Steve King: I Meant Every Word of it, Now Here’s More


Despite widespread condemnation from both sides of the aisle, the idea that a majority of young immigrants are drug runners is Steve King’s story and he’s stickin’ to it.

On Tuesday, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) rejected bipartisan criticism and again condemned young undocumented immigrants as “drug mules” in a radio interview with O.Kay Hunderson. Notably, he said that for every so-called DREAMer who is a valedictorian, there are “one hundred drug mules” and “you can tell by their physical characteristics what they’ve been doing for months.” [...]

Rep. Joe Garcia (D-FL) criticized King for his remarks during House hearings on Wednesday morning. But King responded, [Garcia] “didn’t suggest that there are more valedictorians than there are drug mules, but it’s enough for anybody to be offended these days. They apparently don’t have to use their brain.”

Apparently the onus is on Steve King’s critics to prove that a majority of young immigrants aren’t drug runners, and if they would simply “use their brain” they would see that he’s right.

I wouldn’t take it at face value when House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor condemn King’s comments because those two men are who will decide what is voted on in the House of Representatives.

Boehner and Cantor can call it “hateful language,” but the question is will they support hateful legislation? If Eric Cantor “strongly disagrees” with Steve King, he can prove it by supporting a path to citizenship.

I wouldn’t hold my breath. After all, according to John Boehner real leadership is knowing when to step aside.

(photo via Getty)

  • 4teepee

    I did not see where Congressman Steve King said a majority were drug runners. The claim that he did seems to be a lie.

    As for immigration, the United States should adopt strict immigration laws like those of Mexico and Israel. The hypocrites never protest against them.

    • Claude Weaver

      If you can’t see how “for every valedictorian, there are 100 drug mules” equals to a majority, then you are terrible at math.

      • 4teepee

        Then give the proof. You can’t because it is a non sequitur.

        • Claude Weaver

          What are you talking about? Proof that he said it? Okay:

          That is VIDEO of him saying it.

          Now are you asking for proof of his claim? Well, no, I can’t prove that there is a 1:100 ratio of Mexican valedictorians to drug runners. Thing is, I’m not claiming that. This site is not claiming that. The only person claiming that is STEVE KING. So you need to ask STEVE KING for the proof of his claim.

          • 4teepee

            From the article, ” . . .the idea that a majority of young immigrants are drug runners is Steve King’s story . . . ”

            However, there is no quotation where King says that.

          • Claude Weaver

            Ahhh, so you are being obtuse and pedantic. Okay.

            SO how about this:

            “For every one who’s a valedictorian, there’s another hundred out there who they weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’ve been hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert,” King said.

            Now, I don’t know about you, but usually when someone carries a illegal narcotic across a desert, they are called drug runners. See? They RUN the DRUGS.

            So yes, you are right to say that King did not say “drug runners” or “drug mules”. He just simply said they literally run drugs across the desert. Ashby, you should make that change immediately, if only for posterity’s sake. You don’t want to look like an asshole or anything.

          • 4teepee

            So you are terrible at math in addition to being illiterate, maggot. There is no quotation of him using the word “majority.”

          • Claude Weaver

            Aw, dude. If you want to troll or insult, you got to do better than “maggot”.

            And really? Calling into question my math and literacy, when you can’t seem to process how 100 might be considered a “majority” to 1, and then intentionally removing all context to that quoted line in order to prove,,,what, exactly? That they used a word you didn’t like? Because that is the only reason I see for your continued objection: they used a term you didn’t appreciate. It isn’t like it’s the wrong word to describe it? I mean even with the corrected quote, it is still an EXTREMELY STUPID thing for him to say. So what exactly is your goal?

          • 4teepee

            You just proved my point, maggot.

          • Claude Weaver

            What point? And really, if “maggot” is the best you got, you are sorely underequipped in the trolling department.

          • 4teepee

            My point. Try to pay attention, maggot.

          • Bob Rutledge

            CW, you seem to be faced off with 4teepeewee herman, as “his” argument seems to be of the “I know you are, but what am I?” variety.

          • Claude Weaver

            It looks like you are right, Mr. Rutledge. Fortunately, I have way too many brian cells to continue wasting on this. I mean, if I was called a really nasty name, it would be worth it. But “maggot”? Really? What are we, in 4th grade?

            EDIT: My apologies to 4th graders I insulted. They are at least creative enough to toss in a “-brain” or “-breath” with their insults.

  • Pat Nash

    Boehner and Cantor, these guys , i truly believe they are afraid of their own shadows. Leave Steve King along. He’s telling the truth and even if he thinks he’s telling the truth, he has a right to say it without you two coming against your own fellow compatriot. Dang, show some wisdom. This shoudln’t hinder you from selling out on immigration just because you want all the Democrats to give you an “Atta Boy” slap on the back for following their advice to legalize every immigrant and their mama,.

    • Claude Weaver

      I think the downvotes don’t seem to realize that you are addressing Boehner and Cantor.

      • Bob Rutledge

        “Leave Steve King along[sic]. He’s telling the truth and even if he thinks
        he’s telling the truth, he has a right to say it without you two coming
        against your own fellow compatriot.”

        Steve King is telling the truth. Right. Messicans is all — well, okay in a ratio of 100:1 — drugmuling job stealers (it should be Murrkins who is muling that weed, dambit!). I believe people are reading the comment just fine. Pat Nash could be addressing the Easter Bunny and the comment would still be swill.

        Also, the downvoters may possibly have checked “Pat Nash”‘s commenting history — WND, Wash Times, Malkin, Gateway Pundit, Brietbart — and folded that knowledge into the decision to downvote.

        • Pat Nash

          And another thing: when this Admin.released thousands of illegal criminals back on the streets in our communities, you didn’t hear a peep from these two. I respect them as our leaders but they have to stop being “Jellyback” as they say in Texas.

  • D_C_Wilson

    I’ll just repeat what I said yesterday: Not long ago, a Congressman who said something like this in public would have torched his career. Now it’s considered a badge of honor.

    What do we do when we can no longer tell the difference between our elected officials and the internet troll who posts racist cartoons portrayal the president as a pimp or a witch doctor?

    • mrbrink

      This is what has concerned me since the crazies began seizing power– that they’d make the historically vile and opportunistic cancers of the GOP like Cantor and Boehner appear measured and reasonable and “leaders” who can stand up to the fork-corkers of the party without getting stabbed in the eye.

      It’s a variation of The Thornton Melon Theory of perception: If you want to look reasonable and sane, hang out with mentally-deranged psychotics.

  • Bob Rutledge

    Sounds to me like the solution — no, not dipping King repeatedly in hot wax and making the worst-scented candle in history — is to legalize pot.

    Then those cantaloupe-calved super soldiers won’t have jobs as drug mules any more.

    Also, and I would never expect Congresscritter Dipshit to know this — or even be able to wrap his three remaining brain cells around it — but people outside the US walk places. And I’m not talking from the VIP bar to the Gents, Rep(rehensible) King. I’m talking mind-numbing (to US eyes) distances. For example, my SO’s ex-MIL’s family walked from Costa Rica to Argentina — and back. Just so they could see the sights. That’s about 7000 miles.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    Shorter Steve King: “For every good one, there are 100 bad ones.”

    Shorter Republican policy with respect to everything other than guns: “Focus on the few bad people, ignore the many good people.”

    Shorter Republican policy with respect to guns: “Focus on the many good people, ignore the many bad people.”

  • JimmyAbra

    Given the number of drug mules in this country can’t those same ratios be said of just about any group of people who have a valedictorian among them?

    • Pat Nash

      And then what difference does it make? I don’t care if it’s only ten runners or what ever you call them. That’s enough for me to Shout! Shut it down. These are US leaders ,their number one concern should be US citizens and their comfort and protection. Get that together and then maybe we can reach out to a few others. Doggonit!!!! lol~

  • trgahan

    Just keep talking Steve and continue to use the same logic started against the Germans in the 1760’s, then the Irish, then the Italians, then the Jews, then the Slavs, then the Chinese, then the freed slaves, then the Japanese, then the Vietnamese, then the Middle Easterners, then the gays, and so on and so on.

    By now, I can almost console myself in the fact that once the “They are inferior and destroying our country!” screeching starts people like King have already lost.

  • Teddy’s Person

    Boehner, Cantor, and other Republican critics are only concerned that King said these things out loud without being sufficiently shrouded in dog-whistley language. I don’t for one hot second believe they disagree with the (reprehensible) substance of the comments.