DACA Caca

I just can’t stand this DACA debate caca anymore. It’s time for a good old flush.
As if there is any debate, but the caca keeps getting deeper.

I noticed the left calls us Americans deplorables yet cries their hearts out for “undocumented” illegal immigrants. Dems, I see what you did there.

A couple facts:

#1)The reason they are here in the first place is because the border is broken.

Not because “the immigration system is broken.” The Dems busted “the system.”

#2)The only reason the problem exists is because the Democrats refused to secure the border 30 years ago on Reagan. Liars that they are. Happy anniversary!

Now even Iggy knows that if he leaves the barn doors open at night he’ll have an empty barn in the morning. It’s not about having a fetish for barn doors.

Dems removed the door from its hinges… busted it real good. But then they don’t believe in borders or security anyway. “Everybody in the pool.”

Something like what would happen to my farm if I had no fences, boundaries or enforcement. I’d have no crops either and could kiss the farm bye-byes. So we bought the farm and Dems gave it away, as much as they could. Never mind their reasons.

Obama illegally created the DACA caca for illegals. And one for parents that got derailed.

Now they demand we keep DACA legal but can’t have border security. Sound familiar yet? They’ll promise some border security, if we guarantee amnesty to these undocumented. So they can back out and screw America. Then they’ll want broader amnesty for the other 11+ million more, using their activist courts.

Now whenever I have a defiant bull I find a way to control it before it can do any damage. I don’t grant it amnesty. But Iggy still has doors on his barn too, for a good reason.

They want amnesty for DACA so they can screw USA again. What part of screw America don’t we get? Anytime anyone tries to talk me into forfeiting my barn doors and fences I get a little suspicious. So goes the pussheads on the left.

Now where is that branding iron?

Advertisements

The Dreamer Obummer goes to the Wall

It’s okay For Democrats to fundraise off of redacting DACA but it is so wrong to tie future legislation to funding the wall and border security. What a heap of manure.

Now which two of those things are part of the illegal immigration issue?

Obama said Tuesday, after the decision:

“And now that the White House has shifted its responsibility for these young people to Congress, it’s up to Members of Congress to protect these young people and our future.”

“What makes us American is our fidelity to a set of ideals…”

“That’s how, if we keep at it, we will ultimately reach that more perfect union.”

“Shifted responsibility” from the White House? It was him that put it there when it belongs in Congress. He’s completely reversing it and then expects people to believe him.

Those ideals. “Reach our more perfect union”… by illegally making unconstitutional, fiat law? That is not an ideal America stands for. But then the guy who created this mess would have to be so far out there to justify it.

Those “Dreamers” must really be dreaming if they would rather have their status subject to a president’s Unconstitutional, fiat law. That is defending Unconstitutionality.

Obama even knows it. So he is probably laughing real hard to have them all defending his Unconstitutional actions thinking “those morons don’t even know it.”

Once again, here we are dealing with another disaster Obama created — while he is cruising in some yacht, writing revision history standing American rule of law on its head.

I’m tired of the protest crap. Protest this, protest that, boycott this, trying to shut down free speech. And there is one person still at the center of it all, Obama.

One protest sign from Dreamers says “Support DACA Not Walls.” Failure to build a wall helped create DACA. It was lack of border enforcement that caused the problem in the first place. Are these Leftists just mentally-challenged or do they really expect people to believe their contemptible BS? America doesn’t buy it.

Right Ring | Bullright

Know who your friends, enemies are

One of the campaign issues Trump sounded a bullhorn on, at least to evangelicals, pastors and churches, was getting rid of the Johnson Amendment.

That is the one burdening pastors and pulpits under political restrictions to the first amendment, by using 501 status as a lever against them. Holding them hostage you might say. Also placing restrictions on churches. Well, seemed popular didn’t it?

But over the years, so many have become programmed and indoctrinated to this policy. Like a lot of liberal theology, it becomes normalized. No excuses, plenty of complacency.

That’s where it is comes time to know who are your friends and who are your enemies, And so often the latter are closer than you think.

Hundreds of religious groups call on Congress to keep Johnson Amendment

Harry Farley Journalist 05 April 2017 | Christian Today

Nearly 100 religious groups are urging Congress to keep the ‘Johnson Amendment’ which limits churches’ political activities.

President Donald Trump has vowed to repeal the law which blocks ministers from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit or religious organizations from donating to either party. Many Republicans back him and argue the amendment infringes on religious groups’ free speech.

But 99 different groups have written to oppose the move.

‘The charitable sector, particularly houses of worship, should not become another cog in a political machine or another loophole in campaign finance laws,’ they write.

The strongly worded backlash comes from across the religious spectrum from The Episcopal Church and Baptist groups to Catholic, Jewish, Islamic and Hindu movements.

‘Current law serves as a valuable safeguard for the integrity of our charitable sector and campaign finance system,’ [they] say in a letter to top members of Congress.

……./

Continue reading at Christian Today

Here they come, in the name of ‘protection.’

Or basically all your liberalized arms of churches. We know how to interpret that. Many are the proud who call for boycott, divest, and gov’t sanction actions toward Israel.

Funny, they never seem restrained at all in pushing the progressive political line in churches. That, of course, was never really restricted. We see no applied restrictions on black or leftist churches. They don’t have to worry.

Though even speaking about abortion, and protecting life, has been deemed political and too taboo for prime-time pulpits. Except if you want to protect baby killing, that’s okay.

So now they reveal who they are. Take note. They will stand and defy the action we want. Just as the sanctuary cities stand in defiance to the law and will of the people. Or should I say much like the activist, Sanctuary Churches? Get the idea? Or let them preach Climatology from pulpits. No, that is celebrated. Does that not illustrate the blatant hypocrisy of what they are lecturing us about?

Proverbs 27:6
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”

RightRing | Bullright

McCain in ‘his agents of intolerance’ mode

So McCain is worried about his next election. Ah, that’s too bad. Time for blame.

McCain on tape: Trump damages my reelection hopes

‘If Donald Trump is at the top of the ticket,’ … ‘this may be the race of my life.’

By Burgess Everett and Seung Min Kim | 05/05/16 | Politico

Publicly, John McCain insists Donald Trump will have a negligible effect on his campaign for reelection. But behind closed doors at a fundraiser in Arizona last month, the Republican senator and two-time presidential hopeful offered a far more dire assessment to his supporters.

“If Donald Trump is at the top of the ticket, here in Arizona, with over 30 percent of the vote being the Hispanic vote, no doubt that this may be the race of my life,” McCain said, according to a recording of the event obtained by POLITICO. […/]

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-latinos-mccain-222810

From his speech at a private fundraiser:

“People are angry. they’re upset, they feel that there’s this disconnect. All of that and, frankly, there’s an element of nativism in it as well, as you know.”

People are justifiably angry and, Senator McCain, you are one of the chief causes. Ouch, “nativism” in there too? That nasty nationalism, we can’t have that. (Video)

But people didn’t forget what John McCain and his McAmnesty did to our Party, and our country. How we were all undermined and attacked because of you, John. So it’s the election of your life? Maybe it is about time.

But hey, “race of his life” probably makes for great fundraiser fodder though.
This election was another referendum on all that plus Obama’s executive amnesty.

Mexico lashes out at US, Obama hears voices

Mexico does what they do best, complain — or bitch in layman’s terms. Let’s see, besides wanting a third of our country, they continually harbor inflammatory sentiments that really tick me off.

Mexico replaces top US diplomats, citing hostile climate

April 6, 2016 | AOL

(Reuters)

“We have been warning that our citizens have begun to feel a more hostile climate,” Foreign Minister Claudia Ruiz Massieu told local radio after the announcement.

“This (anti-Mexican) rhetoric has made it clear that we have to act in a different way so that this tendency being generated doesn’t damage the bilateral relationship,” she added.

More: http://www.aol.com/article/2016/04/06/mexico-replaces-top-u-s-diplomats-citing-hostile-climate/21339608/

No wonder people champion building a wall or, gasp, enforcing the law and borders. If Mexico officials were really listening, which we have to assume they are, then you’d think they’d be willing to consider what they can do for us since we do so much for them?

But they do and say this stuff just to intentionally frustrate Americans’ efforts. Is it any wonder Americans are fed up? “Bilateral relationship”… is that a good joke?

Then Obama recently said he consistently hears complaints from people around the world about rhetoric etc. Maybe, if he were listening, he’d hear all the reasons they question us or distrust our actions. Nah, he’s busy blaming the Republicans that have not been in charge of administration policy. Call me sick and tired of this horse manure.

Is Obama listening when terrorism goes epidemic, or when refugees create a hostile atmosphere across Europe? Or when our citizens are attacked by illegal immigrants — “just here to work for a better life?” Who only knows what all the voices in Obama’s head are telling him? Maybe Obama ought to consider listening to the people in our own country fed up with abusive power, corruption, tone deafness and his third-world leadership? (not to mention running and spending this country into the ground)

Sorry for the little rant. Yeah, Mexico, stick it in your ear since you’re such a great example of integrity. This is precisely what calls for no demands a person like Trump to call a spade a spade. The more public the better, the harder the better. If Mexico is trying to convince us of the necessity of a wall, or border control and enforcement, then they are doing a great job.

Speaking of voices Obama is listening to:

Wa Post

Now the Trump critique is coming with increasing frequency and ease. Asked Tuesday whether Trump’s proposals were already damaging U.S. relations, Obama answered unequivocally: “Yes.”

“I am getting questions constantly from foreign leaders about some of the wackier suggestions that are being made,” Obama said. “They don’t expect half-baked notions coming out of the White House. We can’t afford that.”

The Democratic National Committee quickly circulated video of Obama’s remarks, arguing they illustrated how Trump “simply doesn’t have the temperament necessary to be commander in chief.”

Seems Mexico is worried about what it characterizes as attacks on Mexico when America has actually been under attack by Mexico for years.

Earlier Obama had called Trump’s plan for Mexico to pay for the wall and other proposals on border plans half-baked.

“People expect the President of the United States and the elected officials in this country to treat these problems seriously, to put forward policies that have been examined, analyzed are effective, where unintended consequences are taken into account. They don’t expect half-baked notions coming out of the White House. We can’t afford that,” Obama said in his press conference.

Since “half-baked” is the subject, I imagine all the ways that applies to Obama. How about the failed Libya policy, the ‘failed state’ result, or meddling in Egypt and alliance with Muslim Brotherhood? Or how about that red line in Syria, or calling ISIS a JV team? Or refusing to attack ISIS oil lines financing the Caliphate, or maybe refusing to call ISIS and terrorists Islamic terrorism, or the denial that they are Islamic? Or maybe the dissing of France after the terrorist attacks? No shortage on half-baked irresponsibility there.

Talk about pushing “policies…examined, analyzed [as] effective, where unintended consequences are taken into account,” really?

How about calling Climate Change the greater threat to world and national security? Going for the trifecta, pushing a video cause for the attack of terrorism in Libya. Like labeling the Fort Hood Islamic terrorism attack as “workplace violence.” Like executive amnesty in the face of an invasion. Calling the problems on our borders a perception problem. Or like saying there is not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS.

Half-baked assertions or… fully cooked up lies? But there is a whole bowl full of consequences — some would argue about how unintentional they really are.

Hillary rehearses amnesty and comedy

In pandering to Hispanics, Latinos and media, Hillary makes a profound declarative statement on Wednesday:

Pressed by debate moderator Jorge Ramos on who should deported, Clinton said: “I will not deport children. I would not deport children. I do not want to deport family members, either.”

Read: http://nypost.com/2016/03/11/immigration-experts-have-no-idea-what-hillary-is-talking-about/

Children and family members. So did she leave anyone out, like maybe friends of family members and children? Well, who does that leave? How about single people with no family or children here. How about criminals and felons who have no family or children here. It’s just ridiculous, who’s left?

When Hillary was asked about her rogue server, which has caused her all the trouble:

“It wasn’t the best choice. I made a mistake. It was not prohibited. It was not in any way disallowed.”

In an old Laugh-In comedy skit, Edith Ann (Lilly Tomlin) used to crawl into a big rocking chair like a 5 year-old saying something like “no one told me not to … So I did.” Hillary’s point is no one told me it was not allowed (disallowed) so I naturally did it.

But at the same time her Department was sending around notices telling people not to use their private email for official business. Translation: no one told me what I was doing was wrong, so I kept doing it. Duh! You can “bet your sweet bippy.” “And that’s the truth.”

Open Letter to Pope Francis

I’m not much for these open letters, but in this case I’ll make an exception.

Open letter to Pope Francis

… and the cadre of Leftists who push these critiques on the American people.

Pope Francis, since you have taken aim at our dialogue on policies in this country, I thought it fair to ask you about your recent Mexican visit tour.

Why did you not say to the Mexican government and the people:

Why are you allowing such an exodus to happen from your country? These are good people that make great contributions to society. Why do you let them go off to improve their lives and the culture in other countries. This is a terrible loss to Mexico. Why are you not doing more to prevent this?

Francis, why are you not more concerned about the cause of this huge problem than you are with our security policies? These people could do a lot to make Mexico much better. Why not attack economic policies that cause such hopelessness in these countries?

Since your suggestion was people who want to build a wall rather than a bridge are not Christian, then the same condemnation applies to most people (many Christians) in the USA. Virtually every Republican candidate supports building the wall. So you are calling them all, and people that agree with them, not Christians?

Surely, if you cared to look, you would know that this a problem stemming all the way to the 198o’s. It is more than 3 decades old. Now that we are finally preparing to take action on it, you criticize our extremely patient and deliberative response. Why can’t you criticize the circumstances in these countries behind such mass exodus and migration to America?

In fact, you must be aware that you are putting your Papal approval on the policies in these countries that are exporting their citizens across borders. Why are you not critical of their policies? Why don’t you call that behavior Unchristian? You are de facto endorsing the mass illegal invasion of the US. As I said, this has been going on over 3 decades.

Why do you not address the gangs and the coyotes who make their living on transporting these people? Or criticize their behavior that is taking advantage of these people and exploits them like some material object? How about all those who have died or fallen victim to crime en route to America? Where is the Christian compassion for them? What about the American victims created by gangs of thugs or criminals which illegally come to this country and assault good Christians and American people?

In the context of the Biblical example of Jesus, are you calling on Mexicans and their leaders to put down their stones? Do you call them Unchristian for exporting people? Yet you can criticize us for deporting illegal aliens back to their country of origin.

Franklin Graham, in a FB post , said “My advice to the Pontiff—reach out and build a bridge to Donald Trump. Who knows where he may be this time next year!”

Why be so divisive in your words and actions rather than building bridges with Christians and other countries? You were awarded a lot of good will among Americans in your visit. You squandered that on divisive rhetoric injecting the RC Church into our politics. Unfortunately you are building walls not bridges. Now Pope John Paul II knew something about building bridges — and maintaining them.

Signed,
A sincerely disappointed American Christian

RightRing | Bullright

Refugees come … to make yogurt?

Here they come. Welcome wagon put out in Idaho. Is this a refugee plan or a business windfall? Whatever floats your yo-gurt.

American yogurt billionaire: ‘Hire more Muslim refugees’

Calls on biggest U.S. companies to join Islamic surge
WND

Ever wonder why the federal government would be sending hundreds of foreign refugees to a relatively small town in Idaho?

Wonder no more.

They’re sent there, many of them, to work in the world’s largest yogurt factory.

As WND previously reported, Twin Falls is in line to receive about 300 refugees this year, many of them Muslims from Syria. And the state of Idaho, despite its reputation as a mostly white, conservative farm state, has been a popular destination for refugees in recent years.

That man is Hamdi Ulukaya, a Kurdish Muslim and immigrant from Turkey who created the billion-dollar U.S.-based Chobani yogurt empire.
Read at http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/yogurt-billionaire-hire-more-muslim-refugees/

Can you say boycott? I think he’s a little too smooth even for yogurt.

So why is he not using a little of his American-made billions, with other bleeding hearts, to build some refugee community over there? (I wonder) The costs must be cheaper there.

Instead, he spends the USA’s money to bring them here at our expense, for his benefit.
For a multi-billionaire he is spending a whole lot of OPM — Other People’s Money.

The coalition against: NRO spells NO

Now that we have NRO and the misfit coalition “against Trump,” it tells us a lot more about their views than it does about Donald’s.

They lined up far and wide to add their names to a hit list to denounce Trump as the Republican/conservative candidate. Fine, if that is your thing. Seems to me that we have been lectured for about a decade now that it is not enough to be against something. What is important is to be “for” something, they say. So this piece just tells you about who they are against, not who they are supporting.

NROAgainst Trump” | January 21, 2016

But he is not deserving of conservative support in the caucuses and primaries. Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones. – Read more>

But therein is the rub. To include who they support would shatter their coalition into pieces. And there likely is not a big consensus on who they do support. Some of those names in there would be Jeb supporters. There are RINOs in the mix who probably would support Christie. But at least they can all agree on who they don’t support.

I like many of the pundits and conservatives in the No coalition. However, how much have they done for us in their influential capacity over the years? Not much and that is the reason we are in the spot we’re in. They can’t show you a recent record of success. That is one of the charges they levy against Trump.

Which all brings us to the next point. When you dissect this so-called conservative circle, you find that there are establishment conservatives. Surprise, what a timely reminder. Here we are with everyone against the establishment (staus quo) even on both sides. Along come these gurus of politics to out one person for not being a pure enough conservative. Skillet meet the kettle. But what do they mean by not pure enough? That’s the question.

Many of them live and breathe the beltway politics. They are interconnected to the RNC and establishment. Some are staunch supporters of amnesty. Some attack conservatives on a regular basis. Many think Cruz is too far right or extreme for them. But for the time, they all get on board to oppose the Donald. Some back big-government spending.

Then there is the net effect. Who gets hurt in the mix, members of the coalition of “No” or the Trumpster? My money is on Trump weathering the storm. If bringing people together to oppose something was their goal, then mission accomplished. Can they core an apple?

Here is one disgruntled viewer of the Kelly File which debuted the sultans of No. In her own words she has a message for them.

    Published on Jan 21, 2016
    I am livid, I am angry, I have a voice and I am going to use it!

The list of 22 conservatives in the coalition Against Trump.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama is Sincerely Wrong

We were bombarded by images of Obama and his tears as he said every time I think of those kids in Newtown “it makes me mad.” Then he turns toward the camera to show him wiping his tears. Whatever you thought of his performance, he made it obvious so we couldn’t miss it. (I wondered how much practice it involved)

But such is the news cycle, it took on a life of it’s own. Surely that one will be enshrined in his library one day. Just in case people say he was emotionless or cold, they can have that starring people in the face.

What happened though in the coverage was a consensus formed quickly. Most people came along to say “well, he may have been sincere.” Of course libtards would say he was very sincere and moved.

That started me thinking. Is that the only point, whether he was sincere or not? So he may have been but he was sincerely wrong, too, if so. It’s as if we are supposed to judge his plans and ideas on whether he was sincere — or sincerely crying. Remember they made fun of Boehner for getting emotional. He just can’t control himself, he’s a wreck. But this was Obama so they were righteous tears. (can’t have too many of those Obama tears) And we are supposed to pay attention to those like punctuation marks.

His ideas on gun control are wrong, his motives for doing them are wrong(at least very highly suspect), his use of power is wrong, and his rationale was wrong. But they all want to focus on whether he was “sincere” or not. Sure he believes in his cause and reasons. But whether he is “sincere” or not about them does not change what they are. So the majority of people in media missed that point. Since when do we want someone creating law out of their emotions?

But that is what libs want (and Jeb Bush too). Make amnesty plans on emotions, do Obamacare on emotions. Then say, well no one can deny he was sincere. So no one can deny you were wrong because they cannot deny your emotions. I can’t help thinking that’s just how the WH planned it. We’re supposed to control our borders based on emotions. We’re supposed to run the economy on emotions, and taxes on tears. Policy, education, defense, environment, resources, justice, and even elections on emotions. But hey, they are “sincere” that’s all that matters.

RightRing | Bullright

Double standard hernia

If they threw county clerk Kim Davis in jail in Kentucky, then why aren’t all the Obama administration officials in jail for not enforcing immigration law?

And where are all the people telling these officials that they cannot just refuse to follow the law? If they can put a county clerk in jail for that, how much more should they do to Federal Officials who will not enforce the law? So why aren’t officials in sanctuary cities, like San Francisco, in jail for failure to enforce immigration law?

But one clerk can be locked up for not issuing a marriage license. Advocates also decry officials in Texas for not issuing birth certificates to anchor babies. If the governments’ objective was to be inconsistent, and have double standards on law, which is also part of the fourteenth amendment, then it succeeded.

Obama arbitrarily and illegally rewrote immigration law, then had the audacity to complain when a judge ceased their actions.

US Citizenship and Immigration Services:

Update: Due to a federal court order, USCIS will not begin accepting requests for the expansion of DACA on February 18 as originally planned and has suspended implementation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents. The court’s temporary injunction, issued February 16, does not affect the existing DACA. Individuals may continue to come forward and request an initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA under the original guidelines. Please check back for updates. [emphasis mine]

Now they contend that they are being denied, via court order, the ability to enforce the illegal fiat law Obama created. The problems he claimed necessitate the law were caused by failures to enforce the law. Now they have the audacity to claim “the system is broken” and needs new law. Still a clerk gets jailed for a failure to comply with their “law” — which in reality was a Court decision. See where Obama has put this country?

The contract on Trump

No holds barred, takedown plans to rub out Trump in September. Wait, well maybe a few holds, like not by reluctant fellow candidates. They don’t want their fingerprints on that. Still it comes from the estabos anyway.
CNN

It’s no secret the Republican establishment is unnerved by Donald Trump and his lead in national and key state polls./…

“So they’re looking to more establishment PACs to potentially take him down in post-Labor Day ads.”

That opens it up to contract for hire. I wonder what the reward is? Rally the pacs to crank out the ads. All this might sound like a conspiracy if I didn’t know better. Knowing Trump and the way he handles things, who can rule out a backfire? They just might take aim to drive his poll numbers up even more.

Remember what Newt did in South Carolina. Now perhaps the same ire as the media got then will be turned on the estabos and their pacs. (their credibility is waning already) Just saying, at this point it is a possibility. And this being only the first unified attempt at the mission.

People are about to find out how nasty the estabos can be in a turf war. Never mind how nasty you think Trump is. That puts lamestream media and the establishment on the same page. Will they conspire (ally) with Democrats? Sounds like a job for the Cosa Nostra.

The illegal birthright problem

Yes, we have a problem with birth citizenship and illegal aliens, and their interpretation of the 14th amendment. Even the Rolling Stone is pointing out the absurdity to policies that create a magnet for births in this country. What are we now, the birth capitol of the world?

The Very Real Economic Costs of Birthright Citizenship

by Ian Tuttle August 21, 2015 | National Review

‘Peter and Ellie Yang,” the subjects of Benjamin Carlson’s fascinating new Rolling Stone essay, “Welcome to Maternity Hotel California,” paid $35,000 to have their second child in the United States. In 2012 Chinese state media reported 10,000 “tourist births” by Chinese couples in the United States; other estimates skew as high as 60,000. Following Donald Trump’s call for an end to birthright citizenship, and renewed attention on “anchor babies,” Carlson’s exposé on “birth tourism” seems to confirm that the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment works as a magnet for at least some parents across the globe. But just how big a magnet is it?

According to Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) legal policy analyst Jon Feere, who testified before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security in April, between 350,000 and 400,000 children are born annually to an illegal-alien mother residing in the United States — as many as one in ten births nationwide. As of 2010, four out of five children of illegal aliens residing in the U.S. were born here — some 4 million kids. Reporting that finding, the Pew Research Center noted that, while illegal immigrants make up about 4 percent of the adult population, “because they have high birthrates, their children make up a much larger share of both the newborn population (8 percent) and the child population (7 percent) in this country.” […/]

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422921/birthright-citizenship-economic-costs-incentives?

Report CIS paper:

“Every year 350,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States. To put this another way, one out of 10 births in the United States is to an illegal alien mother. Despite the foreign citizenship and illegal status of the parent, the Executive Branch automatically recognizes these children as US citizens upon birth, providing them Social Security numbers and US passports. The same is true of children born to tourists and other aliens who are present in the United States in a legal but temporary status. It is unlikely that Congress intended such a broad  application of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, and the Supreme Court has only held that children born to citizens or permanently domiciled  immigrants must be considered US citizens at birth.” read here

You can skip this part if you’d rather not be offended… or suck an egg.

I am severely pissed off — sorry outraged is too polite a word. Can’t we have a serious election in this country, at such a critically important time, without being dragged and mired in these word game semantics? No, we can’t because the bastards on the left who care more about words than national security or the rule of law, or abuse of power cannot allow it. They’d rather quibble about words. Show me another country that makes a bigger issue over words than what the issues and who the candidates really are. This is not an election of words, the English language or a newspeak competition.

Language police now want to run our national elections too. Who’d have thunk it? But when did we surrender our entire electoral process over to these thugs and tyrants? You don’t think we did? Well, look no further than the top establishment candidates from either party and tell me we haven’t. Jeb kind of deserves the harassment he’s getting over the “anchor baby” term. He swims in the same waters. Oh, he thought he had immunity to this word lunacy because he married a Mexican woman and has children? He’s been just as entrenched in political correctness as they are, when it suits his political fancy. He wants conservatives to come to his rescue? Ha ha. Then Hillary injects her p/c criticism, “they’re called babies.” Here’s a novel idea: if they don’t like the term “anchor babies,” then stop having anchor babies. Don’t deride us over the term.

Let me tell you what offends me. It deeply offends me that people who illegally came here made every effort to circumvent the law have declared themselves the chief moderators and judges of our elections, our process, and our civil discourse. So show me another country where word police are the arbiters of who is allowed to be or get elected. Look, if someone is that offended by words and our electoral process, then what are they doing in this country? Why would they want to come, let alone stay here? Is someone forcing them or holding them here against their will? Who turned our entire system over to them?

Yet when we say “we want to take our country back,” from all this politically correct lunacy and contemptible federal tyranny, the language police are all over crying foul that it sounds bigoted and offensive. We’re supposed to play these word games while the country is being systematically destroyed.

These people don’t want a seat at the table, they want to control the table and everyone at it. Sorry, our political system is not pretty — and judging from Obama, so not perfect — and is not politically correct. I make no apologies for it. I would take that imperfect American system, with those flaws, over any other country’s. But don’t take it hostage over our own citizenry for your own narrow, political self-interests.

Who put these perpetually-offended whiners and speech police in charge of our process — and laws? I don’t see it in the Constitution either. The last two elections I watched these purveyors of political correctness dominate or control our national dialogue. If the USA can no longer stand for Americans then what does it stand for? (can it stand?)

Debate with Jeb

We were treated to some answers to questions by whom MSM, Clintonistas and establishment seem to think is our nominee.(we’re only going through the superficial motions) I highlighted two of them, both show his arrogance. Both have that air of inevitability hanging over them.

I guess it would have been appropriate to have some music accompanying his answers and bobble-head gestures.(click for for effects). It must be lost on Jeb that the gangster Godfather comparison does not actually help his dynasty sales pitch.

BAIER: Governor Bush, you have insisted that you’re your own man. You say you have a life experience uniquely your own. Not your father’s, not your brother’s.

But there are several opponents on this stage who get big- applause lines in early voting states with this line: quote, “the last thing the country needs is another Bush in the Oval Office.”

So do you understand the real concern in this country about dynastic politics?

 

BUSH: Absolutely, I do, and I’m gonna run hard, run with heart, and run to win.

I’m gonna have to earn this. Maybe the barrier — the bar’s even higher for me. That’s fine.

I’ve got a record in Florida. I’m proud of my dad, and I’m certainly proud of my brother. In Florida, they called me Jeb, because I earned it.

I cut taxes every year, totaling $19 billion. We were — we had — we balanced every budget. We went from $1 billion of reserves to $9 billion of reserves.

We were one of two states that went to AAA bond rating.

They keep — they called me Veto Corleone. Because I vetoed 2,500 separate line-items in the budget. (APPLAUSE)

(Too bad he can’t veto his dynastic ambitions with such gusto. He understands those concerns? Help me.)

I am my own man. I governed as a conservative, and I govern effectively. And the net effect was, during my eight years, 1.3 million jobs were created. We left the state better off because I applied conservative principles in a purple state the right way, and people rose up.

 

Mod: Governor Bush, you released a new plan this week on illegal immigration focusing on enforcement, which some suggest is your effort to show that you’re not soft on that issue. I want to ask you about a statement that you made last year about illegal immigrants. And here’s what you said. “They broke the law, but it’s not a felony, it’s an act of love. It’s an act of commitment to your family.” Do you stand by that statement and do you stand by your support for earned legal status?

BUSH: I do. I believe that the great majority of people coming here illegally have no other option. They want to provide for their family.

(So he stands by his “act of love” statement. They have “no other option” which makes them robots who just have no choice — victims of their circumstance, victims of love… I have to stop before I get sick)

But we need to control our border. It’s not — it’s our responsibility to pick and choose who comes in. So I — I’ve written a book about this and yet this week, I did come up with a comprehensive strategy that — that really mirrored what we said in the book, which is that we need to deal with E-Verify, we need to deal with people that come with a legal visa and overstay. We need to be much more strategic on how we deal with border enforcement, border security. We need to eliminate the sanctuary cities in this country. It is ridiculous and tragic… (APPLAUSE) … that people are dying because of the fact that — that local governments are not following the federal law.

There’s much to do. And I think rather than talking about this as a wedge issue, which Barack Obama has done now for six long years, the next president — and I hope to be that president — will fix this once and for all so that we can turn this into a driver for high sustained economic growth. And there should be a path to earned legal status… (BUZZER NOISE) BUSH: — for those that are here. Not — not amnesty, earned legal status, which means you pay a fine and do many things over an extended period of time.

Okay, Jeb — if that’s what they call you because you “earned it”? — or Veto Corleone —  maybe you should enlighten people on what you mean by “turn this  [illegal immigration] into a driver for high sustained growth.” There must be details we commoners are not aware of that are not visible to this point in our border crisis, amnesty disaster. You’d think all the benefits would have revealed themselves by now. If immigration was such a net gain, then we’d have double digit growth.

“I do” and “I do,”  he must have thought he was taking some wedding vow. We aren’t so impressed. Meanwhile, the Godfather explanation or justification is not working for me. If he thinks calling himself Jeb evades being a Bush, he must be in sad shape. There just is no answer for dynasty except “No!”

Source: debate transcript

Illegal surge again knocking on the door

We used to talk about a “surge” meaning troops to Iraq or Afghanistan. But we are having surges here in the US from outside our borders, from places we don’t even know.

Now here we are again, witnessing another surge of illegal aliens. It doesn’t matter where all they are from, they are coming. Heat or not.

DHS admits new surge of illegal immigrant families

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times – Friday, August 7, 2015

The country saw another surge of illegal immigrant families crossing the border in July, a top Homeland Security official told a federal court late Thursday as the administration begged a judge not to forbid detention of new migrant mothers and children.

Deputy Border Patrol Chief Ronald Vitiello said the number of illegal immigrant families captured at the border rose in July, bucking a trend and worrying officials who had been expecting the number of families to drop as the heat increases in late summer, just as the number of unaccompanied minors does.

Even worse, the administration fears things may get worse if illegal immigrants hear about Judge Dolly M. Gee’s July 24 ruling all but prohibiting detention of illegal immigrant families.

Read more

So how many more of these surges can we tolerate? Then shipping begins to parts unknown, all done quietly as we debate if there is a problem, what to do. This while we are under siege from sanctuary cities.

“Point: Sanctuary Policies Mainly Protect the Predators”
By Jessica Vaughan July 2015 | Center for Immigration Studies

The Obama administration has made it clear that it will not act against sanctuary jurisdictions. Instead, the president has moved to make the whole country a sanctuary by giving work permits to illegal aliens and drastically scaling back enforcement for all but the most egregious criminal offenders. And he terminated perhaps the most effective enforcement program ever (Secure Communities) and replaced it with a new program that explicitly allows localities to obstruct ICE. (more)

Same old song and dance

It’s been a little while since I did an essay, and pontificating is really not in vogue at the moment. I’ll bust the boundaries and meet in the middle with personal commentary on this process that looks more like helter-skelter than an election year roll out. Plus a rant.

First off though I’d compare the situation to 2012, and most of the same issues are in the mix. Coincidence. How many years now have we been running on ObamaCare, political dysfunction or corrupt beltway politics. Frankly, I am sick of hearing the same things about upcoming elections: it’s this issue or that. It may always be about it but in the aftermath “it” never gets addressed. Next election.

When you do think you got a mandate on something at the polls, you are disappointed to learn later on that the election did not mean what you thought — or should have meant. We send people to congress with a message but that “tin can & and string” magically turns into a fundraiser speed-dial campaign once they hit Washington. So we get letter after letter of what they are concerned about, with reasons for raising money for their campaign coffers. Who doesn’t have a pet issue to pander for dollars about? Pick one, any one.

If I could sum up the political climate across the board it’s a lyin’ and cryin’ campaign. Lying about what they’ll do and crying for mo’ money.

So with that as the backdrop, its pretty hard to be optimistic about the people’s business. The subliminal message is expect what you have always gotten. We heard “if we change Congress things will change.” Have they, you decide? We heard “we will repeal Obamacare.” We heard that will not stand with a change in leadership. We heard Obama will finally be challenged or stopped. Executive tyranny will be opposed. (Benghazi, IRS, Iran, ISIS, Israel, amnesty, same sex marriage, 1st amendment, drilling, Keystone, VA hospitals, nominees, cronyism, scandals.) Well, all meant to keep our hopes up. We even had our hopes in the process and courts. How many Independence Days have we celebrated while wondering if that sacred covenant must be renewed? If election IOUs we’re given were frequent flier miles, then we would have been home-free long ago.

Is it our fault?

For years we could have only looked back at ourselves saying we get the government we deserve, and we’d be right. We’ve allowed it and brought it on. But now I think we are a little past that. We may stand accused for a lot and haven’t been vigilant, however, can we really be blamed for the entire current condition? I think not. We told them and did our best to hold them responsible. We sent them a message that we aren’t going to take it anymore. But afterward we endure a relapse of the same systemic failures we’ve seen for over a decade.

The standard answer is always, “if you don’t like it vote them out next election. That’s the process.” No kidding? After the fact, right. But the damage can’t be undone easily.

Many of us have been waiting, hoping, praying for something different. We always hear “next election” and that’s where we put our emphasis. So maybe now, this time, it finally is “next election.” If so, I hope it’s like Groundhog Day and keeps happening over and over.

Why do I think that is against the odds? I’m not really sure. But this year one candidate came in different from the cookie cutter politicians, and from an unlikely place. You know which one I mean, and it isn’t Bernie Sanders, with the initials DT.

But let’s back up a moment. Trump has made noises about running for years. He was an almost in 2012. Last election it stirred curiosity. Naysayers said he wouldn’t run and they were right. I was dismissive about his prospects then. I didn’t think he would make much difference anyway. He was not my favorite.

Remember Newt at South Carolina?

When Newt Gingrich ran he was not an odds on favorite either but something happened in South Carolina that made us take another, closer look. It was that question from the media which Newt turned into his moment. Against all odds he shot up and made everyone take notice. Sure, it didn’t last or turn out well. Maybe lightning in a bottle cannot be repeated at will. But it did happen for a moment in South Carolina, where the sky opened and people took a deep breath, just for a moment. They were on notice. When media blushed and the blame turned on them it caught them off guard. It didn’t last but it was a spotlight on the whole process while it lasted.

Alluding in his South Carolina victory speech to elites and media influence Newt said, “But we do have ideas, and we do have people and we proved here in South Carolina that people power with the right ideas beats big money.” Or so we’d like to think. We’d like to believe the right ideas do win, too. Incidentally, Romney’s answer to SC was to turn up the heat against Newt, who probably wasn’t prepared for the barrage. (cue attack ads)

Years ago, I used to hear the line: you dance all night someone has to pay the fiddler. They’ve been doing a lot of dancing in DC.

One of the worst things IMO has been that we were led to believe they were going to do things, namely resist Obama’s agenda, pursue accountability, hold spending, oppose amnesty, restore the separation of powers. What difference at this point has it made? And they wonder why people are angry with Washington? It’s been almost a year and we still hear talk. So then comes Trump but they take issue with Donald for pointing it out.

It’s already been said if this much effort they use to oppose Trump were focused on holding Obama to account, like they said they were going to do, then we would see fruits from their labor. But no, instead Obama is going on now another victory tour for his Iran deal disaster. He’s taking an international bow while they cast Israel to the curb. And Republicans gave him fast track authority. It’s a one lane highway, or a freeway.

Obama now says from Ethiopia that: “In 18 months, I’m turning over the keys, I want to make sure I’m turning over the keys to somebody who is serious about the serious problems that the country faces and the world faces.” Say what? Now he’s the guard for our safety or security, after making a miserable deal with Iran, saturating government in radicalism, scandal upon scandal, and watching ISIS explode across the Middle East. Who in the hell does he think he is? This must be some kind of a joke like… “Live from Africa, its Obamerika!”

So is there anything new here? Have our efforts been fruitful? Rather than oppose Obama’s radical agenda Republicans give him Fast Track. Amnesty without a whimper. Republicans poured gas on the flames instead. They’ve given but haven’t gotten a damn thing back. Oh, we have gotten these public attacks and vengeance from Obama, and threats. Now its a nuclear deal with Iran on the table. Do we really have an irrelevant Congress like Obama promised to do — at State of the Union no less. He’s rolling out the EPA jihad. He’s declared a war on energy, and war on the economy.

Yep, we had elections on issues. Now we’re going to campaign on most of the same things. How many years has Obamacare been an election issue. In Live from Obamerika debut, Barry claimed the outrage and disagreement with his Iran nuke deal was just to divert attention from Trump. Say what? He must think people cannot do more than one thing at a time? That’s what he hoped: that people would be too preoccupied with election politics to pay lip service to his Iran giveaway. The UN rubber stamp was a nice touch.

RightRing | Bullright

Lindsey Graham Cracker sounding his trumpet

Presidential candidate Lindsey Graham says Trump has hijacked debate and is a wrecking ball, saying that its time they start “pushing back” against Trump.

That is the most hypocritical thing I’ve ever heard. Graham and his ilk have made a career of hijacking the Republican party. How many gangs? Their immigration and campaign finance crap was all gang mentality, liberal mentality at that.

Their biggest complaints are reserved for conservatives — i.e. “agents of intolerance”.

Now that the base and conservatives are pushing back against Graham and his RINO coalition of the stupid, he declares that Trump is the “wrecking ball.” And since when did Graham speak for the Republican Party? He and others always speak for themselves.

He told CNN: “I think [Trump’s] a demagogue and uninformed…”

“I think he’s hijacked the debate. I think he’s a wrecking ball for the future of the Republican Party with the Hispanic community and we need to push back.”

“I’m very worried about where we’re headed as a party. I don’t think this is the way to get the Latino vote. If we do not reject this way of thinking clearly, without any ambiguity, we will have lost our way.If we don’t reject it, we’ve lost the moral authority, in my view, to govern this country.”

Talk about people and voters having lost their way. And what he is calling for is just what the left does, demand that people lineup to condemn someone’s remarks. Moral authority? Pope Graham.

Speaking on his highness’s moral authority, Pontiff Graham Cracker said:

“I think it is not only incumbent upon the chairman (of RNC), but anyone in a responsible position within the Republican Party needs to say the following to the American people:

We do not agree with Donald Trump when he says that most illegal immigrants are drug dealers and rapists. We have quite the opposite view that this is a hard problem and needs to be solved. But most of these people are descent hardworking folks coming from poor countries that try to improve their lives and we need to create order out of chaos.””

Alex, I’ll take hypocrisy for a thousand, please. Stop using symptoms of government’s deliberate failure for an excuse to say “the system is broken”… blah, blah. What’s broken and morally bankrupt is your ideological jihad over election politics.

Sanctuaries for illegals, bullets and crime for citizens.

Sanctuary cities — my new term is Sanc-cities.

Byron York has an article in the Washington Examiner reporting what Obama, Clinton and Biden said in debating it in 2008.
Clinton said:

So this is a result of the failure of the federal government, and that’s where it needs to be fixed.

The problem is the federal government has totally abdicated its responsibility.

Read more here

Its the one thing they all had in common, each blame federal government for being derelict in its duties. According to them, this is the reason we have sanctuary cities to begin with.

Now that they are the ones running federal government, the problem is immigration is so broken. But they won’t say what exactly is wrong with the laws, or why they are broken, they just propose “immigration reform”. Why would anyone not be suspicious about what they are doing? They even claim that the sanctuary policies make the cities safer. Creating a huge magnet to attract illegals, and release them to recommit crimes makes cities safer?

Notice how progressives blame federal government, like ICE, but yet they don’t want ICE to be able to do their job. No they don’t want any cooperation between local communities and ICE. Actually, the dems would have all sanctuary cities, towns, communities. But they would still blame the federal government for being derelict in their duties — to enforce the law. It’s equivalent to a dog or cat chasing its tail endlessly. How can they get away with this since the Dems are in control of both the sanctuary cities and the federal government? (via executive branch)

The Constitution never gave cities or towns the ability to write immigration laws…or ignore them completely. They have policies like don’t ask don’t tell on immigration. They don’t want authorities to ask immigration status nor illegals to say they are undocumented.

We have a full-court blame fest going on. Sanc-cities blame feds, feds blame the cities, Obama says we need more funding for the laws they aren’t enforcing. All say that the system is completely broken that we need reform to fix the problems.

In other words, we cannot fix any problems without creating another bureaucratic expansion of federal government– and funding it the same. So they want more laws for Sanc-cites to refuse to enforce. Or until they get ones they like. Border agents blame administration for threatening them not to enforce the law.

All these oath takers cannot keep their oath of office. You might as well call it civil disobedience. But if they were really in civil disobedience, you would think they would just quit the job in protest then if they cannot do it. Instead, they defy their oath of office by not following the law despite what the consequences of that brings.

RightRing | Bullright

A House Divided

It’s really disturbing when you see images, as Peppermint reminds me, of people stomping on or destroying the flag. And it’s not elsewhere, it goes on right here at home. They call that freedom of speech, protected protest. Yada yada.

18 U.S. Code § 700 – Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties

PUBLIC LAW 101-131—OCT. 28 1989

(a)
(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.
(b) As used in this section, the term “flag of the United States” means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory, possession, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.
(d)
(1) An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order issued by a United States district court ruling upon the constitutionality of subsection (a).
(2) The Supreme Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the question, accept jurisdiction over the appeal and advance on the docket and expedite to the greatest extent possible.

Notes: Constitutionality

For information regarding constitutionality of this section as amended by Pub. L. 101–131, see Congressional Research Service, The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, Appendix 1, Acts of Congress Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court of the United States. [source]

They can call it whatever they want, but we know what it is. That is the reason they do it, because it does disturb and irritate people. If they cannot get their way they desecrate the flag, Old Glory. They know it will get attention and it does.They understand it is attached to something respectable.

It’s long been known that one of the Left’s pet peeves is nationalism. At least until now the left has been die-hard anti-nationalist. Now that they have a king on their throne it is a little different. But Obama is anti-nationalist — the common conception of it.

In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote in “The American Crisis” what is true again today:

THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to tax) but “to bind us in all cases whatsoever,” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

Dare I say in these days even the sunshine patriot is a fleeting concept, at least on the left. If we cannot stand together against the enemy as one, then our days may be numbered. The left wants us to witness their anger and disdain for our founding principles — or unifying nationalism in general — but they do not want us to understand its source. They don’t want us to perceive rebellion for the sake of rebellion. They don’t want us to see that sentiments of hatred and resentment drive it.

The wisdom is a house divided cannot stand. They want to see to it we cannot stand or that we cannot stand for fundamental principles, nor unify under them. As much as they detest a nationalistic sense of patriotism, they demanded a king and got one. Never mind those two things — anti-nationalism and Obama — should be diametrically opposed to each other. They want a rebellion spirit to replace nationalism.

Mark 3:25
“And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.”

They want no nationalist pride and loathe it. Not every leftist, but those leading the parade are so it does matter. They are determined to break us down to factions and divide us. But they want us united over gay marriage, illegal immigration, or against a “Republic for which it stands”. Unite Blue, as they say. They want us united in bitterness toward America. The Bill Ayers types are no longer agitators in the back of the classroom; they’ve been promoted to class presidents, scholars, and experts on the matter.

In the hypocritical world of the left, they want to divide and conquer but also want unity under a banner against America, against our ancestors, against history, against God and country, against patriotism. But it must be replaced, under a similar banner, with exactly the opposite and called ‘better and more perfect’ even righteous. (in their perverted sense of righteous fervor) Just like they turned abortion rights into an altar of the Left. Just as they are now doing with gay marriage, and what they are trying to do with illegals and open borders.

It makes perfect sense, at least to the left, to preach unity to the Right while taking the most divisive stands they can. The resulting friction and dispute is what they want over the ugly nationalism they despise. Yet there are indications that they have great respect for nationalism when they see it in any other country — whether it be Chilean miners, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Cuba, or Palestinians. Put a cause with unifying nationalism in other places and they are all for it. Better still, put it under a flag to unite under.

Why do we think they are so schizophrenic about ISIS? “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Even faced with the facts they will obfuscate to make excuses for the terrorist. Blame their actions on America. It’s perfectly rational to them. So a convicted cop killer rotting in prison garners their sympathy and support. They’ll turn a blind eye to what he did calling him/her a good and compassionate person. And once locked into misplaced support, they are in it until the end.

To you and I those don’t sound like unifying things or ideas. But to the left they perform a very practical function — to attack anything that stands for God-fearing principles, or the nationalism it incorporates. Better chaos than that. Better divide and conquer than live under its rubric. And they find it therapeutically unifying to oppose that: Viva la rebellion. In the end, they want national unity of a different sort. They admire nationalism in Chile, in Cuba, in Russia, or in regimes far removed from justice.

They resented the House impeachment process of Clinton, yet demanded it for Bush. They detest the suggestion of impeachment under Obama to the point of creating an unimpeachable POTUS. They use any possibility of impeachment as a fundraiser. Congratulations, you have gotten what you wanted all along: unimpeachable injustice. A cause du jour worth fighting for.

Paine said, “I cannot see on what grounds the king of Britain can look up to heaven for help against us.” I can’t see on what grounds Obama could look to heaven for help against us.

Pt-2: place your bets

RightRing | Bullright

Are the 2016 numbers already in the bag?

At least someone thinks so and is spreading that message far and wide.
What hope is there for America, when this is set to go off in 2016?

Univision host: Hispanic vote to jump from 12 million to 16 million, will decide presidency

By Paul Bedard | May 20, 2015 | Washington Examiner

Jorge Ramos, the influential host of Univision’s Noticiero Univision, said the Latino vote will decide the 2016 presidential election and that Hispanics could see a reward for providing the margin of victory.

In an interview with Harvard University’s Institute of Politics following a speech to students, Ramos predicted that about 16 million Hispanics will go to the polls, likely to vote Democratic based on past trends.

More: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/univision-host-hispanic-vote-to-jump-from-12-million-to-16-million-will-decide-presidency/article/2564781

Of course if it occurs once then it is considered a patent rule in all future elections, too. Look what happened with the precious black identity politics. Now they are pushing the female vote. And the Hispanic vote appears to be a done deal — at least according to them, with more of their election projection.

Speaking of deals, note the arrogance of Ramos about something in return. Like they haven’t been bought and paid for already as another voter bloc on the Democrat plantation roles. Identity politics on steroids. But then who else is even in that league? What is it?

While we are talking about trends, that Jorge Ramos has a few of them working. I know I blame MSM a lot for their crap coverage, but this guy blows them away in the arrogance department. He’s a one man band, a TV news anchor, journalist, left-wing activist and a lobbyist kind of all rolled into one. Not to mention pretty much a one-note Charley on illegal immigration. Now he appears to be an election consultant/expert/adviser/ambassador/advocate/diplomat/executive. He does it all. And if you want to talk to the Hispanic community, you gotta go through him.(WSJ calls him key to the voting bloc.) And we thought our mainstream-media model was bad.