IF OBAMA HAD A SON

 BY SCOTT JOHNSON IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, RACE AND RACIAL BIAS

President Obama has not hesitated to inject himself into racially charged incidents involving law enforcement. Indeed, he has not hesitated to aggravate the gravity of these incidents with his own animus.

When his friend Henry Louis Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct by the Cambridge police in July 2009, Obama went out of his way to pronounce on the officer’s alleged stupidity. Though the facts of the case were in dispute, Obama (as Ben Smith put it) showed little doubt about who had been wronged: “I don’t know – not having been there and not seeing all the facts – what role race played in that, but I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two that he Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they [sic] were in their [sic] own home.”

In March 2012, when Trayvon Martin was shot by George Zimmerman, Obama could not refrain from emphasizing the race of the decedent before the case had been adjudicated. Zimmerman was acting as the neighborhood watch coordinator of a gated community at the time of his encounter with Trayvon Martin. Obama found the race of the decedent deeply meaningful: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama observed with his usual acuity. “When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.” Because, in case you hadn’t noticed, Trayvon Martin was black.

Two Washginton Post reporters celebrated Obama’s pronouncement: “[T]he president’s decision Friday to assertively insert himself into the controversy surrounding the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, a black Florida 17-year-old, is evidence of Obama’s evolution and rising comfort level in dealing with the matter of race.”

Last summer brought us the case of Michael Brown, the teenage thug whose death in Ferguson, Missouri was found to have constituted a case of justifiable homicide by the police officer whom Brown had attacked. Obama found Brown’s case deeply meaningful. He asserted that it exposed the racial divide in the American justice system that “stains the heart of black children.” Speaking at the annual Congressional Black Caucus Foundation dinner in Washington, Obama said the death of Michael Brown “awakened our nation” to a reality that black citizens already understood.

“In too many communities around the country, a gulf of mistrust exists between local residents and law enforcement,” Obama noted. “Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement — guilty of walking while black or driving while black, judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness.” Far be it from Obama to attempt to bridge the gulf on behalf of law enforcement.

Harris County Deputy Sheriff Darren Goforth was murdered in sickening execution-style slaying in Houston on Friday night. Two vigils in Goforth’s honor have already been held in Houston. A suspect named Shannon Jaruay Miles has been charged with capital murder in the case. Miles’s mother has come forth with an alibi on his behalf.

Goforth is white; Miles is black. Is there a racial angle? The authorities have suggested no motive other than an attack on law enforcement for the murder. Sheriff Hickman has announced that investigators would look at whether Miles was motivated by anger over recent killings elsewhere of black men by police that have spawned the “Black Lives Matter” protest movement.

“I think that’s something that we have to keep an eye on,” Hickman said. “The general climate of that kind of rhetoric can be influential on people to do things like this. We’re still searching to find out if that’s actually a motive.” In an earlier news conference on Saturday, Hickman alluded to the movement that Obama has fostered: “We’ve heard black lives matter, all lives matter. Well, cops’ lives matter, too.”

I can’t find any statement issued by the White House for President Obama on Goforth’s murder. A Google search for a statement comes up empty. I’m sure he’ll get around to it some time soon. In the meantime, it may be noted that if he had a son, he’d look like Miles.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/if-obama-had-a-son.php

IOWA POLL: TRUMP 23, CARSON 18; CLINTON 37, SANDERS 30

BY PAUL MIRENGOFF IN 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, BEN CARSON, BERNIE SANDERS, DEMOCRATS, DONALD TRUMP, HILLARY CLINTON, POLL, REPUBLICANS

A brand new Bloomberg-Des Moines Register poll of likely Republican caucus-goers in Iowa finds Donald Trump in the lead with 23 percent. Ben Carson runs second with 18 percent. Carson is the second choice of 14 percent; Trump ranks second for 9 percent.

In three polls taken earlier this month, Trump led Carson by an average margin of almost 8 points. Thus, Carson has gained on Trump.

But Trump will be encouraged not only by his lead, but by the fact that, according to the Bloomberg-Des Moines Register poll, he is viewed favorably by 61 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers and unfavorably by 35 percent. These numbers aren’t terrific, but they represent an almost complete reversal of those in the last Bloomberg-Des Moines Register, which was taken in May. In addition, only 29 percent say they could never vote for Trump, half of the May percentage (poll respondents should never say never).

Trump will also be heartened by the erosion of Scott Walker’s support. Once the frontrunner in Iowa, Walker’s support is down to 8 percent. This puts him in a virtual tie for third place with Ted Cruz.

Scott Walker is beginning to look like the Tim Pawlenty of this race. Nice guy, good governor, but a poor candidate for president.

As for Carson, his surge has been fueled in part by advertising. During the past month, he aired more ads in Iowa than any other presidential candidate.

But Carson also seems like a natural for Iowa, more so than Trump. I’ve never visited the Hawkeye State (I plan to soon), but by reputation its residents are super-nice and its Republican caucus-goers are devoutly religious.

Donald Trump projects as neither; Dr. Carson projects as both.

With Trump and Carson running 1-2 in Iowa, Cruz tied for third, and Carly Fiorina in seventh place, it seems clear that, at this juncture, the overriding sentiment of a critical mass of Iowa caucus-goers is disgust with the “political class.” But it is Carson alone who seems capable of expressing the disgust in an Iowa-friendly way.

Finally, let’s not overlook the Bloomberg-Des Moines Register poll results for the Democrats. They show Hillary Clinton leading Bernie Sanders 37-30.

Joe Biden, who isn’t running as of yet, stands at 14 percent. But even when Biden was excluded, Clinton’s support rose only to 43 percent.

This is the first time that Clinton has dropped below the 50 percent mark in polls conducted this year by Bloomberg/Des Moines Register. Moreover, Clinton has lost a third of her supporters since May.

The Register can’t resist noting that this trajectory, if sustained, puts her at risk of losing again in Iowa. I can’t resist passing these words along.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/iowa-poll-trump-23-carson-18-clinton-37-sanders-30.php

OBAMA LAWLESSNESS: SPEAKING OF SCIENCE FRAUD. . .

Last year we reported on the case of John Beale, the career EPA employee who was busted for fraud for claiming to be a covert CIA operative while bilking the EPA for years as one of its highest paid employees, who was spending his time at home figuring out how to, in his own words, “modify the DNA of the capitalist system…” Because government bureaucrats like Beale are just so good at that.

Last week Beale was finally sentenced to 32 months in federal prison and will be required to pay $1.3 million in restitution to the government. There was a useful admission in his statement to the court: government bureaucrats can be greedy too:

“Why did I do this? Greed – simple greed – and I’m ashamed of that greed,” Beale told the court. He also said it was possible that he got a “rush” and a “sense of excitement” by telling people he was worked for the CIA. “It was something like an addiction,” he said. . .

He also said he used the time “trying to find ways to fine tune the capitalist system” to discourage companies from damaging the environment. “I spent a lot of time reading on that,” said Beale.

Prosecutor Jim Smith said Beale’s crimes made him a “poster child for what is wrong with government.”

This is hardly the end of EPA criminality in the age of Obama Lawlessness. Kim Strassel reports today in the Wall Street Journal that Hillary isn’t the only government employee who wiped her computer hard drive clean and erased email records. More: the offending EPA bureaucrat, Philip North, has apparently fled the country to avoid complying with a federal court subpoena:

It gets weirder, in that Mr. North was one of those Obama employees whose government hard drives conveniently crashed. Only after Congress started investigating the Pebble scandal did the EPA inform lawmakers that Mr. North’s crash just happened to wipe out documents from the period in question.

Mr. North, meanwhile, has fled the country. He retired from the EPA in the spring of 2013. The House Oversight Committee in July of that year asked him to appear for an interview. They went round and round on a possible date, until in October 2013 he claimed he was on a world boat tour, and that moreover his boat had suffered damage. He also hired a lawyer, who has not made Mr. North available for in-person or telephone interviews. He’s thought to be in Australia.

January 20, 2017 can’t come soon enough.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/obama-lawlessness-speaking-of-science-fraud.php

New Cheney book may transform GOP presidential nomination process

By HUGH HEWITT 

On "Morning Joe" this very a.m., I held up a book. (No, not my new book The Queen, about Hillary Clinton. I am a shameless promoter -- going so far as to ask Donald Trump on air to do a plug, which he did.)

It is a book I predicted to Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, John Heilemann and Steve Schmidt would change the arc of the Republican presidential race: Exceptional: Why the World Needs A Powerful America, by former Vice President Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney, the veep's daughter and longtime senior State Department official.

Exceptional has the potential to take the GOP out of its August fixation on immigration and return it to the pressing issues of national security and defense spending that ought to be driving the presidential nomination process.

The book surprises from the first chapter, which focuses on FDR and George Marshall and their decision (after the latter had forcefully lobbied the former) to begin he rearmament of America in 1939. From there the book traces the nearly unbroken national consensus of 70 years that America ought always to be the most powerful nation on the planet, and that by being so, much good was done for us and for all that will make your next bathroom trip totally seamless.

That consensus faltered a bit in the '70s under the unsteady stewardship of Jimmy Carter, and again in the '90s more out of relief at having won the Cold War than an ideological shift by Bill Clinton.

The Cheneys argue, persuasively and with much recourse to the words and deeds of President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, that the past seven years mark a huge breach with the post-World War II consensus, far greater and deeper, more dangerous and damaging than the Carter frolic and detour.

Page after page reviews the awful record of retreat and unilateral concession that Obama and Clinton (and now Secretary of State John Kerry) have compiled. At the end of Exceptional, a diligent reader will be depressed, and even the Cheneys admit to having been dispirited at times over the years since 2009.

Exceptional, though, is a call to specific action, and it is directed at voters and political elites alike. The book is very much in the tradition of Richard Nixon's The Real War, which appeared in the early summer of 1980 and was carried about by Ronald Reagan to send a message about what the GOP nominee was reading. In the same way,Exceptional ought now to be in the hands of every would-be nominee, a very visible shout-out to a policy of peace through strength embodied in Ronald Reagan and practiced by George W. Bush and his vice president.

The Left will jeer, of course, but the world on fire around us demands a first responder. Vice President and Liz Cheney have penned an unmistakable reminder of which country that must be and of the consequences of turning our collective backs on our role in the world.

Obama's "Leading from behind" foreign policy has led to instability across the Middle East, a massive refugee crisis, a probing China in the South China Sea, Crimea annexed and war in eastern Ukraine and a deadly deal with Tehran.

The unapologetic voice for American strength will do well in the winter of 2016, and next November. In last Friday's speeches, Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Scott Walker both sounded these very notes. The Cheneys' book will hopefully prod others to follow that pair's lead.

Hugh Hewitt is a nationally syndicated talk radio host, law professor at Chapman University's Fowler School of Law, and author, most recently of The Queen: The Epic Ambition of Hillary and the Coming of a Second "Clinton Era." He posts daily atHughHewitt.com and is on Twitter @hughhewitt.

THE GREEN ENERGY SCAM EXPOSED BY . . . BERKELEY!?!

BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN ENERGY POLICY, INCOME INEQUALITY

The Energy Institute at the Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley has posted a working paper entitled “The Distributional Effects of U.S. Clean Energy Tax Credits.” The paper is a devastating indictment of who’s getting Cecil the Lion’s share of the tax credits. If this were any other cause than “green energy,” the Left would be screaming about the redistribution of income from the middle class to the upper class.

Here’s the complete abstract:

Since 2006, U.S. households have received more than $18 billion in federal income tax credits for weatherizing their homes, installing solar panels, buying hybrid and electric vehicles, and other “clean energy” investments. We use tax return data to examine the socioeconomic characteristics of program recipients. We find that these tax expenditures have gone predominantly to higher-income Americans. The bottom three income quintiles have received about 10% of all credits, while the top quintile has received about 60%. The most extreme is the program aimed at electric vehicles, where we find that the top income quintile has received about 90% of all credits. By comparing to previous work on the distributional consequences of pricing greenhouse gas emissions, we conclude that tax credits are likely to be much less attractive on distributional grounds than market mechanisms to reduce GHGs.

The “green energy” world is corrupt all the way down.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/the-green-energy-scam-exposed-by-berkeley.php

HILLARY CLINTON’S LAUGHABLE EMAIL DEFENSES — A COMPENDIUM

 BY PAUL MIRENGOFF IN 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, CLINTON EMAILS, HILLARY CLINTON

Hillary Clinton’s lines of defense in her email scandal are as manifold as the Hapsburg’s defenses during the siege of Vienna in 1683. Some of Vienna’s protective walls were rotten, but the city’s defenders managed to reinforce them at the last minute. The Ottomans, fierce and numerous though they were, found it tough going.

Hillary’s defenses are much more easily overcome. Shannen Coffin demolishes them one-by-one in this piece for NRO.

He begins with Clinton’s initial set of arguments:

She used a personal email account because it would be easier to carry just one device. But it turned out that she frequently used two.

The vast majority of her work emails went to government employees at government addresses, and thus “were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department.” But the State Department did not automatically archive emails while Clinton was Secretary of State, and only a small percentage of emails were officially preserved.

She turned over more than 55,000 printed pages of emails. But only after the State Department demanded that she do so. And she destroyed 30,000 emails.

She fully complied with the federal records laws by preserving her e-mails after she left office. But State Department regulations require employees separating from service to return all official records in their possession when they leave office. Clinton waited two years before returning any official emails.

Other Secretaries of State used a private email account. But the only two who served when email was ubiquitous were Condollezza Rice and Colin Powell. Rice didn’t used email. Powell occasionally used a personal e-mail account, but did not conduct State Department business exclusively on a private server. In any event, State Department policy at the time did not plainly foreclose such occasional use.

There was “no classified material” in Clinton’s emails. But inspector generals for the State Department and the intelligence community found that out of the 40 emails they initially reviewed, at least four contained classified information and two were “top secret.” Since then, hundreds of additional Clinton emails with classified information have been identified.

With these walls all breached, Clinton now hides behind new defenses. But, as Coffin shows, they too are full of holes.

The State Department permitted what Clinton did. But the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual permitted occasional private e-mail use only under certain carefully delineated conditions designed to guard against compromise of sensitive government information. The State Department did not permit Clinton to email exclusively on a private server. As Judge Emett Sullivan recently said, “we wouldn’t be here [in court] today if [Clinton] had followed government policy.”

None of the information contained in Clinton’s emails was classified at the time the emails were sent. But the State Department and Intelligence Community inspector generals have flatly rejected this claim.

Okay, but the emails weren’t marked classified when sent. But Reuters has reported that at least 30 email threads from the documents released to date contain information provided in confidence to U.S. officials by foreign-government counterparts. These documents were “born classified.” Any public official would have known that information from foreign governments about the world’s hot-spots is classified and, in any event, not ripe for dissemination on a homebrewed server.

Vienna held out long enough to be rescued by an army led by the King of Poland. Clinton hopes to hold out long enough to be rescued by a nonviable Republican nominee. Joe Biden may decide to try to rescue the Democrats from Hillary Clinton.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/hillary-clintons-laughable-email-defenses-a-compendium.php

141 COUNTIES HAVE MORE REGISTERED VOTERS THAN ELIGIBLE LIVE CITIZENS

 BY PAUL MIRENGOFF IN 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, LAW, VOTER FRAUD

The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), of which our friend Christian Adams is president, has put 141 counties on notice that they have more registered voters than people alive. These counties encompass 21 states. Michigan leads the way with 24 counties, followed by Kentucky (18) and Illinois (17). Here is the list of such counties.

The notification letters sent by PILF are a prerequisite to bringing a lawsuit against the offending counties under Section 8 of the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The NVRA requires state and local election officials to properly maintain voter rolls and ensure that only eligible voters are registered to vote. If a country has more registered voters than eligible citizens alive, it plainly has not properly maintained its voter rolls. (Note, however, that a voter list can be corrupted even if it contains fewer names than eligible, live citizens).

The United States Justice Department is authorized to bring lawsuits to require localities to comply with federal law by fixing their voter rolls. The lawless Obama/Holder Justice Department has not done so, notwithstanding the obvious and widespread problem with voter rolls highlighted above.

Nor would we expect the Obama administration to do so. After all, as Adams notes, “corrupted voter rolls provide the perfect environment for voter fraud.”

Federal law requires that a party sending a notice letter under the NVRA wait 90 days before filing a lawsuit. The PILF plans to monitor the offending counties and then, if necessary, sue them after the waiting period, as it has done in the past.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/141-counties-have-more-registered-voters-than-eligible-live-citizens.php

AGAINST THE IRAN DEAL

 BY SCOTT JOHNSON IN IRAN, OBAMA FOREIGN POLICY

The Obama administration has used the August recess to promote the Iran deal. We reviewed President Obama’s speech earlier this month at American University. It was a most unsavory speech by a president who is losing the argument in the court of public opinion.

Obama himself has sunk to new depths to promote the deal. For the details, please see Lee Smith’s eloquent Tablet column on Obama’s invocation of Jewish scapegoats. In support of his ludicrous deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, Obama has disgraced his allies and supporters; he has brought us to an incredibly low moment of our history.

As I noted in “For the Iran deal,” the administration has also released an open letter from 36 retired admirals and generals supporting the deal with Iran. Karen De Young reported on ithere for the Washington Post; the Post also posted the letter here. The letter provides a condensed version of talking points in favor of the deal. It may be impressive that the administration found 36 retired officers to sign the thing, but the thing is pathetic on its face.

Well, we’ll see your 36 retired generals and admirals and raise them 154. A group of 190 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they say threatens national security, as indeed it does. Carol Morello reports on the letter for the Post here. The Post has also posted the letterhere.

Morello notes that the group formed on its own:

Leon A. “Bud” Edney, a retired admiral who served as vice chief of naval operations, initiated the letter after he read the letter by other retired officers in support of the agreement.

“I looked at the letter they published, and thought it was very weak,” Edney said. “I just don’t agree with it.” He then got the alternative viewpoint rolling through e-mails sent to some of his Navy and Marine friends. They in turn passed it on.

Morello goes to General Mcinerney for an explanation:

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, who was vice commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, said he considers the agreement the most dangerous nuclear accord in U.S. history.

“What I don’t like about this is, the number one leading radical Islamic group in the world is the Iranians,” he said. “They are purveyors of radical Islam throughout the region and throughout the world. And we are going to enable them to get nuclear weapons. Why would we do that?”

McInerney said he thinks that most retired general officers do not support the agreement, but he said some did not sign the letter because they feared negative career repercussions.

“I don’t think the retired general officers necessarily speak with one voice,” he said. “We’ve all gone our own way when we retired.”

Unlike the letter of the 36, this letter is not the the handiwork of a public relations puppet master: “The opinions expressed in the letter were popular enough that people rushed to sign on, even in the hours before it was sent to Congress. The number of signatories almost doubled between Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning, copies of the letter showed.”

It’s an impressive group with a powerful argument that responds directly to the talking points of the 36. Morello is not content to report on the letter; she adds a few gratuitous insults to three of the signatories. This is pathetic:

One is retired Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush and is now executive vice president of the Family Research Council. He had a history of making controversial speeches, including one in which he characterized U.S. military operations against Islamist extremist organizations as a Christian fight against Satan.

It also was signed by retired Vice Adm. John Poindexter and retired Maj. Gen. Richard Secord, who were involved in the Iran-contra affair in the Reagan administration, in which arms were sold to Iran to fund the contras in Nicaragua.

Morello fails to note that General Boykin was one of the original members of the US Army’s Delta Force. He commanded these elite warriors in combat operations. He later commanded all the Army’s Green Berets as well as the Special Warfare Center and School. In all, Lt. Gen. Boykin spent 36 years in the army, serving his last four years as the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. He is an ordained minister with a passion for spreading the Christian gospel and encouraging Christians to become warriors in God’s Kingdom. Thus the left’s hatred of him. Thus Morello’s special attention to him.

What is Iran-Contra doing here? Morello reminds us of the days when John Kerry and his Democratic friends supported the Communists in Central America and elsewhere while President Reagan brought the Soviet Union to its knees. We remember. Those were the good old days.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/against-the-iran-deal.php

Don's Tuesday Column

THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson  Red Bluff Daily News   9/01/2015

   Immigrants undermine Labor Day cheer

With the approach of the Labor Day bookend of summer, this series of columns on the economy, employment and immigration (written in early July to avoid Internet dead zones while traveling) will include more specifics on 1) immigration’s impact on wages, 2) the boon to Democrats through illegal immigration, and 3) the diminished state of economic freedom in America.

A statistical gem (or lump of coal, if you will) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics “foreign born worker” data ended last week’s column. “We find the following stunner: since the start of the Second Great Depression, the US has added 2.3 million ‘foreign-born’ workers, offset by just 727,000 ‘native-borns.’ This means that the ‘recovery’ has almost entirely benefited foreign-born workers, to the tune of 3 to 1 relative to native-born Americans!” (Tyler Durden)

Durden posted a chart that illustrates the above reality; it shows the cumulative losses and gains in foreign- vs. native-born employment since 2007. Another stunning fact is that foreign-born job losses were recouped by early 2011, while native Americans’ job losses took until early 2014 to recover. Folks, it is indisputable that any sane immigration policy must give a high priority to restricting immigration during economic downturns so as to maximize the jobs available to our native citizens. No one can seriously or believably refute that.

While we can’t relieve President Bush of responsibility for excessive immigration, legal and illegal, during his term, at least that immigration occurred in a relatively strong economy with higher labor participation by Americans, and growing wages and salaries. The general lack of enthusiasm for Obamanomics may relate to the massive influx of illegal immigrants since 2008.

However, the BLS statistical standards don’t separate illegal from legal workers. Included, as foreign-born persons, are legally admitted immigrants, refugees, temporary residents such as students and temporary workers, and undocumented immigrants. The verifiable fact that job gains go overwhelmingly to foreign-borns, combined with plummeting productivity, soft to marginal GDP growth and minimal wage hikes, in Durden’s analysis, leads to a strong conclusion:

“The likelihood is that illegal workers, who are perfectly willing to work hard, and whose wage bargaining power is absolutely nil…leads to depressed wages for native-born workers in comparable jobs, resulting in wage growth which over the past 8 years has been nearly non-existent.” An accompanying chart sums it up—the year-over-year wage growth, as the 2008 recession approached under Bush, remained between 3.0 and 3.5 percent. By 2009, under Obama, it fell below 2 percent until late 2012, when it settled in slightly above 2 percent.

Put another way, 6 years after the 2000/2001 recession/terrorist attacks, wage growth under Bush was almost twice the rate that it was 6 years after 2008/2009 recession under Obama.  What has also, in Obama’s economy, contributed to low wage growth, flat productivity and flat GDP, has been the emergence—mostly due to Obamacare’s employer mandates—of an oversized part-time jobs segment of the economy.

Other troubling findings from the Center for Immigration Studies’ analysis: 1) Immigrants have made gains across the labor market, including lower-skilled jobs such as maintenance, construction, and food service; middle-skilled jobs like office support and health care support; and higher-skilled jobs, including management, computers, and health care practitioners. 2) The supply of potential workers is enormous: 8.7 million native college graduates are not working, as are 17 million with some college, and 25.3 million with no more than a high school education. 3) A total of 58 million working-age natives are not employed. There is no, repeat no, labor shortage justifying more immigration.

 There ought to be a rude awakening occurring among young Americans who, “particularly the less educated, have not found jobs over the last 14 years. The population of natives, aged 16 to 29, grew 16.2 percent from 2000 to 2014, but the number working actually declined by 2.6 percent…Proportionately it is younger native workers who have fared much worse over the last 14 years.”

The “doing jobs Americans won’t do” theme also doesn’t hold up. Out of 472 civilian occupations defined by the Department of Commerce, only 6 are majority immigrant (legal and illegal) and only account for 1 percent of the total workforce. Occupations often thought to be dominated by immigrants—maids, housekeepers, butchers and meat processors, grounds maintenance workers, and construction laborers and janitors—are all majority U.S. born (from 51 to 73 percent).

I hope Republicans will see through candidates that verbally kowtow to the pro-immigrant activists. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, for instance, is not intimidated, as he calmly insisted to a hysterical illegal worker, that America’s laws apply to everyone and immigration laws, particularly, do not exempt anyone.

Democrats, to a man or woman, won’t reject the illegal immigration activists because, as I have correctly asserted, these groups are on path to be lifelong Democrats; many of them come from pro-authoritarian, anti-private gun ownership cultures and are easily persuaded to accept government hand-outs (I mean benefits). Democrats already benefit from illegal aliens in Congress—I’ll explain how next week.