The Washington Post asks this morning if England is really a good fit for the EU. The answer is of course, no, but getting to "no" is no easy matter.

In the movie "Men in Black," the intuitive agent turns to the tabloids to get to the greater truths. Look today to the tabloids: Baby bump on Princess Kate — Harry says it will be a boy. And incidentally, England's Prince Harry met this past week warrior-to-warrior with Arizona Sen. John McCain in a most poignant moment of reflection on our most noble and honorable women and men injured in sacrifice for our joint national purposes.

Comprehensive immigration reform will get 75 votes in the Senate, making it harder for conservatives to kill it in the House.

The Senate Judiciary Committee easily brushed aside efforts from Republicans and Democrats to amend the base bill with potential poison pills, a sure sign that it has real momentum. While the markup is scheduled to go on for three more weeks, the committee should agree to just bring the whole bill, un-amended, to the Senate floor and dispense with the needless drama.

It was a terrible week for the right.

In my column about The GOP's Hillary problem, I suggested why the latest attempt of the GOP to exploit the death of Americans at Benghazi will probably drive Hillary Clinton's favorable ratings from 67 percent to 66 percent while favorable ratings of House Republicans may fall from 22 percent to 21 percent and the usual suspects who predicted a great Romney victory predict similar GOP landslides to come.

I noticed a great headline in The Washington Examiner announcing the invasion of Washington by sex-starved cicadas and immediately thought of Republicans in 2013. 

Of course, this Examiner story was not about politics, it was about the harmless bugs who hibernate for a decade or two and emerge with deafening noise to mate, a thought that comes to mind as the Senate gets serious about immigration.

Nothing makes my blood boil more rapidly than blatant dishonesty. So, imagine my reaction when I read the President Obama's statement promising to veto the version of the Full, Faith and Credit Act that passed 221-207 Thursday in the House of Representatives.

It would have been impossible for Watergate to have occurred in the years before it did. Somewhere therein a sea change had occurred and we, the Americans, were determined to rescue ourselves from a million small and debilitating affronts that were destroying our moral fabric and perhaps our sanity.

The original wrong at Watergate — the break-in — is almost forgotten. Benghazi will not be. In Benghazi, the Clinton State Department became a popular front doing the talking for al Qaeda.

Perhaps during his next partisan exploitation of the tragic death of Americans at Benghazi, Libya, in political hearings paid for by American taxpayers, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) can replay then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warning him, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and other Republicans that their efforts to cut diplomatic security spending will endanger American lives. 

Then House Republicans can testify en masse and offer a group apology for mocking and ignoring Clinton's warning. 

Raising the bar on glib, even for the Eloi at The Washington Post, former Post reporter Thomas E. Ricks includes Texas as one of the newspaper's “things to toss out” this year, along with flip-flops and Ben Bernanke.

“For decades, Texans have been clamoring about leaving the Union,” he writes. “Letting the Lone Star State secede would set a bad precedent. (See the Civil War of 1861 to 1865.) But what about expelling it instead? There is promise in that.”

But here is his error: “Texans have that Lone Star flag all set,” he says. “I think they’re ready to fly solo and lonely once again. Let them go.” In this day and age, what makes Ricks think that if Texas went, it would go alone?

Easy fellas. It has only been a week since National Review blasted immigration reform legislation being promoted — with enormous difficulty — by the Gang of Eight. Now a cover story titled "Rubio's Folly" is the latest attack by the conservative publication, this time aimed personally at Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the man who both parties agree is reform's best hope.

Insisting the key provisions Rubio promised are not in the 844-page bill, the editors wrote that Rubio has lashed himself to the bill, making "convoluted justifications" and "laughable arguments," to promote the legislation.