Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
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 GOP's courtship of catastrophe—for the party and the American people alike—under 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 omnibus 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 Sailer 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 9/11, 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, GOP soccer moms, the North American Union, and the Bush family dynasty.
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 immigration, labor, and tax laws. The mass amnesty would also grant them amnesty for 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 trillion.[Amnesty 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 provided in 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 GlobalPolitician.com] Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist estimated the number of illegals to be 33 million (at a cost of $7.15 trillion).
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 ("anchor babies") of illegals, whom, the current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment notwithstanding, are themselves illegal.)
Through the vast expansion of socialized costs visited upon pre-amnesty (read: real) American citizens—education, 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 or 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.
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.
Republican 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 to 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—as " compassionate." 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 enforcing 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 to less prosperous whites, whom they harm on behalf of racial minorities, "competitive altruism." (See here and here.)
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 Coolidge, while insisting that every Democrat candidate, even a John Kerry or 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.
The 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" with 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 the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders [of 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 terrorists.
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 gangster-politicos 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" Factor
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.
Just 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 model that George W. Bush has been busily importing to America.
As Sailer wrote in 2004:
"[During the 2000 campaign, Bush's] nephew 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 the long-run fate of his dynasty demands a new, improved Republican Party —and a new, debased America." [The Bush Betrayal: Maybe He's Not Thinking But Feeling—Family Feeling, Mexican Style, January 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 NAU 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 people—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 TNFKAA will variously resemble Mexico, Brazil, the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, the Congo and Zimbabwe: slavery; kidnappings; where one cannot count on the provision of running water and electricity; 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 street, gang raped, murdered, and " disappeared"; 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.
And since billions of people see in America 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 darkness.
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: A Different Drummer and Nicholas Stix, Uncensored.