Jesse Watters' Fox News Chinatown Segment (VIDEO)

Look, Irvine's like Chinatown, Little Seoul, and Little Tokyo rolled into one.

I'd frankly prefer having Latino immigrants moving in. I'm used to them, for one thing, and I can get by with a little Spanish in a pinch.

And don't get me going about Chinese drivers and their surgical smog face masks. I feel like I'm in Beijing in my own town. Sheesh.

But oh my god!

Jesse Watters exploited stereotypes for political humor!

Actually, I think the worst thing is the video showed literally how many of the Chinese are 100 percent non-assimilated. I mean, how many more Chinese immigrants like this speak not one word of English, and how many more cities could be multiplied in this hodgepodge of cultural invasion?

It's no wonder why Donald Trump surged to victory in the primaries. GOP voters, and many independents, welcomed blunt talk about the out-of-control monstrosity of leftist immigration and lawbreaking illegal alien outreach.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Activists blast 'O'Reilly Factor' Chinatown piece as racist."

Also, at the Daily Beast, "Why Fox’s Racist, Sexist Frat Boy Jesse Watters Will Always Win." And, "WOW: ‘The Daily Show’s’ Ronny Chieng Destroys Fox News’ Jesse Watters: ‘You Ignorant Sack of Sh*t!’"

Obama's Illegal Alien Amnesty Hits a Deadlock

Following-up from yesterday, "Supreme Court Blocks Obama's DAPA Illegal Alien Amnesty Program."

Here's your leftist human interest angle, at the Los Angeles Times, "Immigrant rights activists vow to keep fighting after Supreme Court deadlock":

Rosa Maria Soto ached to visit her dying mother in Sonora, Mexico, one final time. But family members worried that the immigrant rights activist who lacks legal status would not make it back across the border to her Phoenix home. A phone call from her brother — the only one of her nine siblings still in Mexico — was strung with tears.

“He said to stay here, keep fighting,” Soto, 62, recalled. So she did.

But Thursday, Soto felt defeated when she learned that the Supreme Court deadlocked on the legality of President Obama’s immigration plan that would have given deportation relief and work permits to 5 million people who came into the country illegally.

The mother of three children and six grandchildren in the United States, Soto would have potentially been protected under the program, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.

Still, she, along with other activists and families facing uncertain futures, have vowed to continue the push for reform. Some took to rallies to insist that the deadlock had stopped nothing.

"Obama, escucha, estamos en la lucha," protesters outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Phoenix chanted. Obama, listen, we are in the fight.

“The war has not been lost,” insisted Apolonio Morales, political director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.

Marielena Hincapié, executive director at the Los Angeles-based National Immigration Law Center, said the group will push for the case to be reheard by the high court, and for the Justice Department to seek a stay while the court decides whether to rehear it.

“This is a case of national importance and it deserves a full and fair day in court,” Hincapié said. “We will also be looking at other ways to minimize the harm from the nationwide injunction.”

The children of immigrants without legal status say the recent news has only deepened the anxiety they feel about being deprived of the people who sought to provide them with a richer life.

“We live every day with an overwhelming fear of losing our parents to deportation,” said Zaira Garcia, 23, who has three sisters. The Austin, Texas, resident — an organizer with the immigrant rights group FWD.us — has parents who would have been eligible for Obama’s plan. She cried when she learned of the deadlock...

Keep reading.

Supreme Court Blocks Obama's DAPA Illegal Alien Amnesty Program

This is major.

At WaPo, "Supreme Court won’t revive Obama plan to shield illegal immigrants from deportation":

The Supreme Court handed President Obama a significant legal defeat on Thursday, refusing to revive his stalled plan to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation and give them the right to work legally in this country.

The court’s liberals and conservatives deadlocked, which leaves in place a lower court’s decision that the president exceeded his powers in issuing the directive.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

And at LAT, "Supreme Court deadlock deals defeat to Obama immigration plan":

The Supreme Court deadlocked Thursday over the legality of President Obama’s sweeping immigration plan, dealing a defeat to the White House.

The tie vote leaves in place lower court orders from Texas that have blocked Obama’s plan to suspend deportation and offer work permits to about 4 million parents who have been living illegally in the U.S.

It's a tie. Sends it back to the lower court and let's that decision stand.

Great news, heh.

Illegal Alien Valedictorian Larissa Martinez (VIDEO)

She's apparently been accepted to Yale.

Hey, good for her, but one can't help thinking that the so-called "disadvantaged" are nowadays the ones with the most advantages and social prestige.

At PuffHo, "Undocumented Valedictorian Takes Down Trump In Epic Speech."

More at FOX 4 News - Dallas-Fort Worth, "North Texas valedictorian reveals she’s an undocumented immigrant."

And I saw another woman, Mayte Lara, posting about her hot legs and undocumented status on Twitter. She's since deleted her account. No doubt she got death threats, and understandably so. These people are ghouls.

More at the Texas Tribune, "Valedictorians Draw Attention for Saying They're Undocumented (Video)."

Texas Latino Voters Who Support Donald Trump

We have so many illegal immigrants that the statistic showing "77 percent of Latinos" opposing Donald Trump probably means that 77 percent of Latinos are illegal, or they have immediate family members who are illegal.

Meanwhile, lots of Hispanics support Donald Trump. Frankly, Democrat Party support is likely exclusively concentrated among Latinos looking for a massive illegal alien amnesty program. No wonder some of them have announced they're fighting a "civil war" in this election.

At LAT, "Inside Trump Nation: How Donald Trump scored a win in Texas border country":

How Trump won Latino votes near the Texas border https://t.co/cJYJgsDood pic.twitter.com/WsBnVQ2d2g

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) May 1, 2016

Patti Magnon grew up on the other side of the Rio Grande — in the adjacent Mexican city known as Nuevo Laredo.

But the border here has never been a barrier, and Magnon, who has lived on the U.S. side now for years, feels at home in both. “Proud to be an American & a Catholic!” proclaims her bio on Twitter. “Love my Mexican heritage! An immigrant is not the same as an illegal immigrant.”

These days, Magnon sometimes feels she has more in common with Americans elsewhere across the country than with Latino families here in Texas, and that started when she told people she was voting for Donald Trump.

Election 2016 | Live coverage on Trail Guide | April 26 primary election results | Track the delegate race | Sign up for the newsletter

“They bash you,” said Gina Gil, who’s also joined a small but enthusiastic group of people here on the border who like what Trump has to say — especially about immigration, a subject that, here on the banks of the Rio Grande, they feel they know as much about as anybody.

“I find it insulting when people say people who follow Trump are uneducated, unintelligent,” said Magnon.

“Te aventaste!” Gil exclaimed. “You hit it.”

Across the country, only a small minority of Latinos have backed Trump, and even here in Texas, a plurality of Latino Republicans voted for home-grown U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, who won the March 1 primary with 44% of the overall vote to Trump’s 27%. Now as ever, most Latinos vote Democratic, and in Texas, where Latinos make up more than a quarter of the electorate, up to 71% of them backed Hillary Clinton, according to exit polls.

It was here on the border that Trump scored his biggest Texas victories, capturing Laredo’s Webb County, which is 95.3% Latino, and Zapata County next door (94%), as well as Terrell County (49 17.4% Latino Hispanic) and Hudspeth County (78%), which are farther west.

“It’s the hardworking people,” said Miriam Cepeda, 24, a history major at the nearby University of Texas-Pan American who is leading Trump’s campaign in the Rio Grande Valley east of Laredo. What she hears, she says, is a lot of resentment aimed at undocumented immigrants who receive government services. “Those that pay the taxes and do what they’re supposed to say, ‘Why do I have to pay?’”

Magnon and Gill voted for Trump in the Texas primary, plan to vote for him in the general election, and are waging their own kind of ad hoc citizens’ campaign, praising him on radio shows and online, recruiting friends and family.

The two women met last summer when Trump came here, to the Southwest border’s third-most populous city, behind El Paso and San Diego.

Magnon drove her 7-year-old daughter, Allie, to the small local airport to see the real estate magnate. They were greeted in this majority Democratic, heavily Mexican American town by a crowd of opponents chanting into megaphones: “Dump Trump!”

Both Magnon, 44, and Gil, 49, are former Democrats — working mothers with community college educations who say they’re alarmed about welfare fraud, illegal immigration and the rising costs of healthcare. Magnon almost lost her health insurance when Obamacare took effect. Gil seethed at paying an $800 penalty under the new federal healthcare law, but insurance would have cost even more.

Trump promised to run the country like a business and repeal Obamacare. They didn’t think he was racist when he promised to build a bigger border wall to keep out Mexican “rapists.” They thought he was right — and were delighted to find that others around town agreed with them.

“I was surprised other people in Laredo think like I do,” Magnon said...

Keep reading.

Donald Trump Jumps Freeway Barrier to Get to GOP Convention: 'It felt like I was crossing the border...' (VIDEO)

Heh.

The despicable leftist illegal alien communists blocked the freeway.

At Gateway Pundit, "WILD VIDEO=> Trump Jumps Barrier, Crosses Ditch to Avoid Violent Leftist Mob in California."

Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in Obama's Illegal Alien DREAM Programs

Obama's unconstitutional immigration grab is at the Court on Monday.

At LAT, "In last big test of Obama era, Supreme Court to take up immigration policy":

The Supreme Court's last great case of the Obama era comes before the justices Monday when the administration's lawyers defend his plan to offer work permits to as many as 4 million immigrants who have been living here illegally for years.

Once again, lawyers for Republican leaders from Congress and the states will be challenging the actions of the Democratic president. And as with past battles over healthcare and same-sex marriage, Obama administration lawyers will need to win over at least one of the court's more conservative justices.

If the justices split 4 to 4 — a possibility since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia — the tie vote would keep in place a Texas judge's order that has blocked President Obama's deportation relief plan from taking effect.

At issue is whether the president has the power to extend a "temporary reprieve" from the threat of deportation and a work permit to immigrant parents of U.S. citizens or lawful residents. More than one-fourth of those who stand to benefit live in California, according to immigration experts.

The two sides disagree not only on what is the right outcome, but on what the case is about. One side sees a great constitutional clash over the rule of law in a democracy, while the other sees a narrow regulatory dispute.

The Republicans, in written briefs, portray Obama's order as a profound threat to the constitutional system. If the president can defy Congress and change the law on his own, the nation has abandoned "a bedrock constitutional principle," they say.

This "would be one of the largest changes in immigration policy in the nation's history," say lawyers for Texas and 25 other Republican-led states. They note that the president's action arose after Congress refused to change the law in line with his wishes, so the order rests on "an unprecedented, sweeping assertion of executive power," they say.

The House Republicans joined the case on the side of Texas, and if anything, raised the stakes even higher. They described Obama's immigration order as "the most aggressive of executive power claims" and a threat to "the separation of powers that underpins our very constitutional structure."

Meanwhile, U.S. Solicitor Gen. Donald Verrilli Jr., the administration's top lawyer, sought to play down the significance of Obama's order and defuse the constitutional clash. He said the immigrants who qualify would be offered a temporary relief from deportation that does not "confer any form of legal status." He cited instances in which Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush gave similar relief to large groups of immigrants who were fleeing wars or despotic regimes.

Angry Mob Cheers as Huge Blaze Rips Through Migrant 'Refugee' Shelter in Saxony, Germany (VIDEO)

Following-up, "Angry Mob Threatens Migrant 'Refugees' in German Town of Clausnitz (VIDEO)."

There's more, at BNI, "GERMAN patriots cheer and try to stop firefighters as Muslim illegal alien invader center burns in Saxony."

And at London's Daily Mail, "Anti-migrant mobs cheer and try to stop firefighters getting to planned refugee shelter as it goes up in flames in Germany."

California Issued 605,000 New Driver's Licenses to Illegal Immigrants in 2015

Flashback to January 3, 2015, "Illegal Aliens Begin Getting Driver's Licenses in California."

Well, the state sure went to town issuing licenses to illegals.

At the Los Angeles Times, "California issued 605,000 new driver's licenses for immigrants in the U.S. illegally last year":

Judith Benitez had gone most of her adult life without knowing how to drive.

The 35-year-old woman from Mexico who is in the U.S. illegally would ask family members for rides to pick up her children from school. Trips to the grocery store or the doctor's office were complicated.

That changed last year when Assembly Bill 60 was implemented, granting people in the country illegally the right to obtain driver's licenses in California. Benitez, who lives in Lemon Grove, learned to drive and was among those in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles the day the law took effect.

"Truthfully, it was an extremely emotional time because having a [driver's] license isn't just any little thing," she said. "We feel a little more protected."

An estimated 605,000 licenses were issued under the law last year, accounting for nearly half of all new licenses, according to the California DMV. Nearly 400,000 of the licenses were issued during the first six months.

"We believe that this new law increases safety on California roads by putting licensed drivers behind the steering wheel," spokesman Artemio Armenta said.

Gov. Jerry Brown signed the measure into law in 2013, further establishing California as a national leader on immigrant rights. The legislation was authored by Assemblyman Luis Alejo (D-Salinas), the son of farmworkers.

Brown in August signed a trio of immigration-related measures, which included elimination of the word "alien" within California's labor code to describe immigrants in the country illegally. The new laws also included allowing noncitizen high school students to serve as election poll workers and protecting immigrant minors in civil lawsuits.

Licenses granted under the law have "federal limits apply" printed on them, which means that unlike California law enforcement, law enforcement officers in other states and federal officials aren't obligated to accept the licenses as a valid form of identification.

State leaders and law enforcement officials have said the law will improve road safety because more drivers will be licensed and be more likely to be insured...

And people wonder why Donald Trump's campaign took off last year. It's not "racism." Sometimes it looks like government does more to help people who're here illegally that it does for its own citizens.

That's sad.

More.

Francisco Sanchez, Illegal Immigrant Suspect in Kathryn Steinle Murder, Wants Case Dismissed

Flashback to July, "Deported 5 Times Previously, Illegal Alien Confesses to Murder of Kathryn Steinle at San Francisco's Pier 14."

Well, here's an update, at the Los Angeles Times, "Mexican national accused of shooting woman on San Francisco pier wants case dismissed."

More, at Yahoo News, "Lawyer: Fatal San Francisco pier shooting was an accident":

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The lawyer for a Mexican national charged with fatally shooting a young San Francisco woman as she walked on a city pier wants his client's murder charge dismissed, saying the killing that rekindled the national debate over illegal immigration was an accident.

The judge canceled a hearing scheduled for Friday, saying he wants more time to consider the issue. Attorneys will argue the matter on March 24...

Well, I hope Bill O'Reilly hasn't moved on from this case. If Sanchez's case is dismissed there are going to be howls of protest, rightfully so.

It's Time to Rally Around Donald Trump

From Diana West, at Big Government (via Memeorandum):

Brent Bozell has called on conservatives to rally around Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97%
 for the Republican presidential nomination. Ted Cruz is a good man and a fine candidate — my own second choice — but I believe GOP frontrunner Donald Trump is the candidate for American patriots to rally around.

Bozell states that Cruz is the one candidate who will return the United States to “her Constitutional foundations and Judeo-Christian values,” explaining:

On every issue of crucial importance to conservatives—defunding Planned Parenthood, ending the Obamacare nightmare, reducing the size of government, opposing amnesty—Cruz is not only with conservatives, he’s led the fight for conservatives.

To be honest, if these were the only issues under discussion in this GOP presidential primary season I would hardly be able to make myself pay attention. It’s not that they are unimportant issues. Personally, I support every one of them. But they are not existential issues. They are not the issues on which the very future of the Republic hangs. They are issues that a responsible Republican House and Senate, if they were loyal to their oath and to their constituents, could today begin to rectify all by themselves.

If they did — or if, say, a President Cruz were to ensure that Planned Parenthood was defunded, Obamacare ended, government trimmed, and amnesty once again staved off for another election cycle — we would all rejoice. However, the Constitution, the Republic, would be no more secure. On the contrary, they would still teeter on the edge of extinction, lost in a demographic, political, and cultural transformation that our fathers, founding and otherwise, would find inconceivable — and particularly if they ever found out that the crisis took hold when We the People lost our nerve even to talk about immigration and Islam.

It is in this danger zone of lost nerve and the vanishing nation-state where the extraordinary presidential candidacy of Donald Trump began. Like the nation-state itself, it started with the concept of a border, when Donald Trump told us he wanted to build a wall. Circa 21st-century-America, that took a lot of nerve.

After all, Americans don’t have walls. We don’t even have a border. We have “border surges,” and “unaccompanied alien minors.” We have “sanctuary cities,” and a continuous government raid on our own pocketbooks to pay for what amounts to our own invasion. That’s not even counting the attendant pathologies, burdens, and immeasurable cultural dislocation that comes about when “no one speaks English anymore.” A wall, the man says?

The enthusiasm real people (as opposed to media and #GOPSmartSet) have shown for Trump and his paradigm-shattering wall is something new and exciting on the political scene. So is the “yuge” sigh of relief. Someone sees the nation bleeding out and wants to stanch the flow. Yes, we can (build a wall). From that day forward, it has been Trump, dominating the GOP primary process and setting all of the potentially restorative points of the agenda, compelling the other candidates to address them, and the MSM, too. Blasting through hard, dense layers of “political correctness” with plain talk that shocks, Trump has set in motion very rusty wheels of reality-based thinking, beginning a long-overdue honest-to-goodness public debate about the future of America — or, better, whether there will be a future for America. That debate starts at the border, too.

A well-defended border is an obvious requisite for any nation-state. It bears noting, however, that before Donald Trump, not one commander in chief, and (aside from former Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-CO), not one figure of national fame and repute I can think of had ever put it to the people of this land that a wall was a way to stop our border crisis: the unceasing flow into the nation of illegal masses of mainly Spanish-speaking aliens, among them terrorists, criminals (yes, including rapists and murderers) and transnational gangs. On the contrary, crime and chaos at the U.S. non-border are what every branch and bureaucracy of our government expect We, the People to accept as normal — and pay for as good citizens.

But good citizens of what — the world?

For many decades, the unspoken answer  to this inconceivable question (inconceivable, that is, before Trump) has been yes. “We Are the World” has been the USA’s unofficial anthem, the political muzak of our times that we either hum along to, or accept in teeth-gritted silence for fear of censure (or cancelled party invitations). “Openness,” “multiculturalism,” “globalism” — all have been pounded into us for so long that I think Americans despaired of ever hearing anyone give voice again to a patriotic vision of American interests. Then Trump came along and changed the tune. Americans perked up their ears. Maybe a wall — which is just the beginning of Trump’s detailed immigration policy, which Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)80%
 calls “exactly the plan America needs” — would make America possible again. That would be great, indeed.

Does Trump see it all this way, or is he going on “feel”? I don’t claim to know, although by this time in the political season, I think I am beginning to get a sense of Trump. When it comes to what is important, beginning with immigration, Trump’s instincts are as formidable as his courage. Notwithstanding Cruz and his consistent conservatism (in which Bozell places great stock), immigration wouldn’t even be a campaign issue without Donald Trump. In my opinion, the Trump plan is absoutely essential to any possible return, as Bozell puts it, to America’s constitutional foundations and Judeo-Christian principles. I actually think of it as our last shot...

Still more.

Phyllis Schlafly also argue's that Trump's the last hope for America.

Boy, conservatives have a bleak view of our prospects. You can understand why.

BONUS: "The Political Establishment's Terrified by Donald Trump's 'Tangible American Nationalism'."

Conservative Anger Grows Over Marco Rubio and Illegal Alien Amnesty (VIDEO)

It's definitely an Achilles Heel of his campaign.

Here's yesterday's entry, "Open-Borders Money Backs Marco Rubio."

And at the New York Times, "Conservative Ire Grows Over Marco Rubio's Past on Immigration":

WASHINGTON — Senator Marco Rubio made a big bet on an immigration overhaul that failed – and he has been running away from it since. Now his past is catching up with him, stoking old grievances from conservative rivals who are reopening one of the most vulnerable episodes in his past.

The anger toward Mr. Rubio on the right has only grown in recent days as he has taken to aggressively questioning Senator Ted Cruz’s toughness on illegal immigration, a line of attack that some Republicans say they find disingenuous.

On talk radio, on the campaign trail and on televisions in states like Iowa, Mr. Rubio is suddenly facing a torrent of criticism from within his own party unlike anything he has faced so far in the presidential race.

Mr. Cruz’s campaign, which was initially rattled by the criticism, is retaliating with a new ad that makes the case that the 2013 immigration bill Mr. Rubio helped write would have left the country exposed to attacks from Islamic State infiltrators. It shows Mr. Rubio standing with a group of conservative adversaries like Senator John McCain as Mr. Cruz says: “Their misguided plan would have given Obama the authority to admit Syrian refugees, including ISIS terrorists. That’s just wrong.”

People who saw Mr. Rubio speak near Des Moines the other day found their windshields plastered with black-and-white fliers that mocked him as “Chuck Schumer’s amnesty pitchman.” If Mr. Rubio is elected president, warned the fliers, which were noticed by a freelance journalist, he would support liberal immigration policies and “impose them by force on Americans.”

Mr. Rubio’s struggle to mollify Republicans who believe he betrayed conservative principles for political convenience – two years of outreach, apology and labored professions of a lesson learned – has never had higher stakes. Right now he is trying to break out beyond the third- or fourth-place spot he holds in many polls by peeling away support from conservative favorites like Mr. Cruz and Ben Carson.

His recent attacks on Mr. Cruz are backfiring as some influential conservatives are now rallying to Mr. Cruz’s side and denouncing Mr. Rubio.

Senator Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who is a hero of the anti-immigration reform movement on the right, went on a conservative radio program Thursday to defend Mr. Cruz and say that Mr. Rubio would be held accountable by conservative voters who rallied around killing the 2013 legislation.

“I think Senator Rubio has to answer for things that were in that bill,” Mr. Sessions said on the “Howie Carr Show.”

He continued, “This presidential election is going to decide who runs the White House: the crowd that pushed this legislation or the crowd that opposed it.”

Mark Levin, who has one of the largest followings on conservative radio, has been leading much of the effort lately on the air and online to criticize Mr. Rubio. He has accused the senator of “utter incoherence” in trying to tear down Mr. Cruz and paper over his own involvement in the immigration overhaul. “Such unprincipled ambition has not and will not go unnoticed by conservatives,” he cautioned.

Rush Limbaugh told his listeners: “Marco Rubio was part of the Gang of Eight trying to secure amnesty and wishes he wasn’t. Ted Cruz never was.”

The Rubio campaign’s effort to sully Mr. Cruz’s record on immigration is something even the Texas senator’s most ardent critics say distracts from the reality of the situation...

More.

Open-Borders Money Backs Marco Rubio

Following-up from yesterday, "A National Security History Lesson for Marco Rubio."

From Michelle Malkin:

Political analysis of the Las Vegas debate immigration dust-up between Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio is missing a key ingredient: the money factor.

You can read the lips of the candidates till the cows come home. But you’ll get to the truth much faster when you learn where pro-amnesty power brokers have placed their bets and hitched their wagons.

Rubio’s brazenly fraudulent campaign to paint Cruz as soft on illegal immigration is a flabbergasting attempt to distract from the Florida junior senator’s faithful allegiance to the open-borders donor class.

Here’s what you need to know:

Facebook, Microsoft and Silicon Valley back Marco Rubio. Mark Zuckerberg is a social justice CEO who panders to Hispanics with his pro-amnesty, anti-deportation advocacy; Facebook is an H-1B visa dependent company working hard to obliterate hurdles to hiring an unlimited stream of cheap foreign tech workers. It’s no coincidence that Facebook’s lobbying outfit, FWD.us, was waging war on Sen. Cruz online this week in parallel with Sen. Rubio’s disingenuous onstage attack.

The D.C. front group, which Zuckerberg seeded in 2013 with nearly $40 million during the Gang of Eight fight, has consistently provided political protection for Rubio as he carried their legislative water.

FWD.us’s GOP subsidiary, “Americans for a Conservative Direction,” showered Rubio and pro-illegal alien amnesty Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., with millions of dollars in media ad buys. The group also funded a deceptive, $150,000 ad campaign for immigration sellout Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., which falsely claimed she opposed amnesty to help her fend off a primary challenge. In all, FWD.us spent an estimated $5 million on TV and radio spots in more than 100 GOP districts before the Senate passed the Gang of Eight bill in June 2013.

Zuckerberg personally donated to Rubio, as have pro-H-1B expansionist Silicon Valley CEOs from Oracle, Cisco and Seagate. Microsoft, founded by leading H-1B/amnesty cheerleader Bill Gates, has been Rubio’s No. 2 corporate donor the past five years.

Paul Singer backs Marco Rubio. The hedge fund billionaire announced his support for Rubio in October. Amnesty is and always has been a top agenda item for Singer, who helped fund the National Immigration Forum along with fellow hedge fund billionaire George Soros. NIF propped up a faux “grass-roots” initiative of religious conservatives, dubbed the Evangelical Immigration Table, to lobby for the Gang of Eight.

NIF was founded by far-left attorney Rick Swartz, who opposes tracking/deporting visa overstayers and opposes employer sanctions against companies that violated immigration laws. Swartz also served as an advisor to Microsoft.

The Singer/Soros-funded NIF helped sabotage the Immigration Act of 1990, which was intended to impose modest restrictions on immigration, and turned it into “one of the most expansionist immigration bills ever passed,” as one expert put it. On Capitol Hill, Swartz worked closely with immigration expansionist Sen. Spencer Abraham’s legislative director Cesar Conda and Sen. Sam Brownback’s legislative director (now GOP House speaker) Paul Ryan—-who is busy this holiday season fronting an omnibus bill that will open the floodgates to 250,000 unskilled foreign guest workers.

Side note: Beltway establishment fixture Conda previously worked for the pro-amnesty U.S. Chamber of Commerce and mentored Ryan from the age of 19. Conda guided newbie Rubio as his Senate chief of staff from 2011-2014 and remains his powerful immigration Svengali behind closed doors.

Rove/Bush-tied front groups back Marco Rubio. The American Action Network is a Big Business GOP lobbying organization led by former Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and co-founded with John McCain adviser/fundraiser Fred Malek. AAN shares [clarification: shared] its offices with amnesty peddler Karl Rove’s American Crossroads in D.C. AAN’s “action arm,” the American Action Forum, was founded in February 2010 and proceeded to spend a whopping $25 million to attack conservatives who opposed amnesty. [Correction: AAN embarked on the anti-conservative spending campaign.] Jeb Bush sat on the AAF board.

In 2013, the group dumped more than $750,000 into primetime, Fox News Channel ad buys pushing the Gang of Eight immigration bill, including $100,000 in ads to support leading GOP voices for amnesty, including, you guessed it, Sen. Marco Rubio.

Open-borders Democrats love Marco Rubio. As Sen. Schumer brayed last month: Rubio “was not only totally committed, he was in that room with us. His fingerprints are all over” the Gang of Eight monstrosity. Indeed, Sens. Durbin and Rubio plotted strategy during early morning workout sessions at the Senate gym.

Rubio hired Enrique Gonzalez, a Democratic donor and partner with the global immigration law firm, Fragomen Del Rey, to be his chief adviser on the bill. Gonzalez specializes in obtaining H-1B guest worker visas (tripled in the Gang of Eight bill) and EB-5 visas for wealthy foreign investors. After the bill passed, Gonzalez returned to his law firm as managing partner of the Florida office, where he brags about his role as Rubio’s “special counsel” and “principal advisor/negotiator”—read: bill writer.
Bottom line?

Cruz kept his promise to voters. He voted against the Gang of Eight giveaway. Period.

Rubio broke his promise: He paid lip service to border security and the American Dream, while scheming with Sens. Schumer and Durbin on the 180,000-word, 1,200-page Christmas tree for Big Biz, Big Tech and ethnic lobbyists.

Rubio didn’t just vote for the bill. He and his staff were integral to crafting it, shilling for it, and cashing in on the legislative boondoggle dubbed a “permanent pension plan for immigration lawyers.”

When you need the truth about which Beltway crapweasels are selling out America, always follow the money.

A National Security History Lesson for Marco Rubio

Flashback to April 2013, from Michelle Malkin (a needed reminder to enthusiasm for Marco Rubio, even mine):

Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio seems well meaning enough. As second-generation conservative Americans, I know we both share a common passion for this great land of opportunity. But when it comes to comprehending the real agenda of the open-borders zealots he’s allied himself with, Rubio doesn’t have a clue.

And his abject ignorance threatens all of us who cherish American sovereignty and exceptionalism.

On Fox News’ “The Sean Hannity Show” Tuesday night, Rubio defended his Gang of Eight “immigration reform” bill and insisted that we could and should have a system in place that vets foreign tourists and short-term visa holders based on their “national security” profiles.

“In essence, we should be able to analyze (whether) these are individuals coming from a part of the world that keeps feeding into the terrorist network,” Rubio earnestly explained. “(W)e should be very careful about who we allow in and take into account every single measure or every single factor that we think could lead to somebody being more likely possibly a member of a terrorist organization or involved in terror.”

Great idea, Rubio! Newsflash: The concept of a national security entry-exit screening database is at least 10 years old. It’s an idea that was sabotaged by the progressive soft-on-security ideologues with whom Rubio has recklessly partnered.

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration created NSEERS, the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System. Administered and championed by Justice Department constitutional lawyer, immigration enforcement expert and now-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, NSEERS stopped at least 330 known foreign criminals and three known terrorists who had attempted to come into the country at certain official ports of entry.

NSEERS required higher scrutiny and common-sense registration requirements for individuals from jihad-friendly countries including Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, as well as other at-risk countries. The basic components included a more rigorous application process in light of the shoddy visa questionnaires and undetected overstays of the 9/11 hijackers; 30 extra minutes of interviewing at ports of entry; a digital fingerprint check and in-person registration after they arrived in the interior of the country; and verification of departure once they exited.

The targeted registration of certain foreign nationals already in the country (temporary visa holders including students, tourists and businesspeople) resulted in the apprehension of dozens of illegal alien felons. As I reported at the time, these scumbags included:

- a Tunisian convicted of multiple drug-trafficking offenses, in addition to previous violations of immigration law.

- an Iranian who had been convicted three times of assault with a deadly weapon and had been convicted twice of grand theft in addition to immigration violations.

- an Iranian twice convicted of child molestation.

- two suspected al-Qaida operatives who were caught trying to enter the U.S. after their fingerprints matched ones lifted by our military officials from papers found in Afghanistan caves.

But grievance-mongering identity groups and the American Civil Liberties Union could not stand the idea of an effective national security profiling database. For one thing, a successful program would have laid the groundwork for a broader nationwide entry-exit system affecting all foreign visitors. Congress mandated that system six times over the past 17 years. It has yet to be built.

Let me repeat that: We still have no way of tracking who has actually met their visa requirements, who has overstayed their visa, and who has left the country when their visa requires them to do so. Earth to Rubio: This malignant failure is by special-interest design, not by accident or lack of imagination.

Here`s a test: Why doesn`t Rubio form a Gang of One and dare Washington to pass the entry-exit system his new pals all say they support as a stand-alone first. Let`s see them prove they can keep even a single one of their national security/immigration enforcement promises before entertaining 900 more pages of them. Prove it.

I`ve read the bill — and I can see right through it. The Democrats` history speaks for itself. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy, whose illegal alien amnesty spirit infuses the Gang of Eight`s bill, spearheaded legislative attempts to de-fund and destroy NSEERS. His left-wing pals (and a few open-borders Republicans such as heavyweight operative Grover Norquist, who stood literally and figuratively behind Rubio at the amnesty bill unveiling) decried NSEERS and its supporters for fostering “discrimination” and “profiling.”

Never mind that the pilot program was in line with alien registration systems around the world. And never mind that indiscriminate entry and immigration policies are what enabled so many jihadi plots in the first place.

When the Obama administration took over, as Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul pointed out this week, it indefinitely suspended the NSEERS pilot program and has no plans to revive it in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings.

Now the Gang of Eight Republicans want conservatives to jump in bed with these security saboteurs for another Amnesty Now, Enforcement Never plan? Who`s Rubio kidding? Only himself...

Still more.

Why Trump's Muslim Ban Resonates

From David Horowitz, at Front Page Magazine, "Who's the Crazy One?":

Presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for a moratorium on Muslim immigration until we can figure out why Islamic terrorists have been able to enter our country and devised ways to protect ourselves. This has caused the left and right establishments to dogpile on Trump. Echoing the sentiments of virtually all Democrats and many Republicans, a Washington Post editorial has declared that Trump’s proposal disqualifies him as a candidate because in the Post’s view what he recommends is unconstitutional and therefore un-American. But President Obama has issued executive orders – as it happens orders that sabotage our borders - that he himself has called unconstitutional (“I don’t have the authority to stop deportations”).  Has the Post editorialized that this is un-American and disqualifies him for the presidency? Has it called for Obama to be impeached? Have Democrats ridiculed Obama for his un-American prescriptions?

Consider the nature of the threat. A 2009 “World Opinion” survey by the University of Maryland showed that between 30 and 50% of Muslims in Jordan, Egypt and other Islamic countries approved of the terrorist attacks on America and that only a minority of Muslims “entirely disapproved” of them. ISIS has acknowledged its plans to use refugee programs to infiltrate its terrorists into the United States and other infidel countries. In Minneapolis we have a Somali refugee community many of whose members have returned to Syria to fight for ISIS. Other Muslim immigrants like Major Hassan and Tashfeen Malik have carried out barbaric acts of terror here at home. Today Muslim terrorists are using assault rifles and pipe bombs, but we know they have Sarin gas and other chemical weapons which they might use tomorrow. The terrorists inexorably arrive along with the other immigrants, no one in authority apparently knowing who’s who. Who, then, in his right mind does not think that Muslim immigration poses a serious security threat to us?

The outrage against Trump should properly have been directed at our president who refuses to identify the enemy as Islamic terrorism, who has opened the door to nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to the Islamic America-haters in Iran, whose policies have created the vacuums that ISIS has filled, and who even after Paris and San Bernardino is determined to bring 100,000 immigrants from Syrian war zones to our unprotected shores. This outrage is missing and it is precisely because it is missing that Trump’s unconstitutional proposal resonates with so many rightly concerned Americans. When the man in charge of our security is by general consensus out to lunch in regard to fighting the war on Islamic terror, or protecting us at home, a proposal like Trump’s, which at least recognizes the threat, is going to resonate with the public.

In middle of a crisis of national security, the Democratic Party seems to think that climate change and especially gun ownership are greater threats to our survival than the one that comes from hundreds of millions of Muslims who think America should be attacked and who believe the whole world should be put under medieval Islamic law. In the face of this threat, the Democratic Party and its leaders seem to have no problem with the fact that we have more than 350 “Sanctuary Cities” that are dedicated to sabotaging our immigration laws; that we have no southern border and as a result have 179,000 illegal alien criminals and who knows how many terrorists in our country today.

Once again we have Trump to thank for changing the surreal conversation about whether having a border at all is compatible with American values, and forcing people to focus on the dangers we face. Republicans are generally defenders of this country, but not in this controversy over Donald Trump. Would that they would use the same ridicule and outrage over the Democrats’ many betrayals of our country and its citizens through proposals to expose us to our enemies as they do over a proposal to protect us from them. Trump’s idea may be unconstitutional and unworkable, but it springs from a desire that is honorable and patriotic. The appropriate response would be to propose alternatives that recognize the same dangers and serve the same ends but do so within constitutional limits.

Donald Trump’s great contribution is saying the unsayable; putting things on the table that would otherwise be buried; calling a spade a spade in a time when political correctness has made us unable to discuss things that have to do with our basic national survival.  This is the crux of the issue.  Every time he creates a controversy like this he also tells this country that its emperors, Republican and Democrat, have no clothes. That they prefer propriety over defending the country.  That they are dedicated only to keeping the lid on a cauldron of threat and challenge they have allowed to boil over.

The 2016 election will be a referendum on the defense of this country and its survival. Let’s see who answers the call.

Western Civilization is Slipping Away

From Victor Davis Hanson, at National Review, "Is the West Slip, Slip, Slipping Away?":

Sometimes a culture disappears with a whimper, not a bang. Institutions age and are ignored, and the complacent public insidiously lowers its expectations of state performance.

Infrastructure, the rule of law, and civility erode — and yet people are not sure why and how their own changing (and pathological) individual behavior is leading to the collective deterioration that they deplore.

There is still a “West” in the sense of the physical entities of North America, Europe, many of the former British dominions, and parts of Westernized Asia. The infrastructure of our cities and states looks about as it did in the recent past. But is it the West as we once knew it — a unique civilization predicated on free expression, human rights, self-criticism, vibrant free markets, and the rule of law?

Or, instead, is the West reduced to a wealthy but unfree leisure zone, driven on autopilot by computerized affluence, technological determinism, and a growing equality-of-result, omnipotent state? Tens of thousands of migrants — reminiscent of the great southward and westward treks of Germanic tribes in the late fifth century, at the end of the Roman Empire — are overwhelming the borders of Europe. Such an influx should be a reminder that the West attracts people, while the non-West drives them out, and thus should spark inquiries about why that is so. But that discussion would be not only impolite, but beyond the comprehension of most present-day Westerners, who take for granted — though they cannot define, much less defend — their own institutions.

No one claims that such mass immigration into Europe is legal. No one wonders what happened to the fossilized idea of legal immigration, much less the legal immigrant who went through what has now been rendered the pretense of bureaucratic application for legal entry into Europe. Germany, which lectures others on law, is lawless. In theory, Westerners have the power to stop the mostly young males from the Middle East from swarming their borders, but in fact they apparently lack the will. Or is it worse than that?

Without confidence in their own values, much less pride in their accomplishments, are they assuaging the guilt over their privilege by symbolic acts of undermining the foundations of their own culture? Certainly, Germany, which insists on European Union laws of finance applying to its fellow European nation Greece, has no compunction about destroying, for its own particular purposes, the Union’s immigration statutes as they apply to Middle Easterners.

The same is true in the United States. Millions of foreign nationals from Latin America, and Mexico in particular, simply have crossed the border without even the pretense of legality. They assume Americans not only won’t enforce their own laws, but also will find ways to demonize any who suggest that they should. If there is now no such thing as an “illegal alien,” what in theory prevents anyone from arriving from anywhere at any time and making claims on the American state?

Again, the irony is not just that millions of Mexican nationals want into the U.S., but that, ostensibly, no one in Mexico or even the United States knows why that is so (certainly not the National Council of La Raza [“the Race”]) — much less wonders whether Mexico might learn from the U.S. about ways to make a nation’s own people become content enough to stay in their homeland. Only in the West does a migrant fault his host for insufficient hospitality while exempting his homeland, which drove him out.

Sanctuary cities illustrate how progressive doctrine can by itself nullify the rule of law. In the new West, breaking statutes is backed or ignored by the state if it is branded with race, class, or gender advocacy. By that I mean that if a solitary U.S. citizen seeks to leave and then reenter America without a passport, he will likely be either arrested or turned back, whereas if an illegal alien manages to cross our border, he is unlikely to be sent back as long as he has claims on victimhood of the type that are sanctioned by the Western liberal state.

Do we really enjoy free speech in the West any more? If you think we do, try to use vocabulary that is precise and not pejorative, but does not serve the current engine of social advocacy — terms such as “Islamic terrorist,” “illegal alien,” or “transvestite.” I doubt that a writer for a major newspaper or a politician could use those terms, which were common currency just four or five years ago, without incurring, privately or publicly, the sort of censure that we might associate with the thought police of the former Soviet Union...

Still more.

Poll: Sixty-Eight Percent of California Democrats Want Free Healthcare for Illegal Alien Criminals!

Well, here's some fodder for tonight's debate, from the home state electorate.

Migrant crisis? What migrant crisis? Democrats will take in everybody and give them luxury Cadillac health benefits on the public's dime. Must be nice to live in the left's Utopian never-never land, heh.

At the Los Angeles Times, "California voters sharply disagree on low-cost healthcare for immigrants":

California has adopted a series of laws in recent years to help people in the country illegally, and polls show broad support for a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 2 million such immigrants living in the state.

But it's a different story when it comes to providing them healthcare benefits.

California voters are sharply divided over whether free or low-cost health insurance should be granted to those who reside in the state without legal status, according to a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll.

The poll found that about 48% of voters believed that immigrants who live here illegally should be eligible to receive free or low-cost health insurance through Medi-Cal or a similar program. A statistically equal 47% said the group should not be eligible, while about 6% said they didn't know or refused to answer the question.

Backing for the benefit is split along ethnic lines, with 69% of Latino voters but only 39% of white voters responding that the group should be eligible. And it had an ideological cast as well: 68% of Democrats supported eligibility, yet only 19% of Republicans agreed.

Opposition was most passionate among supporters of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, 90% of whom opposed eligibility. Opposition among backers of other candidates ranked substantially lower.

Support has been growing for years among Californians for new immigration policies that would offer a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally. But Californians have remained somewhat conflicted, as the poll underscored, when it comes to offering costly services to those immigrants before they attain legal status.

Immigrant rights activists have pushed a proposal to provide state-funded healthcare for people who reside in California without legal status. They came close to succeeding this summer, but lawmakers scaled back the proposal after cost estimates ran into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Instead, legislators set aside $40 million in the most recent state budget to provide Medi-Cal coverage to children younger than 19 years old, regardless of legal status.

The responses might have been different if the question had focused on only children who are in the country illegally, said Drew Lieberman of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, a Democratic firm that conducted the poll with the Republican firm American Viewpoint...

Hey Dems, it's the land of milk and honey!

Free healthcare for the entire world! Come on people now, just flood our freakin' borders!

More.

Illegal Immigrants Lose ObamaCare Coverage

As well they should. At the Hill, "400,000 immigrants lose Obamacare coverage."

Those "400,000 immigrants" are mostly illegal immigrants, who were supposed to resolve their citizenship status within 95 days of the law's window taking effect, but the criminals obviously didn't want to come forward, and thus are being thrown off Obama's illegal alien healthcare dole.

The Political Establishment's Terrified by Donald Trump's 'Tangible American Nationalism'

I don't know if Noah Rothman's a neoconservative, despite his recent move over to Commentary Magazine, the bastion of neocon opinion and onetime home for writers such as Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, and Nathan Glazer, among others. Norman's son John is the current editor at the magazine.

Rothman started slamming Donald Trump earlier this summer, almost as soon as the frontrunner uttered his words about Mexican illegal alien criminals and rapists. And he's been on a campaign against Trump at the magazine ever since.


I'm reminded of all this by Mark Ellis's post at Pajamas, "Trump for Neocons."

It turns out that the Weekly Standard, the other major neoconservative opinion magazine, founded by William Kristol, is out with a new issue offering all kinds of coverage of the "Donald Trump Phenomenon," with much of it glowing. Even William Kristol acknowledges the tipping-point significance of the Trump campaign, even if he can't fully wrap his arms around it. See, "Up from Trumpism."

Ellis at Pajamas is impressed with the wall-to-wall Trump coverage at the new Weekly Standard, which includes an essay by Christopher Caldwell, "What’s the Deal with Trump?" But see the particularly good piece from Julius Krein, "Traitor to His Class":

Donald Trump is not a serious candidate. Donald Trump is not a serious man. The truth of these statements is supposed to be self-evident. But one begins to wonder, are they true?

Trump’s popularity, while beyond doubt, is treated not as a legitimate expression of popular will but as a mass psychosis to be diagnosed. It would seem to be the duty of every American pundit today to explain the inexplicable and problematic rise of Donald Trump. The critical question, however, is not the source of Trump’s popularity but rather the reason his popularity is so shocking to our political culture. Perhaps Trump’s candidacy threatens a larger consensus that governs our political and social life, and perhaps his popularity signifies a profound challenge to elite opinion.

Why is Donald Trump so popular? Explanations range from mere celebrity, to his adoption of extreme positions to capture the most ideologically intense voters, to his explosive rhetoric. These explanations are not entirely wrong, but neither are they entirely right.

To begin with, his positions, as Josh Barro has written in the New York Times, are rather moderate. As Barro points out, Trump is willing to contemplate tax increases to achieve spending cuts. He supports some exceptions to abortion bans and has gone so far as to defend funding Planned Parenthood. He has called for protective tariffs, a position heretical for Republicans, who are typically free traders. Although opposed to Obamacare, he has asserted that single-payer health care works in other countries. Even on the issue of immigration, despite his frequently strident rhetoric, his positions are neither unique—securing the border with some kind of wall is a fairly standard Republican plank by now—nor especially rigid.

With respect to his rhetoric, whether one characterizes his delivery as candid or rude, it is hard to ascribe his popularity to colorful invective alone. Chris Christie, who never misses an opportunity to harangue an opponent, languishes near the bottom of the polls. Or ask Rick Santorum, as well as Mitt “47 percent” Romney, whether outrageous comments offer an infallible way to win friends and influence voters. Trump’s outré style, like his celebrity, helps him gain attention but just as certainly fails to explain his frontrunner status.

Most candidates seek to define themselves by their policies and platforms. What differentiates Trump is not what he says, or how he says it, but why he says it. The unifying thread running through his seemingly incoherent policies, what defines him as a candidate and forms the essence of his appeal, is that he seeks to speak for America. He speaks, that is, not for America as an abstraction but for real, living Americans and for their interests as distinct from those of people in other places. He does not apologize for having interests as an American, and he does not apologize for demanding that the American government vigorously prosecute those interests.

What Trump offers is permission to conceive of an American interest as a national interest separate from the “international community” and permission to wish to see that interest triumph. What makes him popular on immigration is not how extreme his policies are, but the emphasis he puts on the interests of Americans rather than everyone else. His slogan is “Make America Great Again,” and he is not ashamed of the fact that this means making it better than other places, perhaps even at their expense.

His least practical suggestion—making Mexico pay for the border wall—is precisely the most significant: It shows that a President Trump would be willing to take something from someone else in order to give it to the American people. Whether he could achieve this is of secondary importance; the fact that he is willing to say it is everything. Nothing is more terrifying to the business and donor class—as well as the media and the entire elite—than Trump’s embrace of a tangible American nationalism. The fact that Trump should by all rights be a member of this class and is in fact a traitor to it makes him all the more attractive to his supporters and all the more baffling to pundits...

Still more.

And note one more thing about the Bill Kristol piece cited above: He admits that Trump could end up being a flash-in-the-pan, and he notes, "His fall may be sudden or protracted, complete or partial. Conceivably he won’t fall at all."

Washington State Professors Will Punish Students Who Use the Wrong Words

At the Lonely Conservative.

And following the links, at Campus Reform, "Professors threaten bad grades for saying ‘illegal alien,’ ‘male,’ ‘female’."