Latest Quinnipiac poll shows Trump ahead by only 4 points and up only 1 point over the prior poll at the end of November

Is English a second language for Marco Rubio?

Recently Rubio flubbed "more" and "fewer", saying "more plumbers and less philosophers".

But now he also shows his ignorance of "between you and me":

"The bottom line is there isn't that big a difference between [Cruz] and I on how to approach immigration," Rubio told CBS News on Sunday.

I expect rednecks from Michigan to say "between you and I" but not US Senators, but then again neither Barack Obama nor Donald Trump seems to know it's "secretaries of state", not "secretary of states".

Meanwhile Byron York above shows rather convincingly that it was Ted Cruz voting for stronger border amendments to the Gang of Eight bill in 2013 and Rubio voting against them.

Scott Sumner is simply an ideologue, and a confused one at that, otherwise he wouldn't be as unhappy as he is

In "Libertarians have nowhere to turn" Scott Sumner the market monetarist laments:

'In my view neither major political party has libertarian inclinations. ... I'm slightly more sympathetic to the progressives who insist that I should really be a Democrat. They tell me "After all, you are rational. You believe in evolution and support carbon taxes and redistribution and think money was too tight during the Great Recession. You are pro-immigration and skeptical of the idea that America is an 'exceptional' nation, which must police the world." Those are all good arguments, but then I start obsessing about economics. After all, I am an economist.'

Apart from completely missing that the Democrat Party is the party of social freedom and the Republican Party is the party of economic freedom, it's rather singular for a self-described libertarian to embrace economic redistributionism so openly (not to mention a draconian form of taxation). To do so betrays a feeling for the left, not the right, which, if libertarians were only honest enough to admit it, has always been their inclination.

Sumner might reflect on the fact that we actually live in a perfect storm of libertarianism, in which economic (and social) actors have been unleashed to be all that they can be. The trouble is, only a few "succeed". The fact that income inequality has reasserted itself to a degree not seen since the gilded age is proof of the basic fact that not all men are created equal. The very best at making money have risen to the top and become enormously wealthy in an environment specifically designed to allow it to happen. The end result of economic libertarianism is that the very best will eventually succeed in hoarding all the goodies for themselves while the rest of us are left to serfdom. The end result of libertarianism is freedom for thee, but not for me.

The same can be illustrated on the social side, where some freak flags fly higher than all the rest. They rise to fame and influence beyond all their fellows in "art", "music", "literature" and "society", if you can call violent, vulgar and obscene Hollywood films, rap, "shady" novels and the Kardashians representative of those categories.

Conservatism, primarily rooted in religion, has historically functioned in society to apply the brakes to keep these actors from getting out of control and acquiring undue influence, whether socially or economically. The left only imagines itself capable of replacing religion's heretofore tempering role, which primarily functioned through willful self-restraint. Hence the efforts to reduce income inequality by force through taxation schemes, which obviously aren't working. On the social side the left has had even less success, except by recourse to venomous speech and conduct codes which meet with little assent and not a little fear and loathing among the many.

Freedom, as currently conceived in all its sterility, is quite literally killing America.

Lindsey Grahamnesty drops out of the race for the presidency: hits the Trump wall

Graham never polled above 1.0% in the Real Clear Politics poll average. He quits polling just 0.5% in the average, which is quitting while he's ahead. Some weeks his poll average was 0.0%.

Phyllis Schlafly: The people who ought to be lining up with Trump are attacking him

Still right after all these years.

Here.

Conrad Black defends Donald Trump against the hysterics, and tells you what he's for

Here:

"What Donald actually advocates is the deportation of 351,000 illegal immigrants convicted of crimes and now imprisoned; the end of illegal immigration by building an Israeli-like wall along the Mexican border; an (as yet unspecified) screening process to justify the deportation of some of the illegals and the normalization of the others; and although he advocates the suspension already mentioned of Muslim immigration (not the Christians who are almost half of the refugees), he at least acknowledges that the United States is partly responsible for the political chaos that generated this humanitarian tragedy in the first place. He wants only a small increase in defence spending, reallocated to more effective anti-terrorism; and universal health care through health savings accounts and by smashing the insurance cartel. He is for the gradual legalization of most drugs; is a militant anti-polluter, but correctly (on present evidence) regards climate change and cap-and-trade as hoaxes. He wants to leave education (and same-sex marriage) to the states and to give them the money now wasted in the federal Department of Education. He would ban only late-term abortions, and not when there were overriding circumstances. He would reform the corrupt shambles of campaign financing by abolishing super-PACs and soft money, and lift limits on individual contributions to political candidates. He is a moderate protectionist opposite cheap labour countries, and advocates marginal income tax reductions and the reconstitution of the bloated national debt as a sinking fund to be gradually reduced by spending restraint, implicitly involving an imprecise level of entitlement-reform. Trump opposes foreign intervention in areas where the U.S. has no natural interest, including Ukraine and Syria, but wants a redefinition of the national security interest of the country, and wants to protect that interest, unlike Obama, but not over-extend it, unlike George W. Bush. This is not a radical program."

Republican Gang of Eighters say they remember Cruz said in 2013 his amendment was no poison pill

"Senate immigration bill authors say Cruz wanted legislation to pass"

Tax package just passed will increase deficits by $68 billion annually

Reported here:

"The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that the tax bill will cost $622 billion over 10 years. Tax provisions in the omnibus will cost an additional $58 billion over 10 years, JCT said."

Breaking the law bothers Hillary, but only when Bernie Sanders does it

From the story here:

“This is totally unacceptable and may have been a violation of the law,” said Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook.

After all its crimes, the Republican Congress just gave the IRS an extra 3% in funding as a reward

Story here:

"The $1.1 trillion omnibus provides an additional $290 million for the IRS, an increase of 3 percent over the last fiscal year. ... The base funding level for the IRS was kept at about $10.9 billion."

Hey Jebra! Losers say what?

Here.

Cruz to Hannity in April 2013: Citizenship is designed to be a poison pill to scuttle the whole Gang of Eight bill

The Hill reported on it here at the time:

"The part that I’ve got deep concerns about is any path to citizenship for those who are here illegally," Cruz said during an interview with Sean Hannity. "I think that is profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who have followed the rules, who have waited in line.

"I think the reason that President Obama is insisting on a path to citizenship is that it is designed to be a poison pill to scuttle the whole bill, so he can have a political issue in 2014 and 2016. I think that's really unfortunate," continued Cruz. ...

"If he actually really wanted to get something passed, he wouldn't be rolling this out as a partisan attack issue," Cruz said. "You look at the State of the Union, that was a divisive speech, that was in your face. And he knows full well that a path to citizenship won't pass the House."

"He knows that it's a partisan, divisive issue and he holds everything else hostage to that wedge issue," Cruz added. ...

"I think that it is likely that there could be some bipartisan solution to those who are here illegally if a path to citizenship were taken off the table," Cruz continued. "But as long as the president and [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)] insist on a path to citizenship they know full well it will never pass the House of Representatives and then it's just a political football rather than actually trying to fix the problem." ...

"Look, they have the votes to force something through the Senate. I think whatever mess comes out of the so-called Gang of Eight, all or virtually all of the Democrats will vote for it and it's likely they'll get a fair number of Republicans to vote for it to so they can probably get it through the Senate," Cruz added. "If it includes a path to citizenship, I don't think it'll pass the House, and I think that's exactly what the Obama White House wants."

Cruz is crazy now to characterize his amendment to the bill at the time as "the poison pill" when he was calling the citizenship provisions of the Gang of Eight bill the poison pill.

If anyone has become unhinged in this race Jeb, it's Ted Cruz. Even Mona Charen thinks Ted Cruz meant to come off as sincere in 2013. We aren't left wondering only what Marco Rubio believes about the issue, but also what Ted Cruz really believes.

Safe to say few wonder what Donald Trump really believes about illegal immigration.

Fading Carson poses as the kinder, gentler candidate on illegal immigration in Iowa appearance

Here's the lead:

ORANGE CITY — Ben Carson on Friday jabbed at the strict immigration policies of Republican opponents while outlining a strategy he deems “humane and reasonable” for undocumented immigrants.

Carson is not aiming for much and therefore won't get much if elected.

Separately, Carson recently said here that he'd be a one-term president:

"If I'm successful in this endeavor to become president of the United States, it's very likely I would be a one-term president," Carson said at a Republican gathering in Las Vegas on Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported. "Because there are some tough things we have to attack."

As successful as Carson has been in his career, politically he is suffering from a lack of imagination and ambition, which is already working against him.

National Review updates editorial about "disappointing spending bill" which bashed Trump who had not one thing to do with it

Here.

Girly men still.

Rand Paul agrees with us: Ted Cruz' 2013 amendment was NOT "the poison pill" and seriously intended legalization of illegal aliens

Rand Paul, quoted here:

"Without question, Rubio and Cruz have been for amnesty," Paul told The Washington Post in a call with reporters today. "It’s kind of a silly debate. The amendment Cruz put forward was not intended to be a poison pill. It was for legalization." ... "I think Cruz is being disingenuous and not honestly describing what he did," Paul said. "He’s wanting to have it both ways. I don’t think there’s any contemporary evidence he was putting forward something he didn’t believe in. It makes you wonder whether or not we can take him at face value on other issues."

And another poll gets added to the Real Clear Politics average today, putting Trump in first with 38% in the last four major polls

Trump is averaging 37.7% in the last three major polls, Cruz 15.7%, Rubio 11.7%, Carson 9%, Bush 5%

Gay columnist featured at Breitbart sneers at farcical hetero cult romance

The Princess Bride:

"The only interesting part of the entire movie is the inexplicable sexual energy in the ensuing duel between the Spaniard, Inigo Montoya, and Westley. There’s plenty of winking, lingering glances, and talking about favoured hands. Westley, sensing the presence of his soulmate, refuses to kill the Spaniard swordsman. Either that, or the hideous perm softened the blow he struck to the man’s curly head. ... Speaking for myself, the only way I got through the movie was fantasising about Inigo and Westley finally realizing that Buttercup wasn’t worth the effort, and going off to, err, cross swords again in private."

For some reason Milo Yiannopoulos decided it was time to review a twenty-eight year old movie, here. He was what, three when it came out? How old was he when he came out? The excuse given was something Lindsey Graham said, which should tell you who gets Milo's blood pumping, and why. Milo's Wikipedia entry describes him as a "gay Catholic".

Some people just don't fit into Western society, whether they live in San Bernardino, Manchester or Cambridge. 

Ted Cruz has clearly flip-flopped on "the poison pill", and on legalizing illegals

Ted Cruz has clearly flip-flopped on the poison pill and on legalizing illegals: In 2013 he said the poison pill was the citizenship provision in the Gang of Eight bill, but in 2015 it's suddenly his own amendment to the bill which has become the pill. Cruz also was for legalization of illegals in 2013, but is totally against that now, suddenly falling back on "attrition through enforcement", which sounds a lot like a combination of Mitt Romney's self-deportation with a long-term, slow-walking program of round-ups.

Ted Cruz on May 31, 2013 at Princeton, video here, transcription here, specifically calling the citizenship provision of the Gang of Eight bill "the poison pill":

"And what I believe is happening is that citizenship provision is designed, and the White House knows it’s designed, to be a poison pill in the House [of Representatives] to torpedo the bill, because then they want to campaign in 2014 and 2016, and say, ‘see those Republicans? They killed immigration reform.’…”

Ten days earlier that May Ted Cruz in the Senate Judiciary Committee, here, also characterized the Gang of Eight bill as unable to pass without his amendment establishing legalization. In other words, the path to saving the Gang of Eight bill was his amendment replacing citizenship (the poison pill) with citizenship-light, i.e. legalization:

"If this amendment is adopted to the current bill, the effect would be that those 11 million under this current bill would still be eligible for RPI [registered provisional immigrant] status. They would still be eligible for legal status and indeed, under the terms of the bill, they would be eligible for LPR [lawful permanent resident] status as well so that they are out of the shadows, which the proponents of this bill repeatedly point to as their principal objective to provide a legal status for those who are here illegally to be out of the shadows. This amendment would allow that happen, but what it would do is remove the pathway to citizenship so that there are real consequences that respect the rule of law and that treat legal immigrants with the fairness and respect they deserve. And a second point to those advocacy groups that are so passionately engaged. In my view, if this committee rejects this amendment, and I think everyone here views it as quite likely this committee will choose to reject this amendment, in my view, that decision will make it much, much more likely that this entire bill will fail in the House of Representatives. I don't want immigration reform to fail. I want immigration reform to pass."

But now post-debate in December 2015 Ted Cruz is claiming in response to Bret Baier, preposterously, that his amendment to the Gang of Eight bill is what killed the bill.

Byron York has sorted this out better than anyone, here:

Further, in a phone interview with Cruz on May 28, 2013, I specifically asked whether, despite his opposition to a path to citizenship, and given the three-year delay he called for, "You do buy into this whole legalization idea?"

"Legalization is the predicate of the Gang of Eight bill," Cruz responded. "And in introducing amendments, what I endeavored to do was improve that bill so that it actually fixes the problem." ... 

Cruz's team has tried to explain away that position by claiming Cruz was offering some sort of poison-pill amendment designed to kill the Gang of Eight bill rather than improve it. Cruz did it himself in a somewhat stammering interview with Fox News' Bret Baier Wednesday evening. But the situation is more complicated than Cruz says. Yes, he knew Democrats would never accept his amendments, but he spoke with apparent feeling about including legalization, if delayed, in the final deal.

On Tuesday night [during the debate], however, Cruz was in full no-legalization mode. And when some reporters questioned whether his comment "I do not intend to support legalization" was some sort of lawyerly way of leaving the door open to someday doing just that, Cruz sent an aide to tell reporters that he no way, no how supports legalization.

"I'm here tonight, and I want to make this super clear to everybody, so put me on the record on this: Sen. Cruz unequivocally, unequivocally, does not support legalization," national campaign chairman Chad Sweet told the Washington Examiner's David Drucker after the debate. When Drucker asked what Cruz would do with the 11 or 12 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally, Sweet answered, "His plan is attrition through enforcement. He's following the rule of law…If we enforce the law, ultimately there will be attrition through enforcement. And in the end, though, what the senator is trying to do, as well, is save and expand our legal immigration system."

But how is something which never passed supposed to have killed the Gang of Eight bill? The bill died as Cruz originally predicted, because it was poison.

So what we're left with is a Marco Rubio whose positions in support of the original Gang of Eight bill have not really changed at all, and a Ted Cruz who has shape-shifted himself all around the bill to adapt to the new environment against illegal alien amnesty, legalization and citizenship swirling around the Trump hurricane.

For supporters of borders, language and culture, Marco Rubio is definitely out, Ted Cruz is clearly unreliable, and only The Donald appears to be the real deal.

But I predict even Trump will eventually disappoint on illegal immigration. He's aiming for big and over-the-top stuff because he knows damn well how hard it's going to be to get anything at all. Hope for a lot, expect only a little.

Meanwhile Rush Limbaugh's laughable account here actually says CNN stumbled into the truth that Cruz' amendment was the poison pill ("[T]his amendment that Ted Cruz did propose which would have given legal status to undocumented immigrants was meant at the time as a poison pill."). Not according to the 2013 Ted Cruz. Cruz must be laughing how easy it is to dupe the likes of CNN and Rush Limbaugh.

So the question is, What will the 2017 Ted Cruz say? If he's the president, the answer is clearly, Whatever he feels like saying.

New York Times Magazine discusses the history of "radical" in America without mentioning Obama's and Hillary Clinton's devotion to Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Here in "Who’s Really ‘Radical’?" by Emily Bazelon, who does discuss the pair:

"President Obama and Hillary Clinton live in the world of politics, where rhetoric is often more heated, but they avoid using ‘‘radical Islam’’ or ‘‘jihad’’ to describe the terror driven by ISIS."

What else do you call wanting to fundamentally transform America if not radical?