Tuesday, October 18, 2016


'Make Soros Happy': Clinton Campaign Discusses Importance of Pleasing Billionaire in Leaked Email

"I would only do this for political reasons (i.e. to make Soros happy)," the email states

BY Mikael Thalen
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Members of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign discussed the political importance of pleasing billionaire George Soros in emails published by WikiLeaks.
The email, among thousands allegedly hacked from Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta, reveals a discussion between several prominent figures – including campaign manager Robby Mook and Clinton aide Huma Abedin – regarding the organization “America Votes.”
“I would only do this for political reasons (ie to make Soros happy),” Mook tells Abedin. “It’s very unclear to me how much AV will matter next cycle. And I haven’t seen then [sic] adding any value this cycle. I also worry a little it will cause donor confusion vis a vis Priorities.”
America Votes, which works “with over 400 state and national partner organizations to advance progressive policies, win elections, and protect every American’s right to vote,” has received millions in funding from Soros.
“She is having dinner with George Soros tonight,” Abedin responds. “Do you know much about America Votes? As Greg Speed explained to me, they are the coordinated campaign for various outside groups. Soros is a big supporter of the group and hes [sic] going to ask her tonight if she will come to a fundraiser for them at his house in December. Thoughts?”
Several other emails released in the Podesta dump also reveal the Clinton campaign’s close ties with the nefarious philanthropist.


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

When you treat your son like the sun and orbit around him as if he’s his own little solar system’s center, don’t be surprised when he supernovas at every imagined slight. So says a Michigan college professor, in so many words, in a new book examining the origins of the “snowflake” college-student phenomenon.
The book is Political Correctness and the Destruction of Social Order: Chronicling the Rise of the Pristine Self, by Oakland University professor emeritus Howard Schwartz. After years of studying the psychology animating political correctness, Schwartz says that modern society is breeding large numbers of quasi-narcissists who cannot tolerate any questioning of their delusion-born self-image. Writes the College Fix:
Schwartz, who taught classes in social and behavioral science within its [Oakland U’s] business school, said the term stems from what he calls “the rise of the pristine self.”
Schwartz writes in the book that “this is a self that is touched by nothing but love. The problem is that nobody is touched by nothing but love, and so if a person has this as an expectation, if they have built their sense of themselves around this premise, the inevitable appearance of the something other than love blows this structure apart.”
He added in his interview that “the over sensitivity of individuals today, including political correctness and micro-aggressions, all stem from this idea that people operating under the notion of the pristine self view you as evil because you are showing them something other than love.”
Schwartz points to the rise of helicopter parents and capitulating campus administrations as contributing to this phenomenon.
“People now experience the entire world as a form of bullying. The helicopter parent protects the children from real dangers but also fantasy dangers. These precious snowflakes are the children of political correctness, their parents and schools lead them to believe that the world is perfectly moralistic — they don’t live in the real world, it is a fantasy,” he said.  
Prof. Schwartz says that universities exacerbate this problem by becoming “matriarchal institutions” that pander to and coddle already callow undergraduates. As a very timely example, the Washington Free Beacon has just reported that the University of Florida is “providing around-the-clock counseling services to students who are offended by Halloween costumes.” And this now reflects the norm. Word has it that students today are flooding college mental-health centers; this, of course, is encouraged by the psychological profession, as a growing snowflake mentality grows its market and coffers.
This coddling is what has given us demands for, as Schwartz wrote in February, “safe spaces,” trigger warnings, and protection from micro-aggressions” from students who “work upon the assumption that they deserve a ‘pristine self’ unchallenged by invalidating ideas or opinions.” What is a micro-aggression? Schwartz explained that “Derald Wing Sue, godfather of the concept, defined ‘micro-aggression’ as ‘the brief and everyday slights, insults, indignities and denigrating messages sent to people of color by well-intentioned White people who are unaware of the hidden messages being communicated’” (video below of Professor Sue discussing the destructive concept).
This all sounds like the musings and concerns of people with too much time on their hands. And that “an idle mind is the Devil’s playground” is a factor. Yet there’s more to it. Let’s examine Prof. Schwartz’ thesis.
The Little Prince Phenomenon
Children are born self-centered, mainly because, as philosopher G.K. Chesterton put it, they have “a self.” And just as languages are learned best when young, so is morality and tolerance for criticism and for the denial of desires. Yet “As the twig is bent, so grows the tree”; a child whose natural petulance and tyrannical instincts aren’t tamed may never “grow out of it.”
Now, we all know that stereotype of the coddled and spoiled ancient royal who from childhood is surrounded by luxury and fawning servants and is treated as a demigod whose every whim is satisfied. How common such an individual was, even among royalty, is not the point; it is, rather, that we wouldn’t be surprised if such a person grew up a narcissist, intolerant of the slightest criticism and demanding continual validation of his deific self-image.
In a way, this is precisely the upbringing many children have today. In fact, contemporary civilization — with supermarkets stocked with “wedding food,” modern conveniences, abounding recreational and entertainment opportunities, and lots of free time — offers a lifestyle of which ancient royals couldn’t even dream. This is combined with permissive, Dr. Spock-disgorged parenting. Children may be treated as if their flatulence is floral aroma, rarely receiving criticism and being lavished with praise for doing what is merely obligatory. And it may not be that just spanking is anathema, but that “punishment” is a dirty word and that every strong word may be avoided for fear of damaging “self-esteem,” which has become a euphemism for the sin of pride. The result? Spoiled, self-entitled brats and rampant “ADHD,” which psychologist Dr. John Rosemond has called “the extending of toddlerhood indefinitely.”
This stunted moral, emotional, and spiritual development can beget young adults who seem to have the maturity of 10-year-olds. And they often demand from their college professors and others the kind of homage, deference, and kid-gloves treatment their dysfunctional upbringing has conditioned them to expect. As Prof. Schwartz put it, such individuals “see themselves as being micro-aggressed against when an interaction does not support their feelings of goodness and importance, in the terms they use to define their own goodness and importance. The basis upon which they feel validated is never defended, or even openly stated — but it is assumed to be understood and its validity self-evident.” Sure. Their parents understood how to buttress their egos. Why shouldn’t everyone else?
Love ... or Something Else?
Yet does this mentality really reflect a “self that is touched by nothing but love”? After all, love doesn’t mean being an enabler. It doesn’t mean giving an alcoholic a bottle of gin or a heroin addict his fix — or a child his ego fix — merely because he demands such. Love means not always giving a person what he wants, but what he needs.
In contrast, pandering parents may be exhibiting not love but emotional dependence, at least to a great degree. Someone emotionally dependent upon another will deliver that gin or fix, whatever is necessary to gain or maintain the affection he wants. So where love is selfless, emotional dependence is selfish — and it’s easy to confuse the two. This isn’t to say such parents have no love for their children. But all human love is imperfect, and, in the least, whatever love they do have isn’t guided by wisdom.
Yet there’s an even deeper issue here. Prof. Schwartz quotes an observation by columnist Megan McArdle, who wrote, “Today's students don't couch their demands in the language of morality, but in the jargon of safety. They don't want you to stop teaching books on difficult themes because those books are wrong, but because they're dangerous, and should not be approached without a trigger warning. They don't want to silence speakers because their ideas are evil, but because they represent a clear and present danger to the university community.” There’s a simple reason for this:
These students don’t actually believe in morality. 
As I often point out, 2002 Barna Group research found that only six percent of teenagers believe in Truth, properly defined as something absolute and existing apart from man; almost all are moral relativists and are most likely to make “moral” decisions based on feelings.
And there you have it. Stating the obvious, a Truth-oriented person’s main question always is “Is it true?” When people don’t believe in Truth, however, they can no longer use it as a yardstick for making decisions and then fall back on that guide that feels oh-so right: their own feelings. Moreover, in this relativistic universe, there can be no right or wrong, good or evil. Then the matter of whether something is one or the other is subordinated to “Is it liberal or conservative?” “Is it healthful or not so?” or “Is it safe or dangerous?” — with emotion being the ultimate arbiter.
Of course, this can also be a tactic by the more Machiavellian sorts. You appear a tyrant if you persecute someone merely because he’s (supposedly) wrong. If he’s “dangerous,” however? Then you’re a savior administering justice.
Regardless, as the overgrown children and demagogues they enable “macro-aggress” upon morality and its daughter freedom, they make all of America a very unsafe space for everyone. 


Greater Threat Than Ever For WWIII, Rigged Elections
Democrat Election Commissioner Caught on Camera Admits: “There Is a Lot of Vote Fraud”
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Are elections in the United States being stolen? Establishment Democrats say no, claiming publicly that vote fraud doesn’t exist — but what they say privately may be a different story. And a startling admission by NYC’s Democrat Commissioner of the Board of Elections Alan Schulkin is a case in point.
The revealing comments were caught on hidden camera by a Project Veritas (PR) undercover reporter at a United Federation of Teachers holiday party. As PV reports, “Yeah, they should ask for your ID. I think there is a lot of voter fraud," said Schulkin, who elaborated on the types of voter fraud that are taking place in New York. "You know, I don’t think it’s too much to ask somebody to show some kind of an ID…. Like I say, people don’t realize, certain neighborhoods in particular they bus people around to vote," said Schulkin. When asked about which type of neighborhoods the busing of voters takes place in, Schulkin confirmed that it was minority neighborhoods, adding, "They get buses and they move people around.” (Video below.)
reported on the phenomenon of rampant vote fraud in minority neighborhoods in 2005 in “Democrats and Deep Vote fraud,” citing information given to me, exclusively, by a Washington, D.C. community leader. Among other issues, transiency is a problem in such neighborhoods, with people moving in and out of the areas frequently. This leaves many former residents on voter rolls — and their absence is well known to local, area-savvy political operatives called “block captains” or “apartment captains.” All these operatives need do then is vote, or have others vote, in these departed residents’ stead. (Note: I was still on the rolls when I left NYC more than 20 years ago. Anyone could have voted in my former precinct claiming to be “Selwyn Duke” and no one would have been any the wiser.)
Schulkin also “suggested that Mayor Bill de Blasio was to blame for a lot of the voter fraud taking place in New York City,” writes PV. The commissioner explained:
He gave out ID cards, de Blasio. That’s in lieu of a driver’s license, but you can use it for anything. But, they didn’t vet people to see who they really are. Anybody can go in there and say I am Joe Smith, I want an ID card. It’s absurd. There’s a lot of fraud. Not just voter fraud, all kinds of fraud.
This is why I’m getting more conservative as I get older.
The PV journalist also asked about absentee-ballot fraud, to which Schulkin replied, “Oh, there’s thousands of absentee ballots. I don’t know where they came from.”
Imagine that: He’s the election commissioner — and he has no idea where the absentee ballots come from.
Schulkin struck an even more politically incorrect note by mentioning Muslims. As Breitbart reported:
When the journalist suggests that in addition to voter ID fraud, people can also “cover their faces” when they vote, Schulkin agrees, saying, “Well the Muslims can do that too. You don’t know who they are.”
The PV journalist then tells Schulkin that Mayor Bill de Blasio “wants to let them [Muslims] in New York.”
“He doesn’t care, what does he care?” the commissioner replies. “Who’s going to pay for it? You are. Your tax money…. Your vote isn’t really counting because they can go in there with a burka on and you don’t know if they are a voter.”
“People think that it’s a liberal thing to do, but I take my vote seriously and I don’t want ten other people coming in negating my vote by voting for the other candidate when they’re not even registered voters,” Schulkin adds.
Not surprisingly, Schulkin’s truthful utterances didn’t sit well with other Democrats. NYC mayoral spokesman Austin Finan called the allegations “racist” and claimed that voter fraud “fear-mongering is a right wing smokescreen designed to … disenfranchise the poor and people of color.” Interesting theory, especially since the White House itself touted a voter-ID program in 2013 — apparently funded with some U.S. tax dollars — in Kenya. It was not explained how requiring voter ID of poor American blacks is “racist” and suppressive of the vote, but requiring it of far poorer Kenyan blacks is praiseworthy.
Then there’s that other person laying down the “right-wing smokescreen,” Hillary Clinton. An e-mail recently released by WikiLeaks shows that her campaign believes that in 2008 Obama operatives “flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters.” And her “racist” self was apparently joined by the United Nations. Remember when the Democrats requested UN observers for our 2012 election because they allegedly feared Republican vote suppression? Well, those observers found no such thing, but they did say they were “shocked to see that the requirement of a photo ID isn’t a standard requirement at voting locations throughout the country,” reported Breitbart at the time. Note also that it is a standard requirement for most anything else, from receiving government benefits to entering buildings (e.g., the White House) to flying on airplanes.
And we should definitely listen to (the private) Schulkin, (the private) Clinton, and the UN because vote fraud abounds. As The Federalist writes, “In Colorado, multiple instances were found of dead people attempting to vote. Stunningly, ‘a woman named Sara Sosa who died in 2009 cast ballots in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.’ In Virginia, it was found that nearly 20 voter applications were turned in under the names of dead people. In Texas, authorities are investigating criminals who are using the technique of ‘vote harvesting’ to illegally procure votes for their candidates.” (Note: The Virginia fraud was discovered only accidentally, when a registrar’s office employee recognized an applicant’s name and knew the person had recently died.) Moreover, reports liberal NPR, “A new report by the Pew Center on the States finds that more than 1.8 million dead people are currently registered to vote. And 24 million registrations are either invalid or inaccurate.”
Our voting system is so anarchic it has inspired humor, with satire site the People’s Cube recently writing, “The latest Reuters polling of deceased voters in Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Florida, and North Carolina show a definite trend favoring Hillary Clinton and Democrat congressional candidates, as the likely dead voters are registering Democrat in massive numbers. Dead Democrats, as well as Republicans who switched parties right after internment, are rising in droves chanting, ‘We Are Stronger Together.’” Yet this is no laughing matter. There is no voter-ID requirement in 19 states, including swing states Pennsylvania and North Carolina, while 15 others allow non-photo ID. And 21 percent of the 24 million invalid or inaccurate voter registrations could have accounted for Obama’s five million popular vote margin over Mitt Romney in 2012 — and far less than that would have been necessary to flip a number of crucial swing states.
Of course, it’s unlikely that vote fraud accounted for Obama’s entire margin of victory. It’s also definite we’ll never be sure about such things until we listen to certain Democrats, during their private moments, and stop running our elections as if we’re a banana republic.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Globalism-loving socialist  of Portugal (shown), infamous primarily for helping to engineer the massive tsunami of Islamic immigration into the West, has been officially selected as the next secretary-general of the United Nations. His prescription for what ails the world: more socialism at the planetary level, more power for the UN, more “global governance,” and more mass migration from the Third World to Western countries. In other words, more of the same extremism that already has the world and the West on the brink.
Guterres was formally selected last week by the UN Security Council, beating out corrupt Bulgarian communist and UNESCO chief Irina Bokova, who was the “correct” gender but whose horrifying record was exposed prior to her selection. The UN General Assembly, dominated by un-free governments and dictatorships, confirmed Guterres for the job on October 13. The Portuguese bureaucrat, 67, was the Socialist prime minister of Portugal before becoming the UN “High Commissioner for Refugees” in 2005. He also led the global tyranny-promoting Socialist International.
The Portuguese politician and bureaucrat will assume office in January of 2017. In his capacity as chief administrative officer of the UN, he will oversee almost 50,000 UN bureaucrats and counting. He will also help manage more than 100,000 scandal-plagued UN “peacekeeping” troops, currently facing global criticism for raping children around the world, trafficking sex slavesslaughtering unarmed protesters and Christians,killing tens of thousands of Haitians with cholerapersecuting whistle blowers, and more — all with total impunity. The scandals have become so horrifying that even the U.S. Congress has threatened to withhold funds.
One of the many giant red flags (no pun intended) on Guterres' troubling résumé is his presidency, from 1999 to 2005, of the Socialist International. Often referred to as SI, the outfit is an alliance of socialist and communist political parties from around the world, including many re-branded “former” communist parties from the Cold War era that murdered and tortured huge numbers of people. Despite the lack of coverage the outfit receives from the U.S. establishment media, the SI alliance is extraordinarily powerful — especially at the UN, where its members control a massive voting bloc and multiple UN bureaucracies.
The outfit is also extremely radical and dangerous. To understand just how extreme Socialist International is, consider that, in 2012, the alliance unapologetically held its annual Congress in an African nation led by a Marxist-Leninist member political party that, according to leading genocide experts, was at that very moment engaged in the planning and preparation phase of genocide in a bid to exterminate an embattled minority group. Earlier that year, the president and party chief who hosted the SI Congress even went on national television to sing songs in front of his military about massacring members of the minority group with his machine gun. SI profusely praised its hosts nonetheless.  
Representatives from murderous and unfree regimes and totalitarian parties from around the world came together, as they do every year, to demand more “global governance,” more wealth redistribution from Western taxpayers to their corrupt governments, what they call “Global Welfare Statehood,” and other extremism. “During this critical juncture for regional and world peace it is imperative that the role of the United Nations (UN) must be strengthened,” one SI resolution from that year stated before listing all the ways in which the controversial dictators club should be further empowered.
At its 1962 conference in Oslo, the SI came out and said it: “The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government.” At its latest meeting last month, the SI also demanded that Western nations submit to international bureaucracies in the resettling of massive amounts of foreigners within their borders — at taxpayer expense. The SI's members, over 160 parties from more than 100 nations, also demanded more global socialism and wealth redistribution.
Of course, socialist and communist regimes have killed more than 100 million of their own people over the last century, according to conservative estimates. And yet, the totalitarians always insist that utopia is just around the corner — just a few more purges and executions and gulags will be needed before the glories of socialism and communism become clear to the proletariat. If there are any remaining doubts about the horrors, savagery, and barbarism of socialism and communism, a quick visit to the utopias of Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, or Zimbabwe — all voting UN members, some even on the UN "human rights council" — should put them to rest.  
Yet despite the utter failure, misery, terror, starvation, and mass death inevitably produced by the implementation of such collectivist “ideologies,” the proponents of the extremism remain firmly entrenched in power around the world, as evidenced by Guterres' successful bid to lead the UN. Even the Obama administration and the allegedly conservative British government had to sign off on the socialist radical. Most of his fellow candidates for UN chief, too, were communists and socialists, in addition to being globalist radicals.       
Another red flag on Guterres' CV was his decade-long stint as UN refugee boss, a position he held until last year. As Guterres and his office engineered a tidal wave of Islamic immigration into the West, he also implemented a policy to systematically discriminate against Middle East Christians — the very people who, even according to the U.S. State Department, are still facing genocide at the hands of Islamic extremists. Even though almost 10 percent of Syria's population is Christian, for example, less than 1 percent of the refugees resettled by the UN refugee agency in the Western world have been Christian.
Indeed, Guterres' UN “refugee” officials preside over camps where Christians are systematically brutalized, beaten, and even murdered by Islamist “refugees.” U.S. taxpayer-funded aid is also doled out by the UN in a highly bigoted and discriminatory manner, bypassing Christians in favor of Muslims. “Since August 2014, other than initial supplies of tents and tarps, the Christian community in Iraq has received nothing in aid from any U.S. aid agencies or the UN,” said Stephen Rasche, the resettlement official for the Chaldean Catholic Archdiocese in Erbil, Iraq.
As The New American has reported many times, the ancient Christian communities of Iraq and Syria are facing extinction thanks, at least in part, to U.S. and UN policy in the region. Yet Guterres insists that Christians must remain there to be butchered, while potentially radicalized Muslims must be imported to Europe and the United States by the millions, all at taxpayer expense under the auspices of UN officials. In a recent TV interview, Guterres even proposed using airplanes to fly massive numbers of Muslims into Europe from Africa and the Middle East because the optics would be better. He also referred to opposition to his open borders and mass-migration extremism as “irrational.” “Migration is, in my opinion, part of the solution to the global problems,” he claimed.  
The agenda, though, is clear, and it has nothing to do with “protecting refugees” or “humanitarianism.” Guterres and his fellow globalist-socialist extremists are not fooling everyone. In Hungary, for example, Prime Minister Viktor Orban has blasted what he termed a “criminal conspiracy” of internationalist fanatics. In essence, he has argued in multiple speeches that these globalist conspirators, based largely in European Union HQ in Brussels, were using mass Islamic immigration as a weapon to undermine Western civilization, Christendom, and the nation-state on the road toward what globalists often refer to as their “New World Order.”
He is right, as even top Insiders such as former Goldman Sachs boss and Bilderberg leader Peter Sutherland, in his capacity as UN migration czar, explained publicly. In an interview posted on the UN's own website, Sutherland said he would urge governments to “recognize that sovereignty is an illusion — that sovereignty is an absolute illusion that has to be put behind us.” He also said “the days of hiding behind borders and fences are long gone.” Westerners must take on “some of the old shibboleths” and “the old historic memories and images of our own country” and realize that we are all “part of humankind.” In other words, no more nations, no more borders — just global totalitarian rule, with people like Sutherland and his extremist cohorts at the helm.  
Columnists and commentators at major publications have already expressed serious concern about Guterres' extremism. “As president of Socialist International, Guterres envisaged a radical model of government led by a UN parliamentary assembly that would facilitate the emergence of 'global citizens,’” wrote Jennifer Oriel inThe Australian newspaper, citing quotes from the SI congress' resolutions during his term at the helm of the alliance. Among other extremism, SI declared that its goal was to “parliamentarise the global political system” by establishing a “UN parliamentary assembly.”
Not surprisingly, perhaps, outgoing UN boss Ban Ki Moon last year began preparing the way, loudly and repeatedly referring to the dictators club he leads as the “Parliament of Humanity.” He continually referred to the UN's radical Agenda 2030, meanwhile, which demands national and international socialism and other extremism, as the world's “Declaration of Interdependence” for “We The Peoples” of the planet. In short, the independence of the United States — and the God-given rights of her people by extension — are under direct assault by the UN and its allies in Washington, D.C., and worldwide.  
The mass-migration disaster Guterres helped orchestrate also faced criticism in The Australian newspaper. “During his term as UN high commissioner for refugees, he acted in accordance with socialist ideology by pressuring Western states to open borders and accept a large influx of immigrants from Islamic regimes,” Oriel observed. “Despite the evidence that open border policy facilitated transnational jihadism and the mass murder of Western innocents, Guterres continued to shame governments that protect their citizens with secure borders.”
Guterres also praised the League of Arab States in 2007 in his capacity as UN refugee boss, telling them that Islamic sharia law — which calls for executing apostates, among other things — was an “invaluable foundation for the legal framework” used by his UN bureaucracy. While noting that most of the world's refugees were Muslim, rather than attacking the Islamist, socialist, globalist, and authoritarian regimes that produce refugees, he lashed out at Western “racism” and “xenophobia” as the chief cause of refugee victimhood, Oriel reported. Meanwhile, more than a few Arab dictatorships continue to refuse Muslim immigrants from Syria and Iraq, preferring to use the UN to send them to the West instead.   
Ironically, even in his assigned job by its own dubious metrics, Guterres has been a failure. In 2010, the UN's own internal auditors warned that his agency's dubious operations and money management were putting future contributions from member governments (taxpayers) at risk. According to an April 2016 UN report about the UNHCR bureaucracy, the management was “unsatisfactory” during Guterres' tenure. And that criticism is from the unsatisfactory UN, where incompetence, brazen corruption, criminality, and other horrors — even systematic sexual abuse of children by UN “peace” troops — are the norm.     
With yet another extremist espousing deadly and fringe ideologies such as socialism, open borders, and globalism on the world stage, it is past time for the United States to officially withdraw from the UN dictators club. Legislation already in Congress, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (HR 1205), would accomplish that in one fell swoop. Then the dictators of the world can be free to select nutty socialists and globalists as their leaders — but not at the expense of U.S. liberties and wealth. Related articles:


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Hillary Clinton told Goldman Sachs executives that Americans who want to limit immigration are “fundamentally un-American,” according to the leaked transcript of her private October 2013 speech made public by WikiLeaks.
Clinton’s statement is significant because it suggests that, according to polling data, Clinton views an overwhelming majority of the American electorate to be “fundamentally un-American.” According to data from Pew Research Center, 83% of the American electorate would like to see immigration levels frozen or reduced.
Clinton’s declaration describing those who want to limit immigration as “un-American” came in the context of her urging action on “immigration reform.”
“Immigration reform is so important,” Clinton told the Wall Street executives, as she demanded that Congress “get immigration reform done.”
By “immigration reform,” Clinton was referring to the 2013 Rubio-Schumer proposal, which she supported and which would have granted immediate amnesty and eventual citizenship to millions of illegal aliens, would have doubled the annual admission of foreign workers, and would have dispensed 33 million green cards to foreign nationals in the span of a single decade despite current record immigration levels.