Amnestisia, the GOP, and the Mind of George W. Bush

[Recently by Nicholas Stix:

LAPD: “We Don`t Get Into” Immigration Status Of
Christmas Story Director`s Killer

Some of America`s finest minds, not
least those right here at VDARE.COM, have

for years
sought to explain the

courtship of catastrophe

party and the American people alike
George W. Bush. As VDARE.COM`s

Steve Sailer
has repeatedly noted, Bush has
campaigned for amnesty since 2001, so neither the
President`s support of the

original S. 1348
amnesty/open borders/democide bill, nor his newest
attempt, by throwing senators an additional $4.4 billion
bribe, at selling the destruction of America, should
surprise anyone. [Senate
Leaders Agree to Revive Immigration Bill

By David Stout, NYT, June 14, 2007]

But people are continually surprised by
Bush because of the unimaginably radical nature of his
defend America/destroy America policies—as

dubs them,

“invade the world/invite the world”.

For over six years, Bush has sought to abolish America,
at the same time that he has led the party that
for generations has been identified historically with
the national interest and patriotism. Since

he has been waging a

War on Islam,
er, I mean, Terror,
supposedly in defense of America but justified—and
possibly motivated—by

Wilsonian messianism.

No less than four mutually compatible
motives can be brought to bear to explain Bush`s
treasonous position on immigration:

Cheap labor,

soccer moms,

North American Union,
and the

Bush family dynasty.

Cheap Labor

The most obvious motive binding Bush and
the Republican Party is cheap labor, due to the

business lobbies
filling the Party`s
campaign coffers. These people, the most powerful in
America, are persistent felony offenders who have
amassed billions of dollars in

ill-gotten gains
through years-long
criminal conspiracies to break the nation`s


, and

tax laws.
The mass amnesty

would also grant them amnesty
their crimes.

If President Bush had the slightest
patriotic feeling, he would have adamantly opposed
amnesty, which

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation

has estimated—conservatively in my
opinion—will cost American taxpayers at least $2.6
Will Cost U.S. Taxpayers at Least $2.6 Trillion
Heritage Foundation, June 6, 2007]

Rector`s figure of $2.6 trillion is
based on a lowball estimate of 12 million illegals
presently in the country. I believe that the figure that
Bear Stearns analysts

Betty Ng and Robert Justich

January 2005
(presaged in VDARE.COM
on in

August 2004
) of 20 million illegals,
is much closer to reality. Two-and-a-half years later,
Ng and Justich`s figure would have to be revised to at
least 22 million, and Rector`s costs accordingly to
$4.76 trillion. Meanwhile, in an interview published on
May 31, [see
founder Jim Gilchrist estimated the number
of illegals to be 33 million (at a cost of $7.15

Rector`s conservative figure would
average out to a bill of approximately $9,000, that
every American man, woman, and child alive today—tens of
millions of whom will have been economically displaced
by the amnesty recipients—will have to pay. Under my
estimate, the bill would average out to $16,500 per

current American.
Under Gilchrist`s estimate, the
average tab would be $24,750 per current American.

Rector takes his number of illegals from
the Census Bureau estimate. While I do not know how
Gilchrist derived his estimate, Ng and Justich compared
the census figures to rising levels of

wire transfers,

housing starts,

and school attendance,
and found that the census
figures failed to account for the increases. (Note that
none of the aforementioned observers counted as
illegal the

American-born children
of illegals, whom, the

current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment

notwithstanding, are themselves

Through the vast expansion of socialized
costs visited upon pre-amnesty (read: real)

American citizens

health care,

prison care
, social security, infrastructure,
etc.—and privatized profits among the elites, another
mass amnesty will bankrupt the American treasury.

The granting of citizenship to tens of
millions of

foreign hostiles
now, and
potentially hundreds of millions in the years to come
will through their

refusal to speak the language of the land

respect her laws,
destroy the culture and the
already perilously

weakened rule of law.

Many economists have

so betrayed their profession,
that they have
embraced the rule of crime, when in fact the rule of law
is a pre-requisite to a

functioning market economy
—as is enough cultural
homogeneity so that

people can trust those with whom they do business.


above collapses
will combine to
bring about the end of the

last, best hope of earth.

Amnestisiacs (I call them that because
they refuse to remember how

disastrous previous amnesties
have been) will say
that I am exaggerating the consequences of amnesty. But
the already demoralized INS bureaucracy could not handle
the less than three million eligible illegals in the
wake of the last mass amnesty in 1986. Of course, in the
face of so many other systemic failures, the
administrative collapse will be just an afterthought.

Soccer Moms

Republican soccer moms represent a
related but separate motive. Related, because soccer
moms like cheap help. In many cases, a soccer mom hiring
illegal help for the home is married to a persistent
felony immigration offender at work who pays the bills.
While a GOP soccer mom is

taking Jennifer

soccer practice
, Maria, the

illegal babysitter,
is at home with
Jason, the baby; Carlos, the

illegal gardener,
is tending to the

family lawn
; and Sonia, the illegal
cook, is making dinner.

The separate part: Republican soccer
moms like to think of themselves—and here is where they
overlap with

socialists, er, Democrats
Translation: Supporting an

invasion of America
that makes them richer while
destroying the standard of living of tens of millions of
their fellow citizens is for them an expression of their
moral superiority over the latter. Were the Republican
leadership to begin

the immigration, labor, and tax laws, and

deporting illegals,
GOP soccer moms would condemn
the insult to their moral vanity as “mean-spirited.”

Many, perhaps millions of the moms would
react by voting Democrat. Ian Jobling has dubbed the
desire among well-to-do whites to appear

morally superior

less prosperous whites,
whom they
harm on behalf of racial minorities, “competitive



The Democrat way of explaining away
Bush`s misconduct is to say he`s “stupid.” But as

Ann Coulter has pointed out,

that has been the Democrat way of explaining away every
Republican standard-bearer since

, while insisting that every Democrat
candidate, even a

John Kerry

Al Gore,
is a bloomin` genius. (Even in the case of
Nixon, who would prove to be the most

intellectually brilliant
president of the 20th
century, when Jack Kennedy wanted to quash a suggestion
he opposed from one of his advisors, he`d opine, “That

sounds like something Dick Nixon would say

George W. Bush is not stupid. I don`t
buy the popular notion of him being utterly dependent on

Karl Rove.
The problem with George
Bush is moral, not intellectual. The problem is that he

has no patriotic feelings
. He cares not a whit for
America. He is, in simple English, a traitor.


cheap labor lobby,
who are also traitors, as are the
soccer moms, who are additionally moral hypocrites.

The North
American Union

Since his first year in office, Bush has
been doing everything in his power to

dissolve America
 into a tripartite

North American Union”

Canada and Mexico.
Of course, he and his mouthpieces
deny this—just as they have denied that he seeks to
amnesty the untold millions of illegal immigrants
currently residing in America. But various writers,
including pre-eminently

Jerome Corsi
, have been busy over
the past year or so exposing the NAU plan.

The NAU plan
, also known as a “Security
and Prosperity Partnership,”
as proposed in May 2005
by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), is the
brainchild of globalism guru and American University
professor of international affairs,

Robert Pastor

“[T]he Task Force proposes the
creation by 2010 of a North American community to
enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We
propose a community based on the principle affirmed in

March 2005 Joint Statement
of the three leaders [
America, Mexico, and Canada] that `our security and
prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary.`
Its boundaries will be defined by a common external
tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the
movement of people, products, and capital will be legal,
orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free,
secure, just, and prosperous North America.”

In the name of

helping Mexico,
while actually giving to

Mexico`s criminal elites,
the CFR plan robs the
American people and endangers America by making her

delegate to Mexico
much of her security against


The plan`s contempt for the American
people is clearest in its discussion of the worst day in
recent American history. According to the plan, 9/11 was
a problem solely because it cost businesses money. The
3,000 dead aren`t even mentioned.

The NAU seeks to eliminate the
pre-amnesty, non-treasonous American people as a
political factor. As in the case of the

European Union,
the NAU would abolish national
sovereignty, render American elections meaningless, and
create a

transnational judiciary
to strike down America`s
laws. With an NAU, two overlapping, lawless groups would
together rule the continent: Unbearably sanctimonious
lawyer-parliamentarians who would drone on endlessly in
public about continental and international laws,
treaties and conventions, which they would routinely
violate behind closed doors, as they raped the “North
American people
“; and

who laugh at all laws.

Even without an NAU, open
borders/amnesty would seal the deal for the abolition of
America. The new

racist, anti-American
Hispanic majority would
gleefully support any legislation, judicial decision, or
executive act, so long as it harmed the historic
American people—even at the expense of

Hispanics` own interests.
To paraphrase

Golda Meir,
they hate whites more than they love
their own children.

Moreove, as Steve Sailer has repeatedly
shown, no matter how much Republicans pander to them,

at least 60-70 percent of Hispanics will vote Democrat
Open borders/amnesty would thus signal the end of the
Republican Party. People are baffled as to why a
Republican president would destroy his own party. The
answer: George W. Bush does not identify with the
Republicans—or any other American political party.

The “44”

Bush is working not for the GOP, let
alone the non-treasonous American people, but for goals
that he sees as useful to the Bush family`s interests.


one month after Bush`s 2001 inauguration
Steve Sailer discussed the connections between the

Bush family
and Mexico`s criminal-political elites.

Three years later
, Sailer showed how
Bush has been doing everything possible to consolidate
and strengthen those ties.

Mexico`s criminal-political elites rule
over a country rich in natural resources, yet in which
there is an incredible gap between

the rich and everyone else,
in which the

rich pay almost no taxes,
in which government
services are utterly corrupt, and the

rule of law has ceased to function
, if indeed it

ever did.

This is the

that George W. Bush has been busily importing
to America.

As Sailer wrote in 2004:

“[During the 2000 campaign, Bush`s]

George P. Bush told reporters
`Our biggest challenge will be to separate my uncle from
the rest of the Republican Party.`

This, then, could be why George W.
has spent so much effort promoting a wedge issue that
can only

split his own party
. He thinks

long-run fate of his dynasty

demands a new, improved Republican Party —and a new,
debased America.”

Bush Betrayal: Maybe He`s Not Thinking But
Feeling—Family Feeling, Mexican Style,
11, 2004]

Which brings us to the “George P.”
factor, which Steve Sailer also was the first to
think about. The President, known in the Bush family as
43″ (and whose father is known among the Bushes
as “41“), already refers to his nephew, George P.
Bush, the son of former Florida governor, Jeb Bush and
the latter`s

Mexican-born, America-hating wife, Columba
, as “44.”
In George P.`s hostility towards the nation that has
made him (and his uncle) rich and powerful,

in spite of his lack of loyalty or talent,
he takes
after his mother. The Bushes

clearly want George P
. to become the third Bush
President. Indeed, they may even see such a development
as a birthright, much as the Kennedys once did.

But why, given my end-of-the-GOP
scenario, would the Bushes even care anymore about the
presidency? There`s family tradition. There`s sentiment
and symbolism—not for the sake of Americans or even
Hispanics, but for the sake of Jeb and

Columba Bush,
and the Bushes`
criminal-political-business friends in Mexico, and in
the NAU-to-be. Most important of all, the American
presidency would by then exist as a stepping stone to
the NAU government.

In any event, I find it unlikely that
George P. would run as a Republican. With the GOP by
then a lame or even dead party, he would run either as a
Democrat, or as the standard-bearer of some new

or regional (The Nation Formerly Known as
America?) party.

Left-libertarian New York columnist

Sidney Zion
has often lamented, “It`s the two
parties against the people.”
But now, it`s the two
parties and the

transnational elites
against the
and the nation.


Either the elites that George W. Bush is
serving are insanely myopic regarding the consequences
of their scheme, or they think that they can put so many
layers between themselves and their loved ones and
external reality that only the “little people”—the
American citizen-taxpayers—will be destroyed.. After
all, in Mexico and other Third World countries, the
ruling elites live like drug lords (and

often will be drug lords!),
behind high walls
in massive compounds patrolled by

machine-gun wielding gunslingers

The Nation Formerly Known as America (TNFKAA)
would experience phenomena that are routine in the Third
World, but from which America had largely been
protected: Dictatorship, civil war, starvation,
genocide. In that brave new world, different parts of

variously resemble
Mexico, Brazil, the former
Yugoslavia, Somalia, the Congo and Zimbabwe:


; where one

cannot count on the provision of running water and
where hospitals have no medical
supplies because the staff has stolen them all; where at
any time of the day a woman may be grabbed off an open

gang raped,
murdered, and “
and where one must bribe civil servants for the most
basic services, and even pay off policemen to leave one
alone when one has not violated any laws, or be thrown
in jail.

But in one crucial characteristic,
things will be different.

Historically, the kleptocrats running
many failed states have been able to rely on

America to bail them out.

America is abolished
, however, say goodbye to Sugar

And since billions of people see in

a light unto the world
, giving them hope not to
plunder her but to improve their own societies, if
America is abolished, the world will descend into

Nicholas Stix [email

him] lives in New York City, which he
views from the perspective of its public
transport system, experienced in his
career as an educator. His weekly column
appears at

Men`s News Daily

and many other Web sites. He has also
written for Middle American News, the
New York

Daily News,
New York Post, Newsday,
Chronicles, Ideas on Liberty
and the
Weekly Standard. He
maintains two blogs:

Different Drummer

Nicholas Stix, Uncensored