U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), security contractors frisk Honduran immigration detainees deporting them on a flight to San Pedro Sula, Honduras on February 28, 2013 in Mesa, Arizona.  (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)


Obama’s chief immigration officer will testify this week before Congress about the sharp drop in deportations of illegal immigrants in recent years.

Sarah Saldaña, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is expected to attribute the plummeting numbers to the surge of children at the border and uncooperative local and foreign governments.

Only 102,000 criminal illegal immigrants identified and apprehended by ICE were deported in Fiscal Year 2014, which is an 18 percent drop, according to a statement announcing the hearing. And the number of arrests of criminal illegal immigrants is down by 35 percent from this time last year. (RELATED: Obama’s Deputies Deported Only 0.2 Percent Of 11.7 Million Illegals In 2013)

Almost 800 personnel and other resources were reallocated last year to deal with the huge influx of Central American children crossing the border, she says in prepared testimony obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. The agency transferred nearly 60,000 children to DHS custody, and had to build three new family detention centers, according to immigration law, to detain families apprehended at the border.

Some of those resources were taken from a program that disrupts smugglers by apprehending illegals at one part of the Mexican border and deporting them at a different part of the border. As a result, that program suffered, Saldana will testify.

Adding to the draw on resources posed by the surge is the difficulty of deporting illegal immigrants to countries other than Mexico. It’s more expensive and requires the cooperation of foreign countries, who often fail to provide the necessary travel documents. And in some cases, ICE is forced to release those illegal immigrants who aren’t given documents.

Saldana will also discuss the problem posed by cities who refuse to cooperate with ICE. These so-called “sanctuary” cities choose to release convicted illegal immigrants when their jail or prison sentence ends, rather than turn them over to the custody of ICE for deportation as requested.

“There are more than 200 jurisdictions, including some of the largest in the country,” her prepared statement asserts. From January 2014 to March 2015, cities ignored 15,000 of these requests from ICE, according to the Judiciary Committee statement.

“While the reasons for this may vary … in certain circumstances we believe such a lack of cooperation may increase the risk that dangerous criminals are returned to the streets, putting the public and our officers at greater risk,” Saldana’s statement says.

Her agency itself released more than 65,000 criminal illegal aliens in 2013 and 2014 in compliance with immigration law, and to ensure detention space for other efforts. (RELATED: Obama Deputies Free 30,682 Foreign Criminals)

“Over the past six years, President Obama has steadily dismantled the interior enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws,” committee chairman Bob Goodlatte said in a statement Monday. “Under the Obama Administration’s watch, the apprehension, detention, and removal of unlawful and criminal aliens has dramatically declined.”

Follow Rachel on Twitter


By Hans von Spakovsky 

In an order issued late Tuesday, federal district court Judge Andrew Hanen refused to lift the preliminary injunction he had previously issued stopping the implementation of the immigration amnesty plan announced by President Obama last November.

And in a second order, an obviously infuriated Judge Hanen said that the “attorneys for the Government misrepresented the facts” to the court.

Judge Hanen issued his injunction on Feb. 16 in the lawsuit filed by 26 states in a Texas federal court. On Feb. 23, the Justice Department filed a motion asking Hanen to stay his injunction pending an appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 3, the Justice Department filed an “Advisory” with Hanen, informing him that between Nov. 20, when the president announced his new plan, and Feb. 16, when the injunction was issued, the Department of Homeland Security had begun implementing part of the president’s plan by issuing three-year deferrals to over 100,000 illegal aliens.

Justice Department Had Said Obama’s Immigration Plan Hadn’t Been Implemented

 This despite the fact that the Justice Department had assured Judge Hanen on numerous occasions—both in court and in written pleadings—that no part of the president’s plan would be implemented until late February. In the Advisory, the Justice Department did not admit it had misled the court; it was just trying to clear up any “confusion” that might have occurred.

Judge Hanen obviously saw things differently.

In Tuesday night’s order on the injunction, Hanen said that he remained “convinced” that his original findings and rulings were correct and that for a number of reasons, “the decisions reached previously by this Court have been reinforced.”

For example, Hanen had based his injunction in part on the “abdication” by the administration of its duty to enforce federal immigration law. Hanen pointed out that “recent actions taken by the Government confirm that it has abdicated enforcement.”

U.S. Border Patrol agent Joe Gutierrez. (Photo: Paul Hennessy/Polaris/Newscom)

One of those actions cited by Hanen was Obama’s reaction at a town hall meeting held after the injunction was issued to an individual upset over a deportation order. Obama said that any Border Patrol agents or Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials who didn’t follow his new immigration plan that halts deportations against those who qualify under his new plan would be punished: if “they don’t follow the policy, there are going to be consequences to it.”

According to Hanen, Obama’s message to federal law enforcement officials and the nation “is clear.” First, federal immigration laws that “officials are charged with enforcing, are not to be enforced when those laws conflict” with the president’s plan.  Second, “the criteria set out in [the president’s plan] are mandatory.” Third, if Department of Homeland Security officials “fail to follow the specified criteria, there will be consequences for this failure—just as there would be consequences if they were in the military and disobeyed an order from the Commander in Chief.”

In summary, “the chief executive has ordered that the laws requiring removal of illegal immigrants that conflict with [the president’s plan] are not to be enforced, and that anyone who attempts to do so will be punished.”

Hanen also dismissed the government’s claim that it would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not lifted. He concluded that “there is no pressing, emergent need for this program” and “the scales of justice greatly favor the States.”

Justice Department Lawyers Showed ‘Distinct Lack of Candor’

In the second order over the Advisory filed with the court, Judge Hanen presented a scathing analysis of the Justice Department’s misbehavior in misleading him over the implementation of the president’s amnesty plan:

This Court expects all parties, including the Government of the United States, to act in a forthright manner and not hide behind deceptive representations and half-truths. That is why, whatever the motive for the Government’s actions in this matter, the Court is extremely troubled by the multiple representations made by the Government’s counsel—both in writing and orally—that no action would be taken … until February 18, 2015.

Hanen said the representations made by the Justice Department lawyers “indicates a distinct lack of candor.”

The Justice Department lawyers may even be in trouble for their delay in telling Hanen about this problem: “the explanation by Defendants’ counsel for their conduct after the fact is even more troublesome for the Court.”

The Department told Hanen they were unaware there was a problem until they read his Feb. 16 injunction order, and that they then took “prompt” remedial action to inform the court, but Hanen said that “assertion is belied by the facts.” The Advisory was not filed until March 3, so for two weeks after the Feb. 16 injunction order, “the Government did nothing to inform the Court of the 108,081” deferrals that had been issued.

Instead, on Feb. 23, the government filed its “Motion to Stay” the injunction with Hanen, saying absolutely nothing in that motion about this problem. Instead, “mysteriously, what was included” in the Justice Department’s motion was a request that Hanen issue a decision by Feb. 25, within two days:

If this Court had ruled according to the Government’s requested schedule, it would have ruled without the Court or the States knowing that the Government had granted 108,081 applications … despite its multiple representations to the contrary … Yet they stood silent. Even worse, they urged this Court to rule before disclosing that the Government had already issued 108,081 three-year renewals … despite their statement to the contrary.

Hanen goes after the Justice Department lawyers even harder, especially their claims that they acted “promptly” to clear up any “confusion” they may have caused: “But the facts clearly show these statements to be disingenuous. The Government did anything but act ‘promptly’ to clarify the Government-created ‘confusion.’”

Judge: Justice Department Lawyers Didn’t Follow Professional Ethics

Hanen cites Section 3.3 of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the corresponding section of the Texas Rules, which require complete candor by a lawyer in his or her dealings with a court:

Fabrications, misstatements, half-truths, artful omissions, and the failure to correct misstatements may be acceptable, albeit lamentable, in other aspects of life; but in the courtroom, when an attorney knows that both the Court and the other side are relying on complete frankness, such conduct is unacceptable.

Because of the government’s misconduct, Judge Hanen considered striking their pleadings, and indicated that “under different circumstances,” he might “very well do so.” But he didn’t because, he said, that would effectively end the case.

The border wall runs several miles through a rural area east of Brownsville. (Photo: Bob Daemmrich/Newscom)

Because the issues at stake “have national significance and deserve to be fully considered on the merits,” Hanen concluded that “the ends of justice would not be served by striking pleadings in this case.” He warned the Justice Department, though, that his decision “does not bar such a sanction in the future should the facts and law warrant that action” and that his decision does not leave him “impotent to fashion an appropriate remedy” for the government’s misconduct.

In addition to granting the states’ request for early discovery, Hanen ordered the Justice Department to produce “any and all drafts of the March 3, 2015 Advisory” including all “metadata and all other tangible items that indicate when each draft of the document was written and/or edited or revised” as well as the names of any person who knew about the Advisory or the Department of Homeland Security activity, or reviewed it, and the date that occurred. He ordered that no documents, emails, computer records, hard drives or servers that have any information about this Advisory be “destroyed or erased.” And he gave the Justice Department only until April 21 to supply all of this information.

That is a tall order, but Judge Hanen is clearly determined to find out who knew about this deception, and may well consider personally sanctioning those lawyers or other officials who were involved once he gets that information.

This is another big loss for the government and gives the states the ability to question the credibility of the government in the appeal now pending. The Justice Department will go into the upcoming hearing before the Fifth Circuit with what the legal profession calls “unclean hands,” which is when lawyers engage in professional and ethical misconduct. That certainly will not help the government win its case.

Personal Libert Digest New

baby with U.S. flag

by Chip Wood

Federal officials raided a bunch of apartments in California last month, as part of an investigation into a “birth tourism” scam. It seems that thousands of pregnant Chinese women have flown into the United States on fraudulent visas so their babies would be born in this country — and, thus, become instant U.S. citizens.

The women allegedly paid between $40,000 and $80,000 for the arrangements, which included being escorted from the airport, taken to pre-arranged housing, provided with groceries and other supplies, and even provided with prenatal care.

The Department of Homeland Security says that the pregnant women were coached in China to lie about their travel plans. They were even told to wear loose clothing to hide their pregnancies. The Associated Press quoted Claude Arnold, a special agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as saying, “These people were told to lie, how to lie, so that their motives for coming to the U.S. wouldn’t be questioned.”

The participants were allegedly promised that their babies would become U.S. citizens as soon as they were born, and that they would be issued with Social Security numbers and U.S. passports. And amazingly, it seems they are correct.

But these scammers are just a drop in bucket, compared to the number of illegal immigrants from other countries, especially Mexico, who do the same thing. In fact, in reporting on this story, the Los Angeles Times quoted one person as saying, “Come on, people go across the border to have a baby from Mexico all the time, so what’s the problem?”

What’s the problem? It’s that it is the official policy of the United States government that any child born in this country to both legal and illegal immigrants automatically and immediately becomes a citizen of the United States. Not only that, but by becoming a newly franchised citizen, that infant is permitted to sponsor American citizenship for its mother, father and other relatives.

Such infants are sometimes referred to as “anchor babies,” because their immediate and automatic citizenship is the “anchor” on which a host of other claims, from welfare to the citizenship of others, can be made. At least most of the Chinese women who come to this country to give birth then return to China with their child. Not so the ones who sneak in from Mexico.

How did such an insane policy come to be accepted as the law of the land? Well, the first thing you should know is that there is no such law. No, the whole bizarre policy is based on a very twisted interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Here’s the relevant section:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside.

When this amendment was first proposed in the aftermath of the Civil War, no one suggested that it would include the children of aliens, even if their parents were in this country legally when they were born. Since the parents were “subject to the jurisdiction” of the country where they were citizens, it was assumed that their children would also be citizens of the same country.

There were very rigid procedures in place for people to become citizens of this country. They included passing a written test (which was given in English), taking an oath of allegiance to the United States and renouncing their prior citizenship.

Obviously, newborn infants can’t do any of these things. So how can they possibly qualify for citizenship?

It’s time for Congress to correct this incredible misinterpretation of the law. In fact, it’s long past time. I believe the vast majority of Americans would agree on this. So where is the political leader who will promise to make it happen? We’re waiting.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood


Indiana’s Religious ‘Anti-Gay’ Law That Wasn’t


You’ve probably heard by now about Indiana’s horrible new anti-gay law.

That would be the one signed by Republican Gov. Mike Pence, allowing religious people to exempt themselves from any generally applicable law they feel like and permitting businesses to discriminate against gays.

No shoes, no shirt, no heterosexuality, no service.

Celebrities and all right-thinking people are boycotting the new “hate state” over its discriminatory return to the dark ages. There’s just one problem: the law doesn’t say any of these things.

Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act doesn’t give blanket permission to businesses to deny service to gays or anyone else. (If a business truly wants to avoid serving sinners, it will have zero customers.) It doesn’t mention sexual orientation at all.

What it does say is that government entities in the state “may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” only “in the furtherance of a compelling government interesting” and using “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.”

Frankly, that should be the requirement for all government action, even when religion isn’t involved.

If a person feels their free exercise rights have been or are likely to be substantially burdened, they can make a legal claim or assert this as a legal defense.

Whether that person’s legal argument would prevail or not is ultimately up to a judge.

That’s it.

The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act has been on the books since 1993, passed by a Democratic-controlled Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

It was enacted in response to a Supreme Court decision in which Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion. Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Barbara Mikulski, Paul Wellstone, Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold were a few of the senators who voted for it.

Jesse Helms was one of only three senators to vote against it. Former Klansman Robert Byrd was another, for all you out there who think religious freedom laws will usher in a new Jim Crow.

After the Supreme Court held that this law generally applied only to the federal government, states began to pass their own versions. One was Illinois, where the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed the state senate unanimously in 1998  – including the vote of Barack Obama.

With 40 percent of the country living under state-level RFRAs and the federal version being in effect for 22 years, we have not seen a huge surge in courts ruling in favor of discrimination against gays.

Indiana doesn’t ban private sector discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the first place, so businesses inclined to discriminate don’t necessarily need to sue under a religious freedom law. It doesn’t appear that many are so inclined.

In fact, large corporations are protesting the new Indiana law — just as hundreds of them have also asked the Supreme Court to declare a constitutional right to gay marriage.

Which brings us to why religious freedom laws are suddenly controversial: some Christian wedding vendors have been penalized for refusing to participate in same-sex weddings on religious grounds. I’m not aware of any of them trying to deny service to all gay customers. The Washington state florist who was fined had been doing floral arrangements for the couple whose wedding she declined to work for nearly a decade.

These laws don’t even provide a guarantee that the Christian wedding vendors will win. But these statutes will give future florists, bakers and photographers a legal claim. Even this is too much for some liberals if religious freedom doesn’t just mean that Muslim prison guards might get to wear beards, but that evangelical Christians can use the law to protect their religious practices.

Now, if you don’t trust your state’s judges to regularly make non-insane decisions when weighing religious liberties against other values and policy goals, that might be a good reason to oppose such laws. But the text of these laws by no means mandate the crazed hypotheticals, such as religious hospitals refusing to serve gay patients, flooding the internet.

Some argue that these laws protect hate, not faith. First, the whole point of religious freedom is that the government doesn’t get to decide which religious teachings or claims are true.

Second, people disagree about sexual morality all the time without engaging in hate. According to Gallup, only 7 percent of Americans think adultery is morally acceptable. I’m willing to bet that way more than 7 percent of Americans have friends who are adulterers, would allow adulterers to patronize local businesses and have even themselves engaged in adultery.

 Finally, peruse the #BoycottIndiana hashtag on Twitter. Those tweets don’t look very loving.

These are difficult questions that courts may get wrong. But let’s at least get the basic facts right.

W. James Antle III is managing editor of The Daily Caller and author of the book

 Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped? Follow him on Twitter.

Personal Libert Digest New


by Chip Wood

No wonder Barack Obama and his team of sycophants didn’t want Israel’s prime minister to address a joint session of Congress. They were afraid that Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu’s powerful, passionate presentation would make Obama’s own stumbling, apologetic efforts look pathetic by comparison.

If that was their concern, boy, were they right. On Tuesday, Netanyahu delivered what has been described as “a speech for the ages.” It left a lot of viewers, including this one, wishing that our own president were half as eloquent about defending our country and promoting our interests.

The Israeli leader made it unmistakably clear exactly what is at stake in the current negotiations with Iran. “The greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons,” he declared. “To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle but lose the war.”

When he added, “We can’t let that happen,” the audience lept to his feet and gave him another of more than two dozen standing ovations.

Netanyahu pointed out that both ISIS and Iran are the enemies of freedom. “Don’t be fooled,” he warned. “Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.”

Have we ever heard such unmistakable moral clarity from our own president? Of course not. All we get from Obama are apologies for our past behavior, combined with a mushy-headed defense of Islam and Muslims.

Netanyahu sees things differently. “When it comes to Iran and ISIS,” he proclaimed, “the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.” That will surely be one of the most quoted phrases from the Israeli leader’s remarks. And it deserves to be.

From the time John Boehner, the speaker of the House, announced he had invited Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress, the Obama administration made it clear it wanted nothing to do with the prime minister’s visit. No one from the administration attended the speech. Some 48 representatives and at least eight senators boycotted it. Several of them issued some petty and divisive critiques afterward.

Obama said he didn’t bother to watch the speech, but when he looked at a transcript, he didn’t see anything new in it. Such a childish dismissal did nothing to enhance his image as a leader; instead, it merely made him look churlish.

It didn’t have to be this way. Obama would have demonstrated some magnanimous leadership if he had welcomed Netanyahu to Washington and agreed to meet with him. But his spokesman said the visit was too close to elections in Israel later this month. What a bunch of baloney!

And what a contrast with Netanyahu, who began his speech with effusive thanks to Obama, as well as to Congress and the American people, for their past support of Israel. It was another lesson in how a real leader should conduct himself.

Let’s face it. Iran is the chief supporter of terrorism in the region and around the world. It has repeatedly said it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. It has proven over and over again that it will break any promise and violate any treaty whenever it wishes.

No wonder the Israeli leader said, “If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.”

After urging his audience to insist that what he called “a very, very bad deal” be changed, Netanyahu concluded with a solemn and sober warning:

I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over. … For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves. This is why — this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.

As I said at the beginning of this column, Netanyahu delivered a passionate and powerful speech to Congress. It had a fervor and moral clarity we have never heard from our president — with the possible exception of his attacks on the rich.

No wonder that Netanyahu has more respect among the American people than our own president. He deserves it.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

Personal Libert Digest New

green-tipped ammo

ATF’s ammo ban a slippery slope to useless guns

by Sam Rolley

American 2nd Amendment supporters are doubling down on criticism of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives plan to reclassify certain types of 5.56mm/.223 caliber ammunition as armor-piercing. If the plan moves forward, critics say it could amount to the de facto completion of the Obama administration’s plan to enact an extrajudicial ban on AR style rifles.

The ATF has released its proposal (available here) and opened a public comment period on the matter lasting until March 16.

The agency’s ban would affect specifically SS109/M855 ammunition — one of the most common ammo options for 5.56 NATO chambered AR-15 rifles.

For years, the ammo has been exempt from ATF ammo bans because of its popularity among target shooters and outdoorsmen. But the agency is now claiming that the “green-tipped” ammo poses a threat to law enforcement officers because it can be used in certain types of semi-automatic handguns.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation last week urged “all industry employees, target shooters and gun owners” to contact lawmakers and ATF officials to express opposition to the plan.

“ATF’s proposed ‘framework’ for applying the ‘sporting purpose’ exemption test rewrites the law passed by Congress to disregard the manufacturer’s intention that a projectile or cartridge is ‘primarily intended for a supporting purpose,’” the group said. “ATF inappropriately places the focus on how criminals might misuse sporting ammunition in a handgun.”

In other words, ATF officials are ignoring the fact that the ammunition has a widely used and perfectly legal purpose and effectively suggesting that ammo manufacturers produce the round solely for sale to criminals.

Other critics of the ATF plan note that the agency has failed to provide any evidence to back its claim that the “green-tipped” rounds are sought out by criminals.

That’s the gist of a recent Guns.com column penned by Jeffery Denning, a shooting expert and law enforcement officer.

“Viewing the ATF proposal through cop glasses, I understand law enforcement’s need and desire to keep armored-piercing ammo out of the hands of dangerous people,” he wrote. “I don’t want to get shot with armor-piercing rounds. I don’t want my buddies to get shot either.

“But the truth of the matter is that all my friends in law enforcement that have been shot were NOT shot by armor-piercing rounds,” Denning continued. “They were shot — and unfortunately one of them was killed — by everyday ammo, so singling out green-tip ammo simply makes no sense to me.”

Other 2nd Amendment supporters with law enforcement backgrounds have expressed similar sentiments.

“Criminals aren’t going to go out and buy a $1,000 AR pistol,” a Missouri gun store owner and former police officer told the Springfield News-Leader. “And as a police officer I’m not worried about AR pistols because you can see them. It’s the small gun in a guy’s hand you can’t see that kills you.”

That the ATF wants to ban a class of ammo based on conjecture has many critics worried about a slippery slope to bans on other ammo.

“Manufacturers will face serious limitations in their ability to develop and market alternative ammunition in other popular hunting rounds, such as .308 rifle hunting ammunition, if ATF’s so-called ‘framework’ is adopted,” the National Shooting Sports Foundation predicts.

The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, meanwhile, is telling supporters that the ATF effort is clearly the result of the Obama administration’s desire to “suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifle.”

The NRA is working with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) to produce a congressional plan to halt the proposed ammo ban.

In a letter to ATF officials, Goodlatte is asking for clarification on what authority the agency believes it has to usurp federal law and the 2nd Amendment by reclassifying the popular ammunition option.

“[T]his round is amongst the most commonly used in the most popular rifle design in America, the AR-15. Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold and used in the U.S., yet ATF has not even alleged — much less offered evidence — that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer,” the lawmaker wrote. “The idea that Congress intended [the ‘armor-piercing’ ammunition law] to ban one of the preeminent rifle cartridges in use by Americans for legitimate purposes is preposterous.”

Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has also weighed in on the proposed ammo ban, saying supporters should call it what it is rather than pushing it as an officer safety issue.

“Banning ammo is the same as banning guns,” Jindal said via Twitter, adding, “Except it’s less honest.”



by Rob Bluey /

The Daily Signal made its CPAC debut this year, closely following the 2016 contenders and hot policy debates at America’s largest conservative conference. We’ve pulled together a quick take on the highlights of the first day.

1) Scott Walker Casts Himself as Champion of ‘Hard-Working Taxpayers’

The Wisconsin governor arrived at CPAC as the early 2016 frontrunner in Iowa, home to the much-anticipated Republican caucus next year. His speech, which came at the end of day one, drove home an economic message, touching on issues such as taxes and jobs that have played a big role in his three electoral victories in the Badger State.

During his speech, Walker found himself heckled by a member of the audience—an experience he’s endured on more than one occasion in Wisconsin. Winning applause from the crowd, he declared, “those voices can’t drown out the voices of hard-working taxpayers.”

Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wis., at CPAC. (Photo: Mike Theiler/EPA/Newscom)

2) Ted Cruz Criticizes GOP Leadership for ‘Cutting a Deal’ with Democrats on Immigration

With a deadline fast approaching to fund the Department of Homeland Security, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, showed no signs of compromising with Democrats. Conservatives, including Cruz, want to undo President Obama’s executive actions on immigration as part of the funding bill, which the Senate will vote on again Friday.

Before his speech, The Daily Signal joined a handful of journalists for a sit-down interview with Cruz. Here’s what he told us about the state of play: