In "Silver Blaze" Sherlock Holmes concluded from the fact that a guard dog didn't bark that the dog was friendly with the intruder.
Last night the Republican leadership didn't bark on immigration, because they're friendly with the intruder.
The president himself said almost nothing about the issue in his State of the Union speech, which is natural enough, since he doesn't want to draw broader public attention to his lawless usurpations (which 56 percent of adults think should be blocked, including even 32 percent of Democrats). But the English-language response by Senator Joni Ernst made no mention of the issue at all, with only a cryptic promise "to correct executive overreach," despite Boehner's always-implausible claim that he would fight "tooth and nail" to roll back Obama's Chavezist decrees. And worse, the Spanish-language response by Representative Carlos Curbelo did mention immigration, but offered the usual Chamber of Commerce stuff supporting amnesty and increased immigration without even an elliptical reference to Obama's efforts at fundamentally transforming our political system. (According to Politico's translation, he said "We should also work through the appropriate channels to create permanent solutions for our immigration system, to secure our borders, modernize legal immigration, and strengthen our economy. In the past, the president has expressed support for ideas like these. Now we ask him to cooperate with us to get it done.")
All this strengthens the argument of those claiming that the House leadership's meek and timid border-security bill to be marked up this afternoon by the Homeland Security Committee is really just a stalking horse for an upcoming GOP push for amnesty and increased immigration.
Is it any wonder that so many voters don't trust a word uttered by the Republican leadership, including "and" and "the"?