California has its first illegal alien in state office, after Senate President pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) appointed Lizbeth Mateo to the California Student Opportunity and Access Program Project Grant Advisory Committee.

Mateo, an attorney, was born in Mexico and came to the U.S. illegally at the age of 14 with her parents, who are also illegal aliens, according to the Sacramento Bee.

In #lawschool I often wondered if I was fit to b in #lawjournal, #mootcourt bc not many ppl w/ my same background did. I always went for it bc even if I felt inadequate I thought I could add something of value. I hope to do the same w/ @StudentAidCommission. #undocumentedunafraid https://t.co/JpZOOhJfMU

— Lizbeth Mateo, Esq. (@LizbethMateo) March 15, 2018

Thank you Sen. @kdeleon for appointing me to the CalSOAP Advisory Committee. I look forward to working w/ the rest of the committee & the Student Aid Commission in such important task – increase the accessibility of postsecondary education opportunities for low-income students.

— Lizbeth Mateo, Esq. (@LizbethMateo) March 15, 2018

She complained that illegal aliens are not adequately represented in state government, and described her appointment as a step towards correcting that alleged injustice.

“While undocumented students have become more visible in our state, they remain underrepresented in places where decisions that affect them are being made,” Mateo said, as quoted by Fox News.

De León, who is running for U.S. Senate against incumbent Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), described Mateo as: “a courageous, determined and intelligent young woman who at great personal risk has dedicated herself to fight for those seeking their rightful place in this country,” according to Fox News.

Mateo, however, seems somewhat confused about which country she prefers.

In a Facebook post in 2016, apparently celebrating her graduation from Santa Clara University School of Law, Mateo declared, in Spanish: “[E]verything is dedicated to Oaxaca, Mexico!! to that land that I miss so much.”

While she is the first illegal alien to hold a state office, she is not the first elevated to public office in California. In 2015, the city council of Huntington Park, California, appointed two illegal aliens to city commissions, sparking a public backlash.

De León and other state officials are stoking an ongoing confrontation with the federal government over federal immigration laws.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named to Forward’s 50 “most influential” Jews in 2017. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Jimmy Kimmel should be learning.

A guy who makes his living playing to the public shouldn’t make a habit out of alienating half the general population every time he opens his mouth.

And even Kimmel admits it’s starting to show up in his bottom line.

“According to polls I’ve seen, it has cost me commercially,” he told Oprah Winfrey’s O magazine in April’s issue, according to Fox News. “That’s not ideal, but I wouldn’t change anything I said.”

Kimmel might want to rethink that — especially if his grating, heart-on-the-sleeve liberal schtick keeps hitting him commercially.

It’s easy to forget now — after Kimmel has spent more than a year unnecessarily taking sides in the country’s culture wars — but the late-night comedian wasn’t always so radioactively political.

As the liberal website Vox noted in September, prior to President Donald Trump’s election, “Jimmy Kimmel Live” on ABC “tended to approach politicians with the same instinct it applied to uninformed people wandering down Hollywood Boulevard: wryly pointing out how stupid they could be.”

Other than an idiotically emotional response to the death of a lion in Zimbabwe at the hands of an American big game hunter, Kimmel was generally just another guy who told gags as most of America headed to bed. (Kimmel’s weeping over the death of Cecil the lion was a mainstream media phenomenon, with gushing coverage from his own ABC as well as outlets like CNN.)

Kimmel even got some support from pro-life conservatives in late 2016 when he pointedly did not refer to the unborn baby he and his wife, Molly McNearny, were expecting as a “fetus.”

That all changed when he hosted the Oscars in February 2017 and turned it into an anti-Trump hate fest aimed directly at pleasing the liberal Hollywood audience — and ended up alienating audiences at home (Record-low ratings proved that).

Then, Kimmel used a monologue in May to go public about his newborn son’s heart condition. Anyone with an ounce of feelings could sympathize with a new father and root for a young boy with a life-threatening illness.

But Kimmel, for reasons that still aren’t clear, decided to make Republicans and their efforts to overhaul the disastrous Obamacare system the villains in the story.

In 2017, he was making about $15 million a year hosting “Jimmy Kimmel Live” on ABC, according to CNBC. When a guy has money like that and his son is still facing medical problems, it’s not the fault of the government’s health care system.

RELATED: Trump Calls Out Powerful Reporter as “Son of a *****” in Front of Thousands

But the liberal media, always eager for a storyline to bash Trump and the Republicans, greeted Kimmel’s new activism like it was a sign that the country wanted to get rid of the president and his party. New York magazine headlined an item: “Jimmy Kimmel Might Have Struck the Final Blow Against the GOP Health-Care Plan.”

Now, Kimmel is a de facto spokesman for Democrats, vying with the loathsome Stephen Colbert at CBS for who can offend more Trump supporters on any given night.

The problem he is seeing is that infuriating half the potential members of the audience is bad business in show business.

That showed up in the ratings for the Oscars, which he hosted again this year — and which posted another record ratings low, according to The New York Times.

So, Kimmel admits his political stance is hurting his show commercially. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will soon have no choice but admit its annual celebration of liberalism and demonizing of conservatives at the Oscars is hurting it with the American public. (Maybe a third straight year of record low ratings will do the trick.)

Because any service business that starts off by offending half its customer base is a service business that can’t survive.

And Kimmel is going to be learning that, too.

Like and share this on Facebook and Twitter if you’re sick of liberals like Jimmy Kimmel faking “entertainment.”

What do you think it will take to make late-night comics wise up? Scroll down to comment below!

One of the pleasantly surprising bright spots of President Donald Trump’s administration has been the appointment of Nikki Haley as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, as she has taken a decidedly blunt and no-nonsense, call-it-like-we-see-it American attitude to the international organization.

Haley delivered yet another fiery speech to the U.N. Security Council on Monday, in which she placed the council on notice for its utter failure to maintain a temporary cease-fire agreement in Syria. She explicitly called out Russia and Syria, as well as Iran, for their roles in the continued fighting in violation of a recent Security Council resolution, according to TheBlaze.

Her eight-minute speech boiled down to one pointed message: If the U.N. doesn’t do anything to address the contempt with which the Security Council resolution was treated by Russia and Syria, the U.S. military will.

As Haley began, she noted all of the promises made by Russia in regard to enforcing the resolution which imposed a 30-day cease-fire in the area of Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus, and pointed out how fighting and bombing was still ongoing in spite of the agreement that Russia claimed to support.

She further noted that Russia and Syria had taken advantage of a “loophole” in the agreement that allowed for military action against terrorist organizations like al-Qaida and the Islamic State group by essentially declaring all opposition groups and civilians in Ghouta to be “terrorists” and open to attack.

“This is no cease-fire,” Haley asserted. “This is the Assad regime, Iran and Russia continuing to wage war against their political opponents.”

“If we can’t save families that haven’t seen the sun for weeks because they have been hiding underground to escape barrel bombs,” she continued, “then the Security Council is as impotent as its worst critics say it is.”

“When the international community consistently fails to act, there are times when states are compelled to take their own action,” Haley said, as she reminded the council of the U.S. missile strikes in April 2017 in response to Syrian chemical attacks on civilians.

“We warn any nation that is determined to impose its will through chemical attacks and inhuman suffering, most especially the outlaw Syrian regime, the United States remains prepared to act if we must,” she added. “It is not the path we prefer, but it is a path we have demonstrated we will take, and we are prepared to take again.”

You can watch Haley’s tough speech right here. Take note of the tone and occasional sharp side-eye toward the Russian and Syrian representatives as she calls them out for their duplicity in front of the spineless council.

According to The Hill, Haley’s warning to the U.N. Security Council came amid reports heavy fighting and bombings in and around Ghouta — which were preventing the delivery of humanitarian aid and evacuation of sick and wounded civilians from the besieged city — as well as allegations of chemical attacks using chlorine gas in the area.

It is worth noting that Haley was not entirely alone in her threat to the U.N. that the U.S. would take military action to enforce the cease-fire if necessary. Defense Secretary James Mattis informed the Syrian government that “it would be unwise for them to use weaponized gas” in response to the alleged chemical attacks, and added that Trump had “full political maneuver room” to take any sort of action he deemed necessary to bring peace to the war-torn region.

RELATED: After 1 Year of Trump, Taliban Send Pleading Letter to American Voters

Haley was also backed up by none other than French President Emmanuel Macron, who stated recently at a news conference in India in response to the alleged chemical attacks in Ghouta, that France was prepared to carry out airstrikes and other military action to halt the travesty and enforce the cease-fire.

Haley, on behalf of Trump, has made it crystal clear to the U.N. that the era of “strategic patience” and leading from behind are over and done with, and if the international community doesn’t see fit to do what must be done to obtain peace and stability, America has no problem rolling up her sleeves to do what is necessary.

Please share this on Facebook so everyone can see how Nikki Haley just put Russia, Syria, Iran and the rest of the U.N. Security Council on notice for their failure to uphold an agreed-upon temporary cease-fire in Syria.

What do you think of what Nikki Haley had to say? Scroll down to comment below!

A federal judge has dismissed a Massachusetts lawsuit that aimed to obstruct the Trump administration’s decision to grant exemptions to Obamacare’s contraception mandate for employers with religious or moral issues with the directive.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton, a George W. Bush appointee, rejected the lawsuit by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who argued she had standing to sue the administration since women in her state would be injured by the Trump administration’s new rules.

Gorton said that, in Massachusetts, “the record is uniquely obscure” whether women in that state would attempt to take advantage of the exemptions. The judge observed that, following the Trump administration’s announcement of its exemptions last October, Massachusetts enacted the ACCESS Act requiring employers to provide free contraception to workers.

His ruling comes following preliminary injunctions issued by two judges in California and Pennsylvania that blocked the Trump administration’s order allowing religious exemptions to the Obamacare rule that mandated most employers to provide free contraception and abortion-inducing drugs to workers through health insurance plans.

“We are pleased with the court’s order, which found that Massachusetts failed to provide the necessary facts to support its claim of harm they alleged was a result of the agencies’ rules,” a U.S. Department of Justice official said in a statement sent to Breitbart News. “In these cases and others, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend religious liberty.”

According to Reuters, Healey, a Democrat, said in a statement she was “disappointed” in Gorton’s decision.

“We remain steadfast in our commitment to ensuring affordable and reliable reproductive health care for women,” she said. “We will continue to fight for these protections.”

Upon announcing the end of the Obamacare rule, a senior Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) official said Americans with religious beliefs and moral convictions would now have full protection while those employers with no objections would still be subject to providing free birth control, sterilization procedures, and abortion-inducing drugs for their workers.

The mandate was inserted into Obamacare by former HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius—an abortion activist—and bureaucrats in her department. Following objections by many religious employers to the requirements of the mandate, the Obama administration devised “accommodations” that only gave the appearance the religious groups would not be either footing the bill for, or passively approving of, the federal government’s mandate of the offensive contraceptive drugs and sterilization procedures.

Planned Parenthood—which benefits financially from wider distribution of contraceptives—NARAL, and other feminist groups have attempted to portray Trump and other Republicans as intent on taking away women’s birth control by reversing the mandate. The Obama administration itself, however, actually exempted at least 25 million Americans, through various exemption allowances, from its own rule.

The case is Massachusetts v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Services, No. 17-cv-11930 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.