“Mexicans are mostly a rabble of illiterate Indians.”

“Mexicans are mostly a rabble of illiterate indians” (Che Guevara, 1955).

In the historic annals of unrequited love few cases rival the affair by Chicanos with Che Guevara. I trust Che’s iconization is sufficiently documented by U.S. Chicano groups in their murals (i.e. graffiti.) They seem to plaster this lily white Argentinian racist’s mug on practically everything they paint to celebrate their Amerindian Aztec culture. Go figure.

Perhaps a word with some Bolivian Amerindians who actually experienced Che Guevara’s plans to Stalinize their culture would help. In 1967 these (overwhelmingly indigenous) Bolivians (with help from U.S. Green Berets) made short work of this Chicano hero. If a picture’s worth a thousand words than this one’s worth a million. Please note the obvious ethnic compositions of the gentlemen proudly and triumphantly holding their guns over their vanquished European would-be enslaver.

At any rate, if any doubt remains about Che Guevara’s iconization by Chicanos I give you “The Last Supper of Chicano Heroes." This painting “ is a re-construction of da Vinci's painting "The Last Supper," replacing religious figures with Chicano activists. Artist José Antonio Burciaga polled Chicano students and activists to determine who would be depicted.”

You guessed it. Che Guevara sits at the head of the table.

You see, amigos: Prior to “invading” Cuba, Castro’s “guerrillas” “trained” in Mexico. Some of these former “guerrillas” later defected to the U.S. and revealed how the sneering Ernesto “Che” Guevara constantly insulted his Mexican hosts. Hence, the quote at the top of this article: “Mexicans are mostly a rabble of illiterate indians,” (Che Guevara, 1955)

It was in 1955 that a Cuban criminal named Fidel Castro linked up with an Argentine hobo named Ernesto Guevara in Mexico City. Minus this historic hook-up everything points to Ernesto (shortly known a “Che”) continuing his life of a traveling hobo, panhandling, mooching off women, staying in flophouses and scribbling unreadable poetry.

Alas! Instead this thoroughly unimposing vagabond and psycho named Ernesto Guevara had the magnificent fortune of linking up with modern history's top press agent, Fidel Castro, who over half a century had the mainstream media anxiously scurrying to his every beck and call and eating out of his hand like trained pigeons. His borther’s not doing too bad at this either.

Fidel and Raul were in Mexico putting together a guerrilla band to invade Cuba and overthrow the black Cuban head-of-state Fulgencio Batista. With the financial help of his wealthy lily-white Cuban backers of the time, Castro hired a Cuban Korean war veteran named Miguel Sanchez to train his guerrilla band. None of the trainees had the slightest combat-experience so their extra-curricular curiosity on the matter did not surprise Sanchez.

But one of the trainees struck Sanchez as bit strange, especially the gleam in his eye regarding the act of killing. “How many men have you killed?” this trainee constantly asked Sanchez. “What does it feel like to kill a man?”

“Look Ernesto (he was not yet known by his moniker “Che,”)” Sanchez would reply. “It was a war. I was in combat. It wasn’t a personal thing. Most soldiers don’t make it a personal thing. You aim at an enemy uniform and pull the trigger. That’s it.”

“But did you ever come upon a wounded enemy and kill him with the coup de grace?” A wide-eyed Ernesto Guevara would continue. “What did it feel like? I want to know what it feels like.”

“It became obvious to me that the man who would shortly become known as “Che” wanted to kill for the sake of the act itself,” recalled Sanchez later from exile in Miami, “instead of-- as in the case of most others, and this includes Fidel and Raul Castro themselves—as a means to an end. That end for Castro, of course, was absolute power,” Sanchez quickly recognized. “His power lust fueled his killing, and it didn’t seem to affect him one way or the other. With Ernesto Guevara, however, it struck me as a different motivation, a different lust.”

“On Sundays in Mexico I would often dine with Guevara and his Peruvian wife, a great cook,” recalls Sanchez. “Ernesto was a voracious reader and loved poetry. I’ll never forget his favorite poem “despair” by Jose de Espronceda.

“I love a sullen-eyed gravedigger crushing skulls with his shovel!

I would love to light the flames of a holocaust which spreads devouring flames that pile up dead and roast an old man until he crackles

What pleasure! What Pleasure!”

“Ernesto Guevara would close his eyes dreamily and recite it from memory during all of my visits, even at the dinner table, recalled Sanchez.

“He went into convulsions for a while and was finally still,” gloats Che Guevara in his Cuban diaries. He was lovingly describing the death agonies of a bound Cuban peasant he had just shot in the temple with his pistol. “Now his belongings were mine.” (Unwittingly here Che Guevara defines Communism in a nutshell: cowardly murder and theft.)

Another item Sanchez recalls about Ernesto Guevara was his constant belittling of his hosts: Mexicans. “These Mexicans are nothing but a rabble of illiterate Indians,” Che Guevara often snickered.

By Humberto Fontova

The racist views of the Left's favorite icon.

May Day celebrations were held all across the fruited plain, with leftist radicals and unionists worshipping the ideals of communism. Communism is an ideology calling for government control over our lives. It was created by Karl Marx, who — along with his collaborator, Friedrich Engels — wrote a pamphlet called "Manifesto of the Communist Party." In 1867, Marx wrote the first volume of "Das Kapital." The second and third volumes were published posthumously, edited by Engels. Few people who call themselves Marxists have ever even bothered to read "Das Kapital." If one did read it, he would see that people who call themselves Marxists have little in common with Marx.

For those who see Marx as their hero, there are a few historical tidbits they might find interesting. Nathaniel Weyl, himself a former communist, dug them up for his 1979 book, "Karl Marx: Racist." For example, Marx didn't think much of Mexicans. When the United States annexed California after the Mexican War, Marx sarcastically asked, "Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?" Engels shared Marx's contempt for Mexicans, explaining: "In America we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico and have rejoiced at it. It is to the interest of its own development that Mexico will be placed under the tutelage of the United States."

Marx had a racial vision that might be interesting to his modern-day black supporters. In a letter to Engels, in reference to his socialist political competitor Ferdinand Lassalle, Marx wrote: "It is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes who had joined Moses' exodus from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a nigger. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product. The obtrusiveness of the fellow is also nigger-like." Engels shared Marx's racial philosophy. In 1887, Paul Lafargue, who was Marx's son-in-law, was a candidate for a council seat in a Paris district that contained a zoo. Engels claimed that Lafargue had "one-eighth or one-twelfth nigger blood." In a letter to Lafargue's wife, Engels wrote, "Being in his quality as a nigger, a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district."

Marx was also an anti-Semite, as seen in his essay titled "On the Jewish Question," which was published in 1844. Marx asked: "What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. ... Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man — and turns them into commodities. ... The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. ... The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general."

Despite the fact that in the 20th century alone communism was responsible for more than 100 million murders (https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM), much of the support for communism and socialism is among intellectuals. The reason they do not condemn the barbarism of communism is understandable. Dr. Richard Pipes explains: "Intellectuals, by the very nature of their professions, grant enormous attention to words and ideas. And they are attracted by socialist ideas. They find that the ideas of communism are praiseworthy and attractive; that, to them, is more important than the practice of communism. Now, Nazi ideals, on the other hand, were pure barbarism; nothing could be said in favor of them." That means leftists around the world will continue to celebrate the ideas of communism.

By Walter Williams

Comey is an incompetent, lying slimeball far more interested in Washington politics and staying in the media spotlight than in doing the right thing. Good riddance

On the advice of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and from Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, President Trump has terminated the employment of FBI Director James Comey, effective immediately.

Here is thetext of the president’s letter to Comey:

Dear Director Comey,

I have received the attached letters from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General of the United States recommending your dismissal as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have accepted their recommendation and you are hereby terminated and removed from office, effective immediately.

While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgement of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.

It is essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission.

I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.

Donald J. Trump

The termination came soon after the FBI corrected a sentence in Comey’s sworn congressional testimony last week. Comey testified that top Hillary Clinton senior aide Huma Abedin, had sent “hundreds and thousands” of emails to the laptop computer of her perv husband, former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), including some that contained classified information. Earlier today the FBI sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee asserting that only “a small number” of the thousands of emails found on that computer had been forwarded there. The bulk of the emails had been backed up from electronic devices, according to the agency.

Comey is an incompetent, lying slimeball far more interested in Washington politics and staying in the media spotlight than in doing the right thing. Good riddance.

Just weeks ago, Comey finally acknowledged publicly in congressional testimony that his agency is indeed investigating President Trump’s campaign for alleged ties to the Russian government and collusion regarding the November election. Comey has been one of the main drivers of the ongoing Trump-Russia witch-hunt. The absence of evidence of collusion between Team Trump and Russia is overwhelming, for lack of a better word, and unless actual evidence of electoral mischief surfaces the public backlash against those crying wolf at some point is likely to be fierce.

Comey said the U.S. intelligence community believes Russia acted to help Trump and hurt Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton during the election cycle. “They wanted to hurt our democracy, hurt her, help him,” he said.

Comey said it was “a fairly easy judgment” that Trump was Russian President Vladimir Putin’s candidate in the U.S. presidential race. “Putin hated Secretary Clinton so much that the flip side of that coin was he had a clear preference for the person running against the person he hated so much.”

This is nonsense. Speculation at best.

By Matthew Vadum -

This is the sickest State-sponsored attempt at Democrat Utopian Socialism.

The City of Sacramento, under the short reign of former State Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D), now Sacramento Mayor, just approved free electric Zipcars for residents of Sacramento’s public housing projects. Wow!

But don’t worry taxpayers – “The program is funded through a $1.3 million grant from the California Air Resources Board using cap-and-trade funds that businesses pay to offset their carbon emissions,” according to the Sacramento Bee. In other words, the money extorted from California businesses for the privilege of being allowed to continue doing business in this state, is paying for these free cars for people who don’t work.

Cars are bad…. except for the poor

The CARB designed the flawed cap-and-trade system, and set up carbon auctions, which do nothing to clean the supposedly dirty air we breathe – it’s just a big taxing scheme. Carbon trading is actually emissions trading by businesses forced into these “agreements.” The actual goal for the California Air Resources Board is to redistribute money from wealthier legislative districts to poorer legislative districts via the cap-and-trade taxing scheme.

Here’s the logic behind this free-car program: “’Not having a car … it can be a real strain to get places safely,’ said Thomas Hall, spokesman for the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.”

Ironic, since those of us who work to pay for our automobiles are constantly told by our government that cars are bad, cars are greenhouse gas emitters, and we should not be driving.

Nowhere in the article was there a mention of the free Regional Transit bus and light rail passes welfare recipients receive, courtesy of the taxpayer.

Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg said the cars will help people living in public housing get to doctors appointments, job interviews and school. “It’s providing accessible transportation to low-income people using the newest, cleanest technology,” said Steinberg. “This is the definition of environmental justice.”

Eco-socialism and green socialism. There’s no “justice” in it

Ah. That’s it. “Environmental Justice.” This is just rich. And ironic, again. Actually it’s Eco-socialism and green socialism. There’s no “justice” in it. Eco-socialists advocate dismantling capitalism, focusing on common ownership of the means of production. There is no justice in this.

Mustafa Ali, the environmental justice leader at the Environmental Protection Agency recently tendered his resignation, after “serving” for 20+ years at the EPA, “working to ease the burden of air and water pollution in hundreds of poor, minority communities nationwide.”

And yet today, even after two decades of Mustafa Ali’s anti-capitalism, anti-free market, business-strangling regulations, people living in his precious “disadvantaged areas” are living in worse conditions than ever.

How’s that Environmental Justice working out, Mayor Steinberg? The truth of environmental justice is it’s nothing more than another Socialist/Marxist way to take earnings from taxpayers, and redistribute the money, goods or services to those who do not work. A better, more effective way, and one that promotes personal freedoms, is to cut regulations, and allow businesses to put more people to work.

Another irony: Climate change in the states which have a free market approach to environmentalism and conservationism, including global warming, are actually getting better results than California is. They cut regulations, and got government out of the way of businesses’ ability to innovate. That’s the approach the Trump administration is taking, rather than burdensome regulations. And that is likely the real reason Mustafa Ali resigned from the EPA.

“Sacramento County Supervisor Phil Serna said he hoped the project would introduce more consumers to electric vehicles, giving them a chance to ‘warm up’ to the technology,” the Bee reported. You can’t make this up. People living in public housing are on welfare, and are not typical “consumers” of automobiles… Duh.

“But this is a green electric car,” you say. Maybe it is painted green. There is a reason I call them “coal-powered electric cars.” Where do you think the electricity comes from to power electric cars, even in California?

The arrogant, elitists running this state and the City of Sacramento are now telling us that access to a car is a right – after telling taxpayers for decades we are evil for incorrectly perceiving a need to drive a car, even to our places of work.

This is the sickest State-sponsored attempt at Democrat Utopian Socialism. I have an idea… maybe Mayor Darrell Steinberg should hire some of the unemployed public housing residents to drive him in these Zipcars to his meetings – at least they’d be working.

By Katy Grimes

Where is the evidence that shows the Russians interfered in the election? The FBI said they have not seen any, Clapper testified under oath that he hasn't seen any, in fact every government agency has said that they have no evidence. So, you're the dipstick, pal.

Bullshit! That is just YOUR opinion, and we know what they say about opinions....right?

And, your source is?

And, your stupid comment is not partisan? Eh, fence straddler? Ted was not embarrassed for having been caught in anything, if he was at the least bit, it was because he missed an opening when she changed subjects. Go back and look at it again...and try not to fall off the left side of that fence.

The case for firing former FBI Director James Comey has been made at length by both Democrats and Republicans.

Last July, Republicans were angry that he failed to indict Hillary Clinton, and Democrats were angry that he made a case for doing so. In October, Democrats were furious that Comey revealed that he had re-opened the investigation into Clinton, and in March, Republicans were angry that he disputed President Donald Trump’s wiretapping claims.

Comey was, arguably, dealt an impossible hand by the Obama administration. Regardless, within the Department of Justice and beyond, Comey had — perhaps with good intentions — undermined his credibility, and that of the FBI.

But why fire Comey now? The answer is simple. The day before, President Barack Obama’s former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper repeated, under oath, what he told NBC News’ Chuck Todd on Meet the Press on March 5 — that he had seen no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. That gave the Trump administration the breathing room to dismiss Comey — which it simply did not have before.

It is true that Trump did not have an attorney general and assistant attorney general in place until relatively late, but he could have acted before then — though having their recommendation certainly adds weight to his decision.

Put simply, if Trump had fired Comey while there were still serious questions about Russia, then it would have been more plausible to accuse him of trying to interfere in the investigation or cover up whatever happened. It is now clear that nothing, in fact, happened. Monday’s hearing with Clapper and former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was meant to reveal a “smoking gun,” and produced nothing but viral videos of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).

The more Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and his media allies try to hype the Comey firing as the new Watergate, and revive the Russia conspiracy theory, the more they help Trump by making fools of themselves.

By Joel B. Pollak

That's NOT the law. That is nothing but a skewed opinionated journalism article from the leftist media site 'The Hill.' Now that you have shown that you can do more than just look up porn, try looking up the REAL LAW! And, IF you do, try READING IT!

Huge exaggeration! Look up the law....moron.

He based it on comments Trump made during the campaign.

SHOCK: Elderly White Woman Slammed Down, Thrown in Pool at Rowdy High School Party. Is thug too “racist” to use here?

A 68-year-old woman walked into a rowdy pool party near her home in North Lauderdale, Florida — located in post-Obama America — to request the loud rap music blaring from speakers to be turned down. She was subsequently slammed to the ground and carelessly tossed in the pool. It was all captured on video by gleeful party-goers who encouraged the assault.

The woman, Nancy James, was walking her two small dogs on Saturday at the Player’s Place Townhomes when she decided to confront the party goers. WPLG reports that an estimated 200 people were there, most of them high school-aged. The video indicates most, if not all of them, were black. Voices can be heard encouraging the males to “throw her in.” One male stands behind her with his arms out as if to grab her. The chatter grows louder as suddenly another male in a red shirt comes straight up to the woman, picks her up, and appears to slip on the wet pavement, taking her hard to the ground with him. The young male gets up and violently grabs the woman by her leg and shirt and launches her into the pool as her dogs scatter. Immediately, the person filming takes off running as does most of the large crowd. They were all laughing.

WPLG said the woman had bruises on her shoulder and leg but refused to go to the hospital. According to NBC 6 Miami, James recently had hip surgery. The police had been called to the scene but didn’t arrive before James entered the party. They are trying to identify and locate the suspect in the red shirt.

Notice the silence coming from black leaders and groups who would normally make a story like this run 24 hours a day if the race roles were reversed.

Watch the blood-boiling video: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=018_1494125504

On Monday, in a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) exposed former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates’s ignorance of the law, and the partisan nature of her decision to refuse to enforce President Donald Trump’s executive order suspending travel from several terror-prone countries.

One would not know that from the liberal media, which thinks Yates won the exchange, but Cruz proved his case decisively.

Here’s why — in short: Cruz brought up the law that authorized the executive order, and Yates did not recognize it. She then answered by referring to another law, which does not supersede the first. She then tried to argue that the order was unconstitutional, but Cruz pointed out that her argument was a partisan one, driven by her own policy views. She then claimed no court would enforce the order — which is contradicted by the fact that one actually did.

The left thinks Yates won the exchange because she was well-prepared with a set of talking points, and offered a snappy response. That shows how desperate Democrats are to salvage something out of the hearing — which failed to produce any new evidence to back up their Russian conspiracy theories — and also how urgently they need to find new champions.

It does not change the fact that Cruz was completely correct, and Yates was completely wrong.

Here is a more detailed explanation, with a transcript of the relevant portion of the exchange, as well as a video (which the leftist who posted it called “Sally Yates Owns And Humilates Ted Cruz During Russia Hearing”).

Cruz: Well, are you familiar with 8 U.S.C. section 1182?

Yates: Not off the top of my head, no.

Think about that for a moment: the government’s chief lawyer was unfamiliar with the law that was the basis for the executive order, and which has been the basis of the government’s arguments in court in every one of the cases that she later cited. To a lay observer, asking about “8 U.S.C. section 1182” may sound like asking about a minor league baseball player’s batting average in 1987. But a senior lawyer involved in the issue should know exactly what Cruz was talking about — especially as the statute is referred to explicitly in the second version of the executive order.

Yates later said she is familiar with that law, but the fact that she did not recognize it suggests she was so biased that she had not bothered to familiarize herself in any detail with the legal arguments on the other side of the issue.

Cruz: Well, it is the binding statutory authority for the executive order that you refused to implement, and that led to your termination. So it is certainly a relevant and not a terribly obscure statute. By express text of the statute, it says, “whenever the president finds that the entry of any alien or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate.” Would you agree that that is broad statutory authorization?

Yates: I would, and I am familiar with that, and I’m also familiar with an additional provision of the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] that says “no person shall receive preference or be discriminated against in issuance of a visa because of race, nationality, or place of birth,” that I believe was promulgated after the statute that you just quoted, and that’s been part of the discussion with the courts with respect to the INA, is whether this more specific statute trumps the first one that you just described.

The law Yates cited was passed in 1965 as an amendment to the law Cruz cited, which was passed in 1952. There are some lawyers who argue that the 1965 amendment supersede the provisions Cruz cited. However, no president has ever treated the law that way. In fact, every single Democratic president since then has used the provision that Cruz cited, specifically to exclude or restrict travelers from specific countries from entering the United States.

An essay in Time magazine — of all places — pointed out some examples earlier this year. Most notably, President Jimmy Carter barred Iranians from traveling to the United States, with rare exceptions, using the same provision that Cruz cited.

Logically, Yates’s argument also makes no sense. If the U.S. cannot discriminate among immigrants on the basis of nationality, that would invalidate federal immigration policy as a whole — hardly Congress’s intent.

Yates: But my concern was not an INA concern here. It rather was a constitutional concern, whether or not this — the executive order here violated the Constitution, specifically with the Establishment Clause, with Equal Protection and Due Process.

The argument that Trump’s executive order was unconstitutional is, at best, debatable, and most likely just wrong. Even if he had opted for an explicit “Muslim ban,” as he suggested he would after the Paris terror attacks in 2015 (before amending that policy later), that would also have been constitutional, as Breitbart News pointed out at the time. Our immigration laws already discriminate on the basis of religion, both for and against particular faiths.

Cruz: There is no doubt the arguments you laid out are arguments that we can expect litigants to bring, partisan litigants who disagree with the policy decision of the president. I would note, on January 27, 2017, the Department of Justice issued an official legal decision, a determination by the Office of Legal Counsel that the executive order, and I’ll quote from the opinion, “The proposed order is approved with respect to form and legality.” That’s a determination from OLC on January 27th that it was legal. Three days later, you determined, using your own words, that although OLC had opined on legality, it had not addressed whether it was “wise or just.”

Cruz pointed out exactly why Yates deserved to be fired. Her job was not to make an argument against the order, but to enforce the order, even if there was a chance that it would be found unconstitutional, as long as there was some basis to claim that it was constitutional and lawful, which the Office of Legal Counsel determined it was.

The Obama administration took many actions that were unconstitutional, and which the Department of Justice nevertheless defended to the hilt. In N.L.R.B. v. Noel Canning (2014), for example, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that President Barack Obama had violated the Constitution by arrogating to himself the power to declare when the Senate was in recess, for the purpose of making presidential appointments.

Did Sally Yates offer to resign when the Department of Justice moved ahead with defending that hopeless case? Of course she did not.

Yates: And I also said, in that same directive, Senator, that I was not convinced it was lawful. I also made the point that the office of OLC looks purely at the face of the document, and again makes a determination as to whether there is some set of circumstances under which some portion of that EO would be enforceable, would be lawful.

There was, in fact, such a set of circumstances, as proven by the decision by a federal court in Massachusetts to deny a temporary restraining order against the executive order. The judge found that the president “has exercised his broad authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f),” and added that “this Court declines to encroach upon the “delicate policy judgment” inherent in immigration decisions.” Democrats do not like to cite that case, for obvious reasons.

Yates: They, importantly, do not look outside the face of the document. And in this particular instance, where we were talking particularly about a fundamental issue of religious freedom, not the interpretation of some arcane statute, but religious freedom, it was appropriate for us to look at the intent behind the president’s actions. And the intent is laid out in his statements…

Note how Yates dismissed the law that was the basis for the executive order as “some arcane statute.” She also decided that the president’s statements on the campaign trail — statements that he later walked back — were somehow within her purview. She cited religious freedom — but, again, did she resign when the Department of Justice was called upon to defend Obama’s intrusions on religious freedom, as in the Little Sisters of the Poor case?

She did not. Her answers to Cruz reveal that Sally Yates did not care about the law, did not care about her oath, and did not care about the Constitution as much as she cared about taking a political stand against the new president.

Video: https://youtu.be/1sC1dOiCSp0

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/09/ted-cruz-sally-yates/

This is from the INA not U.S. Code Law. She changed subjects on Ted, and he picked that up. He was citing U.S. Code, and she changed the subject to the INA code, which was initiated from a bill submitted by Ted Kennedy back in 1965. And, that is the crust of the whole issue. The left (Democrats) want to take away immigration authority from the president and make the INA (Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965) the authority not the current U.S. Constitution and U.S. Law Code. She was pretty sneaky in doing that, and I contend that was done on purpose. Because that is what will be what the SCOTUS will be reviewing and ruling on here in the not so distant future.