence, as it did with the Gang of Eight, would create the cover for both certain Republicans and all Democrats to get behind a far more open borders plan.  Given that nearly every House Democrat sponsored the Gang of Eight House version (including Pelosi and Gutierrez), Ryan would not need to gather that many additional votes (House GOP leaders might have refused Obama’s 2014 request for a vote but they would not refuse President Rubio’s).

All of which adds up to: there is likely no person in the United States of America in a better position to enact mass immigration legislation than a President Rubio — no one who could deliver more votes in both parties for open borders immigration.  Senator Rubio is not Main Street’s Obama, he is Wall Street’s Obama: President Obama was a hardcore leftist running as centrist; Senator Rubio is a Wall Street globalist running as a tea party conservative.

Although lengthy and well-sourced, this is a must-read analysis.  Marco Rubio, behind that smiling and cherubic façade, is a man who cannot be trusted.  Not only has he been duplicitous regarding the immigration issue, perhaps the number-one factor driving this election, but he is willingly malleable in dealing with the Washington cartel.  The fact that he is now the darling of the media and the political establishment is not a coincidence.