Understanding Pro-Amnesty Republicans

The following is my response to Rachel Bovard’s article ‘Immigration Furor Flares in Farm Bill Fight’ at American Greatness (https://amgreatness.com/2018/05/20/the-trump-coalition-and-the-electoral-college/)

However cynical this view might be, the adage ‘Follow the money’ has the benefit of explaining the behavior of Ryan and McCarthy.

What the estimable Ms. Brovard is too polite to point out is that this conflict is not, strictly speaking, between Republicans. But between the Republican donor class — like the Koch brothers — and the Republican rank-and-file. The reason why Ryan and McCarthy are not punishing pro-amnesty Republicans is precisely because Ryan and McCarthy are utterly beholden to pro-amnesty donors.

There are parts of the donor class to both parties that agree on the same policy: Open borders. This is why you can see both the Koch brothers and George Soros promoting illegal entry and amnesty.

What needs to be understood is that — so far as these pro-amnesty Republicans are concerned — the donors are more important than the voters. Not only do the donors provide money for re-election (McCarthy), but they also provide employment after leaving office (Ryan).

Both Ryan and McCarthy know that amnesty for illegal aliens is not popular (to put it mildly) among a large number of Republican and independent voters. But, if you understand that the voters do not count so far as their political calculations are concerned, their failure to take the necessary actions to shut down pro-amnesty legislation makes sense.

But there is something even more sinister in the behavior of Ryan and McCarthy: The willful efforts by the Republican donor class to hurt Republican candidates in the upcoming midterms.

Even allowing these pro-amnesty amendments to come to the floor is almost certain to hurt Republicans in the midterms while helping the Democrats.

The adverse effects on the Republicans — and the beneficial effects on the Democrats — would be even more pronounced if any of the amendments were to pass.

The Republican donor class is using amnesty to exercise a ‘Gotterdammerung option’ on the Republican Party.

The logic goes something like this: If the Republican Party is going to become the party of secure borders and immigration restriction, then the donors who previously used the Republican Party to promote open borders and amnesty intend to destroy the Republican Party.

When the GOP is hurt in the midterms, the donor class rhetoric will not be that pro-amnesty votes hurt Republican candidates but that the failure to support amnesty hurt them. Even though this is the exact opposite of what has occurred, the MSM and National Review ‘conservatives’ can be counted on to support this narrative.

The Republican donor class is not interested in supporting a ‘populist’ Republican Party and will, if necessary, do everything in their power to prevent a ‘populist’ Republican Party from coming into existence.

I miss Steve Bannon. If he were still a public figure, I suspect he would have already promoted this kind of analysis of the Republican pro-amnesty efforts.

Advertisements

The real purpose of the ‘Russian collusion’ narrative.

People’s understanding of the past is distorted by knowledge in the present.

Not long ago, Alex Jones provided an interesting take on the 2016 election. Based upon information that he has, his inference is that the HRC/DNC manipulated the election results both with illegal/improper voting (including by illegal aliens, multiple voting) as well as manipulating voting machines and/or tallies.

I normally take Jone’s conspiratorial insights with grain of salt, but his conclusion was very interesting. Jones indicated that the problem that HRC/DNC had was that they underestimated how much vote fraud would be required in order to guarantee victory for HRC.

The thing is, based upon the available evidence, there never seems to have been any significant doubt by HRC/DNC that HRC would lose the election during the election.

HRC/DNC never thought that Candidate Trump and the RNC would ever be able to penetrate the ‘Blue Wall’ and without doing so, Candidate Trump had no path to electoral victory.

So why was the ‘Russian electoral interference’ narrative being pursued during the election by the only group of people in the election who had the least reason to ‘muddy the waters’ of their certain victory?

I think the answer is election fraud.

At this point, most people seem to be interpreting the ‘Russian election interference’ in terms of the ‘insurance policy’ text message between Page and Strozk as if they believed that Donald J. Trump had a chance of winning the election.

I do not think the ‘insurance policy’ was, originally, about ham-stringing a POTUS Trump.

The original purpose of the ‘insurance’ policy was about creating a plausible cover story for ‘anomalies’ in the election if Donald J. Trump, on losing the election, had mounted an investigation into election fraud.

It pays to remember that, during the election — most particularly the Presidential debates — there were multiple attempts to get Candidate Trump to affirm that he would accept the election results if he lost.

Candidate Trump declined to make such an affirmation.

If HRC/DNC were involved in election fraud, it seemed at the time at least probable that Donald J. Trump would mount an investigation after the election into electoral ‘anomalies’ (of which it is now clear there were many) if he lost.

I think the ‘insurance policy’ was originally initiated based on this concern and was re-tasked after the election to hamstring POTUS Trump.

An obvious objection to this line of speculation is that HRC/DNC did not appear to believe that they would lose, so why engage in election fraud?

A very plausible explanation of this behavior is that the DNC is always involved in election fraud and this election was not different in that respect.

However, this election was different in one respect: Donald J. Trump had considerable personal resources to investigate any ‘electoral anomalies’ and was clearly not going to play ball with the post-election etiquette of being a ‘graceful loser’.

I think the ‘Russian electoral interference’ narrative was created for three separate, but related, purposes in the HRC-victorious post-election period:

  1. To provide an alternative explanation for any ‘election anomalies’ that might be identified.
  2. To call into question the motives for such an investigation.
  3. Tie up resources by Donald J. Trump in defending himself against charges of ‘Russian collusion’.

The ‘Russian electoral interference’ narrative was, from the perspective of HRC/DNC, a ‘three-fer’.

When Donald J. Trump was elected as President of the United States, the entire ‘Russian collusion’ part of the ‘Russian election interference’ narrative was re-tasked to hamstring POTUS Trump.

This was possible because the same ‘evidence’ that would have been used to call into question any post-election investigation of electoral anomalies by ‘loser’ Trump just happened to include a ‘Russian collusion’ component for tactical purposes from the very beginning.

 

The Left, Islam and Camouflage

The strength of the Left and Islam comes from the same source: camouflage. The Left is a cult masquerading as a political enterprise. Islam is a political enterprise masquerading as a religious enterprise. These kinds of ‘hybrid’ enterprises play to a specific weakness in the secular, liberal democracies of the West.

In authoritarian political orders, like China, neither of these entities would have the slightest chance of survival.

In theocracies, like Iran, neither of these entities would have the slightest chance of survival.

In the old days, a good liberal would argue that these enterprises could be contained and, ultimately, converted to liberal views through education, but the educational institutions have been overrun by a coalition of Left/Islam and function to increase the spread of these aberrant enterprises, not curtail them.

Because liberals believe in the inherent value of education, they are loathe to directly intervene in the ‘educational’ institutions. However, interference in ‘education’ is the next, crucial step in rolling back the Left/Islam alliance.

Congress has failed to take the appropriate action (no surprise) to create (or modify) law to remove prejudicial departments like ‘Women’s Studies’ or ‘Gender Studies’ or ‘Black Studies’ and eliminate any administrative positions predicated on racial or gender ‘equity’.

The public needs to understand that they are funding these entities and work to cut off the ‘oxygen’ of their funding.

Judge Contreras

If NR’s Andrew McCarthy is to be believed (and I think he is), Judge Contreras may have violated basic rules of evidence. Every indication is that the ‘Steele Dossier’ was used to acquire the FISA Title 1 warrant on Carter Page.

The problem is that the evidence provided by the Steele Dossier is unsubstantiated. The assumption is that Steele’s reputation as a reliable source was used to support the claims in the Dossier even though the claims themselves were unsubstantiated. This is not how evidence works.

All that Steele’s reputation could ever support is that he conveyed the information he provided without tampering. Since he was not the source of the claims, he cannot vindicate them.

IF Contreras accepted Steele’s reputation as vindication of the unverified claims made by others Contreras has show himself incompetent at a basic task of a judge: Evaluating evidence.

Donald J. Trump vs Wimpy

Politics is made up of either grifters, suckers or bill collectors.

Wimpy is a grifter. His whole approach is to get today and pay some other day.

The suckers exchange something of tangible value for vibrating air or marks on a piece of paper. Since the grifter never has any intention of delivering on their promises, one of the most important elements of a successful grift is not be around when the promises come due.

There are those that like to portray Donald Trump as a ‘grifter’.

I sort of get it.

Donald Trump looks like a grifter.

But he’s not.

Donald Trump is a bill collector.

When NAFTA was passed in 1993 the Globalist Wimpys promised the benefits would — eventually — outweigh the costs.

Of course, when the profits started to roll in from the effects of global labor arbitrage, the Wimpys got their ‘hamburger today’.

But the promised benefits to the working class side of the economy never came.

Nor did they come for any subsequent global trade agreement: PTNR China, CAFTA, GATT, WTO.

The Wimpys were still working on another grift — TPP — when along came Donald J. Trump, Bill Collector.

From his campaign announcement speech forward, Candidate Trump hammered on the failure of global trade agreements to deliver on the…wait for it now… promises made by the Wimpys.

Uh-oh.

As I said before, one of the key elements of a successful grift is to get out of town before the suckers realize they have been conned.

But, when you have conned an entire nation, ‘moving on’ gets hard.

If you want to understand the scale — and tenor — of opposition to Donald J. Trump, it’s important to understand how grifters respond when their grift starts to fall apart, they cannot get out of town and the bill collector is banging on their door: They make excuses.

Now, people in general do not resort to a collection agency until they have become convinced that their debtor has not intention of paying. Usually the debtor has made promises that they failed to keep and offered excuses for doing so. Often the creditor has accepted those excuses because they they a sucker. But, even suckers have their limits and when those limits are reached they get someone who is not a sucker to take over the task: A bill collector.

In additional to many skills for finding people and uncovering assets, all successful bill collectors have one basic characteristic: They do not accept excuses.

Bill collectors realize that excuses are made out the same ephemeral substance as the original — unrealized — promises: vibrating air, marks on paper.

This is, I think, why Donald J. Trump is President.

NAFTA was passed 23 years prior when Candidate Trump talked about the deal on the campaign trail and his audience knew exactly what he was talking about.

The elites tend to think that the ‘average American’ has the attention span of a gnat, but for some things our memories are long.

Things were promised.

Promises were not kept.

The People tried to get someone, anyone to keep the promises made.

If they received a reply at all, it was an excuse or told it was their fault that they couldn’t figure out how to get what they wanted without the results promised.

So the People decided to hire a Bill Collector.

If President Trump decides to let DACA continue, we will know he is not the Bill Collector we need.