Okay, EastsideAl, if you are taking on the role of Poobert's defense attorney...
First, what is your statement: your first paragraph is a run on with neither proper punctuation nor a cohesive point. I understand the angry litany of nouns and adjectives, but what is your conclusion? I might suggest putting your argument in the form of "The Tea Party are ultra-nationalists and crypto-fascists because [[state your reasons, within the parameters of defined ultra-nationalist and crypto-fascism)..."

Second, a few points in retort to your list:
*Many conservatives, myself included, would like some changes to immigration policy. But we should attempt enforcement of existing immigration law. The current immigration law was supported, by the way, by such crypto-fascists as Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and Carl Levin. We also don't think there needs to be one giant bill incorporating all possible changes. As you may have noticed in recent news headlines, giant all-inclusive bills tend to be laden with problems. There can be separate bills negotiated and debated concerning immigrant rights & responsibilities, border enforcement, citizenship/non-citizenship tracks, what social services should/should not be available to immigrants, job and education assistance, tax & employment law compliance, etc. Complicated specific issues. And conservatives also believe that no reform should put an illegal immigrant in a better position than the millions of immigrants who are here legally. This is not a hateful train of thought. We are a nation of immigrants and there should be continued, substantial immigration from all over the world. But it should not be a free for all. There should be processes and procedures, rights and responsibilities for immigrants.

*The "shutdown" of the government should be kept in perspective. It's been done 17 times since the 1970s, including by 8 times by Tip O'Niell's Democrat-majority house against President Reagan. It is a normal, if ugly, political tactic in Washington. Also, the House passed a full budget, except for paying for the Affordable Care Act in the next fiscal year. On Wednesday, 15 Democrat Senators up for re-election next year met with the President at the White House to ask for a one year delay in the personal mandate, in effect delaying the ACA by one year. They endorsed, effectively, what Ted Cruz advocated, although it would not be phrased that way.

*The "makers vs. takers" argument is a legitimate line of argument. Fewer people are paying taxes now relative to the number of people receiving government benefits. That is not an opinion, it is borne out by statistics released by government agencies. Regardless of your personal opinion on what level of benefits are appropriate, a pool of recipients growing substantially faster than the pool paying in is not sustainable.

*I am not, nor is anyone I know, in favor of suppressing minority votes. I live in Detroit by happy choice for God's sake. I do favor requiring voter ID, but so do most people, including most minority citizens. I also favor having that ID be available free of charge. Most of the free world, including Canada and Mexico, require ID to vote. It hurts no honest voter while assisting in the prevention of fraud.

*I am not an isolationist [[heck, 10 years ago most people on the left were accusing us on the right of being too involved in world affairs, and not just the wars). I favor free trade with most of the world, easy travel, strong defense, and offering various forms of aid to countries that need it.

*Political irrelevance? We'll see on that one. If it were true, I suspect your post would have been a tad more joyous and little less acidic.