The left’s enthusiasm for Third World immigrants isn’t only because they vote 8-2 for the Democrats. It’s that Latin American peasants seem uniquely amenable to idiotic socialist schemes.

You probably think it’s beyond silliness for Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to keep promising FREE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL! NO PREMIUMS! NO CO-PAYS! ILLEGAL ALIENS, TOO! EVERYBODY GETS A PONY!

No one could be gullible enough to fall for that.

I refer you to the economic powerhouse that is Latin America.

Based on hundreds of years of indigenous people voting for politicians who made similar promises, Latin America has become the dream factory that it is today. That’s why Tegucigalpa is practically a byword for “technological innovation,” Santiago was the picture of calm sophistication this weekend, and Caracas is the ultimate in modern conveniences.

Perhaps you missed the article in last Saturday’s New York Times on what socialism has done for the water system in Venezuela:

“The brick shack on the outskirts of Venezuela’s capital is crowded with tubs, jugs and buckets. The water they hold must last the family of eight for a week—but it’s not enough for frequent washing or flushing, so the kitchen is filled with greasy pots and the house smells of stale urine.

“And none of the water is treated, making diarrhea and vomit a regular occurrence.

“'We practically live in the bathroom,’ said the mother of the family ... [Her daughter] sat nearby, pale and listless, recovering from her latest bout of diarrhea just one month away from childbirth.”

Democrats: We need some of that Latin American magic!

Twenty years ago, 60 percent of Venezuelans had regular access to safe drinking water. Today, only 30 percent do.

How did this happen?

Answer: Poor Venezuelans voted for it. If we let them in, they’ll vote for it here, too. (Except 20 percent, who will be patriotic Americans, i.e. Republicans.)

See, earlier: Brimelow On Canada, US: "We May See Boundaries Redrawn Across North America"

“The world is moving towards more diversity, not less diversity. It’s a form of entropy,” Canada’s Liberal Party Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared last year. “The question is whether you look at that as a threat to your identity, whether it’s a national identity or a corporate identity.” Or to the very existence of my country of Canada, as Monday's federal election suggests.

Few believe that notorious birdbrain Trudeau has any idea what “entropy” means (Merriam Webster defines it as “the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity). But remember that this is the same man who told the New York Times in 2015 that “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada”—a country which, he promised, could become “the world's first post-national state.”

And also remember that this is a country that, within my lifetime, was convulsed by the Liberal Party’s (successful) drive to replace the Union Jack as Canada’s flag with the current Maple Leaf design because it was (rightly) seen by English-speaking Canadians as part of an institutionalized effort to appease the French-speaking province (= state) of Quebec at the expense of their own identity.

On Monday, Trudeau’s Liberal Party was reduced to a minority government. It will depend on the support of either the post-national social democratic New Democratic Party or the resurgent crypto-separatist Bloc Quebecois. Its will most probably last only a year or two.

So (as I’ve asked before) will the Canadian union survive—or will it become the first empire to collapse since the Soviet Union in 1991?

The results (note the extraordinary fragmentation of Canada’s electorate):

• Justin Trudeau’s Liberals 157 seats (of a total of 338 in Canada’s Parliament), down 27; popular vote just 33.1%, down 6.4 percentage points. The Liberals, roughly equivalent to U.S. Democrats, are a Leftist party representing the New Class and its various client constituencies, especially recently-imported immigrants; Francophone (Canspeak for French-mother tongue) federal government dependents (often bilingual); some residual Anglophone communities in Quebec (for example in the Gatineau—where Gracefield is named after my Irish immigrant forbears).
• Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives 121 seats, up 22; popular vote 34.4%, up 2.5 percentage points. The Conservatives, roughly equivalent to the GOP, are overwhelmingly anglophone and heavily Western Canadian; plus some socially conservative Francophone Quebecois. Significantly, Scheer is a Catholic.
• Yves-François Blanchet’s Bloc Québécois (Quebec-based and "sovereigntist," a.k.a. separatists): 32 seats (of 75 contested in Quebec), up 22; 7.7%, up percentage points The Bloc is a crypto-separatist party drawing on Francophone nationalists, many monolingual and non-metropolitan c.f. Trump’s rural support; plus provincial government dependents—Quebec’s provincial government bureaucracy has been in nationalist hands for many years,
• Jagmeet Singh’s New Democratic Party (formerly labor union-based and socialist; now with increasing Social Justice Warrior/ Identity Politics overtones): 24 seats, down 20; 15.9%, down 3.8 percentage points. Heavily Anglophone, except for the freak 2011 election; New Class; immigrants; native peoples. The NDP now competes directly with the Liberals, without the Liberals’ Hillary Clinton-type corporate connections. It is a curiosity that they don’t merge.
• Elizabeth May’s Green Party 3, up 2; 6.5%, up 3 percentage points. Appeals to Social Justice Warrior Ecotopian whites—two of its ridings (=districts) are in Whitopian Vancouver Island.
• Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party (populist libertarian) 0 seats, down 1; 1.6% (292,703 votes). Bernier is an enterprising Francophone political entrepreneur who described himself as "the Albertan from Quebec," and experimented with immigration patriotism. He actually got 2.2% in Alberta, but lost the Quebec seat he had held as a Conservative before leaving the party, possibly vindicating the Canadian conventional wisdom that Francophones go with winners. Bernier faced total Trump-type hysteria from Canada’s MSM. But new parties start slowly in a parliamentary system, and his party’s vote compares with 2.1% achieved with the insurrectionary Reform Party in 1988, after which it completely displaced the rival Progressive Conservatives in 1993 (alas to no lasting effect).

Justin Trudeau, a man of no known accomplishments except for being the son of Canada-wrecker Pierre Trudeau (Prime Minister from 1968 to 1984), surfed to power in 2015 on a wave on psychosexual hysteria among Canada’s elite, much as his father had done nearly fifty years earlier. Trudeau Senior was also reduced to a minority government in his first attempt at re-election in 1972, and for much the reason as his son this year: Canadians became sick of them both, their arrogance and constant preening for the cameras.

On assuming office, Justin seemed to regard his role as a brand ambassador, dressing in silly costumes, pulling up a pant leg to reveal his daring socks and proclaiming the alleged world-beating virtues of the new “sunny ways” Canada, even as he apologized for its history without end.

Earlier by Michelle Malkin: Silicon Valley Sharia—Laura Loomer Banned, Sarah Jeong Defended

The Beltway swamp is clogged with miserable crapweasels: smug incumbents, status quo lemmings, Constitution infringers of all flavors, Silicon Valley lackeys, jihad apologists, open borders freaks and, oh, that Trump-deranged lurker, Mitt "Pierre Delecto" Romney.

In a country of 325 million people, can't we just have one elected official on Capitol Hill with the guts to call out the rest of the swamp things?

It’s not surprising that Robert “Beto” O’Rourke wanted to apply an ideological test on churches, it’s just surprising he felt so comfortable saying so. Even liberal journalists admit stripping tax-exempt status from churches that oppose homosexual marriage is unconstitutional. However, there has been a concerted effort in the Main Stream Media from The New York Times on down to strip organizations they don’t like, notably your humble servants of VDARE.com, of tax-exempt status on political grounds. Some random kritarch could decree it at any moment. What’s more, selective law enforcement is not some forthcoming nightmare, but an existing reality of American life. If it wasn’t, Leftist churches and organizations that already engage in illegal activity would be suffering a price.

Beto O’Rourke is making open promises of repression a staple of his failing campaign. First it was, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15” [O’Rourke’s debate-stage vow: ‘Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, by Paul Steinhauser, Fox News, September 12, 2019]. Then, in a CNN/"Human Rights Campaign" LGBTQ  Town Hall, in response to a question about whether religious institutions that oppose same-sex marriage should lose tax exempt status, he said, “Yes, there can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights of every single one of us.”[N.B. “anyone”—VDARE.com emphasis added).

Beto O’Rourke on religious institutions losing tax-exempt status for opposing same-sex marriage: "There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone ... that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us" #EqualityTownHall pic.twitter.com/tjwVGqv5h0

— CNN (@CNN) October 11, 2019

Of course, “human rights” no longer includes things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or due process, all of which journofa seem to associate with “Nazis.”

Yet let’s be fair. O’Rourke’s open totalitarianism was too much even for the MSM, which almost unanimously decried O’Rourke’s plan as blatantly unconstitutional or simply wild.