DEMOCRAT PARTY CORRUPTION
Their banksters and billionaires demand wider open borders to keep
wages depressed
"This is how they will destroy America from
within. The leftist billionaires who orchestrate these plans are
wealthy. Those tasked with representing us in Congress will never be exposed
to the cost of the invasion of millions of migrants. They have
nothing but contempt for those of us who must endure the consequences of our
communities being intruded upon by gang members, drug dealers and human
traffickers. These people have no intention of becoming Americans;
like the Democrats who welcome them, they have contempt for us." PATRICIA
McCARTHY
The Democrats are imploding
It’s too soon to predict that the Democrats will go the way of the Whigs, but the oldest political party in the world is tripping over its own doctrines, making a public spectacle of its inability to coherently sponsor debates, riven by ideological fissures that seem to be widening, driving away two bedrock constituencies, white working class and black voters, and hitching itself to a doomed impeachment effort that could cost it dearly next November.
It’s a great time to be alive if you are a Republican!
Consider the forthcoming presidential debates.
Next Thursday’s scheduled debate is being boycotted by all its candidates because the food service provider at the host institution, Loyola Marymount University -- itself a second choice venue after UCLA was chosen and rejected because of a strike there – is experiencing a strike, and the candidates refuse to cross a picket line. DNC Chair Tom Perez, a former Secretary of Labor, is leaning hard on the parties to the strike to settle their differences (do you suspect there may be some quid pro quo promises?), so the squabble between the two constituencies of the Democrats, higher education and left wing labor unions.
But solving that issue is child’s play compared to the “diversity” issue facing the debate scheduled for next February:
Nine Democratic presidential candidates have called on the Democratic National Committee to relax its debate standards next year, allowing some lower-polling rivals onto the stage.“While we know this was an unintended consequence of the DNC’s actions, many of the candidates excluded due to these thresholds are the ones who have helped make this year’s primary field historically diverse,” the candidates wrote. “Frankly, that unintended result does not live up to the values of our Democratic Party and it does not serve the best interest of Democratic voters.”The letter was signed by all seven Democrats who qualified for next week's debate in Los Angeles: former vice president Joe Biden; Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg; Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), investor Tom Steyer; and businessman Andrew Yang.It was also signed by Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who organized his fellow candidates, as well as former housing and urban development secretary Julián Castro, who has not appeared in a debate since October. Castro has argued that the debate standards and the structure of the primaries — in which two of the country’s whitest states vote first — were leading to a less diverse Democratic contest.
This is hilarious. I love the idea that the party may find itself openly changing the rules of the game when the racial bean count doesn’t meet the ideological demand for “diversity.” And the notion that Jews and homosexuals do not count as “diverse” is the perfect way to demonstrate to the majority of Americans that if they win a fair contest, the prize may be taken away from them solely because of their race if power is handed to the Democrats. And the spectacle of identifiable affirmative action candidates, who didn’t meet the publicly announced criteria for participating, crowding the stage and shortening the soundbites of each participant would inevitably tick off some of the partisans of candidates who made it to the stage fair and square. It’s almost like embroidering a scarlet A (for affirmative action) on their clothing.
Even more entertainingly, the DNC ‘s communications director Xochitl Hinojosa is rejecting the proposal and standing firm, defending the integrity of playing by the rules,
... “calling it ‘insulting’ that candidates would suggest that the committee is ‘somehow leaving people of color’ out of debates… So, our polling threshold and our thresholds for our debates, to say that they are somehow leaving people of color off this stage is not only wrong, but it's insulting."
She is trashing the entire theory of “disparate impact,” which is central to the diversity industry affirmative action suits, as way of forcing people who don’t meet criteria to receive treatment as if they did. The criteria are presumed racist if the wrong racial mix passes the cutoff.
Meanwhile, an even worse nightmare is unfolding: a progressive splinter ticket running against the Democrats’ nominee if theparty goes with a “moderate” like Joe Biden. Emily Zanotti writes in the Daily Wire:
With the possibility of former Vice President Joe Biden earning the 2020 nomination now inching ever closer to reality, key progressive legislators are floating the idea of an “alternative” Democratic ticket that embodies a fully far-left platform, possibly pitting the two extremes of the Democratic Party against each other.The New York Times claims, Monday, that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) are each others’ worst enemy and that, despite their “non-agression” pact, if one were to be hounded out of the race, the other would pose a clear threat to the “Establishment” Democrats’ pick, Biden.“Since the presidential primary race began, the two senators — who have been friends since Ms. Warren was elected to the Senate in 2012 — have abided by a de facto nonaggression pact, rarely criticizing one another and frequently acting as something of a populist tag team on the debate stage,” the Times claims. “Yet with Mr. Sanders enjoying a revival after his heart attack in October and Ms. Warren receding from her summer surge but wielding a formidable political organization in the first nominating states, it’s increasingly clear that their biggest obstacle to winning the Democratic nomination is each other.” (snip)So, perhaps the time has come for another idea, some progressive legislators say: a Sanders/Warren ticket. Or a Warren/Sanders ticket.“The two of them could usher in a progressive era for the next decade,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA). Khanna even compared the pair to another all star team, Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who consolidated the mushy middle back in the early 1990s by appealing to middle-of-the-road Democrats together, rather than splitting what was then the core of the party. “They doubled down on a bet for a centrist vision of the party. This would be a bet on a progressive vision for the party.”Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) also told the Times that she was thrilled with the idea.
Having already lost enough white working class voters to carry Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin for Trump in 2016, destroying the “blue wall” theory of Electoral College dominance by Democrats and suddenly turning the party against the Constitutional procedures for presidential elections, several recent polls indicate that African American voters are turning toward Trump.
A growing number of polls show that President Trump is gaining the support of black voters above what any Republican president has ever received. Both Emerson Polling and Rasmussen Reports have it at about 34%, a stunning number.And a new Zogby Analytics survey found that African American support is at the “highest levels of the year,” driven by a strong economy, historically low black unemployment, and Trump’s agenda to support minority small businesses, historically black colleges and universities, and passage of criminal justice reform.“Not surprisingly, all African Americans do not hate Trump!” pollster Jonathan Zogby said in sharing his data with us.President Trump’s continued exhortations to blacks to examine what the Democrats have done to solve their issues for the last 50 years, and quesiton, “What have you got to lose?” seem to be gaining traction. Without overwhelming black support, the Democrats’ chances of winning the presidency are nil.
Which brings us to the impeachment railroading of President Trump, which, among other things, may remind African Americans of the treatment Southern blacks experienced at the hands of Democrat segregationists in law enforcement and the judiciary for a century following the Civil War. Impeachment will not succeed in conviction in the Senate, so it is nothing but symbolic posturing. And yet, like lemmings, House Democrats in swing districts that voted for Trump are flocking to support impeachment when they vote on the two articles coming out of the House Judiciary Committee:
More Democrats from competitive House districts said they will back the impeachment of President Trump, putting the effort on track to pass this week despite some fears that their position could put their seats at risk.The House plans to vote on Wednesday. With Mr. Trump’s impeachment looking likely, Democratic leaders are also to soon announce which members had been suggested as impeachment managers—essentially prosecutors—during the Senate trial, which is expected to kick off in January.Democrats have largely united behind impeachment. By Monday afternoon, at least 17 from the 31 Democratic-held districts that Mr. Trump won in the 2016 presidential race had announced they would support the abuse-of-power and obstruction of Congress charges, according to a Wall Street Journal survey, with two saying they are opposed.
Nancy Pelosi has claimed that she is not whipping votes, but it is not unthinkable that she’s put out the word that a no vote means no DNC funds for candidates in the 2020 election.
Obviously, a lot could change in the next 11 months. But right now, the donkeys are maneuvering themselves into a GOP Congress supporting a reform agenda of President Trump in his second term.
Democrats Move Towards
‘Oligarchical Socialism,’ Says Forecaster Joel Kotkin
Associated Press
Left-wing
progressives are embracing a political alliance with Silicon Valley oligarchs
who would trap Americans in a cramped future without hope of upward
mobility for themselves or their children, says a left-wing political analyst
in California.
Historically, liberals advocated helping the middle class
achieve greater independence, notably by owning houses and starting companies.
But the tech oligarchy — the people who run the five most capitalized firms on
Wall Street — have a far less egalitarian vision. Greg Fehrenstein, who
interviewed 147 digital company founders, says most believe that “an
increasingly greater share of economic wealth will be generated by a smaller
slice of very talented or original people. Everyone else will increasingly
subsist on some combination of part-time entrepreneurial ’gig work‘ and
government aid.”
Numerous oligarchs — Mark Zuckerberg, Pierre Omidyar, founder of
eBay, Elon Musk and Sam Altman, founder of the Y Combinator — have embraced
this vision including a “guaranteed wage,” usually $500 or a $1,000 monthly.
Our new economic overlords are not typical anti-tax billionaires in the
traditional mode; they see government spending as a means of keeping the
populist pitchforks away. This may be the only politically sustainable way to
expand “the gig economy,” which grew to 7 million workers this year, 26 percent
above the year before.
Handouts, including housing subsidies, could guarantee for the
next generation a future not of owned houses, but rented small, modest
apartments. Unable to grow into property-owning adults, they will subsist while
playing with their phones, video games and virtual reality in what Google calls
“immersive computing.”
This plan, however, is being challenged by the return of
populism and nationalism when President Donald Trump defeated the GOP’s
corporatist candidates and the progressives’ candidate in 2016. In his 2017
inauguration, Trump declared:
For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital
has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the
cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth.
Politicians prospered, but the jobs left and the factories closed. The
establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their
victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your
triumphs. And while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little
to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.
That all changes starting right here and right now because this
moment is your moment, it belongs to you …
What truly matters is not which party controls our government,
but whether our government is controlled by the people.
For several years, Kotkin has been dissecting the Democrats’
shift from working-class politics toward a tacit alliance with the billionaires
in the new information-technology industries that are centralizing wealth and
power through the United States. In 2013, for example, he argued that
California’s politics were increasingly “feudal“:
As late as the 80s, California was democratic in a fundamental
sense, a place for outsiders and, increasingly, immigrants—roughly 60 percent
of the population was considered middle class. Now, instead of a land of
opportunity, California has become increasingly feudal. According to recent
census estimates, the state suffers some of the highest levels of inequality in the country. By some
estimates, the state’s level of inequality compares with that of such global models as the Dominican
Republic, Gambia, and the Republic of the Congo.
At the same time, the Golden State now suffers the highest level
of poverty in the country—23.5 percent compared to 16 percent nationally—worse
than long-term hard luck cases like Mississippi. It is also now home to
roughly one-third of the
nation’s welfare recipients, almost three times its proportion of the nation’s
population.
Like medieval serfs, increasing numbers of Californians are
downwardly mobile, and doing worse than their parents: native born Latinos
actually have shorter lifespans than their parents, according to one
recent report. Nor are things expected to get
better any time soon. According to a recent Hoover Institution survey, most Californians expect their
incomes to stagnate in the coming six months, a sense widely shared among the
young, whites, Latinos, females, and the less educated.
“Protecting
citizens from industrial capitalism’s giant corporations? Where were the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift
Supervision, and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight as the
mortgage bubble blew up in 2008, nearly taking the whole financial system with
it and producing the worst economic bust since the Great Depression, which even
today has sunk the labor-force participation rate and hiked the suicide rate
among working-class men and women to record levels?”
Democrats' Contempt for the Sanctity of Life
Ed Buck, a prominent Democrat donor and fundraiser, has
been charged with battery,
administering illegal drugs, and operating a drug house. The charges
paint a disturbing picture of this wealthy scion of liberal
politics. At this time, two men have been identified as having died
and a third having been seriously harmed, but prosecutors are said to have
found hundreds of photographs "of men in compromising positions" who may have
been lured to Buck's home with the promise of money, shelter, and drugs.
This case raises many questions, not just concerning the several
felonies with which Buck has been charged, but about the morality of this and
other prominent liberals. On what basis could any human being engage
in sexual conduct with "hundreds" of unfortunate human beings, using
them like playthings and then casting them aside? What does such
conduct suggest about the capacity of some individuals to use others for their
personal pleasure, regardless of the dangerous consequences
involved?
Certainly, conservatives are far from perfect, but at least
conservatives do not flaunt their iniquities. Conservatives as
individuals possess all the imperfections of other men, but they still ascribe
to an ideal of goodness and virtue. The same cannot be said for
liberals, who believe that they should rack up as much pleasure as possible in
this world because they are sure there's no life after death.
For liberals, what happens in the Oval Office stays in the Oval
Office. Many Democrats thought Bill Clinton was just being Clinton
and that there was nothing especially immoral about conducting affairs with
aides, state employees, actresses, and nursing home managers. Was
this because they did not appreciate the sanctity of those who served as mere
diversion for our 42nd president?
Just what is so appealing to liberals about promiscuity,
anyway? Is it just sex, or is there a special satisfaction in
transgressing traditional moral codes? Is it the idea that one is
"bigger" than the law? Or is it that liberals believe that
the rules no longer apply? Is it beneath them to believe in marital
fidelity and lifetime devotion to one's spouse? Liberals think they
are too sophisticated for this kid of trust, just as they think telling the
truth is Boy Scout stuff and election promises are made to be
broken. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your
doctor." Yeah, right.
Conservatives are different. We at least hold up the
ideal of devotion, honesty, and truth-telling, and though we're not perfect, we
try to be. That's especially the case when it involves the sanctity
of life. Conservatives defend the unborn, defend their families, and
defend their God-given liberties. Conservatives know that all of
God's creation is sacred, and it is that knowledge that makes them act with
restraint and care. That is the essence of conservatism.
The essence of liberalism, as I see it, is a lack of restraint
rooted in egotism and self. The Warren presidential campaign is a
perfect example. If elected, Elizabeth Warren will, according to her
own admission, attempt
to closely regulate all large businesses, eliminate fracking
and the jobs that go with it, provide Medicare for All, dictate health care
decisions (including practically unlimited abortion "rights"),
eliminate capital punishment, raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporations,
provide free college, cancel student debt, eliminate the Electoral College, ban
assault weapons, open our borders, legalize marijuana, and significantly cut
the defense budget.
Warren's policies show her
to be an extremist driven by ideology rather than concern for the individuals
whom she would tax, endanger, disenfranchise, and tyrannize with regulation and
social mandates. Where is her concern for the individuals whose
lives she would alter so radically with her sweeping reforms? Those
lives are sacred, their right to prosper and save is sacred, and their right to
safety and security is sacred. Warren does not seem to have thought
much about the dangers of unrestrained immigration or the fact that a weakened
national defense will put all Americans at risk. What is she
describing is tyranny, plain and simple.
The most obvious example of liberal denial of the sanctity of
life, of course, is liberals' position on abortion. For any person
who truly believes in the sanctity of life, abortion must be
repugnant. One point six million abortions, terminating
approximately one quarter of all pregnancies, are performed every year in the U.S. At
this rate, that would amount to 80 million abortions over the past 50
years. Imagine the loss of those beautiful human souls.
Or are they
beautiful? Liberals do not believe so. They tell us that
the earth has become overpopulated. It is "the earth" that
matters and not human beings. Or they say the mothers of those
unborn children would not be able to care for them and that the children would
just become a burden on the State. The "burden on the
State" is more important than the unborn child.
What you will never hear from a liberal is the idea that every
child, born and unborn, is sacred. A child is worth that burden and
worth the stress he purportedly places on "the earth." A
time is coming when America will wish that it had those 80 million souls to defend
it and help it prosper. That ability to contribute to society and
pursue economic opportunity, and to fight if necessary to defend one's home, is
another side of what makes every child sacred. Children are sacred
because of their capacity for goodness, beauty, and life, but also because they
will grow into adults who take responsibility for themselves and for their
neighbors.
Would any conservative vote to end the life of 80 million human
beings?
I believe that every human being is God's creation and that
everyone is born with the potential to contribute and achieve. Our
Founders believed in limited government because they too believed in human
potential, and they feared the tyranny of authoritarianism. They had
reason to fear, having lived under the yoke of British colonial rule.
It is no accident that those who seek a vast expansion of
government power today also oppose the sanctity of life. A free
people engaged in productive endeavors will never vote for a socialist who will
suppress their freedom. What today's tyrants fear above all is a
public that believes in the sanctity of life and is willing to stand up for it.
Jeffrey Folks is the author
of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland
of the Imagination (2011).
So is running for president now a corrupt Democrat's 'get out of jail free'
card?
Based on today's
standards, promoted in Congress and the press, Democratic Party candidates,
such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, can greatly enrich their
families with massive amounts of money from foreign parties, and a Republican
president or its Justice department are not even allowed to bring up their
names, let alone research their obvious corruption. Most of the media and
other Democrats are now calling President Trump's bid to get to the bottom of
the ongoing corruption we see 'impeachable' and they couldn't care less about
corruption as they preach that no one is above the law.
Democrats can seek trash
on their Republican opponents from foreign nationals and not only do most
journalists and other Democrats not care, they can use a fake dossier
full of opposition research as grist for an FBI investigation in their
bid to take out Trump. Then, if Trump brings up Biden’s name to a foreign
leader, they call that illegal and impeachable.
A Democrat, her staff and
many at the State Department and other agencies can continually violate the
nation's security laws (as Clinton did) and the Justice Department inexplicably
lets her off. Most journalists and other Democrats support her and call it
partisan to look at the clear violations of the law as they lecture everyone
that no one is above the law.
A Democrat and her spouse
can physically and mentally abuse women (again, the Clinton pair) and seek to
destroy anyone who gets in their way as they amass power. Most
journalists and other Democrats don’t give a damn about any of the abused women
with credible claims against Bill or Hillary Clinton even as they say how
pro-women they are.
A Democrat commits fraud
throughout her adult life by lying about her heritage to move up the economic
ladder (Elizabeth Warren) and most journalists and other Democrats will support
her. In fact, they've made her the frontrunner in the current Democratic
nomination for president polls.
Democrat candidates can
seek to destroy and impeach Judge Brett Kavanaugh based on articles the media
has published with no evidence to support the stories. And the media pretends
their stories are based on facts. How can they expect the public to believe
them when they ran years of stories on Russian collusion when there was never
any evidence?
Democrat candidates
continually lie about what Trump said in Charlottesville and lie about
Ferguson, Missouri to gin up racial hate and violence and they are
supported wholeheartedly by the complicit media as they pretend they are the
party of unity and the truthful party.
Democrat bureaucrats in
the Obama administration, at Justice, CIA, other intelligence agencies and at
the State Department continually lie to justify spying to take out Trump while
they protect Hillary from prosecution. But if the Trump administration looks at
the origins of the fake Russian collusion narrative, that is impeachable and
partisan. The compliant media doesn’t give a darn about the clear violations of
the law and abuse of power while they continually say that no one is above the
law.
A Democrat president
can violate the Constitution with DACA, be flexible with Russia, give kickbacks
to Iran tyrants, stop an investigation into drug running by terrorists to
appease Iran, violate bankruptcy laws, have slush funds at Justice, CFPB and
EPA to reward political supporters, illegally unmask names of people surrounding
Trump, leave Americans to die in Libya while concocting a lie, spy illegally on
thousands of Americans, imprison reporters, look the other way as his Secretary
of State violates security laws and takes kickbacks, Look the other way as
Obama administration officials such as Eric Holder, John Brennan, James
Clapper, Susan Rice and others commit perjury, withhold documents from Congress
for years on Fast and Furious, prosecute whistleblowers for violation of the
espionage act, cage and separate children at the border and all his
conversations with foreign leaders will remain private.
As the media watched all
this clear corruption unfold throughout eight years of Obama, almost all
journalists and other Democrat supported him, called him brilliant and to this
date pretend the Obama administration was scandal-free as they tell the public
that no one is above the law.
Known serial liars
Clapper, Brennan, Holder, plus creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti are
treated as reliable sources by almost all media outlets as they trash Trump.
Meanwhile, whatever Trump
does is impeachable, even if it is only bringing up Biden’s name to investigate
clear corruption. According to the media, as they collude with other Democrats,
it appears that every one of Trump’s phone calls should be made public.
And any disgruntled
Democrat bureaucrat who leaks information, whether or not they had firsthand
knowledge, should be treated as a protected whistleblower instead of a leaker.
Republicans are welcome
as reliable sources in the media, like Senators Mitt Romney, John McCain or
Jeff Flake, as long as they are trashing Trump. Otherwise they are not
welcome.
It is so hard to spot the
bias as the media trashes Trump and his supporters, daily, with every name in
the book and lecture the public that no one is above the law and how the
Democrat party is the party of unity.
Image credit: Photo illustration by
Monica Showalter with use of image by Michael Vadon, via
Wikimedia Commons // CC BY-SA 2.0.
Hillary's going to get in
It
is no longer a matter of if but of when. All doubts about Hillary's 2020
plans should have been erased by her appearances this week promoting the book
that she and her daughter “wrote” to say nothing about her mien! She
endlessly reprised her absurd claim
that the election was stolen from her, called for Trump's impeachment, and even
admitted to her gutsiness for standing by her man.
I
think she has always been in the race, covertly, and that she and Bill always
assumed that no candidate would arrive at the convention with enough delegates
to win the nomination on the first ballot, at which point she could be put
forth as a compromise.
Biden's
done for; there is no way he is going to survive the imbroglio surrounding his
son's machinations and profiteering in Ukraine and China. There's too
much there there. It will become inescapable, even to the unwashed, that
the only reason money flowed to Hunter Biden was to gain influence with Joe or
gain benefits through Joe and his network of friends and allies.
Joe’s
always been a placeholder for Hillary, whether he realizes it or not. It’s all
has changed now because Biden's done, and could precipitate Hillary's early
entry into the fray, as not only Biden but Bernie Sanders may be leaving the
field. With their supporters potentially up for grabs, Elizabeth Warren could
end up with a first ballot victory.
Hillary
has to know that she is considered to be unlikable, but I think it is a given
that no one likes Warren,
either. Daniel Greenfield compares her to Hillary here:
Warren’s likability deficit has nothing to do
with her gender....[She ripped] off asbestos victims while pocketing a tidy
sum....The ‘Hillariness’ of Warren doesn’t [just] lie in their shared fabulism
or lack of ethics....[her] a complete lack of qualifications....[or because
both are] inauthentic scolds who suffer from hall monitor syndrome. They spent
their entire lives breaking every rule they could find while awkwardly
fantasizing about running every tiny detail of everyone else’s
lives....[They're] both unlikable because you can’t picture either one having
any fun....[C]ombine that with an obsessive need to monitor, regulate and
eradicate other people’s fun, and you have the miserable essence of the
progressive movement.
Hillary,
and Bill, know that this is their [third] last chance, and they're not going to
let another woman snatch it from her, as that “articulate and
bright and clean and a nice-looking” black guy or that entitled creep
did. So, keep an eye out, for “when” is going to be sooner than anyone
expected.
Now,
can she win this time? Only a fool would count her out. She won't
lose Biden's supporters. Just being a woman will get her many of Warren's
female supporters. Despite Trump's inroads with African-American and
Hispanic voters, she'll find considerable support in those groups. Wall
Street, Hollywood, and the MSM love her. Traditional Democrats, not
wanting four more years of uproar, may return to the fold over Ukraine and the
like.
She'll
work harder this time, if she can uphold under the effort, bringing
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, and Wisconsin into the picture.
She'll be better prepared to debate Trump, but that may not mean much since
Trump's hard to out-debate.
Settle
into the chair, get out the popcorn, the show's about to begin. If you
doubt it, then I have a walking trail in Chappaqua to sell you.
The author is retired, his profile may be found
on LinkedIn, and he usually responds to emails sent
to ringchadburn@hotmail.com
‘The Left Case Against Open Borders’: Liberal Author Pans
‘Useful Idiots of Big Business’
22 Nov 20188
5:13
Progressives’
enthusiastic support for mass immigration has converted them into “useful idiots”
for the nation’s business elites, says a left-wing writer.
Today’s well-intentioned
activists have become the useful idiots of big business. With their adoption of
“open borders” advocacy—and a fierce moral absolutism that regards
any limit to migration as an unspeakable evil—any criticism of the
exploitative system of mass migration is effectively dismissed as blasphemy.
Even solidly leftist politicians, like Bernie Sanders in the United States and
Jeremy Corbyn in the United Kingdom, are accused of “nativism” by critics if
they recognize the legitimacy of borders or migration restriction at any
point. This open borders radicalism ultimately benefits the elites
within the most powerful countries in the world, further disempowers organized
labor, robs the developing world of desperately needed professionals, and turns
workers against workers.
Nagle also argues that mass
immigration operates extracts human talent from developing societies for
the benefit of wealthy, comfortable U.S. elites:
Advocates of open borders often
overlook the costs of mass migration for developing countries. Indeed,
globalization often creates a vicious cycle: liberalized trade policies destroy
a region’s economy, which in turn leads to mass emigration from that area,
further eroding the potential of the origin country while depressing wages for
the lowest paid workers in the destination country. One of the major causes of
labor migration from Mexico to the United States has been the economic and
social devastation caused by the North American Free Trade Agreement
(nafta). Nafta forced Mexican farmers to compete with U.S.
agriculture, with disastrous consequences for Mexico. Mexican imports doubled,
and Mexico lost thousands of pig farms and corn growers to U.S. competition.
When coffee prices fell below the cost of production, nafta prohibited
state intervention to keep growers afloat. Additionally, U.S.
companies were allowed to buy infrastructure in Mexico, including,
for example, the country’s main north-south rail line. The railroad then
discontinued passenger service, resulting in the decimation of the rail
workforce after a wildcat strike was crushed. By 2002, Mexican wages had
dropped by 22 percent, even though worker productivity increased by 45 percent.7 In regions like Oaxaca,
emigration devastated local economies and communities, as men emigrated to work
in America’s farm labor force and slaughterhouses, leaving behind women,
children, and the elderly.
Left-wing servants of business
elites spray claims of racism on the public to suppress their rational and
reasonable opposition to immigration exploitation, Nagle argues:
The immigration expansionists
have two key weapons. One is the big business and financial interests all
working on their side, but an equally powerful weapon—wielded more
expertly by the left-leaning immigration expansionists—is moral
blackmail and public shame. People are right to see the mistreatment of
migrants as morally wrong. Many people are concerned about the growth of racism
and callousness toward minorities that often accompanies anti-immigration
sentiment. But the open borders position does not even live up to its own
professed moral code.
The tacit alliance of the
wealthy against the middle prompt some invective by the Irish author;
In the wealthiest nations, open
borders advocacy seems to function as a fanatical cult among
true believers—a product of big business and free market lobbying is
carried along by a larger group of the urban creative, tech, media, and
knowledge economy class, who are serving their own objective class interests by
keeping their transient lifestyles cheap and their careers intact as they
parrot the institutional ideology of their industries. The truth is that mass
migration is a tragedy, and upper-middle-class moralizing about it is a farce.
Perhaps the ultra-wealthy can afford to live in the borderless world they
aggressively advocate for, but most
people need—and want—a coherent, sovereign political body to
defend their rights as citizens.
The establishment’s economic policy
of using migration to boost economic growth shifts wealth from young people
towards older people by flooding the market
with cheap white-collar and blue-collar foreign labor. That flood of outside
labor spikes profits and Wall Street
values by cutting salaries for manual
and skilled labor offered by blue-collar
and white-collar employees.
The policy also drives up real estate
prices, widens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech
investment, increases state and
local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from
high-tech careers, and sidelines at least five million marginalized Americans and
their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid
addictions.
Immigration also pulls investment
and wealth away from heartland states because coastal investors can more easily
hire and supervise the large immigrant populations living in the coastal
states.
.jpg){kind=link}
No comments:
Post a Comment