Wednesday, November 7, 2018



Those pesky verses of abrogation that just won’t go away.

I have lived and worked in the Muslim Middle East for the past thirty-five years, and have many dear friends who are Muslims. Most recently, I prayed with a 38-year old Muslim man in the ruins of his house in the old city of Mosul, as he told me his story of surviving the ISIS occupation.
I stumbled upon Azam Nejim Abdallah by accident, while inspecting the devastation wrought upon the magnificent 4th and 5th century churches of West Mosul with an Iraqi police brigadier general and activists from the Hammurabi Human Rights Organization, a local group dedicated to protecting Iraqi minorities.
Azam and an older neighbor, Abu Ibrahim Mohsen, were among the hardy few who had returned to the ruins and were attempting to rebuild. Their problem on this particular day was that they had no water, and no electricity. “People just three blocks down the street have water,” they complained to the brigadier general. Why not us?”
To us, the answer was obvious. The fact that Azam and his neighbors were alive was nothing short of miraculous. One neighbor’s house was just a pile of rubble. Bomb squads were still combing through the neighborhood, more than a year after the liberation, for ISIS booby-traps and unexploded ordinance. There was not a single house left standing in the neighborhood. Water? Electricity? Really?
When Azam saw me, he wanted to tell me the story of how his four-year son and father were killed in the final days of the ISIS occupation. He kept pointing to an alleyway, and in the end, I let him take me by the hand to his house a bit further away. He had already started to rebuild the walls, but that wasn’t what he wanted to show me: it was a picture of his four-year old son, Omar, and the jagged hole a coalition bomb had torn through a metal door. “I was crouching, right there,” he pointed. “Omar was crouching here, with my father. They were both killed,” he wept. All I could do as he showed me a photograph of his son was to pray with him.
I am reminded of this story by an encounter with a pastor in an Anglican church in Europe recently, who commented that ISIS and all their barbarity were “such a distortion of true Islam.”
I must have raised an eyebrow, for he went on: “You know, the Koran says to protect the People of the Book.”
“Those are the Meccan verses,” I countered. “In Medina, Mohammad preached violence and conquest.”
“You must read the Koran in its entirety,” he said. “It’s like the Bible: you can’t just take things out of context.”
I was floored by that statement, and not wanting to get into an argument in Church, I left it there. So instead, I am writing this column.
As anyone knows who has actually studied Islam – Islam itself, not the version purveyed by the apologists of the “religion of peace” – Mohammad changed his tune after the hijira or migration from Mecca to Medina.
While in Mecca, he attempted to win over local Christians and Jews, and so preached a doctrine that allowed for a modicum of tolerance, even while relegating the People of the Book to second-class citizen status, or dhimmitude.
But once in Medina, where he built a powerful army, he jettisoned that baggage and verbalized the famous Verse of the Sword proclaimed by ISIS and millions of Muslim warriors over the past fourteen centuries as they slaughtered unbelievers.
He also pronounced the Verses of Abrogation, which explicitly annulled the Mecca verses of relative tolerance. My Anglican friend was either ignorant of the doctrine of Abrogation, or for some reason felt that he, as a Christian, was somehow a better judge of its relative merit than the unanimous verdict of fourteen hundred years of Islamic scholarship, which has always upheld abrogation.
In other words, Islam as a religion explicitly rejects tolerance of others. The Koranic verses proclaiming relative tolerance have been declared null and void by Allah himself, according to Mohammad and 14 centuries of Muslim scholars.
My Anglican friend clearly preferred the illusion of Islam, rather than its harsh and often barbaric reality, the one I had witnessed in Mosul and the Nineveh Plain.
The overwhelming majority of ordinary Muslims I have met have little notion of what the Koran actually says. It is, frankly, an unreadable book. Much of it makes no sense at all. Some contemporary scholars believe this is because it was actually written in Syro-Aramaic, the common language of the time.
So most Muslims believe what their imam tells them to believe, or if they are not practicing, whatever their parents and grandparents have handed down to them. And for the most part, that is a religious code based on what we would call family values, aimed at keeping societies that are 100 percent Muslim from crime and disorder.
Over the centuries, these Muslims have coexisted with Christian and Jewish neighbors because those neighbors brought them prosperity and innovation, something the imams did not. From time to time, roused by Islamic “radicals,” these peaceful Muslims rose up and slaughtered their neighbors. In the most famous of these pogroms, Muslims slaughtered nearly half the Assyrian, Greek, and Armenian Christians in Iran, Iraq, and Turkey during the final years of WWI, just one hundred years ago.
In my experience, there are three broad categories of self-aware Muslims in the world today, all of whom understand the Doctrine of Abrogation.
There are the Reformers, who dare to proclaim that Islam must be better than violence and the sword. These are brave or foolhardy people, most of them men. They have a better chance of surviving in the Shiite world, which has a long tradition of ijtihad – Islamic jurisprudence or interpretation – something that died among the Sunna in the 12th century, if indeed it had ever existed as more than an afterthought.
Then there are the Seducers, the public intellectuals and politicians who proclaim that Islam is a religion of peace and that anyone who says the contrary is committing blasphemy. These are powerful people, who have won much support from wishful thinkers in the West.
The wishful thinkers have so thoroughly bought into their denials of the Doctrine of Abrogation that it has now become illegal in Europe to even write about it, something the United Nations General Assembly has not managed to accomplish, despite the best efforts of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to support Resolution 1618.
Finally, there is the Muslim Brotherhood and its evil Salifist spawn, from al Qaeda and the Taliban to Hamas, ISIS, and beyond. They simply point to the Book, shout out “Koran says,” and eagerly behead Christians or Muslims who refuse to adopt their version of Sharia law, which happens to be drawn from authentic Islamic texts and 1400 years of unanimous Muslim scholarship.
Want to know the true face of Islam? Ask the Christians of Mosul and the Nineveh Plain. Or the Christians of Syria. Or the Muslims whose better nature rejected the barbarity of ISIS and who paid for their humanity with their lives.
Or ask Tara Fares, the former Miss Baghdad, who was gunned down last month in Iraq because she was a Christian who dared show her face in an outdoor market.
To my Anglican pastor friend, I say: wishful thinking will only get you dead. If not in this generation, then in the next.


The twisted world of the media’s go-to Muslim darling - and ex-terrorist self-promoter.

The media’s go-to Muslim darling and ex-terrorist self-promoter, Maajid Nawaz, is currently having a Twitter spat with Lily Allen (that virtuous pop singer who has promised and failed to give a room to even one single asylum seeker in any of her several properties, in spite of breaking down in tears on TV at Calais and apologizing to the world on behalf of the UK).
Maajid is using the usual buzzwords that keep the cash flowing in his direction: “the regressive left,” “Muslim fundamentalists,” and then he ends their debate by stating that Lily is discrediting the work of the three million British Pakistanis who are trying to address and improve the situation of the over-representation of Pakistanis in grooming gangs in the UK. In reality, however, the entire Pakistani community knew, and still knows, about the rape of white British girls. They are a close-knit community. They would have seen gangs of girls hanging around kebab shops. At no point did anyone try on-street intervention. They would have heard their friends bragging about who and how many non-Muslim girls they had raped last night. They would have heard about the rape parties where non-Muslim girls were drugged and passed around the men to be raped. The wives, too, would have heard these conversations on the telephone, in the next room, or in the shops where their husbands work. The taxi drivers who shuttled the non-Muslims girls back and forth to houses and hotels to be raped were also aware of what was going on.
Contrary to Maajid’s claims, none of these three million Pakistani Muslims chose to speak up. A handful of Ahmadiyyas protested on the streets, and the UK media were in a frenzy to let us know that Muslims oppose violence and rape. The media, as usual, neglected to note that Ahmadiyyas are not considered by mainstream Sunni Muslims to be real Muslims. They are considered apostates, who have every chance of being beaten and killed, just the same as any other non-Muslim does. Literature in the Muslim Council of Britain and Kennington mosque declare this sect to be apostates, and essentially fair game.
I remember a radio conversation in which a Muslima was being interviewed and she said that the entire Pakistani communities knew and still know what is going on. She was so sickened and appalled by what her community was doing to non-Muslim girls that she took her infant child and fled, for her safety, and in order that she could speak about it, from the South to the North of England. What a brave soul. A single mother, on her own, running into poverty and uncertainty in order that she could do one single radio interview.
Where are these three million Pakistanis Maajid is talking about? I’m seeing a handful on the TV who all exhibit the same tendency of bringing Jimmy Savile’s name into the conversation that they’re having about solving the Pakistani grooming gang problem. They’re not solving the problem so much as trying to shift the attention away from it. Jimmy Savile is a different problem to be solved. And we will solve it, and we won’t be called racist for doing so. We can’t solve all problems at once, and yet if we focus on Islamic rape gangs we’re racist and using the issue as a political tool. The same thing wasn’t said when the focus was on the Catholic Church. No one hesitated in attempting to get to the bottom and root cause of the pandemic of pedophile priests. Muslims tend to enjoy special status in relation to rape and grooming. If you talk about their behaviour, you’re a racist. Forget the lifetime trauma that the raped girls will never get over. Forget the ruined lives so that a bunch of animals could have five minutes of pleasure. Forget the suicide and drug addiction rates we will be seeing in later years as a result of Maajid’s community’s behaviour.
The other thing to note is that Maajid insists, with his spat on Twitter with Lily Allen (who apparently hasn’t yet been shamed enough to know when to keep her mouth shut), that he himself is a British Pakistani. Now how can this be? Unless you’re brought over to Britain after your formative years in Pakistan where you have been steeped in a cultural tradition, how can you be both things at once? Your roots might lie in Pakistan or Ireland, but if you’re brought up in the UK, then you are British – end of story. Maajid slips up at the end of their Twitter spat. He forgets to call himself a “Brit-Pakistani,” and he calls himself a “Pakistani” instead. Very Freudian.


And the rot is deeper than you think.

The ruthless passions of the political left, which have been on full display in the campaign not just to defeat a Supreme Court justice nomination, but to destroy the nominee and his family, are inspired by an ideology that is racist, sexist, anti-Christian, and fundamentally anti-American. Just how powerful and entrenched this ideology is can be gauged by the following headline on the ABC News website: “Us white male Christians need to step back and give others room to lead.” The headline is explained in the article’s opening sentence: “In the great span of world history, nearly all change and progress has come from an under-served and out-of-power group pushing, prodding, and pounding on those who hold power to expand it to include a wider and more diverse population."
This is pure leftist claptrap. There is not a shred of historical evidence to support it. The greatest progress of the last 250 years, beginning in 1776 and 1789, has been the creation of liberal societies that support the principles of individual liberty and equality, and tolerance. In the case of England and America the supporters of these principles led the world in ending slavery, which is still practiced in Africa today. This progress was entirely the work of white Christian males, who were under no pressure from diverse, under-served and out of power groups. But what is truly striking about these false claims and their racist, sexist and anti-Christian prescription is that they are the words not of some fringe leftist, but of Matthew Dowd, a prominent Republican, who was the chief strategist for the 2004 Bush-Cheney presidential campaign.
Every American should be concerned that an ideology so antithetic to everything this country has stood for should now be the conventional wisdom of half the country (including all the persecutors of Judge Kavanaugh). The U.S. Constitution does not contain the words “white,” “black,” “male” or “female,” precisely because the Founders believed they were creating a society in which true equality would one day prevail. It took nearly two hundred years to bring about the social changes that would realize that dream.
For the last fifty years, however, the left and the Democratic Party have been working hard to turn back the clock and reverse these gains - to introduce racial and gender categories and quotas into virtually every aspect of social life, to portray white Americans as guilty before the fact, and non-white Americans as innocent even when the facts show they are not. The progressive goal is totalitarian in nature: to erase individuals, their achievements and failures and every aspect of the circumstances in which they find themselves, in order to judge them on the basis of their skin color, their gender and their sexual orientation.
Hatred for whites, males and Christians – falsely portrayed as “privileged” and “oppressors” and thus condemned on the basis of characteristics they were born with - is now the principal curriculum of our schools, starting as early as kindergarten and extending through graduate education. Under the leftist mantra of “social justice,” American society is falsely portrayed as a system of racial, gender and sexual hierarchies. As in Matthew Dowd’s article, the remedy proposed is to reverse the oppression. In other words, to indict, silence, and repress whites, males, heterosexuals and Christians as part of a scheme to establish the vaguely defined utopia of “social justice.” (Can anyone seriously believe that the lynch mob out to destroy Brett Kavanaugh, is capable of even understanding the concept of “justice,” let alone establishing a society committed to it?)
The ideology which now inspires the progressive left, and never Trumpers like Matthew Dowd, is called “identity politics” – a name that should be anathema to every American who cherishes our country’s commitment to individual freedom - to judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin or their gender or their sexual orientation. “Identity politics” is a euphemism for cultural Marxism, which takes Marx’s claim that societies are divided into oppressor and oppressed classes and imposes this dangerous and historically refuted claim onto races, genders and sexual orientations. Americans need to reject this destructive ideology as completely as they rejected its forerunner in the Communist movements of the past.

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL - A.G. SESSION'S EXIT IS A BREAK THE GLASS MOMENT' - What is the shady Swamp Keeper hiding this time?

Richard Blumenthal: AG Sessions’s Exit Is a ‘Break the Glass Moment’

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 26: Senate Armed Services Committee member Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) talks to reporters following a closed-door briefing at the U.S. Capitol October 26, 2017 in Washington, DC. Members of the committee were given a classified briefing from Pentagon officials about the circumstances surrounding an October battle …
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said Wednesday that the resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions represents a “break the glass moment.”

This is a break the glass moment. Replacing the Attorney General with a non-Senate-confirmed political staffer is highly irregular & unacceptable,” tweeted Blumenthal. “Protecting the Special Counsel investigation is more urgent than ever.”

This is a break the glass moment. Replacing the Attorney General with a non-Senate-confirmed political staffer is highly irregular & unacceptable. Protecting the Special Counsel investigation is more urgent than ever.

Earlier, President Donald Trump requested Attorney General Jeff Sessions resign as the country’s chief law enforcement officer. Trump announced in a tweet that he was naming Sessions’ chief of staff Matthew Whitaker, a former United States attorney from Iowa, as acting attorney general. Whitaker has previously criticized special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into potential Russian interference in the 2016 election.

We are pleased to announce that Matthew G. Whitaker, Chief of Staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions at the Department of Justice, will become our new Acting Attorney General of the United States. He will serve our Country well....
....We thank Attorney General Jeff Sessions for his service, and wish him well! A permanent replacement will be nominated at a later date.

Asked whether Whitaker would assume control over Mueller’s investigation, Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Flores said Whitaker would be “in charge of all matters under the purview of the Department of Justice.” The Justice Department did not announce a departure for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller more than a year and a half ago and has closely overseen his work since then.
Sessions told the president in a one-page letter that he was submitting his resignation “at your request.”

Whitaker once opined about a situation in which Trump could fire Sessions and then appoint an acting attorney general who could stifle the funding of Mueller’s probe.
“So I could see a scenario where Jeff Sessions is replaced with a recess appointment and that attorney general doesn’t fire Bob Mueller, but he just reduces his budget to so low that his investigation grinds to almost a halt,” Whitaker said during an interview with CNN in July 2017.
In an op-ed published via CNN, Whitaker wrote: “Mueller has come up to a red line in the Russia 2016 election-meddling investigation that he is dangerously close to crossing.”
This is not the first time Blumenthal has said the president firing Justice Department officials overseeing the Mueller probe would signify a “break the glass” moment. The Connecticut Democrat told Yale Law School in September that Rosenstein’s removal from the investigation would represent such circumstances.
The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Tijuana Sees 36 Murders in One Week, 2,124 in 2018

AP File Photo Guillermo Arias
The cartel violence in Tijuana continues with at least 36 murders registered in the first week of November, bringing the unofficial total to 2,124 for 2018.

The cartel killings are related to the street level distribution of drugs, despite numerous measures taken by the federal government to intervene, according to local reporting and law enforcement sources.
On Monday, November 5, a male victim was gunned down while his female companion was critically wounded. An unknown male also sustained gunshot wounds in colonia Ermita, according to local reports.
On the morning of November 6, a male victim was found stabbed to death inside his residence in colonia Guaycura. At 6:17 am, in colonia Anexa Sánchez Taboada, municipal police located two male murder victims in the street who sustained multiple gunshot wounds. Police later reported that at approximately 3:40 pm, a suitcase was found containing dismembered human remains in colonia 20 de Noviembre. At approximately 8 pm, a male victim was found shot to death in colonia Mariano Matamoros Centro.
Breitbart News reported extensively on the cartel violence in Tijuana and recently notedwhen local Deputy Attorney General Jorge Alberto Álvarez Mendoza acknowledged that only two percent of murder cases end in convictions.
Breitbart News spoke with local law enforcement contacts who said that the main factor for cartel violence is the low risk of apprehension. Most experts grant that a very small number of criminals are responsible for the overwhelming majority of violent cases. Cartel killers are more likely to be stopped by rival factions than law enforcement.
In a recent development, the state attorney general’s office announced the arrest of a cartel hitman responsible for the murders of at least nine in Tijuana. Manuel Coria Rosas aka “El Coria” or “El Meño,” 56, allegedly murdered nine victims in three separate attacks. Rosas was named in three homicide arrest warrants–the first on December 3, 2017, where one male was gunned down in colonia Las Torres. The second occurred on May 12, 2018, in colonia Magisterial where five were gunned down. The third warrant was for a triple murder on August 30. Rosas was handed over to investigative personnel for the state attorney general’s office.
Robert Arce is a retired Phoenix Police detective with extensive experience working Mexican organized crime and street gangs. Arce has worked in the Balkans, Iraq, Haiti, and recently completed a three-year assignment in Monterrey, Mexico, working out of the Consulate for the United States Department of State, International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Program, where he was the Regional Program Manager for Northeast Mexico (Coahuila, Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Durango, San Luis Potosi, Zacatecas.)

Most media reports suggest a DACA deal would naturalize 

700,000 children of illegal migrants. But the no-strings 

amnesty pushed by Democrats could reach over 3 million 

migrants and allow several million of additional chain 

migrants. Trump’s “Four Pillars” reforms would shrink 

chain-migration and reduce the taxpayers’ huge cost of 

absorbing the DACA population or mostly unskilled 


Jeff Sessions Resigns as Attorney General

Attorney General Jeff Sessions walks past President Donald Trump after introducing him to speak at the Public Safety Medal of Valor awards ceremony in the East Room of the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2018, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
AP Photo/Evan Vucci

President Donald Trump announced Attorney General Jeff Sessions is leaving his administration just moments after holding a press conference with reporters at the White House Wednesday afternoon.

“We thank Attorney General Jeff Sessions for his service, and wish him well!” Trump wrote on Twitter.
Sessions submitted his resignation to the president which he accepted. Trump said that Matthew G. Whitaker, the Chief of Staff for Sessions, would serve as Acting Attorney General in his place.
“A permanent replacement will be nominated at a later date,” he said.
A copy of Sessions’ resignation letter said the move was “at your [Trump’s] request.”
Sessions wrote in his resignation letter to Trump that he was submitting it “at your request.”
“I have been honored to serve as Attorney General and have worked to implement the law enforcement agenda based on the rule of law that formed a central part of your campaign for the presidency,” he wrote.
Trump declined to answer questions about Sessions during his press conference earlier Wednesday afternoon.
Sessions was long rumored to leave the administration as attorney general after the midterm elections and the president moved quickly to replace him.
A Department of Justice spokesperson confirmed to Breitbart News that Whitaker would reassert control of the Mueller Russia investigation, which was under the purvue of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein after Sessions recused himself in March 2017.
That decision angered Trump, remaining a festering frustration for the president, especially since Sessions did not inform him prior to the announcement.

Donald Trump Hints at DHS Funding Shutdown, DACA Deal

Border wall
The Associated Press

President Donald Trump suggested he may allow a partial budget shutdown in Congress’ lame-duck session if he does not get funding for a border wall.

“So no shutdown scenario for the lame duck?” asked a journalist in the post-election press conference in the White House.
“No, I can’t commit to [preventing a budget shutdown], but it is possible,” Trump responded.
The shutdown might occur if the two parties cannot merge their rival bills for funding the Department of Homeland Security. The Senate appropriations bill includes $1.6 billion for fence construction in 2019. The House bill includes $5 billion for wall construction but packages it with a series of bills to provide business groups with additional cheap visa-workers.
However, a DHS shutdown would have a minor civic impact. Border enforcement would continue because it is a national security task, and the agency’s award of green cards and work permits would continue because those operations are funded by fees from recipients.
Also, Trump has repeatedly said in recent weeks that he will get $1.6 billion for the border fence in 2019. Those statements suggest he is willing to accept the Senate’s funding, presumably without the House’s package of $5 billion plus the extra visa-workers.
Trump said:
Many Democrats know we need the wall, And we’re just going to have to see what happens. We’ll be fighting for it … I got the military $700 billion and $716 billion [for 2018 and 2019], the wall is a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost of that, but the [Democrats’] whole agenda has been to try not giving me anything for the wall. I really believe, politically, they are hurting themselves. I actually think, politically, that is a good thing for me, but I want to get the wall up because we need [it].
Trump also suggested he would be willing to negotiate a deal over President Barack Obama’s DACA amnesty once the Supreme Court allows him to end the program. In 2018, “we could have done some pretty good work on DACA, but a judge ruled that DACA was OK,” he said, adding:
Had a judge not ruled that way, I think we would have made a deal. Once the judge ruled that way, the Democrats did not want to talk any more. So we’ll see how it works out at the Supreme Court.
The president’s comments came two days after the Department of Justice asked the court to overrule lower-court decisions that would bar the president from ending Obama’s DACA decision to end enforcement of immigration law against foreign migrants who were brought into the United States as children.
Breitbart News asked if Trump would use his executive authority over the agencies to push his immigration agenda in the face of Democratic opposition. Trump replied:
Some of it I can use executive power, not all. [President Obama] used it on DACA, and when he did it he said something to the effect that ‘I’m not allowed to do this, it will never hold up, but I’m doing it anyway.’ And he did it and they found judges that approved it.
They also found judges that didn’t approve it, so it is obviously going to be determined in the Supreme Court. If the court rules in favor of what President Obama thinks they should rule – which is what he said — then I will probably have a deal with the Democrats in a very short period of time. We were very close to having a deal until we got that very strange ruling.
Most media reports suggest a DACA deal would naturalize 700,000 children of illegal migrants. But the no-strings amnesty pushed by Democrats could reach over 3 million migrants and allow several million of additional chain migrants. Trump’s “Four Pillars” reforms would shrink chain-migration and reduce the taxpayers’ huge cost of absorbing the DACA population or mostly unskilled migrants.

Most media reports suggest a DACA deal would naturalize 700,000 children of illegal migrants. But the no-strings amnesty pushed by Democrats could reach over 3 million migrants and allow several million of additional chain migrants. Trump’s “Four Pillars” reforms would shrink chain-migration and reduce the taxpayers’ huge cost of absorbing the DACA population or mostly unskilled migrants.

Mitt Romney Elected to US Senate in Utah

November 6, 2018 Updated: November 7, 2018

Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney won a seat in the U.S. Senate for Utah, according to The Associated Press and NBC News projections.
Romney, a Republican, was also a former governor of Massachusetts. He defeated Democrat Jenny Wilson in the Senate race.
He will replace longtime Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, who earlier this year said he would not seek another term in the Senate.

BOSTON, MA - NOVEMBER 07: Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, speaks at the podium as he concedes the presidency during Mitt Romney's campaign election night event at the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center on November 7, 2012 in Boston, Massachusetts. After voters went to the polls in the heavily contested presidential race, networks projected incumbent U.S. President Barack Obama has won re-election against Republican candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
The 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Romney, who is from Michigan, has deep ties to Utah. He was credited with getting Salt Lake City the 2002 Winter Olympics.
“First of all, anyone who was the presidential nominee of their party is going to have an outsized role as a United States senator,” Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institution told The New York Post.
“Every candidate in Utah is walking a line where they’re saying, ‘I will support the president on the policies that I agree with and I will oppose him on the others.’ That is how Mitt Romney has approached this entire campaign,” Jason Perry, the director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah, told the Post.
In 2008, Romney ran for president and lost the GOP nomination to John McCain. In 2012, he lost the general election to former President Barack Obama.

Watch–Pat Buchanan: Birthright Citizenship Allowing Illegal Aliens to Increase U.S. Population


Populist conservative author and columnist Pat Buchanan says birthright citizenship in the United States gives illegal aliens the ability to increase the country’s population every year.

Last week, President Trump announced that he is readying an executive order to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. The unilateral move would carry the U.S. into the future on the issue, putting the nation more in line with similar Western countries.
Birthright citizenship in the U.S. gives immediate citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, who are often referred to as “anchor babies” as they anchor their illegal alien and noncitizen parents in the U.S. There are at least 4.5 million anchor babies in the U.S. with nearly 300,000 anchor babies born every year.
During a segment on The McLaughlin Group, Buchanan said the birthright citizenship policy allows illegal aliens to increase the U.S. population which is set to reach an unprecedented 404 million by 2060 if legal immigration levels are not reduced.
“What they’re saying is, look people come into this country, birthright tourism, fly in, have their baby here, and go back home and they say ‘I’ve created an American citizen,'” Buchanan said of birthright citizenship.
“You’ve got all these benefits and things that American citizens rightly have and we voted and they can come in and increase the population illegally by 250,000 a year,” Buchanan said.
The latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau marks a nearly 108-year record high of immigration to the country. In 2017, the foreign-born population boomed to 13.7 percent, encompassing 44.5 million immigrants. The last great wave of immigration to the U.S. was followed by a near immigration moratorium.
Recent research by NumbersUSA reveals that should current legal immigration levels continue — where the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million foreign nationals every year — the country’s population will double what it was in 1970.
The NumbersUSA research notes that the quality of life in America, with an additional 75 million residents living in the U.S. will be greatly reduced. Such a drastic population increase is likely to increase highway traffic, increase housing prices, increase the density of communities, and destroy large regions of farmland that will need to be inhabited to house the booming population.
The Supreme Court, however, has never explicitly ruled that the children of illegal aliens must be granted automatic citizenship and many legal scholars dispute the idea. The total anchor baby population exceeds the annual roughly 4 million American babies born every year.
Many leading conservative scholars argue the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide mandatory birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens or noncitizens, as these children are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction as that language was understood when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.


“Through love of having children we're going to take over."  Augustin Cebada, Information Minister of Brown Berets, militant para-military soldiers of Aztlan shouting at U.S. citizens at an Independence Day rally in Los Angeles, 7/4/96


“The children of illegal aliens are commonly known as “anchor babies,” as they anchor their illegal alien and noncitizen parents in the U.S. There are at least 4.5 million anchor babies in the country, a population that exceeds the total number of annual American births.”   JOHN BINDER

“As Breitbart News recently reported, there are more anchor baby births in the Los Angeles, California metro area than the total U.S. births in 14 states and the District of Colombia. Every year, American taxpayers are billed about $2.4 billion to pay for the births of illegal aliens.” JOHN BINDER


‘Unbridled Immigration, Legal and Illegal, Is Taking the Country Down’


“Through love of having children we're going to take over."  Augustin Cebada, Information Minister of Brown Berets, militant para-military soldiers of Aztlan shouting at U.S. citizens at an Independence Day rally in Los Angeles, 7/4/96


This annual income for an impoverished American family is $10,000 less than the more than $34,500 in federal funds which are spent on each unaccompanied minor border crosser.

study by Tom Wong of the University of California at San Diego discovered that more than 25 percent of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens in the program have anchor babies. That totals about 200,000 anchor babies who are the children of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens. This does not include the anchor babies of DACA-qualified illegal aliens. JOHN BINDER


BLOG: The actual number of illegals in California is estimated to be nearly 15 million. Now do the math.

Californians bear an enormous fiscal burden as a result of an illegal alien population estimated at almost 3 million residents.

The annual expenditure of state and local tax dollars on services for that population is $25.3 billion. That total amounts to a yearly burden of about $2,370 for a household headed by a U.S. citizen.

THE INVASION OF AMERICA: Staggering violent crime, staggering welfare and they vote Democrat for more!

“Part of the problem, Santorum said, has been the arrival of millions of unskilled immigrants — legal and illegal — in the United States. "American workers deserve a shot at [good] jobs," Santorum said. "Over the last 20 years, we have brought into this country, legally and illegally, 35 MILLION mostly unskilled workers. And the result, over that same period of time, workers' wages and family incomes have flatlined." SEN. RICK SANTORUM

How Many Illegal Immigrants Have Been Deported in Your County?

This Map Has the Answer.



What will America stand for in 2050?

The US should think long and hard about the high number of Latino immigrants.

By Lawrence Harrison

It's not just a short-run issue of immigrants competing with citizens for jobs as unemployment approaches 10 percent or the number of uninsured straining the quality of healthcare. Heavy immigration from Latin America threatens our cohesiveness as a nation.


By Tom Barrett 
At the current rate of invasion (mostly through Mexico, but also through Canada) the United States will be completely over run with illegal aliens by the year 2025. I’m not talking about legal immigrants who follow US law to become citizens. In less than 20 years, if we do not stop the invasion, ILLEGAL aliens and their offspring will be the dominant population in the United States.

Democrats care about illegal aliens, not you

A buddy shared a heart-wrenching story with me during dinner.  His mom was killed Christmas Eve by a drunk-driving illegal alien.  The illegal had been caught four times driving drunk by police, never deported.  My buddy is number nine of his amazing mom's thirteen kids.  She was old-school Italian, waking up 3 A.M. five days a week to bake fresh bread and prepare meals for their family.  Dad cooked on weekends.
Christmas Eve 2002, she decided to make a quick run to the store for a few ingredients she needed to bake pies.  You can imagine the devastating horror their family felt upon being notified by police that their mother had been killed.
The illegal alien drunk driver received seven years and served only three and a half.  Two of my buddy's brothers attended the illegal alien's parole hearing to keep him behind bars, to no avail.  The multiple-offender illegal alien drunk driver was set free to roam the streets of America, not deported.
As I watched my buddy struggle to maintain his composure, my heart went out to him.  I thought, "Why are all of mainstream media's and Democrats' compassion and sympathy always given to illegals and nothing for Americans?"
While strolling with her dad on a San Francisco pier, 32-year-old Kate Steinle was shot and killed by an illegal alien.  Kate's killer had a long criminal record.  The sanctuary city repeatedly welcomed back the illegal, deported five times and a seven times convicted felon, with open arms.  A liberal San Francisco jury found Kate's killer not guilty.  President Trump said their verdict was disgraceful.  Kate's dad recalls her last words as he held her in his arms: "help me, Dad." 
San Francisco politicians, mainstream media, and Democrats celebrated the leftist jury's outrageous not guilty verdict.  These leftists did not express an ounce of sympathy for American citizen Kate Steinle and her family.
Sixteen-year-old Kayla Cuevas was brutally murdered by MS-13 gang members who illegally invade our country.  Did Democrat Nancy Pelosi express an ounce of sympathy for Kayla's mom, Evelyn Rodriguez?  No.  Pelosi angrily attackedTrump for calling MS-13 gang members animals.  No compassion or sympathy for Americans.
Folks, I could fill this article with incidences in which American lives have been devastated by illegal repeat criminals and illegal gangs coddled by Democrats who run sanctuary cities.
Democrat California governor Jerry Brown actually signed a bill making California a "sanctuary state."  Brown's bill says his state will not cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement, putting American lives at risk.  Why is Brown gifting illegals rights while denying the rights of his American constituents?  While Californians struggle to find housing, Brown is assisting illegals with housing.  Illegals in California receive college tuition and numerous other benefits unavailable to legal citizens. 
So why are mainstream media and Democrats obsessed with opening our borders for the free flow of illegals and getting them addicted to government freebies?  One reason is that we have allowed old hippies to indoctrinate our kids in public schools for decades.  This has created a generation that believes that America is the greatest source of evil in the world, founded by white straight Christian men who stole everything from the rest of the world.  Our youths believe that it is morally unjust for America to have borders.  We must share what we stole.
Insidiously, the second reason why Democrats desire to flood the country with illegals is to gain political power.  Immigrants have contributed greatly to our culture.  The vast majority of illegals are unskilled workers easily seduced by Democrat politicians who promise to take care of them.  Democrats will do to illegals what they have done to blacks for decades: give them just enough to keep them poor, on welfare, and faithfully voting for Democrats.
This is why mainstream media and Democrats pretend to have all the compassion and sympathy in the world for illegals while ignoring the dire consequence coddling illegals has on the lives of Americans.
Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Help Lloyd spread the Truth:

WEST HOLLYWOOD WELCOME MAT FOR ILLEGALS… Not a single employer of illegals ever prosecuted in this LA RAZA SANCTUARY CITY where they print voting ballots in Spanish so illegals can vote for more!

The Democrats' Leadership Crisis

As we approach the midterm elections, the "leaders" of the Democratic Party sign on to a variety of hard-left proposals, including "Medicare for All."  The fact that many of the proposals are brutally expensive and would lead us into a brave new Venezuela seem completely lost in the woods.  One must also wonder at the ludicrous speed at which previously "rational" Democrats have swung from working across the aisle to become feet-in-stone resisters.  What is the source of the rage that turned mere humans into Green Hulks?
One might look at the occupants of senatorial and congressional seats for the answer.  After all, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer are all members of "congressional leadership."  With varying degrees of extremism and volume, they all espouse pretty much the same rhetorical territory staked out by Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and the oblivious (to facts and history) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
We should have Medicare for All and a "living wage," regardless of work skills or industriousness, and we should relegate the police and prisons to the dustbin of the history of "justice."  Only Florida gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum has gone that far to date, and the Pittsburgh massacre has led to that rhetoric being momentarily shelved.
To say these proposals are scary to Republicans would be an understatement.  As Peggy Noonan notes regarding the Kavanaugh cabaret, Republican senators are "amazed" and "terrified" that “seemingly, and without very much thought, nearly half the United States Senate has abandoned the presumption of innocence in this country, all to achieve a political goal.”
This isn't happening in a vacuum.
To any thoughtful observer, it is painfully clear that there are two distinct parts of the Democrat plantation: the D.C. swamp and the useful idiots in the streets.  The relationship between the two is intuitively obvious but seldom exposed.  The swamp exists because it has enough vocal support, both on the streets and in the press.  The very air it breathes is on the pages of the New York Times and commentary on CNN, fed by cameras in Berkeley and on the steps of the Supreme Court.
That brings us to the key question.  Which came first: the useful idiots, or the swamp?
No politician can survive without votes.  To get those votes, he takes positions he thinks will attract the maximum number of voters.  His problem is to identify just what those voters want and put on political clothes that make him look like a member of their movement, whatever that might be.  Thus, the joke that you can tell when a politician is lying when his lips are moving is usually a close representation of truth.
Today, a loud youth movement rebels against norms.  That's what juveniles do.  They push boundaries.  They haven't developed either an accurate vocabulary or an effective BS-detector.  In a solid family, they'd get called out for misbehaving like "Young Sheldon."  But when kids don't have firm parents (like Ben Carson's mother), they act out, searching for boundaries.  If parents enforce rules, children learn that they are safe inside those rules.  If there are no limits, kids push farther and farther looking for them.
In a mollycoddling society, where success is not rewarded and failure isn't punished, there are no safe spaces.  This creates fear.  No one is safe, because no one knows quite how far you can stray without lions and tigers and bears coming for you.
You can be a boy today, and a girl tomorrow.  No one can call you out on it, because that might somehow harm your psyche.  So now we have large numbers of completely confused young adults pushing boundaries, looking for limits, not realizing that their movement has declared limits to be off limits.  The safety they crave has been completely destroyed by the unfettered license they've been granted.  The result is chaos.
We should not be surprised when this mob of self-absorbed lemmings uses language badly while wielding batons against otherwise inoffensive adults.  These people have been trained to do this by their minimally more mature peer group, who is holding down claw-footed chairs inside the stone walls of academia.  That group has been certified in underwater basket-weaving and social activism as a reward for its own rebellion.  And its checks are signed by barely more mature administrators, whose own rudderless lives create total fear of that uncontained critical mass of effluvium called a student body.
In short, we have a huge mass of people who have, as Pat Paulsen noted, "a right to go to high school and end up with a third grade education."  Their "enthusiasm is exceeded only by their extreme lack of judgment."  And they vote.  Or at least enough of them voted to help elect Barack Obama.  Pat Paulsen was right.
Because of this uncritical mass of low-hanging fruit, the Political Pandas of the Left imagine an easy electoral win if they can convince the great unwashed that the Democrats are their saviors.  So instead of standing on any principle, they listen to the dumb masses and their echo chambers in the press.  Perceiving that the wind is blowing in a particular direction, they declare that they are, and have always been, totally in tune with them.  That's the very definition of Panda-ing.  If the masses don't wake up and Walk Away, those votes are in the bag.
Paul Joseph Watson puts it this way.  "Hello fellow humans.  I am celebrity No. 2932, I believe in everything that is safe and popular with people aged 18-35.  You may now praise me on the social media platform of your choice..."  "I agree.  Our agreement with each other's views means we are right and the other side's evil hatred must be stopped!"  In short, the Democrat "leaders" are in fact NPCs – Non Player Characters in video games, controlled by the program, with no vestige of real humanity.  The masses are equally NPCs.  "Well, I got all of the accounts suspended, but why do I still feel so empty and pathetic?"  You have to ask?
Dianne Feinstein used to support corporate bailouts and restrictions on union organizing.  As mayor of San Francisco, she vetoed domestic partner legislation and refused to march in a gay rights parade.  Now she is firmly in the LGBTQ corner and strongly supports labor unions.  This is typical of the left.  As long as leftists can keep themselves seated in the U.S. Capitol, they will take any stance whatever, as long as it looks as if it aligns with the loudest voices.
We can easily add example after example, but it's clear that the "leaders" of the left are no such thing.  A leader stands up for principles and propositions.  He defends them and works to achieve results consistent with them.  With the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, the left's "leaders" are NPCs.
Those "leaders" are people who, whether by accident of circumstance or political skill, have managed to position themselves to surf the current wave of loud emotion.  With rare exceptions, they have no established positions of their own.  So when all the rage is "against," they become "The Resistance."  When Ocasio-Cortez pushes for "Medicare for All," the other "leaders" follow the sound of the shouting.
The number of actual leaders on the left is small.  Bernie Sanders took a (misguided) position in favor of outright socialism long ago and has stuck with it.  He had little charisma to attract followers nationally, but when his longstanding convictions came in sync with the street, he came within an eyelash of winning the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party.
The Schumers and Pelosis of the Democratic Party are leaders, but not of the party.  Rather, they are organizational leaders of the Democrat caucus in D.C.  To have a voice in that caucus, you must toe the line they establish.  But even they shift their stances when the wind changes.  So they are followers of the mob.  They are the ultimate groupies, willing to surrender all principle in order to keep their positions of power in the halls of Congress.
"Where are they?  What are they doing?  I must find them!  I am their leader!"
Image credit: Amio Cajander.


Address​8564 Melrose Ave, West Hollywood, CA 90069






“In Mexico, a recent Zogby poll declared that the vast majority of Mexican citizens hate Americans. [22.2] Mexico is a country saturated with racism, yet in denial, having never endured the social development of a Civil Rights movement like in the US--Blacks are harshly treated while foreign Whites are often seen as the enemy. [22.3] In fact, racism as workplace discrimination can be seen across the US anywhere the illegal alien Latino works--the vast majority of the workforce is usually strictly Latino, excluding Blacks, Whites, Asians, and others.”

Previous generations of immigrants did not believe they were racially superior to Americans. That is the view of La Raza Cosmica, by Jose Vasconcelos, Mexico’s former education minister and a presidential candidate. According to this book, republished in 1979 by the Department of Chicano Studies at Cal State LA, students of Scandinavian, Dutch and English background are dullards, blacks are ugly and inferior, and those “Mongols” with the slanted eyes lack enterprise. The superior new “cosmic” race of Spaniards and Indians is replacing them, and all Yankee “Anglos.” LLOYD BILLINGSLEY/ FRONTPAGE mag


We must keep the hordes jumping our borders to keep wages depressed!


One in every eleven persons born in Mexico has gone to the U.S. The National Review reported that in 2014 $1.87 billion was spent on incarcerating illegal immigrant criminals….Now add hundreds of billions for welfare and remittances!  MICHAEL BARGO, Jr…… for the AMERICAN THINKER.COM

"Chairman of the DNC Keith Ellison was even spotted wearing a shirt stating, "I don't believe in borders" written in Spanish.

According to a new CBS news poll, 63 percent of Americans in competitive congressional districts think those crossing illegally should be immediately deported or arrested.  This is undoubtedly contrary to the views expressed by the Democratic Party.

Their endgame is open borders, which has become evident over the last eight years.  Don't for one second let them convince you otherwise." Evan Berryhill Twitter @EvBerryhill.




NumbersUSA’s Rosemary Jenks:


E-Verify Ignored in DACA Negotiations Because ‘Members of Congress Know It Will Work’

Members of Congress broadly oppose a legislative nationwide E-Verify mandate for employers because “they know it will work,” said NumbersUSA’s Rosemary Jenks, explaining why E-Verify is not being pushed in congressional negotiations for an amnesty deal for recipients of the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Jenks further noted that both parties are beholden to special interests supportive of “mass migration.”

 E-VERIFY – Why both parties hate the word!

Putting employers of illegals in prison would end the foreign invasion today!


This is why you work From Jan - May paying taxes to the government ....with the rest of the calendar year is money for you and your family.

Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job for
$5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, with his fake Social Security number, he gets an "earned income credit" of up to $3,200..... free.

He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.

He qualifies for food stamps.

He qualifies for free (no deductible, no  co-pay) health care.

His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.

He requires bilingual teachers and books.

He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.

If they are or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for SSI.

Once qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare. All of this is at (our) taxpayer's expense.

He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.

Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.

He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.

Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6.00/hour left after Paying their bills and his.

The American taxpayers also pay for increased crime, graffiti and trash clean-up.

Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT! Wake up people! 



For minorities in the Golden State, opportunity and upward mobility are hard to come by.
July 26, 2018

Economy, finance, and budgets

Progressives praise California as the harbinger of the political future, the home of a new, enlightened, multicultural America. Missouri Senator Claire McCaskillhas identified California Senator Kamala Harris as the party leader on issues of immigration and race. Harris wants a moratorium on construction of new immigration-detention facilities in favor of the old “catch and release” policy for illegal aliens, and has urged a shutdown of the government rather than compromise on mass amnesty.
Its political leaders and a credulous national media present California as the “woke” state, creating an economically just, post-racial reality. Yet in terms of opportunity, California is evolving into something more like apartheid South Africa or the pre-civil rights South. California simply does not measure up in delivering educational attainment, income growth, homeownership, and social mobility for traditionally disadvantaged minorities. All this bodes ill for a state already three-fifths non-white and trending further in that direction in the years ahead. In the past decade, the state has added 1.8 million Latinos, who will account by 2060 for almost half the state’s population. The black population has plateaued, while the number of white Californians is down some 700,000 over the past decade.
Minorities and immigrants have brought much entrepreneurial energy and a powerful work ethic to California. Yet, to a remarkable extent, their efforts have reaped only meager returns during California’s recent boom. California, suggests gubernatorial candidate and environmental activist Michael Shellenberger, is not “the most progressive state” but “the most racist” one. Chapman University reports that 28 percent of California’s blacks are impoverished, compared with 22 percent nationally. Fully one-third of California Latinos—now the state’s largest ethnic group—live in poverty, compared with 21 percent outside the state. Half of Latino households earn under $50,000 annually, which, in a high-cost state, means that they barely make enough to make ends meet. Over two-thirds of non-citizen Latinos, the group most loudly defended by the state’s progressive leadership, live at or below the poverty line, according to a recent United Way study.
This stagnation reflects the reality of the most recent California “miracle.” Historically, economic growth extended throughout the state, and produced many high-paying blue-collar jobs. In contrast, the post-2010 boom has been inordinately dependent on the high valuations of a handful of tech firms and coastal real estate speculation. Relatively few blacks or Latinos participate at the upper reaches of the tech economy—and a recent study suggests that their percentages in that sector are declining—and generally lack the family resources to compete in the real estate market. Instead, many are stuck with rents they can’t afford.
Even as incomes soared in the Silicon Valley and San Francisco after 2010, wages for African-Americans and Latinos in the Bay Area declined. The shift of employment from industrial to software industries, as well as the extraordinary presence—as much as 40 percent—of noncitizens in the tech industry, has meant fewer opportunities for assemblers and other blue-collar workers. Many nonwhite Americans labor in the service sector as security guards or janitors, making about $25,000 annually, working for contractors who offer no job security and only limited benefits. In high-priced Silicon Valley, these are essentially poverty wages. Some workers live in their cars, converted garages, or even on the streets, largely ignored by California’s famously enlightened oligarchs.
CityLab has described the Bay Area as “a region of segregated innovation.” TheGiving Code, which reports on charitable trends among the ultra-rich, found that between 2006 and 2013, 93 percent of all private foundation-giving in Silicon Valley went to causes outside of Silicon Valley. Better to be a whale, or a distressed child in Africa or Central America, than a worker living in his car outside Google headquarters.
For generations, California’s racial minorities, like their Caucasian counterparts, embraced the notion of an American Dream that included owning a house. Unlike kids from wealthy families—primarily white—who can afford elite educations and can sometimes purchase  houses with parental help, Latinos and blacks, usually without much in the way of family resources,  are increasingly priced out of the market. In California, Hispanics and blacks face housing prices that are approximately twice the national average, relative to income. Unsurprisingly, African-American and Hispanic homeownership rates have dropped considerably more than those of Asians and whites—four times the rate in the rest of the country. California’s white homeownership rate remains above 62 percent, but just 42 percent of all Latino households, and only 33 percent of all black households, own their own homes.
In contrast, African-Americans do far better, in terms of income and homeownership, in places like Dallas-Fort Worth or greater Houston than in socially enlightened locales such as Los Angeles or San Francisco. Houston and Dallas boast black homeownership rates of 40 to 50 percent; in deep blue but much costlier Los Angeles and New York, the rate is about 10 percentage points lower.
Rather than achieving upward class mobility, many minorities in California have fallen down the class ladder. This can be seen in California’s overcrowding rate, the nation’s second-worst. Of the 331 zip codes making up the top 1 percent of overcrowded zip codes in the U.S., 134 are found in Southern California, primarily in greater Los Angeles and San Diego, mostly concentrated around heavily Latino areas such as Pico-Union, East Los Angeles, and Santa Ana, in Orange County.
The lack of affordable housing and the disappearance of upward mobility could create a toxic racial environment for California. By the 2030s, large swaths of the state, particularly along the coast, could evolve into a geriatric belt, with an affluent, older boomer population served by a largely minority service-worker class. As white and Asian boomers age, California increasingly will have to depend on children from mainly poorer families with fewer educational resources, living in crowded and even unsanitary conditions, often far from their place of employment,  to work for low wages.
Historically, education has been the lever that gives minorities and the poor access to opportunity. But in California, a state that often identifies itself as “smart,” the educational system is deeply flawed, especially for minority populations. Once a model of educational success, California now ranks 36th in the country in educational performance, according to a 2018 Education Weekreport. The state does have a strong sector of “gold and silver” public schools, mostly located in wealthy suburban locations such as Orange County, the interior East Bay, and across the San Francisco Peninsula. But the performance of schools in heavily minority, working-class areas is scandalously poor. The state’s powerful teachers’ union and the Democratic legislature have added $31.2 billion since 2013 in new school funding, but California’s poor students ranked 49th on National Assessment of Education Progress tests. In Silicon Valley, half of local public school students, and barely one in five blacks or Latinos, are proficient in basic math.
Clearly, California’s progressive ideology and spending priorities are not serving minority students well. High-poverty schools are so poorly run that disruptions from students and administrative interruptions, according to a UCLA study, account for 30 minutes a day of class time. Teachers in these schools often promote “progressive values,” spending much of their time, according to one writer, “discussing community problems and societal inequities.” Other priorities include transgender and other gender-relatededucation, from which parents, in some school districts, cannot opt out. This ideological instruction is doing little for minority youngsters. San Francisco, which the nonprofit journalism site Calmatters refers to as “a progressive enclave and beacon for technological innovation,” also had “the lowest black student achievement of any county in California,” as well as the highest gap between black and white scores.
Ultimately, any reversal of this pattern must come from minorities demanding a restoration of opportunity. Some now see the linkage between state policy and impoverishment, which has led some 200 civil rights leaders to sue the state Air Resources Board, the group that enforces the Greenhouse Gas edicts of the state bureaucracy. But perhaps the ultimate wakeup call will come from a slowing economy. After an extraordinary period of growth post-recession, California’s economy is clearly weakening, as companies and people move elsewhere. Texas and other states are now experiencing faster GDP growth than the Golden State. Perhaps more telling, the latest BEA numbers suggest that California—which created barely 800 jobs last month—is now experiencing far lower income growth than the national average, and scarcely half that of Texas, Colorado, Michigan, Arizona, Missouri, or Florida. Out-migration of skilled and younger workers, reacting to long commutes and high prices, seems to be accelerating, both in Southern California and the Bay Area.
One has to wonder what will happen when the California economy, burdened by regulations, high costs, and taxes, slows even more. Generous welfare benefits, made possible by taxing the rich, could be threatened; conversely, the Left might get traction by pushing to raise taxes even higher. The pain will be relatively minor in Palo Alto, Malibu, or Marin County, the habitations of the ruling gentry rich—but for those Californians who have already been left behind, and for a diminishing middle class,  it might be just beginning.


“New” and “underrepresented” voters could spell victory for leftist Democrats in November.

September 12, 2018

Last week California’s Department of Motor Vehicles sent 23,000 “erroneous” voter registrations to the office of Secretary of State Alex Padilla, who maintains the list of registered voters. The DMV blamed it technical errors and said none of the erroneous registrations involved undocumented immigrants. Padilla was “extremely disappointed and deeply frustrated” and the DMV assured him it wouldn’t happen again.

The Once 'Golden State' Is Badly Tarnished

With crime soaring, rampant homelessness, sanctuary state status attracting the highest illegal immigrant population in the country and its “worst state in the U.S. to do business” ranking for more than a decade, California and its expansive, debt-ridden, progressive government is devolving into a third-world country. In cities such as San Francisco, public defecation is legal, drug use is flagrant, and tent cities are designated biohazards. In once pristine San Diego, contractors have been spraying down homeless encampments with household bleach to stave off a hepatitis A epidemic. The so-called “Golden State,” which now has the highest poverty rate in the nation, is tarnished beyond recognition with such serious problems that the sublime climate and striking coastline may no longer be enough to sustain its reputation and cachet. With laws that benefit criminals and illegals, big government that endeavors to control every aspect of residents’ lives from plastic bags to straws; sanctioned street, tent, and vehicle dwelling; and an unaffordable overhyped bullet train boondoggle that will cost taxpayers almost $100 billion, California is headed for economic disaster.
Rising Crime
In the past few years, California has instituted criminal justice reform legislation and initiatives, ostensibly to reduce budget expenditures and prison overcrowding, which has led invariably to the release of more criminals into the state’s population.
  • Proposition 47, a referendum passed in 2014, reclassified certain drug possession felonies to misdemeanors and required misdemeanor sentencing for theft when the amount involved is $950 or less. Drug possession for personal use is now considered a misdemeanor.
  • Proposition 57, a statewide ballot proposition passed in 2016, changed parole policies for those convicted of nonviolent felonies. But the proposition failed to define “nonviolent crimes”. The result was that those committing “nonviolent” crimes such as rape of an unconscious or intoxicated person, assault of a police office, domestic violence, hostage taking, drive-by shootings, and human trafficking of a child became eligible for early parole based on a paper review in lieu of a parole hearing.
  • Assembly Bill 1448 and Assembly Bill 1308 allow for the early release of prisoners who are 60 years or older who have served at least 25 years of their sentence and prisoners who committed crimes at least 25 years or younger who have served at least 15 years, respectively. Both were signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown in 2017.
  • In June this year, Gov. Brown signed into law AB 1810, that gives defendants a chance to have their charges dismissed and evidence of their arrest erased from the record if they can convince a judge that they suffer from a treatable mental disorder. Such defendants could be offered a pretrial diversion of two years to undergo mental health treatment.
As may have been expected with lenient policies, violent crime and property crime rates in the state increased and will mostly likely soar in the aftermath of some of the newly implemented measures.  An FBI study of crime rates from 2014 to 2015 found that 48 California cities saw overall increases with 24 experiencing increases in the double digits for property crime, an increase directly attributable to Prop. 47, according to Marc Debbaudt, past president of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys.
As of 2017, California had a homeless population of over 134,000, or one quarter of the nation’s homeless. UCLA researcherWilliam Yu notedthat 26% of California’s homeless are severely mentally ill, 18% are chronic drug abusers, 9% are veterans and 24% are victims of domestic abuse. Orange County Supervisor, Tod Spitzer attributes much of the problem to legislation signed by Governor Jerry Brown over the past few years that markedly decreased the penalties for drug use, possession, and petty crimes, thereby reducing arrests and eliminating mandatory treatment for drug abuse and mental health treatment.
Where other states have successfully instituted welfare-to-work programs, California’s liberal government has resisted pro-work reforms and retained a system of cash disbursements with no strings attached. This has led to a state bureaucracy that continues to grow and expand its budget, staffing, and client base. Inordinately high housing prices, somewhat driven by restrictive land use and environmental regulations, have exacerbated the problem.
Civil rights organizations such as the ACLU have made the homelessness issue a difficult one to tackle. In 2003, the ACLU filed a lawsuitJones v. City of Los Angeles, on behalf of homeless people who were ticketed and arrested for sleeping on public sidewalks at night. In 2006, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the lawsuit by striking down the Los Angeles ordinance that made it a crime for homeless people to sleep on the streets when no shelter is available. Not only is it permissible to pitch a tent in many areas in the state but also vehicle dwelling is allowed in Los Angeles residential areas from 6:00 a.m. to 9 p.m. and in business and industrial areas from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Illegal Immigration
California, a sanctuary state, is home to at least 4 million illegal immigrants and their children. National Economics Editorial, a website that covers economic issues, has estimated that those in the state illegally contribute $3.5 billion in taxes while costing California approximately $30.3 billion annually, or 17.7% of the state budget. According to the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), more than half are unskilled, uneducated, and lack English proficiency.
Services to illegals include welfare, food stamps, meal programs, free immunizations, low-cost housing and in-state tuition rates. In addition, children of illegals make up 18% of the public-school population, straining the already burdened school system by increasing student-to-teacher ratios and by impeding the learning process with supplemental, English-language instruction.
Unchecked illegal immigration comes with a marked increase in crime rates. Those who have broken the law to come to the United States are overrepresented in murder charges, drug trafficking, and gang violence. Increased policing, court, and incarceration costs put additional strain on the justice syste. In 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that illegal immigrants committed over 13% of all U.S. crime, and a particularly high level of violent and drug-related crimes, according to criminologist and law enforcement expert Ron Martinelli. A substantial illegal immigrant population coupled with a policy signed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2014 that protects criminal illegal immigrants by reducing their sentences to fall below federal standards for deportation further aggravates the problem. This, at a time when59% of Californians want to increase deportations of illegals.
In a measure that would add to costs and incentivize illegal entry, California gubernatorial candidate, Gavin Newsom, plans to issue an Executive Order to grant universal healthcare, if elected. Former governor Pete Wilson warns that a system that removes all market-based competition could produce annual budget shortfalls of $40 billion, add six million illegals to the healthcare rolls, encourage medical tourism, and restrict the range of care and increase waiting times for California citizens. The resulting elimination of competitive private sector health care options would mean that more businesses and sources of tax revenue will leave the state.
Poor Business Climate
In 2014, Chief Executive magazine quoted CEO comments like  “California goes out of its way to be anti-business,” “California continues to lead in disincentives for growth businesses to stay,” and “The regulatory, tax and political environment are crushing.” California’s reputation as the worst state to do business has a lot to do with its high tax rates.  In addition to having the highest state income tax in the nation, it has the highest sales tax rate, the 9th highest corporate income tax rate, one of the highest property tax rates and the highest gasoline tax rate. Yet, with a shortfall of $612 billion when future pensions, bond repayments and other debts are added to the budget shortfall, the state is drowning in debt, more than twice as much debt as any other state. In addition, the cost of living is 36% higher than the national rate, and, at 23.4%, California has the highest poverty rate in the nation, according to former California Assemblyman Steve Baldwin. 
California, a world leader in technology, entertainment, agriculture, and a past global trendsetter in culture and innovation, has been dominated for decades by a government made up of far-left ideologues. These so-called "progressives" have supported an ever-growing and onerous regulatory climate that effectively redistributes wealth by adding to an already burdensome rate of taxation and expanding entitlement programs. Given the current business environment and policies on crime, homelessness, and illegal entry that are likely to continue, the once “Golden State” could become a failed state in short order if left unchecked.  In the words of Steve Baldwin, “A state cannot chase away the producers and attract the takers year after year without economic consequences.” 

Will Californians Prevail Against the Little Picture of Hell?


The state of California has descended into a modern-day version of Dante’s Inferno, where treachery of all kinds occupies the bottom circle. Public sector unions are running (or rather ruining) the state into bankruptcy, betraying the public trust while charging the taxpayers for the perverse privilege. Republicans collude with the supermajority of Democrats to raise taxes, fees, and unrelenting regulatory burdens.
The public schools indoctrinate their young charges to hate this country and the rule of law. Illegal aliens continue overwhelming the state, draining California’s already depleted public services while endangering our lives, the rule of law, and public safety for all citizens. The federal government has filed lawsuits against Sanctuary California, and ICE is rounding up illegals in their homes and in workplaces. However, demonic pro-illegal forces still parade in the streets and cross our borders, defying American sovereignty. Larger cities have more homeless than homes for citizens.
The natural disasters are hitting crisis level, too. The Bible depicts torturous flames with respite in hell without respite, (Luke 16: 24). So too parched conditions have engulfed California. Wildfires have become a year-round terror, yet the state’s leadership refuses to prepare emergency water storage. This past week, two hundred firefighters had to quell another massive conflagration in south Orange County, and summer hasn’t even begun yet. To make matters legislation to make the current drastic water rationing permanent!
Even wealthy coastal elites have found that the cost of living in California is slowly exceeding its value. Money can’t create water, and financial gain provided nothing for West Los Angeles socialites when a few homeless transients set a blaze along the 405 Freeway overpass along the Santa Monica mountains.
All of this is a testimony to the damage wrought by progressive policies which have transformed California into a picture of hell. That’s precisely what Evangelical preacher Franklin Graham called California … or at least that’s what he called the sanctuary cities. During an interview on the Todd Starnes Show, Graham commented:
"People are leaving the state. The tax base is eroding. They are turning their once beautiful cities into sanctuary cities, which are just a little picture of Hell," Graham said. "Just go to San Francisco and go to this once-beautiful city and see what has happened to it."
But why did the son of the renowned Reverend Billy Graham take time to comment on the harrowing horrors of California? For his latest Gospel Crusade, he visited ten cities in the once-Golden State. Starting on May 20 in Escondido (one of several cities to challenge SB 54, aka the Sanctuary State law over the past three month), Graham is bringing the message of the Good News to the dispirited wasteland along the Left Coast. 
Returning to Pastor Graham’s signature statement from the Starnes interview, finally a pastor of stature and renown is condemning sanctuary city policies, and a welcome response from the all-too-quiet church leadership in California and across the country. Pastors should be the first to denounce this misnamed, misleading agenda. The concept of sanctuary comes from the Bible, better known as “cities of refuge” (cf. Numbers 35:11-28), locations reserved for those who had accidentally killed someone. To avoid retribution, they would flee to those cities.
In California, sanctuary policies bar local and state law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration officials to arrest and deport illegal aliens. These cities are not safeguarding otherwise innocent people, but are protecting criminals who have broken into the United States and reside illegally to this day. Pundits left and right contend that these policies actually protect otherwise law-abiding residents to seek help and report crimes. Nothing could be further from the truth.
However, is it fair to tie the long list of hellish outcomes from these left-wing enclaves to their refusal to enforce federal immigration laws?
What has happened to sanctuary city San Francisco, for example? The progressivism that made God nothing and man’s “ideas” everything created the s***-hole dystopia that resides there today. It’s an overpriced progressive utopia, to put it charitably. For the vast-majority of residents, even for those who can afford it, a salary of $100,000 a year barely pays the rent. Roommates doubling up is the norm, especially among the Big Tech interns who take the bus to Silicon Valley to work all day on the latest app for the Google, Facebook, EBay overlords. 
For the price they pay to live in the city, San Franciscans aren’t getting their money’s worth. Intravenous drug needles litter the streets everywhere. Homelessness is more common than homeownership. “S***hole” better describes the streets of the city, where the feces piles have so overwhelmed the streets, that visitors receive maps on how best to navigate away from the crap and corruption. Street fights among transients and the mentally ill have exploded, rampant moral decline has overshadowed the once great city. Tourists find enough to see, then flee.
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion have lost their place, even though Graham’s latest crusades have succeeded in otherwise unfriendly territory, like Berkeley. Last year, the Patriot Prayer movement, headed by Joey Gibson, attempted to throw two rallies for freedom of speech and thought. The elected officials of San Francisco (including Nancy Pelosi) and the now-deceased mayor Ed Lee, smeared the peaceful program as a “White supremacy rally.” Gibson is half Japanese, by the way. 
Where Gibson had tried and failed, Graham’s message of hope accomplished peaceful gatherings with a call to action to California’s Christians. And I say it’s about time. There have been flickers of hope in spite of the deranged left-wing agenda ravaging my home state. Californians in general, and Christians in particular, need to step up. They are called to be light in a dark, hellish world, but nothing good will happen if they don’t vote for their values, then educate the public how to fight against the devilish lawlessness foisted upon us by our political leaders and the cultural elites running—or rather ruining—the state.

The one topic Democrats don't dare bring up in today's SoCal primary

The airwaves in Southern California are flooded with Democratic candidate ads, with most openly touting extremely loony far-left positions – promises of free health care for all, free college for all, beefed up public funding for Planned Parenthood, full gun control, pretty much the full Bernie Sanders plate of pie-in-the-sky goodies.  Democrats, whether in the House, Senate, governor, or assembly races, are all openly offering all the free stuff on the far left's wish list, not holding back at all.  Fiscal discipline isn't in fashion with this bunch.  If I had to speculate, I'd say it's because at the time these platforms were formulated, Democrats were convinced that a blue wave was upon them.  In a crowded field, and at primary time, where only the most committed voters show up, extremism seems to be the way to stand out and get ahead of the pack.
There's one topic among these offerings that isn't being touched – not even in one campaign ad:

Illegal immigration.
As the sign says: "Caution."

We all know that Democrats favor open borders, given the potential for muscling mendicant votes in the state's poorest cities from their well oiled political machines. 

Democrats favor DACA, DAPA for the parents, amnesty, state benefits for illegals – from driver's licenses to free health care – an end to deportations, and no border wall, let alone National Guardsmen at the borders.  You can find vague admissions of these stances on candidates' websites, buried deep.

But somehow, this topic isn't one they want to bring up in the heat of the primaries, at least not in ads, where they have an overcrowded slate of candidates on the June ballot, and face the real prospect of seeing no Democrats making it to the slate in November.

Illegal immigration seems to be the electric third rail.

That says a lot about the sentiment of the voters in illegal alien-filled California, which houses one quarter of the nation's illegals.  Nobody's brought up the Democratic plan for free health care for illegals, now wending its way through the California statehouse.  Nobody's asked Gavin Newsom, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for governor, what he thinks of the state's inundation of illegals, and he's certainly said nothing to the broad public about it in his ads.  The costs of illegal immigration are being carefully hidden by Democrats.

Meanwhile, city after city and county after county in Southern California has joined the lawsuit against the state for its "sanctuary state" laws, which require them to house and feed illegals instead of turn them over to the feds for breaking the law.  It's probably significant that increasingly blue San Diego and Orange Counties, the two areas Democrats have placed all their hopes and cash on for winning the House back, have joined this movement.

It all suggests that this topic is dry tinder among voters, the internal polls look bad for Democrats on their free everything for illegals, and the Democratic Party line is far more unpopular than anyone on the left is willing to admit.

President Trump should have a field day enacting his orderly immigration agenda, even in California, when crunch time comes at the November midterms.


It Pays to be Illegal in California

 By JENNIFER G. HICKEY  May 10, 2018 
It certainly is a good time to be an illegal alien in California. Democratic State Sen. Ricardo Lara last week pitched a bill to permit illegal immigrants to serve on all state and local boards and commissions. This week, lawmakers unveiled a $1 billion health care plan that would include spending $250 million to extend health care coverage to all illegal alien adults.
“Currently, undocumented adults are explicitly and unjustly locked out of healthcare due to their immigration status. In a matter of weeks, California legislators will have a decisive opportunity to reverse that cruel and counterproductive fact,” Assemblyman Joaquin Arambula said in Monday’s Sacramento Bee.
His legislation, Assembly Bill 2965, would give as many as 114,000 uninsured illegal aliens access to Medi-Cal programs. A companion bill has been sponsored by State Sen. Richard Lara.
But that could just be a drop in the bucket. The Democrats’ plan covers more than 100,000 illegal aliens with annual incomes bless than $25,000, however an estimated 1.3 million might be eligible based on their earnings.
In addition, it is estimated that 20 percent of those living in California illegally are uninsured – the $250 million covers just 11 percent.
So, will politicians soon be asking California taxpayers once again to dip into their pockets to pay for the remaining 9 percent?
Before they ask for more, Democrats have to win the approval of Gov. Jerry Brown, who cautioned against spending away the state’s surplus when he introduced his $190 billion budget proposal in January.
Given Brown’s openness to expanding Medi-Cal expansions in recent years, not to mention his proclivity for blindly supporting any measure benefitting lawbreaking immigrants, the latest fiscal irresponsibility may win approval.
And if he takes a pass, the two Democrats most likely to succeed Brown – Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa – favor excessive social spending and are actively courting illegal immigrant support.

Maybe if California and New York Cared as Much about the Middle Class as They Do About Illegal Alien…



Economists Arthur Laffer (the guy with the famous curve) and Stephen Moore, a leading libertarian voice for mass immigration, predict that some 800,000 people will pack up and leave California and New York over the next three years. The reason they cite for the exodus in their Wall Street Journal op-ed is that the new federal tax law, which eliminates deductions for state income taxes, will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Implicit in their assignment of blame to the federal tax overhaul is that the people who will be leaving are the ones who pay taxes – the sort of folks that state and local governments rely to provide a revenue stream. As such, one would think that these would be the people whose concerns would get a lot of interest in Sacramento and Albany. But clearly that is not the case.
For the privilege of living in places like the Bay Area, Los Angeles, or New York City, you must bear some of the most ridiculous housing costs in the nation, along with crushing state and local taxes. In California, be prepared to turn over as much as 13.3 percent of your income to the state. High-earning New Yorkers fork over a more modest 8.82 percent, but if you live in the five boroughs you can tack on an additional 3.87 percent in city income taxes. California and New York also have some of the highest sales tax rates in the country at 8.54 percent and 8.49 percent respectively (and higher in many cities). And now, as Laffer and Moore point out, you can’t even deduct those costs on your federal taxes.
One might also think that for all these state and local taxes, residents could expect the most modern infrastructure, efficient public transportation, world class public schools, affordable housing, and other amenities. Ha. No, in Sacramento and Albany they prioritize an ever-growing list of public benefits and services to immigration law violators; subsidies and grants to go to college, and legal aid for illegal aliens in deportation proceedings. In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo is even threatening to sue the federal government (with taxpayer money, of course) for even trying to enforce immigration laws.
Some $23 billion of California taxpayers’ money and $7.5 billion of New York taxpayers’ money is expended on illegal aliens and their dependent children. For the benefit of the trolls at the Southern Poverty Law Center, the problems of California and New York cannot entirely be blamed on illegal aliens. Many, many factors have led to the middle class flight from these states. But one has to wonder why states wouldn’t want to do as much to woo their tax base into staying as they are doing to attract, protect, and reward illegal aliens.
Cutting back on benefits and protections for illegal aliens would not solve all of these states’ problems, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt. In the meantime, every U-Haul packing up a middle or upper-middle class family headed out of California and New York represents a loss of vital revenue necessary to address myriad needs of both citizens and legal immigrants.

Steinle’s murderer, Jose Zarate and been deported 5xs!

By Mark Krikorian 

National Review Online, April 26, 2018 

How the Golden State defies immigration law 
‘I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.” That was President Andrew Jackson’s response to South Carolina’s intention to prevent enforcement of a federal law within the state. Despite his admiration for Jackson, President Trump hasn’t yet threatened to start hanging California politicians. But that state’s “sanctuary” policies protecting illegal immigrants and obstructing enforcement of federal immigration law echo the long-ago fight over nullification and states’ rights. 

The passage of three sanctuary bills last year by the state legislature in Sacramento is now the subject of a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice. It was the culmination of a decades-long process, as mass immigration transformed California’s politics from reddish purple to deep blue. 
The first measure that could be described as a sanctuary provision was the Los Angeles Police Department’s Special Order 40, enacted in 1979, which prohibited officers from arresting a person for the federal crime of illegal entry and, unless he was arrested for another crime, from even inquiring as to legal status. But that order merely instructed police to abstain from involving themselves in immigration enforcement. In the 1980s, a more proactive conception of illegal-alien sanctuary spread, as Central Americans fleeing war in their homelands snuck into the U.S. but did not qualify for asylum. 
At first, only some pro-Sandinista churches postured as sanctuaries for these illegal aliens. But in late 1985, Mayor (now Senator) Dianne Feinstein signed a resolution declaring San Francisco a “city of refuge” for illegals. She ordered that “City Departments shall not discriminate against Salvadorans and Guatemalan refugees because of their immigration status, and shall not jeopardize the safety and welfare of law-abiding refugees by acting in a way that may cause their deportation.” The declaration was followed four years later by a city law formally prohibiting city employees from assisting federal immigration authorities. 
Even measures such as this, which were adopted by other big cities over the years, were of largely local interest until a new system, developed at the end of the Bush administration and completed in 2013, went online. The fingerprints of every person booked by police throughout the country have long been sent to the FBI. But under the new system, dubbed Secure Communities, those fingerprints now also go to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). So while in the past the feds didn’t necessarily know whether cops in San Francisco arrested an illegal alien for, say, a drug offense, now they do. Every time.
There will still be some illegal aliens who elude detection if ICE has no record of them because they’ve never interacted with the immigration authorities. But if police arrest anyone who’s in the Department of Homeland Security database — who was deported previously, got turned down for asylum, was picked up by the Border Patrol, overstayed a visa, or appeared before an immigration judge — ICE learns about it. 
There are only so many hours in the day, so not every arrested illegal alien can be taken into custody. But if ICE wants the alien because, for instance, he has previously been deported or is a fugitive from a deportation order, it notifies the local authorities to hold him, as they would for any other state or federal law-enforcement agency, up to 48 hours after they would otherwise have released him, so that agents can collect and deport him. 
With this new fingerprint-matching system in place, instead of receiving the occasional hold notice, or “detainer,” cities and counties with large numbers of immigrants started hearing from ICE constantly. In some states where large-scale immigration was a recent development, the political culture had not yet shifted to the left to such a degree that this new level of cooperation with ICE met objections. But immigration, legal and illegal, has transformed California’s population and political culture so profoundly that the pushback there was inevitable. 
Of California’s 40 million people, about 15 million are in immigrant households (immigrants and their children under 18), accounting for more than 37 percent of the state’s population. Not only is that by far the highest percentage in any state, but the increase in people in immigrant households in California from 1970 to today — just the increase — is nearly twice as large as today’s total population in immigrant households in Texas, the state in second place. 

Survey after survey shows that immigrants are disproportionately big-government liberals. As one overview of the data concluded, “solid and persistent majorities of Hispanic and Asian immigrants and their children share the policy preferences of the modern American Left.” As a result, as University of Maryland political scientist James Gimpel has demonstrated, in the nation’s largest counties (which are where immigrants tend to settle), “Republicans have lost 0.58 percentage points in presidential elections for every one percentage-point increase in the size of the local immigrant population.” 
The results in California are plain to see. There hasn’t been a Republican in statewide or federal office since Arnold Schwarzenegger (and he was only nominally Republican). Only 13 of 40 state senators and 25 of 80 state assemblymen are Republicans. This has enabled leftist maximalism on a wide range of issues, including immigration. 
Even in this environment, the effects of Secure Communities in identifying deportable aliens were blunted for a time by the Obama administration’s lax policies. Despite the anti-borders Left and its kabuki protests that Obama was the deporter in chief, his administration effectively exempted most of the resident illegal population from immigration law. Even though ICE continued to be notified of arrested illegals, administration policy was to ignore all but the worst cases. In the words of John Sandweg, who headed ICE during part of Obama’s term, “If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero — it’s just highly unlikely to happen.” 
Then came Donald Trump. 
It wasn’t just that Trump pledged tough immigration enforcement in his raw and often coarse manner. It wasn’t just that Hillary Clinton, who said publicly that she would not deport anyone who hadn’t first been convicted of a violent felony, won California by 30 points. It was the whiplash from Obama to Trump that supercharged the sanctuary push in the state legislature. Democratic politicians, their activist allies, and illegal aliens themselves had gotten used to Obama’s arrangements and had come to think that was the way things were going to be from now on. Trump’s reversal of Obama’s laxity fell on them like a bucket of ice water. 
The state took a variety of steps in response to the return of immigration enforcement. Lawmakers appropriated $45 million for a fund to help illegals fight deportation. And the state senate appointed an illegal alien to a state education commission. 
But most consequential were three laws designed to limit the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration law. The best known is Senate Bill 54, the California Values Act, the most sweeping measure of its kind in the nation, making the entire state a sanctuary for illegal aliens. It prohibits state and local law enforcement from complying with ICE detainers in most cases. It prohibits notification to ICE about an alien unless in the past 15 years he’s been convicted of one of a list of the most serious crimes. It prohibits state and local authorities from allowing ICE to use space in their jails and from providing ICE any non-public information on suspects. It restricts state and local participation in any multi-agency task force that includes ICE. 
The second of the three measures attempts to impose state oversight on any facility ICE uses to detain deportable aliens. And the final law seeks to shield illegal-alien workers from detection by, among other things, prohibiting private employers from voluntarily allowing ICE agents into any non-public area of their business. 
The Trump administration has pushed back. The first step was to threaten to cut off certain Justice Department grants to sanctuary jurisdictions nationwide; longstanding doctrine limiting the withholding of federal funds to coerce states makes a broader cutoff unlikely. A few jurisdictions outside California have changed their sanctuary policies in response to the funding threat, but the administration’s initiative is tied up in litigation and, in any case, is unlikely to hurt sufficiently to persuade hard cases such as California to mend their ways. 
That’s why in March the Justice Department filed suit against California to strike down all or parts of the three sanctuary laws, claiming that they were preempted by federal law and that they violate the supremacy clause of the Constitution. (Interestingly, the complaint cites, among other things, the Supreme Court ruling overturning parts of Arizona’s SB 1070, which was intended to assist in enforcement of federal immigration laws, on the same grounds of federal preemption.) But it will be a long time before the case reaches the Supreme Court; the defendants no doubt hope to drag things out long enough that President Maxine Waters or Dennis Kucinich can reverse the policy. 
But change may come sooner than that. The legislature’s overreach has sparked a rebellion of communities seeking sanctuary from the sanctuary law. The small Orange County city of Los Alamitos got things rolling by voting to opt out of SB 54 and join the federal lawsuit. A growing list of other cities has joined the suit as well, as have Orange and San Diego counties. More cities and counties are likely to join them. 
In an attempt to harness this political energy, two people whose children were killed by illegal aliens have launched a ballot initiative to repeal the sanctuary laws. Don Rosenberg, one of the parents, told the Washington Times , “This will be David versus Goliath. We’re clearly David on this side. But there are millions of Davids here.” 
While the steady stream of preventable crimes by illegal immigrants protected by sanctuary policies keeps the issue before the public, the very extremism of the Left may supply the five smooth stones this army of Davids will need to slay the sanctuary Goliath. In February, for example, Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf warned illegals that an ICE raid was planned for the Bay Area. Such brazen acts delegitimize sanctuary policies in the eyes even of moderate voters. 
South Carolina eventually repealed its Ordinance of Nullification. The state’s subsequent acts of resistance against legitimate federal authority also failed. It’s too early to tell whether California will succeed where South Carolina did not. 

Adios, Sanctuary La Raza Welfare State of California   
A fifth-generation Californian laments his state’s ongoing economic collapse.
By Steve Baldwin
American Spectator, October 19, 2017
What’s clear is that the producers are leaving the state and the takers are coming in. Many of the takers are illegal aliens, now estimated to number over 2.6 million. 
The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that California spends $22 billion on government services for illegal aliens, including welfare, education, Medicaid, and criminal justice system costs. 

Liberals claim they more than make that up with taxes paid, but that’s simply not true. It’s not even close. FAIR estimates illegal aliens in California contribute only $1.21 billion in tax revenue, which means they cost California $20.6 billion, or at least $1,800 per household.
Nonetheless, open border advocates, such as Facebook Chairman Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the Center for Immigration Studies has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegal aliens were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, California, with its 2.6 million illegal aliens, would be booming.
Furthermore, the complexion of illegal aliens has changed with far more on welfare and committing crimes than those who entered the country in the 1980s. 
Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has testified before a Congressional committee that in 2004, 95% of all outstanding warrants for murder in Los Angeles were for illegal aliens; in 2000, 23% of all Los Angeles County jail inmates were illegal aliens and that in 1995, 60% of Los Angeles’s largest street gang, the 18th Street gang, were illegal aliens. Granted, those statistics are old, but if you talk to any California law enforcement officer, they will tell you it’s much worse today. The problem is that the Brown administration will not release any statewide data on illegal alien crimes. That would be insensitive. And now that California has declared itself a “sanctuary state,” there is little doubt this sends a message south of the border that will further escalate illegal immigration into the state.
"If the racist "Sensenbrenner Legislation" passes the US Senate, there is no doubt that a massive civil disobedience movement will emerge. Eventually labor union power can merge with the immigrant civil rights and "Immigrant Sanctuary" movements to enable us to either form a new political party or to do heavy duty reforming of the existing Democratic Party. The next and final steps would follow and that is to elect our own governors of all the states within Aztlan." 
Indeed, California goes out of its way to attract illegal aliens. The state has even created government programs that cater exclusively to illegal aliens. For example, the State Department of Motor Vehicles has offices that only process driver licenses for illegal aliens. With over a million illegal aliens now driving in California, the state felt compelled to help them avoid the long lines the rest of us must endure at the DMV. 
And just recently, the state-funded University of California system announced it will spend $27 million on financial aid for illegal aliens. They’ve even taken out radio spots on stations all along the border, just to make sure other potential illegal border crossers hear about this program. I can’t afford college education for all my four sons, but my taxes will pay for illegals to get a college education.

If Immigration Creates Wealth, Why Is California America's Poverty Capital?

California used to be home to America's largest and most affluent middle class.  Today, it is America's poverty capital.  What went wrong?  In a word: immigration.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau's Official Poverty Measure, California's poverty rate hovers around 15 percent.  But this figure is misleading: the Census Bureau measures poverty relative to a uniform national standard, which doesn't account for differences in living costs between states – the cost of taxes, housing, and health care are higher in California than in Oklahoma, for example.  Accounting for these differences reveals that California's real poverty rate is 20.6 percent – the highest in America, and nearly twice the national average of 12.7 percent.

Likewise, income inequality in California is the second-highest in America, behind only New York.  In fact, if California were an independent country, it would be the 17th most unequal country on Earth, nestled comfortably between Honduras and Guatemala.  Mexico is slightly more egalitarian.  California is far more unequal than the "social democracies" it emulates: Canada is the 111th most unequal nation, while Norway is far down the list at number 153 (out of 176 countries).  In terms of income inequality, California has more in common with banana republics than other "social democracies."

More Government, More Poverty
High taxes, excessive regulations, and a lavish welfare state – these are the standard explanations for California's poverty epidemic.  They have some merit.  For example, California has both the highest personal income tax rate and the highest sales tax in America, according to Politifact.

Not only are California's taxes high, but successive "progressive" governments have swamped the state in a sea of red tape.  Onerous regulations cripple small businesses and retard economic growth.  Kerry Jackson, a fellow with the Pacific Research Institute, gives a few specific examples of how excessive government regulation hurts California's poor.  He writes in a recent op-ed for the Los Angeles Times:
Extensive environmental regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions make energy more expensive, also hurting the poor.  By some estimates, California energy costs are as much as 50% higher than the national average.  Jonathan A. Lesser of Continental Economics ... found that "in 2012, nearly 1 million California households faced ... energy expenditures exceeding 10% of household income."
Some government regulation is necessary and desirable, but most of California's is not.  There is virtue in governing with a "light touch."
Finally, California's welfare state is, perhaps paradoxically, a source of poverty in the state.  The Orange Country Register reports that California's social safety net is comparable in scale to those found in Europe:
In California a mother with two children under the age of 5 who participates in these major welfare programs – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps), housing assistance, home energy assistance, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children – would receive a benefits package worth $30,828 per year.
... [Similar] benefits in Europe ranged from $38,588 per year in Denmark to just $1,112 in Romania.  The California benefits package is higher than in well-known welfare states as France ($17,324), Germany ($23,257) and even Sweden ($22,111).
Although welfare states ideally help the poor, reality is messy.  There are three main problems with the welfare state.  First, it incentivizes poverty by rewardingthe poor with government handouts that are often far more valuable than a job.  This can be ameliorated to some degree by imposing work requirements on welfare recipients, but in practice, such requirements are rarely imposed.  Second, welfare states are expensive.  This means higher taxes and therefore slower economic growth and fewer job opportunities for everyone – including the poor.
Finally, welfare states are magnets for the poor.  Whether through domestic migration or foreign immigration, poor people flock to places with generous welfare states.  This is logical from the immigrant's perspective, but it makes little sense from the taxpayer's.  This fact is why socialism and open borders arefundamentally incompatible.

Why Big Government?
Since 1960, California's population exploded from 15.9 to 39 million people.  The growth was almost entirely due to immigration – many people came from other states, but the majority came from abroad.  The Public Policy Institute of California estimates that 10 million immigrants currently reside in California.  This works out to 26 percent of the state's population.

This figure includes 2.4 million illegal aliens, although a recent study from Yale University suggests that the true number of aliens is at least double that.  Modifying the initial figure implies that nearly one in three Californians is an immigrant.  This is not to disparage California's immigrant population, but it is madness to deny that such a large influx of people has changed California's society and economy.

Importantly, immigrants vote Democrat by a ratio higher than 2:1, according to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies.  In California, immigration has increased the pool of likely Democrat voters by nearly 5 million people, compared to just 2.4 million additional likely Republican voters.  Not only does this almost guarantee Democratic victories, but it also shifts California's political midpoint to the left.  This means that to remain competitive in elections, the Republicans must abandon or soften many conservative positions so as to cater to the center.
California became a Democratic stronghold not because Californians became socialists, but because millions of socialists moved there.  Immigration turned California blue, and immigration is ultimately to blame for California's high poverty level.



De facto apartheid world in the Golden State.

Reprinted from
In 1973, as I was going through customs in New York, the customs agent rifling my bag looked at my passport and said, with a Bronx sneer, “Bruce Thornton, huh. Must be one of them Hollywood names.”
Hearing that astonishing statement, I realized for the first time that California is as much an idea as a place. There were few regions in America more distant from Hollywood than the rural, mostly poor, multiethnic San Joaquin Valley where my family lived and ranched. Yet to this New Yorker, the Valley was invisible.

Coastal Californians are sometimes just as blind to the world on the other side of the Coast Range, even though its farms, orchards, vineyards, dairies, and ranches comprise more than half the state’s $46 billion agriculture industry, which grows over 400 commodities, including over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of its fruits and nuts.
Granted, Silicon Valley is an economic colossus compared to the ag industry, but agriculture’s importance can’t be measured just in dollars and cents. Tech, movies, and every other industry tends to forget that their lives and businesses, indeed civilization itself, all rest on the shoulders of those who produce the food. You can live without your iPhone or your Mac or the latest Marvel Studios blockbuster. But you can’t live without the food grown by the one out of a 100 people who work to feed the other 99.

Ann Coulter: 14th Amendment Now Used to Drive Down Black Americans’ Wages


New York Times best-selling author and populist conservative columnist Ann Coulter says the 14th Amendment is used to drive down the wages of black Americans by incentivizing illegal aliens to come to the United States in order to be rewarded with birthright citizenship for their U.S.-born children.

During an interview with talk radio host Lars Larson, Coulter said the 14th Amendment was intended for black Americans but is now being used by the big business lobby to drive down black Americans’ wages by incentivizing illegal immigration.
Coulter said:
The 14th Amendment … was about freed slaves. They were part of the Civil Rights, rather Civil War amendments as they’re called. It was all about freed slaves and now we’re living in this upside down sicko ‘Alice and Wonderland’ like a Frankenstein world where the 14th Amendment which was passed to recognize the rights of free blacks in America is being used to drive down African-American wages in America, to ruin their neighborhoods, to fill up their hospitals so the Koch brothers can have cheap labor. Every president should have issued this executive order. [Emphasis added]
Last week, President Trump announced that he is readying an executive order to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. The unilateral move would carry the U.S. into the future on the issue, putting the nation more in line with similar Western countries. There are at least 4.5 million anchor babies in the U.S. with nearly 300,000 anchor babies born every year.
Coulter says Trump “should have done [the executive order] his second day in office.”
Birthright citizenship rewards the children of illegal aliens, commonly known as “anchor babies,” with automatic U.S. citizenship, thus anchoring their illegal alien and noncitizen parents in the U.S. Eventually, those anchor babies are allowed to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country through the process known as “chain migration,” making birthright citizenship not only a driver of more illegal immigration, but also legal immigration.
As Breitbart News has chronicled, black Americans are one of the most adversely impacted demographic groups by mass immigration to the U.S. Researcher Steven Camarota has noted in multiple studies that black Americans are vastly more likely to be forced to compete against low-wage immigrants for jobs than white Americans.
The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that the children of illegal aliens must be granted automatic citizenship and many legal scholars dispute the idea.
Many leading conservative scholars argue the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment does not provide mandatory birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens or noncitizens, as these children are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction as that language was understood when the 14th Amendment was ratified.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.