Michigan Gov. Snyder Brags He's The Most Pro-Immigration Governor In The Country

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, someone who will never be president, here:

“I’m probably the most pro-immigration governor in the country and I’m proud of that,” said Snyder, who included farm workers in his call for opening the state’s borders to immigrants who can create jobs for the state’s economy.

Best comment on the story:

"I never see advertisements for farm labor." 

Obama Lies About Everything, Even The Small Stuff Like His Illegal Alien Uncle Omar

From The Boston Herald, here:

[I]n 2011 ... media outlets asked the White House if the two men had ever met. The answer was no. ... However ... Uncle Omar testified in court that his nephew had stayed with him for three weeks when he was at Harvard Law School . . .. And what do you know, the president confirmed his uncle’s story.

So-Called Conservative Supporters Of Illegal Alien Amnesty To Meet Tonight In DC

Bloomberg has the story, here, naming the following so-called conservatives and right of center groups in attendance to launch a lobbying bomb on Washington for an illegal immigration amnesty bill from the Senate which is dead in the US House:

US Chamber of Commerce

Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg

NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg

Marriott CEO Arne Sorenson

News Corp's Rupert Murdoch

Southern Baptist Convention

American Conservative Union

Americans for Tax Reform's Grover Norquist.

You have met the enemy, and it ain't us.

How Rep. Paul Ryan Is Just Like Sen. Ted Cruz

Here in The Wall Street Journal on October 8th, Rep. Paul Ryan says he is willing to swap sequester cuts for cuts to mandatory spending:

If Mr. Obama decides to talk, he'll find that we actually agree on some things. For example, most of us agree that gradual, structural reforms are better than sudden, arbitrary cuts. For my Democratic colleagues, the discretionary spending levels in the Budget Control Act are a major concern. And the truth is, there's a better way to cut spending. We could provide relief from the discretionary spending levels in the Budget Control Act in exchange for structural reforms to entitlement programs.

And the reason is there's more to be gained over the long haul from cuts to the mandatory side, which is 60% of annual outlays anyway:

These reforms are vital. Over the next 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office predicts discretionary spending—that is, everything except entitlement programs and debt payments—will grow by $202 billion, or roughly 17%. Meanwhile, mandatory spending—which mostly consists of funding for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—will grow by $1.6 trillion, or roughly 79%. The 2011 Budget Control Act largely ignored entitlement spending. But that is the nation's biggest challenge.

But just why Republicans like Paul Ryan expect us to believe they can negotiate cuts to mandatory programs from Democrats who have just rammed a new one called ObamaCare down our throats is quite beyond me. It's as unrealistic as Senator Ted Cruz thinking libertarian Republicans could get Obama to defund that program without unity in the party on the subject in the first place. Cynics quickly decided Cruz was just fundraising for 2016. And Rep. Ryan could just as plausibly be trying to re-establish some street cred with conservatives after his involvement with the Facebook-financed immigration amnesty debacle.

There's plenty of unrealism to go around in the Republican Party, which still hasn't figured out that Obama and the Democrats are the enemy, which is surprising since that's how he views them. But that seems to be a particularly libertarian penchant, expressed as it is in interminable losing electoral challenges throughout the country which do nothing but help elect Democrats. Maybe Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz are just libertarian spoilers on the national stage, for whom success is keeping Republicans from succeeding.

Figuring out how to proceed when your country has been taken over by a hostile foreign power without having fired a shot remains the central problem for an opposition which doesn't realize it is one, especially when your own ranks have been infiltrated by an enemy.

Where are the non-libertarian economic conservatives? 

Face It, The Heritage Foundation Has Been And Remains Confused (By Liberalism)

As the photo at left demonstrates but conservatives want to ignore, including Erick Erickson here at Red State, a Heritage Foundation representative was present for the signing of RomneyCare in 2006 because Heritage invented the damn idea way back before HillaryCare raised its ugly head and Heritage was happy to see it made into law (so was Senator Ted Kennedy). That was just seven years ago, but now Heritage would just rather have you ignore all that.

Forcing people to sign up for health insurance at the point of a gun has its analog, of course, in forcing people in distant lands to adopt Western-style democracy, something we heard the heir of Republican conservatism, George Bush, incessantly preach: "The long-term solution is to promote a better ideology, which is freedom. Freedom is universal." (Whether they want it or not). To this day, as Molly Ball's article in The Atlantic points out here, "universal coverage" is still Heritage's position:

In my interviews with them, Heritage officials could recite chapter and verse on why Heritage turned against the individual mandate -- a turn, they claim, that occurred before Romney or Obama adopted the idea. “We still believe universal coverage is a good idea,” [Phillip] Truluck [VP and COO] said. But none of the four Heritage officials I interviewed could tell me offhand how the foundation proposes to reform health care and cover the uninsured if Obamacare is scrapped. (Later, an assistant followed up by emailing me links to Heritage papers on “putting patients first,” regulating the health-insurance market, and Medicare reform.)

The place is universally incoherent, and always has been. It has been against Drugs for Seniors as an expansion of big government, but supported the line-item veto, thus expanding the authority of the executive part of government, even as it once used to warn about the imperial presidency. Today it is famously against the current immigration amnesty plan but was pro-immigration for the longest time. It had a founder who has moved notably left liberal, but now it has a libertarian-friendly leader in Jim DeMint. It was for ObamaCare before it was against it. Something about the Heritage Foundation is really off for it to be the home of so many contradictory currents. If conservatism is the negation of ideology, as Russell Kirk taught us, Heritage knows nothing about it.

Maybe they should just rename the place The John F. Kerry Foundation and be done with it.

"In blow to immigration reform, House ‘gang of seven’ bill looks dead"

Story here.

Leave Them There

London Grows By A Million 2001-2011, But 600,000 Native Whites Flee

Which helps explain why UKIP is winning elections in Great Britain: It just went from 7 seats in Parliament local elections to 147, with Britons fed up with regulations which come with EU membership and flood their country with cheap, foreign labor.

Stories here at The UK Telegraph, and here at Sky News.

(originally posted May 7th, corrected)

Senator Rubio Fears Executive Orders Instead Of Fighting Them

He looks to his right, but to us it's left.

Sen. Rubio continues with his mission of disappointing the country and disappointing conservatives, here, expressly ceding his legislative authority to the executive:

“I have been saying now for over a year I believe that this president tempted, will be tempted, if nothing happens in Congress he will be tempted, to issue an executive order like he did for the DREAM Act kids a year ago, where he basically legalizes 11 million people by the sign of a pen,” Rubio said. ... “But we can’t leave it, in my mind, the way it is, because a year from now we could find ourselves with all 11 million people here legally through an executive order from the president, but no E-Verify, no border security, no more border agents — none of the other reforms that we desperately need.”

Presidents Haven't Done Their Job In 20 Years Reporting On Visa Overstays

So says a scathing report in The Washington Times here which says the General Accounting Office can somehow do an audit and find out that we've got 1 million overstaying visas right now, or that previously the number was 1.6 million, but the executive branch hasn't ever been able to figure it out in any year in two decades, nor has Homeland Security fulfilled its legal obligation to track exit compliance since 2004.

Maybe it's because presidents don't give a damn? Maybe it's because there's an unspoken agreement between the two parties to keep the flow coming despite what the people want? Because businesses want the cheap labor, and politicians want the extra votes? And oops, some terrorists get in, so sorry, so now we have to spy on everybody to fix that?

Excerpts:

"The GAO said most of the overstays came by airplane, but 32 percent came through land ports of entry, and 4 percent came by sea. The average length of overstay was 2.7 years. ... The executive branch is supposed to report annually to Congress on how many people have overstayed their visas but has failed to do so for the past two decades, saying the information isn’t reliable enough. ... The total of 1 million potential overstays in the country is an improvement from two years ago, when the GAO found Homeland Security had lost track of 1.6 million people. Homeland Security went back and looked at those names and found that more than half had either actually left the country unbeknownst to the government, or had gained legal status that allowed them to remain in the U.S. Of the others, the department decided most were deemed not to be security risks and so there was no need to track them down. But 1,901 of them were deemed significant national security or public safety threats, and 266 of those were still unaccounted for as of March."

Rep. Paul Ryan Hasn't Been Conservative On Immigration Since 1994

From Boston.com, here:

Ryan is hardly a newcomer to the issue. In 1994, when he worked with Kemp, he wrote a 4,000-word rebuttal to proponents of Proposition 187, the California ballot initiative that denied benefits to immigrants in the country illegally. He backed the immigration overhaul bill crafted by McCain and the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., that nearly became law in 2007.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The demographic problem of Baby Boomer retirement didn't yet exist in 1994 as it does now but Ryan was still in favor of cheap illegal labor for American business at the expense of legal citizen labor then. Paul Ryan is not a conservative and never has been. If he were, he would stand for the rule of law against the ineluctable fact of illegality.

That betrayal of the rule of law, now enshrined in the Senate immigration bill which gives legal status to law-breakers, is no different from Obama's selective enforcement of American law, which means his deliberate breaking of the law himself, from deportation rules to his own ObamaCare law and the now defunct DOMA.

They are all, Republican and Democrat alike, unfit to serve in their present positions, let alone in any future position. They are traitors to their own country and what it stood for but no longer does.

Just 6% Think Immigration Reform Is Our Number One Issue

"barking up the wrong tree"

So reported Bloomberg a week ago, here:

In a June 1-4 Gallup poll, 43 percent of Americans named either the economy or employment and jobs as the No. 1 issue facing the U.S., while 6 percent said immigration topped their list of concerns.

Rep. Cantor Divines New Founding Principle Which Just Happens To Lead To Dream Act

Here:

"One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents."

-------------------------------------------------

Well, if anyone should know about founding principles, it's Eric Cantor:

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." -- Exodus 20:5

The (Loser) Republican Establishment Is Behind Immigration Amnesty, Not Conservatives

The newest ad campaign supporting the immigration amnesty bill from the US Senate is from American Action Network, according to the Chicago Tribune, here:

“This is the tough border security America needs,” said the television ad, the first to specifically target the House from American Action Network, whose Hispanic Leadership Network has sought to educate lawmakers about immigration. It notes that the surge is supported by conservative leaders, including what is essentially a who’s who of potential 2016 presidential contenders: Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the former vice presidential nominee. The ad will run nationally in prime time this week on the Fox News channel.

The founders of American Action Network are Fred Malek of Nixon administration Bureau of Labor Statistics "Jewish cabal" infamy and ex-Democrat Norm Coleman, who lost his US Senate seat to that formidable foe, Stuart Smalley. The sister organization to the Network is American Action Forum headed by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, of losing John McCain campaign fame. Evidently Messrs. Rubio, Bush and Ryan don't mind it one bit being mixed up with these retreads, but then again, Rep. Ryan knows all about hooking up with losers.

Malek managed the losing reelection campaign of Pres. George Herbert Walker Bush, and was co-chair of the John McCain presidential campaign finance committee. Oh yeah. In a civil fraud action brought by the SEC in 2003 Malek reportedly paid a personal fine of $100,000. Unlike President Obama, Malek has denied having any taste whatsoever for barbecued dog.

US Postal Service Photographed Fronts And Backs Of 160 Billion Pieces Of Mail In 2012

Yeah, but don't use a return address when you write to me.

No wonder the mail is so slow. Timely coverage of ongoing US government spying on American citizens' mail through both Mail Covers and MICT, from The New York Times, here:

[M]ail covers ... is only a forerunner of a vastly more expansive effort, the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program, in which Postal Service computers photograph the exterior of every piece of paper mail that is processed in the United States — about 160 billion pieces last year. It is not known how long the government saves the images. ... In a criminal complaint filed June 7 in Federal District Court in Eastern Texas, the F.B.I. said a postal investigator tracing the ricin letters was able to narrow the search to Shannon Guess Richardson, an actress in New Boston, Tex., by examining information from the front and back images of 60 pieces of mail scanned immediately before and after the tainted letters sent to Mr. Obama and Mr. Bloomberg showing return addresses near her home. Ms. Richardson had originally accused her husband of mailing the letters, but investigators determined that he was at work during the time they were mailed. ... For mail cover requests, law enforcement agencies simply submit a letter to the Postal Service, which can grant or deny a request without judicial review. Law enforcement officials say the Postal Service rarely denies a request. In other government surveillance program, such as wiretaps, a federal judge must sign off on the requests. ... Law enforcement officials need warrants to open the mail, although President George W. Bush asserted in a signing statement in 2007 that the federal government had the authority to open mail without warrants in emergencies or foreign intelligence cases. ... Officials in both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, in fact, have used the mail-cover court rulings to justify the N.S.A.’s surveillance programs, saying the electronic monitoring amounts to the same thing as a mail cover. ... The program has led to sporadic reports of abuse. In May 2012, Mary Rose Wilcox, a Maricopa County supervisor, was awarded nearly $1 million by a federal judge after winning a lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for his immigration raids in Arizona, who, among other things, obtained mail covers from the Postal Service to track her mail.

Richest Will Benefit From Immigration Bill While Poorest Will Suffer

So says CNBC's John Carney, here:

What the CBO does get right is that return on invested capital is likely to increase under the bill. What this means is that the richest members of the economy will benefit from the bill even as the poorest members suffer. It will act as a sort of anti-Rawlsian law, delivering the greatest benefit to the best-off in society. Inequality will grow under this law, rather than shrink.

The Senate Immigration Bill Has One Basic Problem: It's Too Christian

The Senate immigration bill has one basic problem: Its desire to make illegal aliens legal with the sweep of a hand.

Forgiveness is fine in church, but America isn't a theocracy, and Jesus Christ isn't its Lord, unless you are willing to make thought-adultery and a host of other sins crimes, and turning the other cheek and loving your enemies civic duties. Hate crime legislation is already one sign we've gone over the deep end into this sort of thinking. We're the Christian antitype of Sufi Iran.

Amnesty makes a mockery of the rest of immigration law and a mockery of those who have obeyed it both in the past and now, just as it did in 1986. It is cheap grace personified, the epitome of Protestantism gone off the rails.

How To Write To Your Democrat Senator On Immigration

Dear Senator,

I don't understand how you can support conservative Republican Sen. Marco Rubio's Senate immigration bill.

The bill undercuts the wages of working people by exempting people receiving legal status for the first time from the Affordable Care Act provisions. Employers will have added incentive to hire them at a lower cost instead of currently unemployed citizens.

I urge you to vote against the Republican bill. It is not in keeping with the Democratic Party's liberal ideals of equality.

Sincerely,

How Do You Round Up 11 Million Illegals For 462 Million English Classes?

ESL Meets Tu/Th/F 10AM-NOON For 3 Months

If we can't round up millions of illegals to deport them, we are supposed to believe each one will show up multiple times for English classes? At a cost of $330 million?

The English as a Second Language class highlighted at the left, chosen at random, met for a total of 42 times between late January and early May in 2013.

That's only 462 million class sessions for 11 million illegal aliens.

Like that'll happen.

We Spend 4x More On Spying Than On Controlling Foreign "Visitors"

Customs, Immigration & Border most recent year: $18 billion

Estimated National Intelligence budget (secret):     $75 billion