Jayman: The Problem with HBD, the Dark Enlightenment, Neoreaction, Alt-Rightism, and All That Jazz

Posted on February 7, 2016 by Luke Ford

Jayman, a Jamaican-America blogger, writes:

Courtesy super-commenter “misdreavus“, over at West Hunter:

let me point out that with notably few exceptions, so-called “HBD” (or “human biodiversity”) is a movement that exists largely within the confines of the internet. This, of course, has done absolutely no favors to its dispersal within society at large, because if technology has taught us anything, it is that the anonymity of the web tends to bring out the crazy and stupid in everyone, Surely there was a time when people actually tried to research certain topics before launching a slurry of half-baked and inchoate opinions with an audacious (and entirely unwarranted) degree of self-confidence — not so much because people were any better informed in yesteryear than they are today, but because certain structural barriers posed an impediment to the crazy and incompetent expressing their ideas in lofty places. Now that (most of) these have been safely dismantled, we’ve got nutters from Stormfront sparring tête–à–tête with anthropology professors over elementary facts that anybody can look up in a linguistics textbook. How splendid is that.

This is a most sudden and hilarious change of affairs. Thanks to the almighty web, we’ve got “white genocide” nutters, “red pillers”, devotees of Asatru, Sedevacantists, keyboard warriors, “neo-reactionaries”, social justice warriors, 4chan experts, and bedlamites of every stripe and fashion littering the comments section of every blog about human biodiversity. [JayMan: and we sure do!] They’re not only shockingly ill-mannered and coarse, but many of them have yet to absorb all of the facts about “HBD” that have been settled science for several decades — you try explaining to any of these “Dark Enlightenment” lunatics that single mothers are not responsible for adverse outcomes in bastard children, as is proven by a wealth of longitudinal adoption studies.

I can’t decide whether or not I like it at all, for the life of me — but it’s here to stay!

“not responsible” as in single parenting is not responsible for X, Y, etc.

Amen brother! But there’s more. He continues:

Also, regarding mass immigration, be careful where you draw your lines.

The whole point of Charles Murray’s Human Acccomplishment is not just that Europeans have accomplished a lot more than other races over the past five hundred years, but that certain subgroups within western Europe proper have proven themselves to be vastly more creative than the others. Just what exactly have the Portuguese contributed to physics recently? Average IQ varies considerably among white European populations, roughly 10-12 points from the highest to the lowest, from the highest to the lowest, as does a host of other psychological dimensions such as conscientiousness, social trust, empathy, etc.

Europe Corruption 2013

Corruption Perceptions Index 2013, Transparency International

He continues:

There is no such thing as a singular “white” race, and there never has been — selective pressures operate a lot faster than people often imagine, and so there goes Duchesne’s crackpot Indo-European theory. Yes, human races do exist, but selection pressures are different everywhere in the world, not just on opposite sides of a continental divide. The high accomplishments of Brunelleschi, Marconi, and da Vinci are hardly reflective of the creativity of the typical lazzarone in the mezzogiorno, any more than it is possible to extrapolate directly from sharpeis to lhasa apsos.

There are rational and sensible reasons to advocate for a strict moratorium on immigration to every developed nation (not just Europe and the Anglosphere), but if you seriously want to turn back the clock at this point, why don’t we be consistent here and just kick out every single Sicilian, Irishman, or eastern Slav from the United States, considering the poorer intellectual achievement of these European populations. After all, who are they to sap the creative juices of the master race?

Thank you brother!

I don’t know if there’s just something in the air or what, but “misdreavus” managed to get out everything that has been really irking me all day long. (And believe me, I’m not the only one who felt that way, just today even!) We’ve seen “misdreavus” unload on the nutty garbage that percolates in this sphere before. One time recently was against health/obesity rubbish that is largely taken as gospel. Look, I understand that for the reasons stated above, we are going to have crazies and craziness in the HBD-sphere. And many of the more prominent individuals among these do offer quite a bit of insight, at times. Nevertheless, it often feels like I am doing double duty not just counteracting the standard PC dogma, but addressing the right-wing crazy that rails against it (who are emboldened by the wrongness of the PC liberals to believe that all of their fanciful musing is correct). This in addition to the detestable outright White supremacists in this space (or whatever you want to call yourselves – if you feel comfortable in KKK robes or wearing a Nazi uniform, you fit the mold), who, really, aren’t any more desirable to have around than, say Islamic radicals.

If the facts about heritable human differences are to be ever taken seriously, it needs to be extricated from such utter nonsense, as well as from the mean-spirited sentiment.

COMMENTS:

* HBD tells us that British accomplishment is, to a significant degree, the result of British genes. Similarly, Nigerian, Pakistani and Polish accomplishments (or lack there of) are, to a significant degree, the result of their respective genes. (Not knocking the Poles here, just sayin’.)

So, if you want the kind of accomplishments that Britain produced in the past to keep occurring (and most people do), then the ongoing demographic replacement of the British population should strike you as a very, very bad thing.

So, assuming you like technological progress and stuff like that, HBD does basically say “There are rational and sensible reasons to advocate for a strict moratorium on immigration to every developed nation (not just Europe and the Anglosphere),” misdreavus said it, I believe it.

And if you support a strict moratorium on immigration, your political views on this topic are as extreme or more extreme than the National Front. And let’s not kid ourselves, this is the topic that people are going to judge you by, not your views on petty issues like social welfare or gay marriage.

So, people who believe what misdreavus believes about immigration are already plenty Nazi enough to get a beating from the antifa.

* Telling immoral people to just be more moral without changing the environmental conditions that allow them to produce more children than moral folks simply doesn’t work. The immoral folks will just keep ignoring you. Bill Cosby has been trying this tactic for decades, and it hasn’t worked.

I highly doubt cultural condemnation was ever the driving force preventing large scale single motherhood; rather, the abysmal survival rates for unwanted and unplanned children and high death rates for the poor in general simply prevented these kids from existing and bad planning genes from getting passed on.

If you want to change that, then you have to change the environment in which homeless people feel more confident about bringing children into the world than Harvard grads, not yell at people about how they ought to get married. Even when single mothers do try to get married, they marry the men they find attractive, which doesn’t actually change the genetic situation. Even if you could force them to marry IT guys, or the deadbeats to marry fat women with nice personalities, these still wouldn’t be “stable two parent homes” because the dumb people in the equation are not capable of long-term stability.

* I don’t understand why you think that HBD is needed to justify an ethnostate; to my mind, you merely need an ethnos and a willingness to affirm the principle of national self determination. I don’t recall the Southern Sudanese calling upon HBD to justify their succession; why would the situation be any different for e.g., White nationalists? That said, to some extent, one could draw upon HBD. For example, when arguing against race based immigration policies, you state: “why don’t we be consistent here and just kick out every single Sicilian…”.

Your reasoning: since selective immigration must be justified based on capacity, and since many of a given race are less capable than many of another, one can not justify an exclusively race based policy. But, of course, bioethnonationalists don’t draw upon human capital -HBD, for justification, they draw upon ethnic genetic interest –HBD; they, seeing a nation as an extended biological family, propose to discriminate on the basis of overall genetic relatedness. In doing so, when preferring a low capital Sicilian to a high capital Korean, they exhibit no inconsistency.

Now, I don’t recall what the whole-genome pairwise relations were, but I suspect that Europeans tend to form a nested cluster within the Caucasoid race (which includes indigenous Europeans, many Central/South Asians, North Africans, and Middles Easterners) and that this region of genetic space forms the basis of the “white race”, biologically understood. That is, I suspect that one could carve out of multidimensional genetic space a natural population which loosely overlapped with geographically defined indigenous Europe while excluding many other caucasoid populations. Maybe not. To the extent not then either our bioethnonationalists would need to boot the less related European populations, include the more related non-European (Caucasoid) populations, or take into account other considerations such as culture relatedness. Generally, they do the last. Whatever the case, this is a marginal problem for them — like Israeli Jews deciding who precisely qualifies as a Jew.

So, yes, Stormfronters and others can draw upon HBD to some extent when it comes to justifying their proposed ethnostate. Of course HBD can never justify the principle of national self determination. It can just be employed to construct a defense of the idea and ideal of a bioethnos. Now, while I stand in defense of their position, I don’t back it for various, largely selfish, reasons (e.g., I’m a miscegenator). The position is important to defend, though, because it represents a more or less coherent application of genetic interest-HBD, which, itself, represents, more or less, a logical extension of foundational HBD principles (e.g., Hamilton’s rule).

Also, it’s worth defending because it is one of the core types of applied HBD for which anti-HBD was developed to undermine. Some here might see ethnic-genetic interest-HBD and applications thereof as too dangerous or too problematic — just as many elsewhere see IQ-HBD. If so, I think that’s a mistake.

* HBD largely exists outside of conventional moral horizons; and it has not rigorously developed norms. Misdreavus is correct that this situation represents, at very least, a marketing problem; the attempt to draw lines is appreciated — I could use some guidelines myself; the problem is the manner. HBD is politically neutral; the lines need to be politically neutral. Misdreavus seems to section of the Dark Enlightenment, Neoreaction, and Alt-Rightism; yet these positions are not — at least from my perspective — categorically morally problematic, despite being anti-egalitarian; rather, they suffer from the same problem as HBD regarding morales and norms. Generally, lines should be drawn but drawn in the most politically and morally inclusive way palatable; caution should be taken when labeling “nutters”.

* Jayman and Misdreavus are just trying to create the Cathedral for HBD thinkers. You can wrap it up in judicious morality, you can make it about Us and Them, but at the heart of it, misdreavus was saying man, these people over here need to Shut Up, and Jayman was like, preach it, man! We need to clean things up around here! We can’t have people with the wrong opinions! We need *science*, man!

But to the extent *this* exists, this thing, whatever it’s called, whatever I have a node on, it is little other than a stand against the notion of the unspeakable. So once you violate that, there’s nothing left.

* Judith Harris explained this in her book. Parental treatment affects the child’s behavior temporarily (so long as the parents are able to physically overbear in the child’s life), and it affects the relationship between parent and child. That’s one reason it’s wise to not be a dick to your kids: they will remember it.

Posted in HBD, Race | Comments Off on Jayman: The Problem with HBD, the Dark Enlightenment, Neoreaction, Alt-Rightism, and All That Jazz

Rebutting Chanda Chisala

Posted on February 7, 2016 by Luke Ford

Jayman, a Jamaican-America blogger, writes:

Chanda Chisala has been producing pile after pile of nonsense for quite some time. At first, I was content with simply leaving comments at his posts refuting his rubbish because it was rather easy to point out where he was full of baloney. Since then, I’ve been banned by him, mostly for my signature flair. :)

I intended to continue to ignore his nonsense since it was such obvious rubbish that it didn’t seem to be worth my (now very precious) time. But then I realized the value of having nonsense essays picked apart for the nonsense they are. Rebuttals are highly valuable to skeptical readers who doubt nonsense but can’t quite put their finger on the problems themselves. So, in that service, I write this rebuttal to Chisala’s latest piece.

Towards a Theory of Everyone

Chisala’s theory is that different human groups differ in the degree of genetic canalization, and that explains the differences in average IQ between groups. It seems he lifted the concept of genetic canalization from Greg Cochran, who I’ll let describe the phenomenon. From Survival of the Flattest | West Hunter :

Genetic canalization is the extent to which an organism is buffered against the effects of mutations. Waddington said “developmental reactions, as they occur in organisms submitted to natural selection…are adjusted so as to bring about one definite end-result regardless of minor variations in conditions during the course of the reaction”. Canalization can act to buffer against environmental perturbations, and selection for resistance to such environmental noise may also produce resistance to genetic noise. But right now I’m thinking about genetic canalization.

Up to some point, the effects of not too many, not too serious mutations would be buffered: those mutations wouldn’t change the phenotype. In the same way, your typical tractor is not designed to nanometer tolerances: parts can be somewhat out of spec – up to some limit – without messing up performance.

…

Canalization is a product of natural selection. There would be stronger selection for efficient canalization in a species with more genetic load

…

It might explain why load doesn’t seem to have much effect on IQ over most of the range, why we haven’t seen general IQ depression in the children of old men.

There are global differences in brain size. Brain size is certainly related to intelligence, both on the individual level (Pietschnig et al 2015) and (even more so) on the group level (though the both the group level and individual level correlations are less than 1.0). In order for Chisala’s idea to work, these environmental insults must also cause certain racial group differences in brain size.

But, as we know, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that environmental insults can affect brain size (see the Zika virus). And sure, sub-Saharan Africa is loaded with pathogens and other environmental insults. But racial differences in brain size are seen between people of European, African, and Asian ancestry in the United States (from Rushton & Jensen, 2010):

(At this point, of course, we cue the sociologist’s fallacy invoking the poorer environments of Blacks even in the U.S.) But, Chisala is claiming Blacks are more susceptable to environmental insults that supposedly affect IQ – insults that (save perhaps iodine deficiency) have not been shown to actually impact IQ in any way. I’ll go into more detail in a future post, but there is little solid evidence for a negative impact of most supposed environmental insults on IQ.

For now, I’ll give you Greg Cochran on this (from The Great IQ Depression | West Hunter):

We hear that poverty can sap brainpower, reduce frontal lobe function, induce the fantods, etc. But exactly what do we mean by ‘poverty’? If we’re talking about an absolute, rather than relative, standard of living, most of the world today must be in poverty, as well as almost everyone who lived much before the present. Most Chinese are poorer than the official US poverty level, right? The US had fairly rapid economic growth until the last generation or so, so if you go very far back in time, almost everyone was poor, by modern standards. Even those who were considered rich at the time suffered from zero prenatal care, largely useless medicine, tabletless high schools, and slow Internet connections. They had to ride horses that had lousy acceleration and pooped all over the place.

In particular, if all this poverty-gives-you-emerods stuff is true, scholastic achievement should have collapsed in the Great Depression – and with the miracle of epigenetics, most of us should still be suffering those bad effects.

But somehow none of this seems to have gone through the formality of actually happening.

Of course, it’s also worth mentioning that brain structure differs detectably by race, as previously discussed:

a new paper, Fan et al 2015, that the details of cortical surface structure of the brain is highly predictive of genetic ancestry. Indeed, as Fan et al put it:

Here, we demonstrate that the three-dimensional geometry of cortical surface is highly predictive of individuals’ genetic ancestry in West Africa, Europe, East Asia, and America, even though their genetic background has been shaped by multiple waves of migratory and admixture events. The geometry of the cortical surface contains richer information about ancestry than the areal variability of the cortical surface, independent of total brain volumes. Besides explaining more ancestry variance than other brain imaging measurements, the 3D geometry of the cortical surface further characterizes distinct regional patterns in the folding and gyrification.

Indeed, an earlier paper from this team (Bakken, Dale, and Schork, 2011) found that this works within racial groups as well, as the case with Europeans (see also the section Intraracial Group Variation below):

In our group’s previous study, we found that area measures of cortical surface and total
brain volumes of individuals of European descent in the United States correlate significantly with their ancestral geographic locations in Europe…See also Brain Topography | West Hunter and Psychological comments: Racial brain differences

Then there is the work David Piffer on polygenetic score. Basically, the known genomic hits to IQ vary in frequency between the different populations highly according to average IQ. From Piffer 2015:

Published Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS), reporting the presence of alleles exhibiting significant and replicable associations with IQ, are reviewed. The average between-population frequency (polygenic score) of nine alleles positively and significantly associated with intelligence is strongly correlated to country-level IQ (r = .91). Factor analysis of allele frequencies furthermore identified a metagene with a similar correlation to country IQ (r = .86). The majority of the alleles (seven out of nine) loaded positively on this metagene. Allele frequencies varied by continent in a way that corresponds with observed population differences in average phenotypic intelligence.

…Going even beyond this, if we follow Chisala’s logic and assume that somehow adverse reactions to the environment are responsible for the size, structural, and performance differences of African brains relative to other groups, then we have another problem: the performance difference between different human groups isn’t a 20th and 21st century phenomenon only – it goes back for the entirety of recorded history.

As we’ve seen before, and as Bryan Caplan recounts, the differences between human groups in development goes back thousands of years – such that level of development as far back as 1000 B.C. is predictive of development today. Indeed, as Easterly, Coming, and Gong (2007) recount:

We assemble a dataset on technology adoption in 1000 B.C., 0 A.D., and 1500 A.D. for the predecessors of today’s nation states. We find that this very old history of technology adoption is surprisingly significant for today’s national development outcomes. Although our strongest results are for 1500 A.D., we find that even technology as old as 1000 B.C. is associated with today’s outcomes in some plausible specifications.

It’s not like the poor performers and the strong performers of today are a new thing. They’ve been poor performers and strong performers throughout history (by and large). Indeed, in sub-Saharan Africa (emphasis mine):

Why this meandering reminiscence of mine about a random ruin in Turkey? Because sub-Saharan Africa has remarkably few ruins for its immense size.

This fact is not well known. It is so hazy in the contemporary mind that Henry Louis Gates managed to sell PBS on a six episode miniseries about African ruins called The Wonders of Africa without, apparently, anybody in PBS management calling his bluff about the lack of wonders that his camera crew would wind up documenting in one of the most boring documentary series of the 21st Century.

By contrast, as we know, there was plenty of development in East Asia and Europe, especially Northwestern Europe:

As Staffan put it, “we can’t adjust for their entire history.”

In any case, this recent nonsense idea of Chisala, aside from running afoul Occam’s Razor, is his attempt to undercut the rebuttal to the deprivation argument. That is, it is a common argument of blank slatists that poverty and other forms of deprivation are responsible for differences in average IQ and national performance. Aside from emptiness of the whole deprivation argument, as noted above, there is the fact (as pointed out by me in Welcome Readers from Portugal!) that outliers to this pattern of deprivation and IQ all perform in accordance to their measured IQ, not according to their level of deprivation. Poor rural Chinese perform nearly as well in IQ and scholastically as the other East Asian societies do. Citizens in wealthy Arab oil states perform as badly as those in poorer ones which lack oil. I’m sure Chisala doesn’t like this particular uncomfortable fact, so I suspect he concocted his feeble theory in part to try to nullify this unwelcome reality.

And finally, there is the fundamental problem that Chisala doesn’t understand either evolution or the formula that guides it, the breeder’ s equation. There is no reason to suspect that human groups that have been separated for tens of thousands of years in vastly different environments would be the same in all their cognitive and behavioral qualities. In fact, a priori we should expect them not to be, since such equivalence after so many generations of separate evolution is nigh impossible.

I expected most of this to be obvious, which is why I haven’t paid too much attention to Chisala’s posts. But, I may have overestimated both his impact and people’s ability to spot the obvious, hence, this writing.

COMMENTS:

* Thank you for dealing with this person’s drivel. I waded through his first two efforts and felt afterwards that it had been an exceptional waste of my time. He really did not seem to understand, among other things, that there are obvious filters operating when migrations occur. I appreciate that you’ve been willing to sacrifice your time to save that of the rest of us. Also your prose is like crystal spring water compared with Chisala’s muck.

* I think a basic understanding of biology would lead one to think that, a priori, populations separated for thousands of generations in widely different environments would develop significant genetic differences in cognition and behavior between the populations. Real world experience would appear to corroborate this to a great extent. If anything I think the differences between races are greater than a dry mathematical model would probably predict.

* Genes matter, as does culture, as does history, as does free will. They all interplay in a manner that makes it very difficult to give the proper diagnosis and prescription to any given social problem. We all have agency but some of us have more agency due to genetic and cultural factors.

Posted in Race | Comments Off on Rebutting Chanda Chisala

The Nazis

Posted on February 7, 2016 by Luke Ford

“Every man loves to watch documentaries about the Nazis,” says a friend in Australia. “If there’s one on the tele, I can’t help watching it. I’m fascinated. Appalled but fascinated.”

Chaim Amalek writes: “I would prefer to watch documentaries about the lives of the Gedolei Yisroel (Learned Elders of Israel), but the antisemites at the History Channel refuse to provide any.”

TheOnion: “NEW YORK—The History Channel confessed Monday that it used Nazi footage to fatten its coffers. “The time has come to bring our network’s shameful legacy to light,” History Channel president Warren Brabender said. “Over the past 10 years, more than $300 million in ad revenue has been generated through the airing of Nazi documentaries.” The channel will likely be required to pay reparations to Americans who viewed the atrocities.”

Joe Meyers writes:

For many years, The History Channel has been dubbed “The Hitler Channel” by wags for the seemingly endless programming devoted to Adolf Hitler and World War II.

So, when I received a copy of the DVD version of “The Third Reich” (A & E Home Entertainment) in the mail last week I wasn’t sure if I would bother to watch it.

How many times can I go down that road?, I thought to myself.

reich2

But a friend who saw the three-hour special when it debuted on The History Channel last year told me it was extraordinary so I decided to see if I could make it through another account of the rise and fall of Adolf Hitler.

“The Third Reich” is indeed a spectacular piece of work, a new take on Hitler and the impact of the Nazi regime on average Germans (who may or may not have been aware of the evil that was being done in their names).

Directors Nicole Rittenmeyer and Seth Skundrick have built the documentary around newly discovered footage, much of it home movies shot by Germans before and during the war.

The home movies are combined with recently unearthed tourist promotional films — for the 1936 Olympics and other supposed glories of the Hitler regime — that now have a ghastly ironic tone for what they were not saying about what was going on under the Nazi regime.

“The Third Reich” also includes new angles on the filming of two of the most famous Hitler-glorifying documentaries — “The Triumph of the Will” and “Olympia,” both directed by Leni Riefenstahl — showing us the trickery and stage-craft that helped to embellish the Nazi image.

The documentary is especially interesting on the popularity of the Hitler Youth and the insidious way the Nazis tore apart family life and traditional sexual behavior as they brainwashed kids into believing they were part of a “master race” and were duty-bound to reproduce that species as quickly as possible.

We hear tales of parents who were horrified to learn that teen girls and boys were being pushed into sex so that the girls would become pregnant with “perfect Aryan” babies. When one mother went to a Hitler Youth camp to bring her daughter home, she was told to shut up and go home or face being sent to a concentration camp.

Posted in Germany, Jews, Nazi | Comments Off on The Nazis

The Return Of Evan Gahr

Posted on February 7, 2016 by Luke Ford

Evan Gahr replies to my email:

I am with the Daily Caller now. Check out my Washington Gadfly column on bottom right.

The mascot is a chimp; that is a strong rebuke to many powerful conservatives in DC. They are still profoundly embarrassed by the whole thing.

I added the purge to former AEI editor Karl Zinsmeister’s wikipedia page and within hours somebody who had edited lots of his entries took it down. If you want to confirm Zinsmeister is kzinsmeister at the Philanthropy Roundtable. But look up the article about how he deceptively edited an article about him on the AEI website. It came out when he joined the Bush White House.

Tucker Carlson called me and offered me a job after a few great hit pieces I did for them last February. He knew all about the Weyrich thing and thought it was disgusting. But he did not know about Karl Rove getting me fired and Chimpstein taking the fall for him. When I explained it he was even more disgusted with what happened.

But anyway, that is water under the bridge. Now, I feel like I am 30 years old and working for the late New York Post editorial page editor Eric Breindel again. I had never met Carlson or even been in the same room with him or communicated via phone or electronically. But when we met we bonded instantly. It reminded me how I bonded with Eric Breindel.

Plus, I finally listened to Weyrich and forgave all the people who harmed me.

Remember Michael Horowitz? The guy who harassed and yelled at and lied to my father to cover up for Hudson, Weyrich and the White House. I was seething with rage towards him for years. Now, we schmooze all the time now about my stories like nothing ever happened. It is just like before the fight when he took me to a steak dinner and offered to get me a White House job.

Posted in Evan Gahr | Comments Off on The Return Of Evan Gahr

Here’s Why Oscar Nominees Are Getting Free Luxe Trips to Israel

Posted on February 7, 2016 by Luke Ford

From the Forward:

Just as it looks good for a vape company to have Leonardo DiCaprio sampling its product, it looks good for Israel to have Leo walking around the streets of Tel Aviv. It’s great marketing, because it implicitly ties Leo’s brand to Israel’s. It telegraphs to the world that our cultural elite sees nothing wrong with Israel — a message that the country desperately needs at a time when artists are increasingly being called upon to boycott it.
While it’s easy to imagine Leo taking Israel up on the offer (even if it’s just to try to find Bar Refaeli 2.0), it’s harder to imagine others jumping on the bandwagon — or El-Al flight. As Haaretz points out, Best Supporting Actor nominee Mark Ruffalo, who tweeted his support for the people of Gaza during the 2014 war, will probably sit this one out. He might even tweet criticism of the swag bags under the hashtag #Oscarwashing.
But the Israeli marketing move may well appeal to some of the fence-sitting nominees whose politics lie somewhere in between those two actors’. Even if it attracts just a couple of them, that will make it “worth it” from Israel’s point of view.

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on Here’s Why Oscar Nominees Are Getting Free Luxe Trips to Israel

Sailer’s 1st Law of Female Journalism: Why It’s Okay for Beyoncé to Culturally Appropriate Bollywood

Posted on February 7, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: “Sailer’s First Law of Female Journalism is that the most heartfelt journalistic extrusions will be demands for how society must be re-engineered so that, come the Revolution, the writer herself will be considered hotter-looking. Maybe Professor Tinsley hasn’t quite worked out all the details of how Beyoncé being exempted from criticism over how she chooses to play dress-up rubs off on poor Professor Tinsley in any concrete fashion, but, you know, Hope and Change!”

* Bollywood itself is appropriation. The Indians took concepts from American cinema and transformed them into something appropriate for their own culture – and that’s a good thing! Global culture is richer and more complex for it.

But you can’t paint white men as villains in that situation, so there’s no point in talking about it.

* There is no social engineering possible that would make these wannabe African feminists hot. I wonder if the taxpayers in Texas are aware that some of their money supports these morons.

As another iSteve fan pointed out, ok, you can keep your tacos, and sombreros, and rap music, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Us evil white guys will keep Western Civilization, which by the way we built, and all the good things you a**w**** take for granted. Like clean water, reliable electricity, rule of law, low levels of corruption, the Internet, und so weiter.

* Seriously, it’s b.s. like this that makes me say bring on the 3rd-world ization of the US cause it ain’t gonna be pretty for the increasingly pampered Afro-American black middle class.

Never underestimate the provincialism of US blacks, particularly if they have quasi-African made up names. For people who revel ad-nauseum in their “color” and how vibrant and diverse they are in their rainbowness, as opposed to us pasty sorts, they tend to assume brown equals kinship and sameness. They tend to down-play the very real importance of facial features and body type in determining identity. As one Afghan put it to me, where he grew up everybody had the same complexion so they used facial features to determine who was what.

My wife, of mixed ancestry, but South Asian appearance, gets lots of crap from her “sisters” in Africa. Told to go back to her country, passive aggressive behavior when dealing with bureaucrats. No doubt it’s the lingering affects of the white man’s divide and conquer. Simple sexual jealousy or just plain old fashioned, perfectly natural bigotry are not factors educated people think about when discussing or theorizing black anger or surliness.

Blacks in Eastern and Southern Africa definitely do not like “Asians.” Idi Amin didn’t chase all those Indians out of Uganda by his lonesome.

This is also really interesting considering the Tanzanian student who recently got attacked in Bangalore.

I suspect, though, these women if they actually learned anything about the regions they purport to study, beyond reading some dumbed-down Franz Fanon, they’d blame centuries of indigenous colorism on whitey.

* I’d like to see a feminist intersectional analysis of Yemenite Jewish Israeli transgender pop singer Dana International’s song “Indian Movie”.

Obviously there would be points for being transgendered, and people from Yemen who are not Jewish would definitely be considered “people of color”…

But my guess is that the Jewish and certainly the Israeli part would cancel all that out and this would be seen as terribly appropriative.

* The Democrats may be branded the black party here and at similar blogs, but ultimately they aren’t and can’t be the black party for the simple reason that there aren’t enough blacks to win elections for them. That’s why they have a sizeable number of whites and other nonwhites in their coalition. The Republicans on the other hand, can and do win elections with white voters, which is why they’re the white party, the half assed Hispandering and the like notwithstanding.

* “Ceasing to exist” is a form of racist oppression. It deprives folks like Omise’eke Natasha Tinsley and Natassja Omidina Gunasena (Someone’s Law: The more absurd a Negro’s name the lower that Negro’s intellectual capacity.) of someone to blame for their many all too obvious inadequacies and failures. If all Whites were to “cease to exist” it would reduce Negroes to a state of savagery. If all non-Negroes were to “cease to exist” it would more than likely lead to the extinction of Negroes.

* Some folks, as these two fierce feminists, have too much time on their hands. Lacking any self-discipline, self-awareness–or any historical and cultural context–engage in fantasy, i.e. how the world should be as they re-imagine by means of social critique. Yet, end up at “woe is me.”

And they certainly lack irony–studying and teaching about Africa(ns) at a Western university. Shouldn’t they practice what they preach: What happens in Africa, stays in Africa?

* I’m sruprised that with your Danny Paddy Moynihan fetish you didn’t use this chance to bring up the Indophilec pop “career” of Daniel Patrick’s daughter (and Caroline “Yunno” Kennedy posse member), Maura Moynihan (Harvard ’80). This viddy HERE makes Coldplay and Ms. Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter look like culturo banditos! This is a woman truly in tune with the ethos of the east.

She even has previous experience as Hiberno-Hindi hitmaker! From the August 2, 1996 edition of your NY Daily News:

INDIA HAS MAURA TO GIVE THANKS FOR Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s daughter has changed like a chameleon again. Maura Moynihan is now a pop star in India. She has released “Chakra Chant” and “Injie Party” in the 650-million strong nation, and they have zoomed to the top of the charts. Maura has been a comedian, a singer (Maura and the Mystics), a cable TV producer and, of all things, a gossip columnist. During her divorce from Richard Avedon’s son, John, a follower of the Dalai Lama, rumors surfaced that she was dating George Stephanopoulos (she denied any liaison). Word is she didn’t get much of a settlement. She did get custody of the couple’s son, who is staying with his father while mom is back in India, where she spent her youth when dad was ambassador there. Sen. Moynihan’s office claimed to be unaware of Maura’s newfound success.

¡Madre di Krishna! Can’t a desi catch a break?

Posted in America, Blacks, India, Journalism | Comments Off on Sailer’s 1st Law of Female Journalism: Why It’s Okay for Beyoncé to Culturally Appropriate Bollywood

Hail Caesar

Posted on February 7, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* So they actually made the Commies the bad guys?

Hard to believe. Is this some kind of sea change? This is mainstream Hollywood, where the memo is that the various trans/gay/questioning/racial/ethnic/gender groups have been oppressed via reactionary politics and a revolution is needed to throw the yoke of oppression off of the truly meritocratic people of this land who are capable of building a wonderful society once the wrong people are replaced.

Maybe our politics will catch up someday. Meanwhile, I have to listen to Bernie and Hillary try to top each other over who can promise the most free stuff.

* Judging by their films, the Coens tend toward a bleak, pessimistic conservatism. They’re certainly not Hollywood progressives or even neo-liberals. Watch The Ladykillers on Netflix. Probably the least interesting of their films, but no anti-racist progressive would have made that movie.

* “Disappointed With Europe, Thousands of Iraqi Migrants Return Home”

Amusing article about migrants returning home because they don’t like European food, the chilly weather, and find cigarettes too expensive. Not once did the reporter raise the critical question of whether a legitimate refugee would return home for such reason. Didn’t bother to ask the migrant why did they claim refugee status and did not ask the EU why they granted these people refugee status.

* What really interests me about A Serious Man is how the movie subtly critiques modern Jewish-American treatments of theology and mysticism, especially in contrast to Catholics. A Jewish man goes through immense suffering and his religious leaders basically blow him off and tell him to walk it off and offer nothing about God. This contrasts with a usual Catholic pastor, who would give nice parables about suffering and the problem of evil, which at least give their flock some kind of psychological fat to chew over and help them deal emotionally with their problems.

The key to the movie is the opening scene about the the possibility of a dybbuk (that is murdered) and the Parable of the Goy’s Teeth. In both circumstances (the presence of an evil ghost and the miracle of a message from God written on the back of teeth), the Christian reaction—especially Catholic—would be to investigate them as miracles/supernatural events and make big deals out of both and think about them a lot. Exorcism and miracle investigation are important in Catholicism.

For the Jews in the story, however, such an investigation seems boring and banal; for a people who think a lot about a lot of things, they don’t seem to care when God is literally talking to them. Except the protagonist, of course.

Also noteworthy is how the Jewish religious leaders in the movie make no effort to force morality on the cheating wife/neighbor, and how they take their jobs as sinecures.

All in all, the Cohens are basically wondering what their ethnic religion offers to their people, as it gives them no tools to deal with suffering, miracles, moral failings, or even care for others.

* Miller’s Crossing. Its more of a generic roaring twenties mob movie with a special twist that the mobs in question are seething with homosexual intrigues. I invite you to consider the following: The plot appears to be driven — and in fact is entirely driven — by homosexual liaisons of one sort or another, e.g., Bernie and Mink, Mink and the Dane and, as the astute viewer eventually realizes, Tom’s unrequited fixation on Leo. Is Tom a homosexual? The clues are pretty obvious. He’s connected to every homosexual in the movie and knows all details of the seething homosexual ferment in Millers Crossing to which most of the straights in the movie seem oblivious. He never actually gets it on with Verna except maybe when he’s drunk out of his mind and he certainly never acts from any tenderness towards her. The last scene in the movie is a fade on the crushed Tom as Leo walks away from him and into his new marriage.

BTW, I’m firmly heterosexual and socially conservative but this is perhaps my all-time favorite movie, not least for Carter Burwell’s lush and brilliant musical score. I’ve probably seen this movie a dozen times. The first time the homosexual content registered but didn’t seem that important. Subsequent viewings have convinced me that this is an essential – maybe the essential – aspect of the movie that aside from artistic quality makes it a uniquely Coen Brothers movie.

The war between Leo and Johnny Caspar starts because someone is learning what the fix is in Caspar’s boxing matches and betting accordingly thus cutting into Caspar’s profits. (This is the irony behind Caspar’s opening lecture on “ethics”.) We learn much later that Mink and Bernie Bernbaum are homosexual lovers and this is their racket. Mink is the insider in Caspar’s gang and Bernie is making the bets. Mink is also the Dane’s lover. The Dane is Caspar’s enforcer. Bernie kills Mink and, because the Dane is unsure who did this, turns the Dane into a loose cannon. The Dane’s rant about Mink in front of Johnny Caspar is what convinces Caspar that Tom is telling him the truth and Dane is a traitor. This is what causes Caspar to kill his loyal enforcer and ultimate weapon in the war between Caspar and Leo, a war which Tom has instigated to eliminate Caspar and give his boss, Tom, control of Miller’s Crossing. With the Dane out of the way Caspar is doomed. All of this is laid out clearly in various dialogues within the movie. If you’ve missed this I can’t help you.

Tom’s homosexuality and his hopeless infatuation with Leo is more subtle. But it’s Tom’s only reasonable motive for doing what he does. Although Verna is chasing Tom, Tom shows no interest in her. He has to be dead drunk to even share a bed with her. If you missed the other stuff, you’ll never get this.

An amusing wink at the audience is when Albert Finney (not his Leo character) goes in drag for the scene where Tom is beaten by a woman in a women’s bathroom.

* The Coens anti-white? Most of my favorite movies of theirs have working class white people as the heroes. Unless for some reason you were upset at the Coens portraying the KKK as evil goofballs, O Brother Where Art Thou? presented the South in a respectable light. Despite being lower class, most characters spoke wittily with a King James Bible vocabulary. Hell the movie spawned a Grammy winning album full of American Folk music, a true art of Scots-Irish southerners . (Inside Llewyn Davis also has an awesome soundtrack btw). Fargo has one of my favorite heroines and portrays a simple working class white (if you insist of viewing everything critically through a political lens like leftists) middle aged woman as a hero without resorting to making her an Ellen Ripley clone like the rest of modern cinema does with female heroes. Plus, if you have to interpret a meaning out of The Big Lebowski, it seemed to me to be about the ludicrousness of the New World Order (referenced with Bush’s speech in the beginning) of post-modernist feminists (Julianne Moore), posturing plutocrats (old man Lebowski and his little urban achievers), and nihilists (say what you will about National Socialism, but at least its an ethos). The movie instead hopes that we take comfort in the existence of simpletons like the Dude, for like the earth in Ecclesiastes, the dude abides. If the Coens show disdain towards any group consistently, its stuck up intellectuals. In Barton Fink John Goodman dramatically calls out the eponymous pretentious little screenwriter for being a self absorbed asshole the whole movie. Inside Llewyn Davis is the story of a folk singer who never makes it big because, like Barton Fink, he’s a self absorbed asshole who views himself as some grand artist instead of an entertainer. How can any conservative dislike that?

* The consequences of a Nazi victory in Europe would have been quite unpleasant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

As it is, Hitler racked up a highly impressive kill-count during the period 1939-45:

Soviet POWS starved to death by the Nazis during the Winter of 41-42: Approx 3 million

European Jews killed during the Holocaust: 5 million+

European civilians killed in Nazi “reprisal” operations: Approx 700,000

civilians who starved to death during the Nazi siege of Leningrad: 670,000

etc, etc

And American intervention was chiefly important in terms of preventing Stalin from dominating the entire continent. Sans American involvement, Soviet rule would have extended at least to the Rhine….

* In the light of the Bernie Bernbaum character (Tarturro), it’s lucky for the Coens that they’re Jewish, or there’d always be mutterings about anti-Semitism whenever the film is mentioned. You can’t get a much worse form of chutzpah than blackmailing your would-be assassin because he took pity on you and spared your life.

* The Coens’ acknowledged photographic inspiration for Miller’s Crossing is Bertolucci’s 1970 Italian movie The Conformist. That movie’s gay Fascist collaborator protagonist probably served as inspiration for Tom in Miller’s Crossing, right down to his woodsy moral reckoning.

* Recall DeNiro clapping heartily for the heroic Elia Kazan’s honorary Oscar while Nick Nolte and many others sat there stone-faced. You can forgive “Rocky and Bullwinkle” and at least one “Fockers” movie after that.

* I saw Hail Caesar! last night. I will not be as respectful and nice as Sailor. The movie sucked donkey balls. It was awful. My wife and I fell asleep at points. At best it might be seen as cleverly amusing if you had a lot of interest in Hollywood during the McCarthy era and the Red Scare, and had read up on it.

I’m so sick of debased schlock. I wish Gentiles would get back into the movie-making business. Not only is money the root of life evil, apparently it’s also the root of the vulgarization of art and literature in Western civilization.

* “The Conformist” is good by itself, and very interesting for it’s obvious influence on 1970s American movies. I’ve never seen an analysis of the role of ethnic pride in 1970s Italian-American directing and acting, but I have to imagine that a lot of Italian-Americans saw Italian films like The Conformist and gained confidence that they could do something that stylish too.

Posted in Hollywood | Comments Off on Hail Caesar

Old White Guys

Posted on February 7, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Don’t forget possible candidate Michael Bloomberg who will be 74 in another 8 days. Of the group, Trump is the only one who appears to be much younger than his actual age of 69. And, as far as I know, he has had pretty good health, unlike, for example, Hillary Clinton who had serious health issues a few years ago. If you recall, Mitt Romney was 65 when he ran in 2012, and he looked 20 years younger. So, it’s not just a matter of chronological age. But it is ironic when we have private corporations with a mandatory retirement age of 65 for their top officers to have a crop of presidential candidates a number of years above that age. On the other hand, we have Rubio at 44 (45 on May 28) or Cruz at 45 to choose from if you want relative youth. Knowing what we know now about JFK and having lived through 7 years of Obama, I would generally opt for age and experience over youth and inexperience.

* The issue isn’t really the composition of the Academy it is the need for blacks to be ‘validated’ by white institutions. Since black institutions, to the extent they even exist, are seen as second rate or copies of the white organizations, only white recognition matters to blacks. Thus we see these peculiar news stories where some black student ( African usually) wins admission to every Ivy League school. The reality is few, if any, white or Asian student is going to apply to every Ivy League school so the real news story is not that the black student was admitted to every Ivy League school but why? Here the answer is that the number of black students actually eligible for admission is so small that these schools fall all over each other to recruit those that do.

This formula applies throughout modern America. Blacks want white recognition, indeed, they now insist upon it, but heap scorn and accusations of racism upon those institutions who knuckle under and give it to them. The dilemma is the larger the role and more recognition blacks achieve from these institutions the less valuable it becomes. Does anyone consider the Nobel Prize in Literature to really matter anymore when 2nd rate Guatemalan or Nigerian writers are awarded it on the basis of ‘diversity’.

* Yeah, the problem here is that 84 year old Angie Dickinson was born and raised in an era where acting and such were judged on performance. She’s not hip to the new trend of social justice uber alles.

* The Oscars are boring and cater mostly to gays and women. The inclusion of more black candidates will still keep the old viewership and may get the academy more NAM viewers. It will then be the ultimate ceremony of smug moral righteousness that crowns its new emperor of the church of universal humanism.

* When I moved to Ohio for a year to look after my dying father I cleaned out a lot of his old books.

Pops had been a member of the NYT book club for many years so there were a fair number of best sellers from 30-40 years ago. I picked one up titled “Indecent Exposure” and started reading. Tossed it in the car and would read whenever I waited for my wife at the market. It was about a financial scandal at Columbia pictures in the 1970s where a high power executive producer named David Begelman forged a check with Cliff Robertson’s name on it. When Cliff got a tax notice on the check from the IRS the fraud began to unravel.

Most of the book centers around the Columbia power struggle between factions aligned with Alan Hirschfield and Herbert Allen, Wall Street players who helped Columbia recover from near bankruptcy to become very profitable. The Allen faction wanted Begelman reinstated and eventually drive out Hirschfield.

It was a good read and a fascinating glimpse into boardroom politics. Was a best seller around 1982. What struck me was not just the dominance of Jews in Hollywood but in American industry in general, as players in the drama assembled to fight from across a spectrum of well-known companies. Another tidbit was when the scandal broke in the media and Rolling Stone penned a hit piece on the affair and was sued by the Allen faction.

Anyway it was an interesting background to this recent Hollywood diversity crisis and the constant complaints about too there being many “white men” in the industry. Cynics might claim that wily Jews are orchestrating this entire controversy.

* I have a hard time sitting through more than about 10 minutes of the Academy Awards straight, but, yeah, Best Director, Best Actor, the Best Cinematographer, the Screenwriting awards, those are all big time male achievement categories, while the technical categories are of interest, too.

A fellow I used to know from the Boy Scouts, one of the other scout fathers, was at the last Academy Awards in his tuxedo as one of the three people who’d get to go on stage at the end of the show to accept the Best Picture trophy just in case their longshot low budget nominee happened to win. (It didn’t, of course, but J.K. Simmons from their movie got his Best Supporting Actor Oscar earlier that night.)

* FDR’s court-packing plan was pretty much of a victory for him even if it’s commonly assumed to be a black eye.

* The barely-disguised envy of so many of the aggrieved parties reminds me of a movie scene.

Doctor Zhivago, with the brilliant Omar Sharif (and the radiant Julie Christie), shows envy in a historical context. That Russian ‘public’ decided that a small family really didn’t need to live in such a big house, so they appropriated it.

Now, the modern ‘public’ wants to appropriate other selected assets, like awards. They’ll never stop to ask how people earned or accomplished, or acknowledge normative standards.

* “We never know how Tessio betrayed the family, and what could have been so big? It’s not like he assassinated the Godfather or Michael.

Similarly, we never learn what Freddo told Johnny Ola or did for Hyman Roth that was so earth-shattering that would require execution.

It’s a brilliant piece of filmmaking that for 40+ years no one has really questioned wtf were the betrayals all about.”

The fact of the betrayal is what matters. It IS big. It’s huge. He broke the circle of absolute trust, obedience and loyalty without which the family cannot function. Only an absolute punishment fits that crime.

I’m going to take a wild guess here that your ethnic background is not Mediterranean or Southern European. I’m Slavic not Sicilian and I understand this concept so well you could say it’s in my blood.

* Most of the ‘WHITES’ in the article are Jews. But that can’t be acknowledged. If the people who overwhelmingly control ‘HOLLYWOOD’ had Italian last names instead of jewish ones, there’d be howls of ‘MAFIA CONTROL’, senate sub-committee hearings and of couse RICO indictments.
But again none of that can be mentioned anymore than can be the singular world view expressed by
‘HOLLYWOOD’. But then of course, nobody ever accused that town of honesty.

* The appeal of the Oscars it that it is a live show. There are always one or more telling moments when celebrities are caught off guard.

Not to mention over the years the Oscars have had more than a few notable “wardrobe” malfunctions. Most memorable was Ashley Judd strutting across the stage as a presenter while not wearing underwear beneath her leg split dress and the annual event of Jennifer Lopez’s almost always too sheer top not holding up under the too intense lighting.

It’s always fun watching the obvious panic on the part of the director & cameramen as they struggle to reframe the live shot.

One has to suspect that such goings on are at least sometimes calculated so as encourage folks, even hetero males, to watch or at least DVR the show.

* At least in my experience, blacks aren’t particularly fond of the talents of any other races. I see of lease cars by the 1000′s and the ones we receive from black customers ONLY have black artists ( always pirated on cd) and ONLY have ‘black’ music stations on the radio presets. Come to think of it, millions of white kids wore Michael Jackson style clothing, millions white kids bought Michael Jordan endorsed products and Hundreds of millions of whites have always bought Motown and now mainstream rap music. It seems every added black member of the Academy Awards will only be a vote for black entertainers.

Posted in America, Hollywood, Jews | Comments Off on Old White Guys

My Credit Score

Posted on February 7, 2016 by Luke Ford

606
As of 02/07/2016
Source: Experian®
Score Rank: Fair
4 Helping
5 Hurting

What’s Helping Your Score
There are no or only a few recent delinquencies on your accounts
Lack of sufficient relevant installment account information
Few or no bankcard or revolving accts with delinquent/derogatory status
You have few or no unpaid collection agency accounts

What’s Hurting Your Score
Total of all balances on bankcard or revolving accounts is too high
The balances on your accounts are too high compared to loan amounts
Balances on bankcard or revolving accounts too high compared to credit limits
The date that you opened your oldest account is too recent
The number of inquiries was also a factor, but effect was not significant

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on My Credit Score

Marco Rubio’s Immigration Con

Posted on February 7, 2016 by Luke Ford

Ed Martin writes: To win in the 2010 Tea Party Wave, Rubio ran as the anti-amnesty candidate despite an aggressive pro-amnesty record. Politico reports:

“Arturo Vargas, the executive director for the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, said Rubio, the son of Cuban exiles born in Miami, blocked ‘scorched-earth’ legislation that sought to clamp down on illegal immigration. ‘He, as speaker, kept many of those from coming up to a vote,’ Vargas said. ‘We were very proud of his work as speaker of the House.’

“In 2006, Rubio even voted for a bill that would have allowed the children of illegal immigrants to pay the same tuition rates at Florida colleges as residents. Vargas now says Rubio, the candidate, takes a more pointed, less nuanced tone as he stresses border enforcement and his opposition to amnesty. ‘He’s become your typical candidate in terms of playing to his primary election base…’”

Rubio used amnesty opposition to get elected before coming to Washington to push the biggest mass immigration / amnesty bill anyone had ever seen. He declared of Gov. Crist’s position that “an earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty,” and that illegals seeking citizenship should “return to their homeland,” and that “if you grant amnesty as the governor proposes that we do, in any form, whether it’s the back of the line or so forth, you will destroy any chance we will ever have of having a legal immigration system that works here in America.”

THE DREAM ACT

When Rubio came to Washington he immediately began working on the DREAM Act he campaigned against. He staffed his office with several of the most pro-amnesty individuals in Washington (like Cesar Conda) and was limp to the point of lifeless in his response when the President nullified immigration law with the DREAMer executive amnesty.


Then came the Romney defeat. Billionaire donors and their pollsters declared that the GOP must pass an amnesty and mass immigration plan. Rubio then joined the Gang of Eight — whose members understood that Rubio would be able to sell their disastrous product to conservative media in a way they never could. Rubio is now cashing in his chits with the big money open-borders crowd. Or, as The Hill put it: ”A group of Republican fundraising heavyweights and wise men in Washington’s business community are solidly behind Rubio, and see him not only as someone who could win the White House, but someone they can work with.”

LYING TO CONSERVATIVE MEDIA

Rubio’s repeatedly stated reason for joining the Gang was to get the most conservative bill out of the Senate; the reality, however, was that Rubio sold Republican lawmakers on a bill radically to the left of McCain-Kennedy: a bill that granted instant legalization, doubled annual foreign worker admissions (a much larger increase than McCain-Kennedy), issued 30 million green cards, provided mass amnesty, expedited citizenship for DREAMers without an age cap, removed the limits on family-based migration, etc., etc. Rubio’s bill was supported by every single Senate Democrat, every single liberal house lawmaker, every progressive politician and group in the country, Nancy Pelosi, Luis Gutierrez, Harry Reid, La Raza, Center for American Progress, George Soros, and on and on. Of course the White House was the biggest champion.

Rubio traded shamelessly on the affection and trust conservatives had placed in him. His deceptions about his immigration bill rivaled and exceeded Obama’s claims about disastrous Obamacare.

The seminal moment of the media tour occurred early, on Rush Limbaugh’s show. He declared: “if there is not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else will happen unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place, I won’t support it.” Of course, we know there wasn’t any such language but he voted for it anyway. But this promise — and many others — and the calculated neutralization of conservative media, helped Schumer get 68 votes. But conservatives trusted Rubio. Limbaugh declared: “you are meeting everybody honestly.”

Rubio told Hannity, on his media tour, that: “I don’t think any of that [amnesty] begins until we certify that the border security progress has been real. That a workplace enforcement mechanism is in place. That we are tracking visitors to our country, especially when they exit.” This prompted Hannity to reply: “It’s probably the most thoughtful bill that I have heard heretofore.” At this point, it looked like the biggest mass immigration plan in history would breeze through Congress — all without Rubio saying a word about what was really in the heart of the bill: the largest immigration expansion in American history. To this day, Rubio will not answer if asked about how many green cards his bill gave out.

Some of the most-repeated untruths flatly ignored the most basic features of the bill. For instance, in explaining his endorsement of Rubio’s product, Bill O’Reilly said: “Senator Rubio told me on the phone today that it would be at least 13 years, 13, before people in the country illegally right now could gain full legal working status and even longer to achieve citizenship.” In actuality, they gain legal working status the moment the bill is enacted, and the citizenship provisions begin in 5 years, starting with the DREAMers (who will then be able to get green cards for their foreign relatives).

Rubio pledged in an ABC news interview: “We are going to get the toughest enforcement measures in the history of this country.” When the bill was introduced, Rubio put out a fact-check — and linked up with donors to run ads to the same effect — which declared Schumer’s plan to be “THE TOUGHEST BORDER SECURITY AND ENFORCEMENT PLAN IN U.S. HISTORY.” And people believed him.

As the Washington Times reported:

“Mr. Rubio’s main public role in the debate wasn’t about amendments or specifics; it was about selling the measure to a skeptical conservative electorate. As a face of the 2010 tea party revolution, Mr. Rubio had the kind of lingering good will that gave him the opening Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican and another key bill author, had long since squandered with much of their party.

“Mr. Rubio’s office said he averaged three or four cable television news appearances a week, appeared on every major nationally syndicated talk radio program — often more than once — and visited smaller shows, too.

“He set what pundits said was a record by doing seven Sunday political talk shows the same weekend in April — all five English-language shows and two Spanish-language programs. Mr. Rubio also did four or five Spanish-language interviews a week during the immigration debate.”

When people started discovering how the bill violated every one of his promises, Rubio would just insist — without evidence, without page numbers, without citations — that charges were untrue. For instance: “In an interview with Ted Cruz, Mark Levin revealed that Rubio texted him about an hour before this interview and told him that what he is saying about the Senate immigration bill is not accurate. He told Cruz that Rubio flat out denies that Napolitano can ignore portions of the bill due to waivers and he asks Cruz if that is correct.”

And yet, to this day, Rubio has not only never retracted one of his false statements — never admitted any wrongdoing — but never even apologized to those he deceived, and their millions of listeners. Instead, he is raising more money and telling the same lies all over again, as he continues his push for mass amnesty and mass immigration.

BACK TAXES AND BACKGROUND CHECKS

Rubio said, often and repeatedly, (and does to this day in pitching his immigration plans) that illegals would have to “pay taxes and undergo a background check.” As we know now from the executive amnesty, there is no such thing as “back taxes,” for illegal immigrants as most have no net tax liability. Giving illegals Social Security numbers and the ability to collect tax credits represents a huge net cost to taxpayers, whereby the IRS mails illegal immigrants thousands of dollars in free benefits. Those granted amnesty under the plan became immediately eligible for ACTC and EITC. Amendments to actually require illegal immigrants to pay back taxes were defeated in the committee.

As for background checks, his bill allows the Secretary to grant amnesty to serious criminals including known gang members; those with convictions for serious crimes such as drug trafficking, sexual abuse, prostitution; those with any type of arrest record; fugitives from deportation orders and those who have been deported — for any reason — and are no longer in the country, or have illegally re-entered after being deported.

ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION

One of the big jokes in the behemoth bill was that the pointless enforcement mechanisms were all at the discretion of the Administration. Rubio explained: “the security triggers are not left at the discretion of politicians with agendas. Real measurable results must be achieved, and politicians cannot override them.” As it was, this whole thing was happening in a post-executive amnesty environment. But the bill drastically expanded executive discretion beyond imagination. In fact, Rubio’s immigration bill — designed by open borders advocates to end immigration law enforcement — had more waivers per page than Obamacare!

WE’LL FIX THE BILL

When criticism reached a point Rubio could not easily paper over, he adopted a new tactic: promising to fix the bill before it passed. In a closed-door House meeting, Rubio pledged to conservative lawmakers that he would oppose the bill unless it was fixed. As ABC wrote: “now that he’s hearing serious resistance to the bill from his fellow conservatives, he’s threatening to vote ‘no’ on the very bill he helped write unless changes are made to strengthen the border security provisions.” Washington Post wrote: “Rubio’s been saying for weeks that he can’t support the bill in its current form.” Rubio even launched a page on his website, saying: “submit your ideas below, on ways we can improve” the bill.

He even published a WSJ op-ed which began with this sentence: “intense public scrutiny has helped identify shortcomings and unintended consequences that need to be addressed.”


This was the new tactic: every time someone has a concern, just tell them it will get fixed in committee or on the floor. Consider this question from Sean Hannity: “Are you telling conservatives then to be patient with you? That the bill is not finished and maybe they’ve read too much into it too early?”

But this was another ruse: the Gang of Eight was working together to ensure no real changes were ever made to the bill.

The Washington Post reported: “the eight met in private before each committee hearing, hashing out which amendments they would support and which oppose as a united coalition. Senate aides said amendments were rejected if either side felt they would shatter the deal.” Politico reported: “During the Judiciary Committee markup in May, the Gang routinely met to decide which amendments they would support or oppose. In one meeting, the Senators thought they had all agreed to defeat a proposal from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to require a biometric exit and entry at points of entry before undocumented immigrants could secure green cards, according to one Senate Democratic aide.” A hot mic confirmed it to the whole world: “A hot microphone caught Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) coordinating which way members of the ‘Gang of Eight’ who serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee would vote on immigration bill amendments… ‘Do our Republicans have a pass on this one if they want?’ the microphone caught Schumer saying.” What Schumer was referring to was that the bill — written with special interests like the Chamber of Commerce and La Raza — was to be protected from any amendment that advanced an interest other than those signed off on by these outside groups. The writing of the bill, in many major respects, was outsourced to industry groups.

When the bill came to the floor — before Reid completely shut down the amendment process — Rubio joined the entire Gang of Eight in voting down an amendment to require completion of the entry-exit tracking system and the border fence before the amnesty. Rubio even voted down Chairman Grassley’s amendment to require enforcement first — again, keeping with his private deal to protect the amnesty at all costs.

Reid then shut off all amendments and the Gang of Eight famously filed a new 1,200-page substitute bill — worse than original — and invoked cloture, ending all amendment and ensuring a final vote before anyone could read it. This broke Rubio’s other promise: “Sen. Rubio has said he would not support this legislation if it was rushed through.”

The final product surely was one of the worst bills mashed together in the history of legislation itself.

THE MERIT-BASED MYTH

One of Rubio’s constant selling points for the bill was that it transformed our immigration system from family-based to merit-based. He said this over and over. In many respects, it was one of the biggest deceptions of all. The bill issued approximately 33 million green cards in ten years. At an absolute maximum, under the bill, 2.5 million of those green cards would be issued on a merit basis (the merit-based section covered 120,000-250,000 visas a year). But it gets worse: even within the merit-system, it favors low-skilled and family-based immigrants. For instance: the foreign sibling of a U.S. citizen with no education would receive 10 points; an alien with a bachelor’s degree would receive five points. An alien from a country with low immigration rates to the U.S. with no education would receive the same five points as well.

And it gets worse still — despite making the “merit-based” system one of his central selling points, the bill substantially increased chain migration by allowing for an unlimited number of visas for children and spouses of green card holders (including all illegal aliens given green cards), leaving intact the unlimited visas for the parents of citizens (including for illegals, beginning with adult DREAMers parents, spouses and children in the first 5 years), and clearing the so-called backlog of 5 million immigrants (mostly low-skilled and family-based) with surplus applications to enter the U.S. beyond existing annual limits.

As the liberal Migration Policy Institute explained: “the Senate bill would lift numerical limits and increase the number of permanent visas issued on the basis of nuclear family ties… [and] would dramatically expand options for low- and middle-skilled foreign workers to fill year-round, longer-term jobs and ultimately qualify for permanent residence.” The Center for American Progress crowed that the family-based system would be three times larger than the merit-based system under the new plan (not even counting the amnesty).

Yet Rubio’s office claimed that: “Those given legal status will not be able to use chain migration or anything else to bring family members into the U.S.” This statement defies comprehension. Under current law, illegals cannot legally bring a single relative to the United States. Under Rubio’s plan, they are given green cards and made citizens, guaranteeing them the right to bring relatives to the United States. And the bill goes further, expanding dramatically the way that green card holders — including every single amnestied illegal — can bring their relatives to the United States.

“THE SIZE OF THE FUTURE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES WILL NOT BE IMPACTED”

One of the more extraordinary claims Rubio made was that the immigration bill would not increase (the already-record) rate of immigration into the United States. Rubio’s office put out a fact-check declaring: “the size of the future population of the United States will not be significantly impacted by this legislation.” Nevermind that CBO, Migration Policy Institute, NumbersUSA, Center For Immigration Studies, and Senator Sessions’ office all painstakingly documented the massive immigration increases in the bill.

Under the bill, had it been enacted in 2013, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population would eclipse every known historical record by 2022. The total number of green cards issued would have tripled. Based on CBO data, the foreign-born population from outside the U.S. (not counting illegals inside the U.S. granted amnesty) would have grown 24 million in just a ten-year time frame. To put all that in perspective, during the first full decade of Kennedy’s 1965 immigration law, less than 5 million new immigrants were issued green cards.

But Rubio never discussed any of this openly. Instead he relied on vague euphemisms: saying his goal was “modernizing the legal immigration system to meet America’s 21st-century economic needs for both highly skilled talent and guest workers to fill labor shortages.”

Rubio’s entire career rests on the fact that no one will question his syrupy scripted bites and homeroom-president style rehearsed speeches.

NO WELFARE

To the end, Rubio declared that there would be no welfare allowed to illegals, and this was featured in a prominent ad on TV throughout the debate. For example, Rubio said: “And then they don’t qualify for any federal benefits. This is an important point. No federal benefits, no food stamps, no welfare, no Obamacare.” The rebuttal here is short: every illegal immigrant given a green card gains automatic, guaranteed access to federal welfare, every illegal alien given a work permit gains access to tax credits, and every illegal immigrant made a citizen gains access to everything. In the interim, the bill allows illegals to claim generous state and local benefits (along with federal tax credits). The benefits cost for the amnesty population would run into the trillions.

DECEIVING LAW ENFORCEMENT

Senator Rubio met with corporate interests to craft the Gang of Eight plan but not America’s ICE officers. Eventually, right before the bill was dropped, Rubio finally did meet with the ICE Officers’ President Chris Crane and promised him he would “fix the bill.” But Rubio did no such thing — in fact he made things worse — not better — for ICE, and Crane was livid. The bill would have permanently destroyed immigration enforcement while legalizing dangerous aliens and exposing citizens to a rash of crime that could otherwise be stopped in its tracks. Crane issued a press release which said:

“Senator Rubio, who promised ICE officers and Sheriffs that he would take steps to repair the bill’s provisions that gut interior enforcement, has abandoned that commitment. He directly misled law enforcement officers. Senator Rubio left unchanged legislative provisions that he himself admitted to us in private were detrimental, flawed and must be changed. Legislation written behind closed doors by handpicked special interest groups which put their political agendas and financial gains before sound and effective law and the welfare and safety of the American public. As a result, the 1,200-page substitute bill before the Senate will provide instant legalization and a path to citizenship to gang members and other dangerous criminal aliens, and handcuff ICE officers from enforcing immigration laws in the future.”

If that wasn’t bad enough, the Gang of Eight members on the Judiciary committee killed an amendment that would have stripped the amnesty-for-gang-members provision in the bill — i.e. a simple amendment to deny amnesty to gang members was defeated, ensuring that Rubio’s bill would allow illegal immigrant gang members to become citizens and bring their relatives to join them in the United States.

Rubio, during his time as Florida Speaker, also let a bill die to block sanctuary cities — and Miami is one of the biggest sanctuary cities in the country.

Revealing Rubio’s character, it is also worth recalling that during his introduction press conference, Rubio stood frozen like a statue as ICE officer, council President, and former Marine Chris Crane was removed from the room for trying to ask a question. Shameful. Crane would later testify: “Never before have I seen such contempt for law enforcement officers as I’ve seen from the Gang of Eight.”

AMERICAN WORKERS CAN’T CUT IT

In a for-attribution interview with Ryan Lizza, two senior Rubio staffers expressed frustration that they couldn’t get even more foreign workers crammed into the bill for their boss. They explained: “There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it.”

Rubio’s spokesman — now his campaign spokesman — also compared opponents of amnesty to slaveholders. More on that here.

FIANCÉ VISAS

Rubio’s bill opened the floodgates for fiancé visas — and fiancé children — an unprecedented security risk and another handout to the foreign immigration lobby.

DIFFERENT MESSAGE FOR SPANISH MEDIA

At the same time Rubio was pledging to conservatives his bill was enforcement first, Rubio had a different message in Spanish media. As Byron York reported:

“Let’s be clear,” Rubio said. “Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.”

“As for the legalization, the enormous majority of my colleagues have accepted that it has to happen and that it has to begin at the same time we begin the measures for [the border],” Rubio said. “It is not conditional. The legalization is not conditional.”

Of course, this presentation to Spanish media was accurate: the bill conferred immediate legal status on illegal immigrants that included work authorization, federal benefits, the ability to travel in and out of the country, immunity from deportation the second the bill was passed, and a path to citizenship.

Caught in the contradiction, Rubio had a new explanation for conservatives. Byron York writes again:

“Why is it necessary to legalize the roughly 11 million currently illegal immigrants in the U.S. before newly enhanced border security and internal enforcement measures are in place? Sen. Marco Rubio, the leading Republican on the Senate’s Gang of Eight, says part of the reason is that the federal government can’t afford to secure the border on its own and needs financial help from the immigrants themselves, in the form of fines paid when they are legalized.

“‘We need to register them as soon as possible, not just to keep the problem from getting worse, but we’re going to require them to pay a fine, and that’s the money that we are going to use to pay for the border security,’ Rubio explained. ‘If we don’t get that fine money from the people that have violated our immigration laws, then the American taxpayer is going to have to pay for border security.’”

Then Hannity did another interview. Highlights:

Fox News’ Sean Hannity: “You said in a Univision interview, Senator, that got a lot of play and a lot of anger among conservatives, you said ‘legalization is going to happen. First comes legalization, then comes measures to secure the border.’ Is that the priority? Shouldn’t it be secure the border first?”

Rubio: “Well, first of all, that’s not what the bill does. How the bill works is, permanent residency, which is the ability to stay in the country permanently and one day even apply for citizenship, for that to happen, E-Verify has to happen…”

Hannity: “Can I just get you to maybe reiterate — just because there’s been so much debate about this — you’re saying that you’re pretty confident tomorrow that the border will be secure first, with triggers, before there’s any path to legalization?”

Rubio: “Before there’s any path to permanent residency.”

—

Hannity: “Senator, I think a lot of people were surprised that — in previous interviews that I had with you — you said that you’d secure the border first, but a number of amendments have been voted on that would do just that, a couple yesterday, and you voted against them.”

Rubio: “The reason why Sean, is that I think the proposals need to go even further.”

Yet Rubio’s website still touted (and touts): “The most important thing that happens on day one is that the toughest border security and enforcement plan in American history will be the law of the land. Those who came here illegally after the December 31, 2011 cut-off date will be deported.” (How he was going to get President Obama to deport every illegal who arrived after 2011 was not clear.)

“WHITE HOUSE OFFERS STEALTH CAMPAIGN TO SUPPORT IMMIGRATION BILL”

Part of the song and dance show was the White House agreed not to publicly push the bill too loudly while Rubio was trying to sell it to conservative media. Of course, the White House knew they made out like bandits with the bill.

About a week before passage, the NYT ran an article entitled “White House offers stealth campaign to support immigration bill.” What Rubio never told anyone — what to this day he has never been asked about — is that the White House was running the show in the Senate. The NYT explained:

“The hide-out has no sign on the door, but inside Dirksen 201 is a spare suite of offices the White House has transformed into its covert immigration war room on Capitol Hill.

“Strategically located down the hall from the Senate Judiciary Committee in one of the city’s massive Congressional office buildings, the work space normally reserved for the vice president is now the hub of a stealthy legislative operation run by President Obama’s staff. Their goal is to quietly secure passage of the first immigration overhaul in a quarter century.

“‘We are trying hard not to be heavy handed about what we are doing,’ said Cecilia Muñoz, the director of the White House Domestic Policy Council and the president’s point person on immigration.” [and former VP of La Raza]

REFUGEES:

Rubio’s bill included language giving the President unprecedented power to expand refugee resettlement.

IMMIGRATION-FOR-PROFIT:
Rubio’s lawyer who wrote the bill also enriched his clients through it.

RUBIO REVERTS AGAIN TO PASS THE BILL

Having done his best to delay and defer conservative criticism with one misdirection after the other, Rubio returned to his original pitch to pass the now 1,200-page monstrosity — filled with giveaways for the most powerful corporate interests on the planet — declaring once again: “The proposal mandates the most ambitious border and interior security measures in our nation’s history.”

Rubio’s pledges to “fix the bill” — were of course hollow. Again, the Washington Times writes:

“Heading into the debate, Mr. Rubio said he wanted significant changes, including to border security, to the entry-exit system to check visitors’ visas, and to the requirement that newly legalized immigrants show they have learned English before they earn green cards.

“Mr. Rubio called the English-language loophole ‘one of the bill’s shortcomings’ and vowed to fix it, and even wrote an amendment to require immigrants to prove English skills, rather than merely sign up for classes, which under the bill is considered acceptable.

“The Senate never considered that, nor Mr. Rubio’s other amendment to modify eligibility for the Dream Act.

“The Senate also ignored the list of nearly two-dozen changes Mr. Rubio’s office floated ahead of the debate in a three-page document designed to point out potential flaws and solutions to the bill.”

National Review wrote: “It is painful to watch Marco Rubio’s maneuverings on immigration. He is refusing to say whether he will vote “yes” on his own Gang of Eight bill after spending months drafting, defending, and helping shepherd it to the floor. He has supposedly discovered that the enforcement provisions are inadequate, although he has done countless interviews touting that the bill contains the “toughest immigration-enforcement measures in the history of United States” (which is what his website still says). At the same time, Rubio declares the bill 95-96 percent perfect.” Again: National Review has never received an apology for being repeatedly lied to by Rubio.

Of course, in the end, Rubio voted for it, ignoring every prior commitment and promise that he made.

Here is what the head of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Council, representing 12,000 USCIS employees, had to say about the final version of the bill as adopted:

“The amended 1,200-page immigration bill, if passed, will exacerbate USCIS concerns about threats to national security and public safety… It will allow immigrants to break the law in the future and still be eligible for citizenship, as it absolves prospective behavior, not simply past mistakes. It will do away with the applicability of certain grounds of inadmissibility as contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act. It will wipe away the enforcement process that compels law breakers who overstay their visas to return to their home country and restart the immigration process. This bill rewards immigrants who break the law, more so than the prior bill proposed by the Gang of Eight…It was deliberately designed to undermine the integrity of our lawful immigration system. This bill should be opposed and reforms should be offered based on consultation with the USCIS adjudicators who actually have to implement it. Hopefully, lawmakers will read the bill before casting their votes. I say put a cork in it.”

As the ICE Officers’ Council intoned about the final 1,200-page substitute bill:

“[The bill] became a wish list for special interest groups representing and profiting from illegal immigrants. Regretfully, the months of talking points by the Gang of Eight do not accurately reflect the content of this bill… Instead of empowering ICE agents to enforce the law, this legislation empowers political appointees to further violate the law and unilaterally stop enforcement…Far from fixing the bill, the [substitute bill] makes it worse… the 1,200-page substitute bill before the Senate will provide instant legalization and a path to citizenship to gang members and other dangerous criminal aliens, and handcuff ICE officers from enforcing immigration laws in the future…”

Or, as Rich Lowry and Bill Kristol put it in a joint op-ed: “[The Gang of Eight] bill, passed out of the Senate, is a comprehensive mistake. House Republicans should kill it without reservation… House Republicans can do the country a service by putting a stake through its heart.”

BACK TO HIS OLD WAYS

Running for President, Rubio now continues to deliver different messages for different audiences. Asked by Hannity about executive amnesty he said: “absolutely, that would be reversed,” under his presidency. Simple enough, right? Well, not so fast. Here is what he told Jorge Ramos: “DACA is going to have to end at some point. I wouldn’t undo it immediately. The reason is that there are already people who have that permission, who are working, who are studying, and I don’t think it would be fair to cancel it suddenly. But I do think it is going to have to end. And, God willing, it’s going to end because immigration reform is going to pass.” So, Rubio’s message for Spanish media is that an illegal unconstitutional amnesty which provides work permits, tax credits, Social Security and Medicare to illegal immigrants will remain in place until a legislated amnesty takes its place, “God Willing.” So the voters don’t get a say: they’ve defeated the DREAM Act legislation over and again, but Rubio is saying: you only get two choices, an unconstitutional executive amnesty for DREAMers or you can make them citizens under the DREAM Act. President Obama says the same thing.

And what about border security first? Another continuing lie. Breitbart writes: “The chief spokesman for the presidential campaign of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said in an on-record interview with Breitbart News that the senator, if elected president, would not require a secured border before he gives legislative and permanent amnesty to recipients of President Barack Obama’s first executive amnesty, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program… ‘I mean when we were working on the 2012 bill, that was independent of the border,’ Conant said. ‘These are the kids that already — I mean, the kids are in a very unique situation because they didn’t willingly break the law.’”

Rubio continues to talk about modernizing our immigration system to make it “merit-based” without ever being called out on the fact that his idea of merit-based is 30 million green cards to mostly low-skilled foreign workers. And, he is the lead sponsor of legislation to triple H-1Bs and have functionally unlimited foreign hiring through universities — which translates to a huge green card increase sold to foreign nationals by college and universities with no accountability. And, just like his old Gang of Eight days, he’s pretending his foreign worker surge (of course he never admits it’s that, but uses the same misleading language as always) would help workers while his new bill — a legislative creature developed by technology tycoons for their benefit — would destroy them. The public vehemently repudiates a foreign worker surge, perhaps why Senator Rubio doesn’t mention that’s what his plan does.

Rubio also refuses to say whether he’d sign his own Gang of Eight bill into law if he were President (since, after all, he loses McCain’s 2010 Senate Campaign “trust” argument if he, not Obama, is President).

Rubio is also the only candidate in the race still advocating citizenship for all illegal immigrants, and all that necessarily entails in terms of fiscal costs and chain migration. (Jeb’s book did not call for universal citizenship, like Rubio.) To this day, Rubio has not backed off a single policy in the Gang of Eight bill (see more here).

Rubio has also backed the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the United States and OPPOSED efforts by conservatives to strip funding for refugees. And his new I-Squared bill — backed by his top tech donors like Larry Ellison — would massively expand Muslim immigration without limit. He has also called Muslim immigration a constitutional right.

Perhaps the single most telling fact is who reportedly joined Rubio’s campaign team as staff or advisor: the exact same team that brought you the Gang of Eight bill: the same attorney who wrote it (Enrique Gonzalez), the same communications staffers who sold it, the same Senate Chief of Staff who helped dream it all up (Cesar Conda) and, most importantly, the campaign strategist more associated with mass immigration than any consultant in America (Whit Ayres).

The open-borders donors, like Paul Singer, know exactly what they are buying with Senator Rubio. They are in on the con, and their mark is America.

CONCLUSION

There is no single major distinguishing policy difference between Marco Rubio, John McCain or Lindsey Graham. They have the same trade policy, immigration policy and foreign policy. But on immigration most especially — the issue in which all four have invested the most — there is no daylight separating them.

The difference, then, is one of persona, not policy. And in the arena of immigration, this translates into a vital difference. The biggest change from McCain-Kennedy, which could not get out of the Senate, and the Gang of Eight — which was nursed along by conservative pundits despite being to the left of Kennedy’s bill — was the presence of Rubio. Rubio created the conditions necessary to produce a considerably more open borders bill: conservatives who were invested in the Rubio Brand provided no early pushback but accepted Kennedy’s old talking points, and Rubio gave red state Democrats the political space necessary to support it. This is how it got 68 votes in the Senate.

The stakes of course are raised considerably if Rubio is President or Vice President. Rubio would have a much, much better chance than Obama of getting an open borders bill through Congress — while Boehner could refuse to bring up Obama’s mass immigration/amnesty bill for vote in 2014, Ryan would never refuse Rubio’s bill. Rubio’s presence, as it did with the Gang of Eight, would create the cover for both certain Republicans and all Democrats to get behind a far more open borders plan. Given that nearly every House Democrat sponsored the Gang of Eight House version (including Pelosi and Gutierrez), Ryan would not need to gather that many additional votes (House GOP leaders might have refused Obama’s 2014 request for a vote but they would not refuse President Rubio’s).

All of which adds up to: there is likely no person in the United States of America in a better position to enact mass immigration legislation than a President Rubio — no one who could deliver more votes in both parties for open borders immigration. Senator Rubio is not Main Street’s Obama, he is Wall Street’s Obama: President Obama was a hardcore leftist running as centrist; Senator Rubio is a Wall Street globalist running as a tea party conservative.

Unlike other legislation, the effects of bad immigration policy cannot be repealed. They are forever. The Republican party would never nominate a pro-Obamacare candidate, and it must be an even stronger maxim that it should not nominate any candidate who is committed to a policy of mass immigration. Rubio wrote the Obamacare of immigration policies: a bill that would have eviscerated the middle class, plunged millions into poverty, legalized the most dangerous aliens on the planet, overwhelmed our schools and safety nets, and done irreversible violence to the idea of America as a nation-state. Rubio is the candidate of open borders, Obamatrade and mass immigration, making one last attempt to pull off one big con.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off on Marco Rubio’s Immigration Con