America • American Conservatism • Conservatives • Donald Trump • The Left

The Case Against “the Conservative Case. . .”

Abraham Lincoln famously said that there is no right to do wrong. But there is a right to be wrong, when right and wrong are matters of prudential judgment rather than moral imperative. American Enterprise Institute economist James Pethokoukis and like-minded “conservatives” think that open borders and free trade are moral imperatives because they consider their desirability to be scientifically proven, which to them amounts to the same thing. Science is truth, truth science. This is an opinion that predates G.W.F. Hegel, but one that the German philosopher fully articulated for the political realm. In the leftist-Hegelian hive mind of which Pethokoukis is but one drone, the benefits of mass immigration and open trade are simply true; therefore popular objections are illegitimate.

Welcome to the conservative hive mind. Careful not to get stung.

Whenever you find an article that begins with the title, “The Conservative Case” for or against something, lock your door, check your wallet, and grab your gun. You know what’s coming is an unadulterated sell-out of everything “conservatism” purports to hold dear.

The words directly following the ellipses usually denote some obviously non-conservative thing, like “a $5 trillion budget” or “transgender bathrooms” or “4-foot-11, 80-pound female Navy SEALS.” Do any liberals ever write “a liberal case” for something obviously conservative, such as the traditional two-parent family or constitutional originalism?

No, this self-sabotaging practice is unique to the American Right, which perhaps helps explain why it’s in such disarray.

American Enterprise Institute economist James Pethokoukis’s “conservative case against Trump’s apocalyptic view of America” harks back to Reaganesque optimism. But the entire premise of his essay, published last week at the left-leaning “explainer” site, Vox.com, completely misses the point of Reagan’s optimism. Reagan’s message in 1980 was, in a nutshell, “Things are really bad right now, but I know how to make them better and together we can do it.” (Can you think of any candidate who has spoken like that a bit more recently?)

Reagan began by acknowledging the “present crisis.” His optimism, like all sensible optimism, arose from a frank assessment of the situation. He thought the problems he diagnosed were fixable and that he knew how to fix them. A personality may be optimistic or pessimistic by temperament, and Reagan’s was surely optimistic. But he was wise enough not to let his preternatural optimism cloud his judgment and blind him to real problems. Even after Reagan had accomplished much (but by no means all) of what he set out to do and the country was (for the time being) in much better shape than he had found it, he still saw reasons to worry and sounded alarms about the future.

Not James Pethokoukis. Everything’s fine! Any concern about the nation’s present or future is “fully detached from reality” and “totally at odds with the facts.” Move along, nothing to see here. That’s the bulk of his argument, a variation on the theme “It’s not that bad,” a case for the status quo.

Pethokoukis is a gifted economist and could run circles around me with statistics and macro-models if he wanted to, but he hardly tries. Instead he offers this:

Sure, the recovery has been slow, at least the slowest since World War II, maybe in American history. But get in line. Great Britain’s recovery is perhaps the slowest in nearly two centuries … Recessions accompanied by systemic shocks to the banking and housing systems tend to be followed by miserably slow recoveries … [S]uch anemic rebounds are characterized by “very sluggish U-shaped recovery” in incomes … and persistently high unemployment.

Here is a ringing endorsement of the status quo. Things suck, but they suck everywhere and as expected, so it’s OK!

Is this meant seriously?

Pethokoukis then proceeds to offer a few stats, but not before prepping the ground by ruling out of bounds all doubts about possible government manipulation. But hold on. The U.S. Department of Labor gooses the unemployment rate in all sorts of ways, chiefly by not counting as “unemployed” anyone who has given up looking for a job, and by counting as “employed” anyone working part-time who used to work full-time and would prefer to do so again. So pardon my not being too impressed by a 20-basis-point drop in the official unemployment rate “over the last year.” Nor am I all that impressed that, according to Pethokoukis, “the labor force has grown by 2.4 million” over the same period—when it has shrunk by 14 million over the last eight years, to a 40-year low.

Especially risible is Pethokoukis’ claim that “household net worth” is $90 trillion. Where is that wealth concentrated? What’s the median and in what direction has it been going? Pethokoukis doesn’t say, perhaps because he knows the answers undermine impression he wants to leave.

Pethokoukis, like a good AEI-nik, would presumably dismiss such concerns as “the politics of envy” or some-such. True Conservatives™ don’t care about income inequality! The aggregate is what matters!

Matters to what? “The Economy?” Oh. Gains accruing to techies and hedge fundies are more than enough to offset losses everywhere else and that’s apparently good enough for Pethokoukis, who—like nearly all economists—bases his case on a narrow economic analysis that ignores the broader political sphere. Here we find another typical misinterpretation of Reagan. The Gipper’s successful policies proved that it’s all about incentives. All hail Homo economicus!

True, incentives matter. What do open borders and trade-giveaways incentivize blue collar workers in the heartland to do? Give up and shoot heroin?

The rest of Pethokoukis’s account is drearily predictable tech-innovation-Schumpeter messianism. Pethokoukis cites Joel Kotkin favorably, without mentioning that Kotkin’s opinions have evolved. Pethokoukis has to channel 1988 Kotkin because the current vintage is more realistic about—and thus more skeptical of—the trends Pethokoukis celebrates.

Pethokoukis makes the highly unoriginal point that “Google, Facebook and Uber” show the continued dynamism of the U.S. economy. This is like John Kerry praising Apollo 11 in his acceptance speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Can’t think of anything to say? Moon shot! Oh, you’re talking about the economy? Google! Is any cliché more tired at this point? Google—actually Alphabet—has made a few people rich but otherwise has depressed high tech wages in Silicon Valley by its relentless importation, and advocacy for same, of foreign programmers who will work for less and transform neighborhoods through over-occupancy. All this to make porn searches more efficient. Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook is even more aggressive about screwing American workers—fwd.usa, anyone?—and his company even more useless. Uber promises to turn unemployed American workers, and untold foreigners, into cab drivers. But you hail them through a smartphone, so it’s high tech! These, and dozens more that Pethokoukis could have mentioned but mercifully did not, are far cries from the robber barons of old, who electrified the nation, linked us by rail, road, sea, and air, and built our greatest monuments. In the process, they employed millions, created wealth for tens of millions more, and improved standards of living for people on every rung of the ladder.

But for Pethokoukis, the true measure of national success is “translat[ing] entrepreneurial daring into wealth.” America is still better at this than other countries, so what’s the worry? At least Mitt Romney—not known for being overly concerned with the working man—worried about our ability to create more entrepreneurs. Pethokoukis just takes for granted that we will keep doing so forever. And what about the people who aren’t entrepreneurs and can’t be? Are they just losers? Does the wealth ever get to trickle down to them? That is, in the form of something other than lower iPhone prices? Pethokoukis’ admonition against questioning the government aside, the government itself admits that it manipulates the Consumer Price Index via the “substitution effect.” Milk prices doubled? We’ll just assume that people are switching to water. (Let them drink water?) Wealth accrues at the top, factories close, jobs disappear, the bottom is strip-mined, and the prices it must pay for daily necessities go up. All Pethokoukis sees is: wealth accrues. Life is good!

Pethokoukis lazily cites highly contested “studies” written to bolster the narrative: immigrants benefit “the economy” (for whom?); illegal immigration is “stable” (stably high?); we now get more immigrants from Asia than from Mexico (that’s a relief! my neighborhood has lots of tacquerias but not enough Thai!). He attributes all objections to “false belief,” an echo of Marx’s “false consciousness.”

Like all conservative Hegelians, Pethokoukis is endorsing, if implicitly, rule by the administrative state. “Truth” derives from scientific principle, which is published in academic “studies.” For their own good, the voters should not be allowed to contravene said “truth.” If the people don’t like current, academically endorsed immigration and trade policies, then the people are wrong. Which is manageable, as long as the political class successfully conspires to thwart their will. But when a “demagogue” comes along who threatens to implement the people’s will, that must be stopped!

Abraham Lincoln famously said there is no right to do wrong. But there is a right to be wrong, when right and wrong are matters of prudential judgment rather than moral imperative. Pethokoukis and like-minded “conservatives” think that open borders and free trade are moral imperatives because they consider their desirability to be scientifically proven, which to them amounts to the same thing. Science is truth, truth science. This is an opinion that predates G.W.F. Hegel, but one that the German philosopher fully articulated for the political realm. In the leftist-Hegelian hive mind of which Pethokoukis is but one drone, the benefits of mass immigration and open trade are true simply; therefore popular objections are illegitimate.

The actual, political truth is that men are free “of all but moral law.” And there is no moral imperative for or against immigration or trade. If the people want them, they may lawfully enact them. If they don’t, they may restrict either, to the extent that their preferences in the moment dictate. Even if a consequence is that their economy contracts.

An economist will gasp at this heresy against his faith. But politics is greater and higher than economics. A failing economy might be a merely economic problem but a failing society is fundamentally a political problem. To the extent that an economy serves itself—and those who run it—and not the population it is supposed to serve is also, fundamentally, a political problem. It may be asking too much of checklist conservatives to see the bigger picture. We don’t after all expect our mechanics to tell us where to drive our cars. That’s what economists are: mechanics of the economy. Useful, even necessary, but limited. They should stick to what they know. Or, at the very least, we should be cautious about heeding them in matters outside their expertise.

The larger questions—what is this for and what are we doing to do?—must be debated by intellectuals, philosophers and statesmen, and decided by the people. Pethokoukis—like all economists—is entitled as a citizen to his opinion and to his vote. But his, and any economist’s, attempt to speak authoritatively about what the people must and may not do, to define which of their opinions are legitimate and which are not, is itself illegitimate.

Anyway, I do not concede that tighter immigration and trade policies will contract the American economy. But even if I knew they would, I would still favor them because I think, at this point, a smaller pie more evenly distributed among fellow citizens is a more urgent priority than a larger pie with every new slice going to the top. That’s to say nothing about all the attendant costs and collateral damage of mass immigration, even if one accepts that it’s always “good for the economy,” which I don’t. And even if I did, I would still support the right of the sovereign people to curtail or stop it at any time, for any reason.

Pethokoukis can’t because he has absorbed the core premises of the Left. “That’s racist!” This points to one of the deepest problems with “conservative intellectualism.” It accepts, out of conviction or fear or both, every restriction the Left places on it. The left rules out-of-bounds any discussion of the cultural or political effects of immigration as “racist,” and the conservatives go along. Hence they can only talk about immigration in economic terms, as if human beings were widgets.

In fact, this particular intellectual rot defines almost all of “conservatism.” It’s allowed the Left to bully the Right out of talking or thinking about so many subjects that all conservatives can rouse themselves to address any more is the economy. They rationalize such a narrow focus by insisting economics trumps all. But the root is fear. Or was. Fear may have caused the initial retreat, but younger “conservatives” raised in the faith actually believe every line of the Leftist creed. Except the parts about redistribution, because Hayek. Also, the donors don’t like it.

This is part of the reason why Pethokoukis scoffs at Trump’s appeal to black voters:

Donald Trump tells black people—typically in front of white people—that because their lives are so horrible and hopeless, they should take a flier and for once vote for the Republican presidential nominee. “What the hell do you have to lose?” Trump said before a suburban Detroit audience last month.

This argument Pethokoukis finds so outrageous that nothing need be said in response or refutation. Here you have “conservative” intellectual and rhetorical surrender in distilled form. For what have liberals, and blacks—and black liberals above all—been telling us for at least 50 years? That black lives are horrible and hopeless. They say this of course to justify massive government spending and social engineering. So that’s OK! But when Trump says the same thing—adopts the liberal premise only to draw a different conclusion—Pethokoukis is outraged, along with all the liberals. The Left has mastered this rhetorical trick and the Right has not only not caught on, it continues to help the Left use it against itself. There are certain things the Left is allowed to say that if the right simply repeats, it proves our “racism” or whatever.

Leftist: “Black lives are horrible.” Ambient culture: “You’re so right, let’s upend all our social, political, cultural and educational arrangements in an effort to improve black lives.”

Anyone else: “Black lives are horrible, but let’s try something else to make them better.” Ambient culture (including most “conservatives”): “How dare you!?! That’s racist! You’re Hitler! Begin your groveling apology now and we might leave you with the prospect of employment in a year or five. Otherwise you’ll never work in this town again.”

This trick is used on any number of topics, race being the most prominent only because it is the Left’s, and the establishment’s, go-to weapon. Like all self-castrated “conservatives,” Pethokoukis goes right along. Whether out of fear or conviction doesn’t even matter anymore.

Either way, he—and all the others like him—are obstacles to the near- and long-term project of saving what’s left of American and Western civilization. To climb out of the hole we’re in, we don’t need liberals, we don’t need cowards, and we don’t need traitors. The former dug the hole in the first place, with ample “conservative” assistance. Need any more be said about the latter two?

But it’s actually worse than that. Pethokoukis at one point makes a casual reference to Trump’s “bigotry” without making any attempt to substantiate the charge. This is a common claim, and tactic, of Trump’s critics on the “right”: call him a racist and just take for granted that all wise and good—that is, all properly indoctrinated readers—will agree and not expect or require any evidence or explanation. This is of course triply-true of readers of the Left-conventional-wisdom factory and anti-conservative-defamation-machine Vox, where the Pethokoukis chose to publish his piece, presumably to reassure the Left that, come what may, he’s not someone they should be going after. (Please!)

To make sure we don’t miss the point, Pethokoukis also refers to my “nativism” and alleged preference for a “paler America.” Get it? Pethokoukis is saying that, like Trump, I too am a “racist.” He’s too timid to use the actual word but he makes sure to get the message across.

For the record, I cop to being a “nativist.” I prefer policies that explicitly favor the existing American citizenry, the people born here, i.e., the natives. I’m somewhat impressed that Pethokoukis and his ilk have managed to redefine this age-old, bedrock political principle as radical and “racist.” It’s like forcing people to say the sky is green—a real propaganda feat, at which hats must be tipped in awe. But acknowledging leftist success as blunt force propagandists doesn’t require accepting the underlying lie.

Following Pethokoukis’ example, we may leave evidence aside because evidence is not the point. The charge of “racism” is—and is intended to be—the worst thing one can say about another human being in 21st century America. From a cultural standpoint, racism is often treated worse than murder. The culture goes absolutely bananas over crimes well short of murder—over acts that are not even crimes at all—if the Left can force a racial interpretation onto the event. It otherwise doesn’t seem to care much about actual murder or anything else. Actual murder has, according to the FBI, spiked by about 1,500 victims since Ferguson and the response is … oh, well. Just don’t you dare say it has anything to do with Black Lives Matter because that would be racist. We also have the amusing spectacle of Hillary Clinton holding out a suspected murder accomplice and baby mama of a drug trafficker as a moral exemplar because Trump once called her fat. See, that’s racist because she’s Hispanic. But her involvement in crime, serious and petty? What? You noticed? That’s racist, too.

As I noted in the “Flight 93” election essay that caused such consternation on the Right, the Left has been calling conservatives racist Nazis since the end of World War II. Increasingly, even the “Right” calls that part of the Right it doesn’t like racist Nazis. To repeat, this is—and is meant to be—the most damning charge one can make about another person’s character in 2016. It’s the ultimate denunciation and insult. It means, “You are vile and a non-person, wholly immoral and without redeeming traits. There is no reasoning with you and no possibility of respectful disagreement. You are simply bad and must at a minimum be shunned, Justice may even require active punishment, not for what you do, but for what I perceive you think.”

And our own side casually throws it in our faces. In this instance, on Vox, where Pethokoukis can be sure the charge will delight his left-leaning audience. “See! Even the ‘conservative’ James Pethokoukis agrees with us that Trump and all his supporters are bigots!”

That’s called giving aid and comfort to the enemy, James. It’s treason. Unless you think Trump and his supporters are your enemies.

If so, I think we’ve finally found some common ground. If you’re going to treat me like an enemy, I may as well start acting like one. As I’ve also written, those of us who still call ourselves “conservatives” are going to have to have big argument. People like Pethokoukis and myself—who appear to have nothing culturally, intellectually, or politically in common any more—are going to end up on opposite sides, to the extent that we aren’t already.

I don’t know James Pethokoukis. But I know lots of “conservatives” just like him: eager, even giddy, to throw anyone ostensibly on their side to the Leftist wolves.

I’m tired of being shot in the back my “friends.” It’s high time to turn around and let them shoot me in the face, in frank acknowledgement that I am their enemy.

Truth is, there’s nothing “conservative” about any of these people. But who cares about the word anymore? If they want to fight like dogs over who gets that bone, let them have it. Read me out of “conservatism.” Actually, you can’t fire me—I quit! If “conservatism” requires going to the wall for open borders, foolish trade deals, endless war, and head-in-the-sand “optimism,” to say nothing of routine denunciation of “racism” that’s far more imagined than real, then I am not conservative. I’ll take “patriotic” and “sane” instead.

As those of us inclined toward this way of thinking desert, or are ejected from, what’s left of “conservatism,” the movement will accelerate its decades-long drift toward ever-closer collaboration with its ostensible opponent. Within the first four years of the second Clinton Administration, don’t be surprised to see “A Conservative Case for Reeducation Camps.” Perhaps James Pethokoukis will write it.

707 replies
  1. Eric Johnson
    Eric Johnson says:

    This reminds me of Jonah Goldberg and his endless rants about the evil destruction of conservatism caused by Trump, yet he gladly admitted four years ago that Romney wasn’t conservative but we should support him anyway because he’ll “owe us one.”

  2. John Ash
    John Ash says:

    I don’t know what is more disturbing. That you write this ridiculous crap or that people pay attention to it.

  3. John Ash
    John Ash says:

    The fact that Decius doesn’t seem to understand the originalist conservative ideals of free trade and immigration is telling. The Trump/Never Trump schism is actually more like a 4 way split, but only the libertarian wing understands what true American conservatism is. It ain’t Decius and it certainly ain’t Trump.

    Decius sullies the Publus name by pretending to be in the same league as James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay or even Alexander Hamilton. His essays are vague, meandering, poorly written and he seems to have little grasp of originalism, history, English writing or economics.

    • And How to Get It
      And How to Get It says:

      “…It ain’t Decius and it certainly ain’t Trump…”

      “…little grasp of … English writing…”
      Hmmmmmm….

        • Brother John
          Brother John says:

          If you’re an English teacher, then I weep for the future literacy of the American citizenry. In fact, I weep for it now. Your comprehension skills are, frankly, atrocious. You rail against Decius time and again, each time demonstrating that you did not understand the point of the essay. You also apparently don’t understand the definition of “troll,” since your motivation looks more like starting grass fires than contributing anything coherent or relevant.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Weep all you want. I weep for the ideas that the various fake conservatives keep trying to inculcate in our children. To a classical liberal, all these stupid side taking over bad ideas is hilarious and idiotic at the same time. Republicans have become the party of small ideas, separated between smack talkers and bloviators who quarrel with each other incessantly.

          • Brother John
            Brother John says:

            So, somehow, you find it sensible to rage against the very people who are pointing out what you cite as the problem?

            Classical liberals do not favor open borders, because liberty isn’t possible within open borders.

            Classical liberals did not simply tinker round the edges for three generations; they threw off tyranny.

            Publius is illustrating again and again the stupid ideas that keep the GOP — and thus, the only party representation of “conservatism,” whatever that is, and classical liberalism — mired in defeat for three generations. They are complicit in their defeat, and they are complicit in trying to destroy the only person in a generation with the courage to say unpleasant things that need to be said.

            I wonder what your concept of an ideal candidate might look like.

            And frankly, I weep for our future literacy because your writing is a mess.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            “Classical liberals do not favor open borders, because liberty isn’t possible within open borders.”

            That is hilariously incorrect. It was incorrect 250 years ago, and incorrect today.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            I find the author’s use of Publius to be both arrogant and offensive to the Founders of the US. They would disagree with him on free trade and immigration for starters. And would be horrified by Donald Trump and is retarded Flight 93 “essay”.

          • Brother John
            Brother John says:

            How do you square the free-immigration idea with the fact that the founders favored decentralization because citizens of one colony were dissimilar enough from one another so as to require a different method of governance? Your cluelessness — as well as your complete inability to present any counter arguments — is showing.

            Look, if your real name is Pethokoukis, and you’re bugged by this, go take it up with Publius. No need to spray your nonsense all over the place here as if this were Slate.com.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Well, first, I don’t buy your assertion that the reason for decentralization was differences in colonies. The reason was because they respected the authority of State governments and the rights of their citizens. Obviously someone like “Decius” doesn’t respect local communities and wants a single tyrannical centralized approach. James Madison was clear that state government had near infinite authority and the Federal government had very little. And that the purpose of the commerce clause was to free trade, not enslave it or administer it, and the purpose of the Naturalization Clause was to protect the government from new immigrants, not to prevent or control immigration.

          • Brother John
            Brother John says:

            Tyrannical, centralized approach? To what, exactly? With the prospect of a Clinton presidency staring us in the face, where are you getting this from?!

            The purpose of the commerce clause was to arbitrate between the states, not to shackle trade or to ensure that Americans are strip-mined of their productivity through the importation of cheap labor and hostile cultures. Your comment about the naturalization clause is just sheer nonsense.

          • bassus
            bassus says:

            So the Founders, who created and governed a nation that (among the citizenry) was mostly British and almost entirely European, would favor modern unending mass immigration? They would favor chain migration and its continuing spread throughout Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America? They’d favor a policy that unquestionably pushes the nation ever more towards the left and away from their principles and the governing document they crafted?

            There is nothing conservative about unending mass immigration. The policy itself is not conservative in any meaningful way, and the demographic and electoral consequences for conservatism are dire.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Your implicitly racist and/or bigoted rant notwithstanding, they were skeptical of mass immigration and decided that government should neither encourage it, nor restrict it, and wisely gave the Congress power over Naturalization in order to create a waiting period for voting and running for office, in order to allow immigrants to acclimate to their new society.

            American conservatism is founded in open migration, to or from anywhere to anywhere else. Oh, what you mean is you want to conserve the “I got here first” mentality, like Adolf Hilter in his 25 National Socialism Planks. You might want to read that.

          • bassus
            bassus says:

            American conservatism is not founded on open migration, but if that was the case, then it would mean conservatism founded on something that is guaranteed to eventually destroy it. It would be a suicidal foundational principle. That mass immigration is importing net new Democrats is undeniable. It’s also entirely predictable and expected. To think most immigrants would embrace conservatism is delusional.

            When you look at history, it’s clear that we have no history of uninterrupted mass immigration. All past waves came to an end, either of their own or as a result of Congressional action. This current one has no end in sight unless Congress ends it. Either they will end it, or conservatism will be demographically buried.

            And there you go, proving one of the author’s points. Someone disagrees with your leftist views on immigration and they are guilty of racism and bigotry, and are also (of course) like Hitler! You just need to cite that poem outside the Statue of Liberty as morally binding on immigration policy, and use the ‘if you’re not a Native American then…’ card and you’ll have used almost all for the standard, cliched arguments on behalf of mass immigration.

            What exactly was “racist” or “bigoted” in my “rant”? Pointing out the absurdity of saying the Founders would support modern day mass immigration doesn’t qualify, unless you take a typically leftist (which is to say absurdly expansive) view of what falls under those terms.

            Congress does have power over immigration and naturalization. That includes the power to restrict it, as was done by conservative Calvin Coolidge and Congress in the 1920s. But I’m sure you’d say the National Origins Quotas were racist and bigoted, and Coolidge wasn’t a real conservative. But what followed was over forty years of low-moderate, assimilation-friendly levels of legal immigration.

            The “I got here first” bit is more nonsense. It might have some validity if I were calling for an end to all immigration, but I’m not. I just want current levels to be significantly reduced, which is a majority view of Republicans (to be reduced that is, the ‘significantly’ part is harder to say) and is often a majority or plurality view of Americans overall. Are we all guilty of harboring Nazi thoughts?

            And if you really want to play that game of guilt by association, then consider that in supporting mass/open immigration, you are siding with pretty much the entire political and cultural left. That never seems to give pause to liberal-on-immigration conservatives like you, though again, the way you throw around the racist/bigot/Hitler nonsense so quickly (like a leftist) I can’t help but wonder how conservative you really are on other issues.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            It is if you aren’t a neo-con. It is the duty of conservatives to educate, not intimidate, not alienate. It is your own fault. Immigrants are drawn to conservatism, and yet you blow it with your hatred, bigotry, xenophobia. You are making them Democrats. They didn’t come as Democrats. Your ignorance does it.

          • bassus
            bassus says:

            Again, what have I said that is hateful, bigoted, and so on with your litany of leftist pejoratives?

            In making this tired, incorrect claim that I/restrictionists are making immigrants into Democrats, you are displaying your own ignorance. Immigrants do indeed arrive predisposed to favor Democrats. There are many reasons for this, and many would exist even if every elected Republican was a Bush-like pandering liberal on immigration.

            Polls show that both Hispanics and Asians hold liberal views on most of the big issues. They favor bigger, more active government. They favor Obamacare. They favor greater gun control/bans. It is only natural that they favor the party championing their views…i.e. Democrats. This is almost certainly true of immigrants from other areas like Africa and the ME as well.

            Most immigration is family-based. So when a new immigrant arrives, who do you think will be more of an influence, their family (who are likely already pro-Democrat) or some opportunity agenda appeal from Paul Ryan? This cycle can only be broken by ending chain migration (something even Rubio claimed to suport doing…is he like Hitler too in a small way?).

            And there is the racial/ethnic angle. While most immigrants don’t arrive thinking about things like racial preferences in college admissions or the application of disparate impact to ever more things, the fact is that they (or their children) will benefit from these things at the expense of whites (and some Asians). So any effort to get rid or or scale back these policies (not that the GOP really tries to roll them back) will be demonized as a racist attack. You can take the high road on race and congratulate yourself for it, but the Democrats will not be so honorable. They play dirty on race because it works.

            Some immigrants are of course drawn to conservatism more than liberalism. But they are a minority, and there is no reason to expect this to change even if conservative views on immigration are silenced.

            And speaking of conservative views on immigration, would you say that the mainstream, possibly majority view of Americans in favor of reducing immigration should receive no political expression?

        • Severn
          Severn says:

          Ah, you’re a member of the parasite class of people whose own jobs enjoy iron-clad job protection. I’ve noticed that the most vociferous supporters of open borders and “free trade” are always people who are themselves completely exempted from ever having to compete with the “workers of the world’.

  4. And How to Get It
    And How to Get It says:

    Terrific article. Please don’t get down or upset by these poltroons, you are invaluable.

  5. jack dobson
    jack dobson says:

    America’s craven conservatives have been dutiful handmaidens of the left-wing so long they no longer realize they aren’t officially part of the actual hive whose mind they either share or obey. Whether it is Stockholm Syndrome or willful blindness is difficult to say. This election has ensured anti-Americanism/ faux conservatism never again will be the electorate’s acceptable loyal opposition to the relentless march to a totalitarian administrative state. America’s enslaved conservatives are Orwell’s indistinguishable pigs seen through a prism, completely interchangeable with their communist masters.
    Excellent work, once again.

    • brian_in_arizona
      brian_in_arizona says:

      Institutional conservatives (those who think and write for a living) have largely embraced the statist model of national government first introduced (in peacetime) by FDR. They often disagree with liberals concerning the actions the state should take to “reform” the American economy and the American people. But they do not shy away from making government (and its handmaiden, the central bank) the focus of American economic, political, and social life.

      It is no accident that institutional conservatives are largely found in places that receive funding primarily from business interests, having been run out of higher education and out of government. (The media no longer has anyone who can actually be described as a “thinker” of any kind.) This puts institutional conservatives in thrall to business interests, especially global corporations, global banks, and domestic crony capitalists…all of whom embrace the statist model of governance upon which they have thrived.

  6. OriginalRS
    OriginalRS says:

    Pethokoukis has been on Larry Kudlow’s saturday radio show every week for weeks now, and always says exactly the same left-wing BS; Trump is “racist”, his supporters are “racist”, blah, blah, blah….blah, blah, blahedy-blah. These open borders, globalist neocons are EXACTLY like the Left; they are WORSE than useless. Stop foisting them onto people as if they have a conservative bone in their body-they don’t.

        • John Ash
          John Ash says:

          Because I’m offended by the author’s combined bad writing, stupid ideas and ridiculous comparisons with his use of Publius. It offends me to my core.

          Without his stolen gravitas, he is just a conventional idiot, easily ignored and entirely harmless.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Nope. I am pointing out that “Decius” is a pussy for not coming out, on one hand, but that he is not intellectually gifted enough to put himself on par with the Founders of this country. He should stop soiling the names of the Founders with this crap.

          • Bill Kristollnacht
            Bill Kristollnacht says:

            You’re living in some idealized past that is a creation of your mind.

            That was 240 years ago.

            What can you do today to make America better tomorrow?

            So far all I see is a man hiding behind a dumpster in an alley throwing empty beer bottles in the direction of some phantom enemy.

            Ever hear the story of the guy smacking a trash can lid on the sidewalk in downtown Washington, DC?

            No? Well I’ll help you out.

            The guy is smashing the trash can lid on the sidewalk making a bunch of noise.

            A man walks up to him and says “why are you doing that?”

            Crazy guy says “I’m keeping the tigers away!”

            Man says “but I don’t see any tigers.”

            Crazy guy says “see, it’s working!”

          • crazy j
            crazy j says:

            I am sure they would be repulsed by your slavish devotion to an idealized group of men that they themselves would not recognize.

  7. John Ash
    John Ash says:

    This is a perfect example of how Decius spends sentence after sentence, paragraph after paragaph meandering and making a 2 paragraph statement into a booooooooring waste of time “essay”.

    • Bill Kristollnacht
      Bill Kristollnacht says:

      How’s your internship over at Weekly Standard going?

      Are you still under Bill Kristol’s desk with your face in his lap?

  8. John Ash
    John Ash says:

    Here’s another ridiculous paragraph in which he claims free trade and economics is based in “fear”, when they are the most fearless of ideals.

    • Severn
      Severn says:

      The US was founded in free trade and open immigration,

      You know less than nothing about American history. The US was founded very explicitly on mercantillism and closed borders. One of the few “enumerated powers” granted Congress in the original Constitution was the power to levy tariffs and import duties – which was the principle source of revenue for the federal government for the first hundred years of its existence.

      • John Ash
        John Ash says:

        Oh really. Please provide evidence of this, considering that the Declaration of Independence was explicitly anti-mercantilism and pro-migration.

        The power over commerce was partially to fund the country, but explicitly to promote interstate and international trade.

  9. John Ash
    John Ash says:

    Here’s a great paragraph where, like an old man, he bangs his cane and moves the goal posts –

    “ut it’s actually worse than that. Pethokoukis at one point makes a casual reference to Trump’s “bigotry” without making any attempt to substantiate the charge. This is a common claim, and tactic, of Trump’s critics on the “right”: call him a racist and just take for granted that all wise and good—that is, all properly indoctrinated readers—will agree and not expect or require any evidence or explanation. This is of course triply-true of readers of the Left-conventional-wisdom factory and anti-conservative-defamation-machine Vox, where the Pethokoukis chose to publish his piece, presumably to reassure the Left that, come what may, he’s not someone they should be going after. (Please!)”

    Apparently completely incapable of understanding the difference between Trump’s bigotry and racism and accusing Pethokoukis of calling Trump a “racist” when he called him a bigot. And calling Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers is, in fact, actual bigotry. It isn’t racist, because Mexican isn’t a race. Things, apparently, that need to be explained.

  10. John Ash
    John Ash says:

    “Nor am I all that impressed that, according to Pethokoukis, “the labor force has grown by 2.4 million” over the same period—when it has shrunk by 14 million over the last eight years, to a 40-year low.”

    Decius’ assertion is obviously incorrect. It has not shrunk by that much and it is not a “40 year low”. It may have reached a 10 year low, but as Pethokoukis points out, is now at a record high.

    “United States Employed Persons 1950-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar
    The number of employed persons in The United States increased to 151614 Thousand in August of 2016 from 151517 Thousand in July of 2016. Employed Persons in the United States averaged 103140.97 Thousand from 1950 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 151614 Thousand in August of 2016 and a record low of 57635 Thousand in January of 1950. Employed Persons in the United States is reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.”

    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/employed-persons

  11. John Ash
    John Ash says:

    Here’s a good one –

    “Pethokoukis lazily cites highly contested “studies” written to bolster the narrative: immigrants benefit “the economy” (for whom?); illegal immigration is “stable” (stably high?); we now get more immigrants from Asia than from Mexico (that’s a relief! my neighborhood has lots of tacquerias but not enough Thai!). He attributes all objections to “false belief,” an echo of Marx’s “false consciousness.””

    First, simply say that your opponent’s studies are crap and not even real studies, purposefully skewed to reach a conclusion, yet “conservatives” happily cite structurally flawed studies to “prove” how immigration is dangerous and damaging.

    And, of course, hey, crack a joke about foreign food, because, hey, I guess Thai food finding its niche is dangerous and wrong.

    • Mace Dindu
      Mace Dindu says:

      You don’t need studies to prove how immigration is damaging. Just living near the border proves it pretty conclusively. Unless you like poverty and crime, of course.

  12. John Ash
    John Ash says:

    “Like all conservative Hegelians, Pethokoukis is endorsing, if implicitly, rule by the administrative state. ”

    In which he simply constructs a strawman based on pure projection, and states that his opponent wants more regulation, rather than, actually LESS. Apparently, Dec doesn’t understand that controlled, corrupt trade and controlled borders require MORE administration than free trade and free immigration.

    • Severn
      Severn says:

      What the “conservatives” consider “free trade” in in fact corrupt and state managed trade. There’s a reason why all these “free trade bills” run to tens of thousands of pages in length.

      • John Ash
        John Ash says:

        That is partially true, however, it is precisely because most of these countries, and we ourselves, have massively corrupt trade laws in order to deny free trade. For instances, the NTHSA and EPA have the unstated mission of protecting American car manufacturers fro external competition.

  13. John Ash
    John Ash says:

    “Pethokoukis and like-minded “conservatives” think that open borders and free trade are moral imperatives because they consider their desirability to be scientifically proven, which to them amounts to the same thing. Science is truth, truth science. This is an opinion that predates G.W.F. Hegel, but one that the German philosopher fully articulated for the political realm. In the leftist-Hegelian hive mind of which Pethokoukis is but one drone, the benefits of mass immigration and open trade are true simply; therefore popular objections are illegitimate.”

    Again, the irony is that controlled immigration is a socialist or national socialist idea, which is why the US wisely attempted to avoid it and, in fact, listed controlled immigration as a reason for revolution.

    But, of course, he completely ducks the Natural Rights argument, and the Constitutional one as well. The Feds have zero authority over immigration, and that is because migration is a Natural Right, and also because the US was founded as a Natural Rights, open immigration country, a world-wide refuge from bad government.

    • Severn
      Severn says:

      the US was founded as a Natural Rights, open immigration country, a world-wide refuge from bad government.

      God knows you lefties are generally historically ignorant, but that’s an Orwellian rewriting of history. You might as well be telling us “Hitler was a great friend and admirer of the Jews” as serving up that slop.

      The writings of the Founders are all freely available online. Those writings contradict your absurd allegations in every respect.

      • John Ash
        John Ash says:

        First of all, I’m not a leftist. I’m a Jeffersonian conservative.

        Please quote the Founders rebutting my assertion. I’ll have my own quotes at the ready.

        • Severn
          Severn says:

          Your entire knowledge of Jefferson could be written on the back of a postage stamp. You’re not a conservative of ANY sort. The US Constitution – written by, you may recall, the Founders – explicitly gives the federal government the right to determine who enters the country.

          • Severn
            Severn says:

            Thomas Jefferson was a slave-owner. If he believed in “Natural Rights” then they were clearly not “rights” of the sort you have on your mind. if you bother to look at TJ’s opinions of other groups of people this is made even more clear. Here he is discussing that we would today call “Hispanics”.

            “I wish I could give better hopes of our southern brethren. The achievement of their independence of Spain is no longer a question. But it is a very serious
            one, what will then become of them? Ignorance and bigotry, like other insanities, are incapable of self-government. They will fall under military
            despotism, and become the murderous tools of the ambition of their respective
            Bonapartes; and whether this will be for their greater happiness, the rule of one only has taught you to judge.”

            And here he is again

            “[Is] rapid population [growth] by as great importations of foreigners as
            possible… founded in good policy?… They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their number, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass… If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements.”

            Of course Jefferson was hardly the only Founder or the only exponent of “classical liberalism. Let’s see what George Washington has to say.

            My opinion, with respect to emigration, is, that except of useful Mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions, there is no need of encouragement: while the policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word, soon become one people.

            Not all classical liberals were Americans. Let’s check out J.S. Mill ..

            “Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist. The influences which form opinions and decide political acts are different in the different sections of the country. An altogether different set of leaders have the confidence of one part of the country and of another. The same books, newspapers, pamphlets, speeches, do not reach them. One section does not know what opinions, or what
            instigations, are circulating in another. The same incidents, the same acts, the same system of government, affect them in different ways; and each fears more injury to itself from the other nationalities than from the common arbiter, the state. Their mutual antipathies are generally much stronger than jealousy of the government. …For the preceding reasons, it is in general a necessary condition of
            free institutions that the boundaries of governments should coincide in
            the main with those of nationalities.”

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            How do you think this backs up your point? First of all, the Mexicans had to create their own government from scratch, something they really had no experience or education to do, he was simply saying that they needed a political structure as he had no faith they could create it themselves.

            In the next quote, he simply was saying that the government should not TRY to convince people to immigrate, because clearly, people had proposed just that. He repeatedly stated that the US should accept immigrants who come of their own volition.

            As for Mill, that is a good argument against the European Union, not against a country with an existing national language that immigrants adopt.

          • Severn
            Severn says:

            My point is that Jefferson (who was not “the Founders” as you seem to wish) did not think the thoughts you are projecting onto him. He did not believe in your version of “natural rights”, which is why he was a slave holder. he saw different people as different, and different peoples as very different, and he most certainly did not ever envisage an America to which the people of Africa, Asia, and South America would be able to come whenever they wished it.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            “Our ancestors… possessed a right, which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societies, under such laws and regulations as, to them, shall seem most likely to promote public happiness.”
            –Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:185, Papers 1:121

            “Shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The Constitution, indeed, has wisely provided that for admission to certain offices of important trust a residence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us?”
            –Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:338

            “It [has] been the wise policy of these states to extend the protection of their laws to all those who should settle among them of whatever nation or religion they might be and to admit them to a participation of the benefits of civil and religious freedom, and… the benevolence of this practice as well as its salutary effects [has] rendered it worthy of being continued in future times.”
            –Thomas Jefferson: Proclamation, 1781. Papers 4:505

            “Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular.”
            –Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

        • Caleb T Taylor
          Caleb T Taylor says:

          http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa02.htm
          You should read The Federalist Papers: “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.” -John Jay

    • Brother John
      Brother John says:

      Migration is a natural right? Ridiculous. Complete BS, all the way through. The United States is our home, and as such, we the people of the United States have the absolute right to determine who enters our nation. If you think otherwise, I suggest you open your own home to some unvetted Syrian “refugees.”

      • John Ash
        John Ash says:

        Thanks for displaying your ignorance of Natural Rights and the Foundation of America.

        You have no absolute right to tell me who may come to visit me, because it’s absolutely none of your business.

        • Brother John
          Brother John says:

          I think for the sake of consistency, you ought to admit anyone who shows up at your door. As far as “rights,” no one outside the United States who is not a citizen has the right to enter at his will. If he did, we wouldn’t be a sovereign nation, and you go right ahead and try to maintain the Constitution under circumstances like those.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            I have the choice. If I want to rent to and employ an immigrant, that is my RIGHT as an American citizen and as a HUMAN.

            If you knew anything at all about the US, you’d know it isn’t actually a nation, but a federal republic and therefore, your thoughts about what a nation is don’t apply whatsoever.

          • Brother John
            Brother John says:

            Apparently, you have a hard time with logic. Setting aside the question of whether or not it’s Constitutional for the Congress to control immigration, what sense would fifty immigration policies make with freedom of movement between fifty states? Haven’t you paid any attention to the stupidity in Europe the last year? Fifty tax policies, yes; fifty death penalty laws, yes; fifty marriage policies, yes. Not fifty immigration policies. That makes no sense. Think before you write.

    • Mace Dindu
      Mace Dindu says:

      Private ownership of land is incompatible with natural rights, so this nation never enshrined natural rights.

  14. Severn
    Severn says:

    The NeverTrumpers are people who think Obama has been a pretty good president, all in all, and who would be content with more of the same for the next four to eight years. Their own words make this clear – many of them have spoken much more highly of Obama than they have of Trump.

    “All hail Obama!: – Bill Kristol.

    They rarely come out and express themselves quite as bluntly as Kristol has, but you don’t exactly need to read between the lines to notice where they’re coming from. They – and the donor class which pays their ample salaries – have been making out very well for several years now. They’re basically “court intellectuals”, whose mission in life is to sell the views of the aristocracy to the peasants, not to represent the peasants to the aristocracy.

    • Carl Eric Scott
      Carl Eric Scott says:

      Keep whacking away at those imaginary NeverTrumpers in your head. Decius takes on a specific person, and despite a few points I disagree with–SO tired of this endless and mindless repetition of the “endless wars” charge–, and he delivers a powerful critique, and a needed dividing of ways. But you make up stuff about Bill Kristol, and act as if everyone who is anti-Trump, or as the phrase has it, NeverTrump, is precisely the same. Those Amgreatness readers who want to grapple with real anti-Trump arguments, ones that do not come from the sad likes of Pethokoukis, try Pete Spiliakos at NRO today http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440674/2016-presidential-race-conservatives-donald-trump-democratic-party-republican-party, or go back to my “Donald Trump, the Greater Evil” column from the summer.

      • John Ash
        John Ash says:

        But that is precisely the point. “Decius” isn’t taking a principled stance, he just doesn’t like any facts or opinions that contradict American Nationalism and closed borders. So he had a temper tantrum over someone’s column.

  15. Severn
    Severn says:

    The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine recently released the results of a study which found that mass immigration is a net economic loss to the tune of $296 billion per year. Even by federal government standards, that’s a LOT of money.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/21/mass-immigration-costs-govt-296-billion-year-natio/

    The open borders crowd rarely even attempt to pretend that their preferred policies make any economic sense for the country. (As opposed to putting a great deal of money in the pockets of the open borders supporters themselves) The most frequent “argument” I see nowdays for open borders and “free trade” is that, while it does indeed make the American middle class worse off, we have to do it anyway – because it makes poor Chinese and Indians richer and that’s the moral thing to do!

    This is “limousine-libertarianism” … the wish to feather ones own nest while posing as being morally virtuous.

  16. Severn
    Severn says:

    The open borders position is explicitly racist, and you rarely have to listen to open borders supporters for very long before their viciously anti-white-gentile bias bubbles to the surface.

      • Severn
        Severn says:

        Tell me more about your campaign to get Israel to open its borders. After all, migration is a “Natural Right”, isn’t it?

        If Country X is populated by “Xians”, and you are pushing a policy explicitly designed to make the “Xians” a minority in country X, then you’re clearly biased against the Xians. Plug in the name of some other people/countries and this becomes clear enough.

        • John Ash
          John Ash says:

          Israel shouldn’t even exist as a country, though it’s a little late for that. We should have welcomed all of those Jews with open arms to strengthen our country.

          With a properly functioning Constitution, the make up of the populace doesn’t matter.

          • disqus_iu2NgbFdFH
            disqus_iu2NgbFdFH says:

            “With a properly functioning Constitution, the make up of the populace doesn’t matter.”

            Such a statement is unmitigated madness born of a profound ignorance of history and human nature,

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            How so? It worked perfectly for the first 100 years. At no time were immigrants a threat to the government of the US. The biggest threat at all times was the people born here.

          • Brother John
            Brother John says:

            You said earlier, “with the Constitution properly functioning, the population makeup doesn’t matter.”

            That’s demonstrable nonsense. Will the Constitution work in an Islamic land? No, of course not. The culture of a people is absolutely vital. Nice bit of disdain you show for the founder John Adams, who insisted — and quite rightly so — that the Constitution is fit only for the governance of a moral and religious people, and is inadequate for the governance of any other.

            Furthermore, you don’t know your history. The “Great Wave” into the United States brought us our first “anarchists,” Marxists, and Mediterranean-style troublemakers. Had that “wave” never happened, the likes of Wilson would never have been anywhere near the White House.

            Even furthermore, the idea that immigration is a net plus to the United States is even more complete nonsense. Why would you screw your own populace by introducing downward wage pressure? I’ll tell you — cheap labor, and a perpetual underclass that votes Democrat forever. Which is what we’ve got.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            First, of course it will, if in force. Because those that violated the rights of others would be jailed, and the government wouldn’t be beheading people for being gay or other dumb reasons.

            As far as John Adams, he was a sad and insecure President, unlike Washington, Jefferson, Madison. Even he didn’t try to make immigration illegal.

            And, again, you can’t blame the voters for a Supreme Court that refuses to do its job.

            Do you know that lower wages means lower priced goods and services? You need to stop thinking that money matters. It is productivity.

          • Brother John
            Brother John says:

            You are a troll. You really should give your meds more time to kick in before you carry on, since you’re making a mess of every comment thread that you pi$$ all over.

          • Brother John
            Brother John says:

            Typical leftist nonsense. Presented with a quote from a historical figure, go ahead and trash his character. But at least he didn’t own slaves!

            And yes, I can blame the voters for a Supreme Court that doesn’t do its job. The Court is to protect the Constitution; we wouldn’t have so many fools, Marxists, and traitors on the court were the voters more fully educated.

            If wages are driven downward artificially, that connection you suggest is broken. Haven’t you noticed the funny games that the Feds play with the money supply, the unemployment rate, the CPI, etc..

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            John Adams famously had bad character. He was a great lawyer, but petty and insecure person who passed signed one of the worst laws in the history of the nation. And again, even he didn’t try make an immigration law. Because here is zero authority for it. And less support.

            So your case is that Americans are too stupid to enforce their Constitutions, and that’s why we need to blame immigrants. BRILLIANT.

          • Brother John
            Brother John says:

            Whatever you want to say about Adams does not change the fact that his statement on the Constitution is absolutely true.

            And the idea that there’s less than zero support for immigration control? Where’s your head been these past two decades?

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            “There was zero authority”. The Founders never even discussed it. They knew that no state would accept that level of dominion over their population, least of all the slave states. That’s why it was and remains unconstitutional for the Feds to involve themselves in it.

          • Brother John
            Brother John says:

            If you’re going to keep ignoring Article I, Section 8, which gives the Congress the power to establish uniform naturalization laws, then I don’t know how anyone can hold an intelligent discussion with you. I wish you would take your idiotic trolling elsewhere.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Okay, define “naturalization”. Now show me the word “immigration”. Why didn’t the Naturalization Laws ever mention immigration? Ever wonder? No, of course you didn’t and now you are feeling intense cognitive dissonance.

            This why “conservatives” are simply to ignorant, too uneducated, too irrational to be entrusted with government or the Constitution anymore.

          • Brother John
            Brother John says:

            In your view, the American people are utterly powerless to control settlement in their own land. Brilliant. Your “natural law” idiocy will collapse under the weight of the barbarian horde, as it is doing in Europe at this moment.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Nice dodge. And clearly, not only do you not understand the Constitution, but you don’t even know the difference between Natural Law and Natural Rights, you ignorant twit. Geesus, Conservatives used to be the smartest people and now they are the dumbest. #winning.

          • Brother John
            Brother John says:

            Obviously, the practical aspects of human nature are a complete mystery to you. Not only is that the practical result of your idiocy, but the Constitution will cease to exist if you do not exercise discretion over whom you permit to settle. It barely exists now as it is — you invite hordes with no similar traditions, it will be gone permanently in a generation.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Again, show me the historical damage done to the Constitution and contrast that with that done by American citizens themselves. In fact, admitting foreigners that can handle basic logic and language may be the only way of saving the Constitution from uneducated Americans.

          • Johannessen
            Johannessen says:

            um, when written Naturalization and Immigration had the same meaning (and you could readily argue that they still do). An immigrant who wants to become a citizen goes through the process of…..Naturalization.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Bzzzzt. Incorrect. Please provide any proof of this and then when you can’t, I’ll smash it like a bug. Give it your best shot.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            I strenuously disagree with Adams. All it takes is an ETHICAL society, that understands the golden rule. That’s all it takes. Morality is arbitrary. Religion is beyond arbitrary and actually superstitious. It’s kind of amusing that people who say “oh, no, my religions is first, I’m an American second” lecture me, when I put the Constitution and Natural Rights ahead of everything, especially my personal fantasies about greater powers.

          • Brother John
            Brother John says:

            All this is arbitrary, and yet you insist on a government based on “natural rights?” Your trolling leaves you less and less coherent with every post.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Natural Rights is not arbitrary. It is the product of great minds and extensive reasoning. Beats an imaginary skygod who goes around killing people in floods while saying “thou shalt not kill”. Dumbdeedumbdumb.

          • Brother John
            Brother John says:

            Great minds and extensive reasoning led to gas chambers. Meanwhile, if your “skygod” were to say “Don’t kill, but I may,” being God, that’s not exactly a contradiction.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Well, screw God then. Maybe that’s the basis of conservatism. You get to tell others how to live, but you are exempted. This is why Natural Rights is the foundation of the Constitution and not religion. One is rational, the other is made up crap and traditions from uneducated people.

          • Brother John
            Brother John says:

            There’s another shining example of your reading comprehension skills. That’s got nothing to do with exempting oneself from laws — which our Congress does all the time, if you’ll note. You should resign your teaching job today, if this is your idea of coherent thought.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            I see you couldn’t dispute my point about Natural Rights. And Congress has no authority to exempt itself so…..blame yourself.

          • mrdoug1
            mrdoug1 says:

            I’m disputing it. You absolutely ignore and leave out and miss the very basis for those natural “unalienable” rights per the Founders. You can’t just cut that out because you don’t like it.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            I can, because those rights exist either way. God is not required for Natural Rights. it’s why we don’t call them “God’s Rights”.

          • mrdoug1
            mrdoug1 says:

            You’re missing, big time, what the Founders believed the source of those “natural rights” is. i.e., our Creator, i.e., God.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Wrong. They are conditionally attributed to God, but in fact, they are rights we divined for ourselves and exist with or without the existence of God.

          • Johannessen
            Johannessen says:

            ah, so this is really your animus. You have such disdain for religion that anything good done in the name of that religion you will say “nope, not for the religion, just for the ethical good” so that anything that bad happens you can blame that squarely on religion itself. Good to know you disdain people who believe in a higher power.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            I don’t have disdain for religion, just idiots who think it is more important than ethics or the Constitution.

          • mrdoug1
            mrdoug1 says:

            Bingo. Such as I’ve heard atheist leftists (redundant, actually) argue that the Holocaust must be laid at the feet of Christianity because Hitler was, nominally, a Christian. And Stalin as well because he was born Catholic. These people are so incredibly dishonest it’s almost hard to comprehend.

          • Sean
            Sean says:

            And they’ve been getting their revenge on us ever since, whether by drawing up the 1965 immigration act that was designed to undermine our political and demographic power (which is succeeding wonderfully), mass-producing culture that attacks our values, or leading the legal charge against our religion and family structure.

          • Sean
            Sean says:

            Nothing I said was untrue. You need a better comeback than a scary label, because they will not win your arguments for you.

          • Sean
            Sean says:

            No, I simply haven’t said anything you have a decent rebuttal for. Because it’s all true.

            Listen, John. You’re in the comments section of an author whose last several articles have been all about lambasting people who throw around words like ‘Nazi’ and ‘bigot’ in lieu of actual substantive arguments. You *have* to come up with a better argument than a bunch of scary labels, because this is the last place you’re likely to impress anyone with them.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Sure, bigots don’t like to be called bigots. I understand that. But when you advocate separating people or being “pro” one type of people, then you are just a vulgar asshole.

          • Sean
            Sean says:

            Dude, you don’t get it. It’s not that people on this site don’t like being called bigots, we just don’t care. It doesn’t mean anything to anyone anymore.

            None of your scary words work on people who don’t care what you think about them. Listen to what I’m telling you: you have to have an argument that works on its own merits, because people who don’t care about your opinion of them will not be moved by your ad homs. I know it bugs you, but nothing you’ve said has even remotely upset anyone here.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Well, I wouldn’t expect it to that much. The “best” and most dangerous “bigots” are ones that have rationalized their bigotry and feel no shame in it. That’s when they become irredeemable and deplorable. I just like pointing it out, because it’s important.

          • Sean
            Sean says:

            I think you like bringing it up because you have literally no other argument to make.

            You’re an anonymous guy talking to other anonymous people on the internet. You’re going to have to engage the arguments we make or come to accept the fact that your ad homs fall on deaf ears. Can you make an argument? Are you capable of that?

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            The argument is that “conservatives” will break the Constitution for bigotry or hate, every time.

          • Sean
            Sean says:

            That isn’t an argument, that’s an assertion comprised of ad hominems and vague terms, i.e. whatever it means to “break” the Constitution, or “bigotry” or “hate.” I don’t seem to recall there being anything in the Constitution that legally requires “love” (whatever that means) while outlawing “hate” (whatever that means).

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Because of the way the police act towards black people, both criminal and innocent. The incarceration rates, the death rates, etc.

          • Sean
            Sean says:

            The incarceration rates reflect the higher rates at which they commit crimes, not bias in the system. They reflect a system responding appropriately to different groups that behave differently.
            The death rates are entirely self-inflicted. And studies show cops are twice as likely to shoot a white suspect in a tense situation as a black suspect. When police departments make their cops wear cameras, the number of complaints about police brutality decline drastically. Why? Partially because cops are on their best behavior, but mainly because perps can no longer lie about their treatment.

            No part of BLM’s narrative actually reflects reality.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            As true as that may be, it doesn’t matter to someone who is an innocent minority and is being shaken down by a jackbooted majority asshole. It feels worse than when you’re a white guy getting shaken down. And 200 million white people complaining that some brown people want to move here doesn’t have much validity to it.

          • Paul Frantizek
            Paul Frantizek says:

            Yes, he seems blind to the contradiction between natural rights and a utilitarian ‘ethical good’.

            If we’re ‘divining it ourselves’ through rationalistic means then it’s not what is conventionally understood as natural rights.

          • mrdoug1
            mrdoug1 says:

            The “natural rights” upon which our founding documents are based are, explicitly, rights endowed by our Creator. So you obviously consider the Founders and Framers of the Declaration and Constitution to be stupid idiots because of their, in general, believe in a “skygod” who bestowed on us unalienable rights.

          • mrdoug1
            mrdoug1 says:

            If you put the Constitution first, it is impossible for you to also support either Obama or Hillary Clinton. The two are mutually exclusive.

          • Sean
            Sean says:

            “All it takes is an ETHICAL society, that understands the golden rule. That’s all it takes.”

            A) It takes far more than that.
            B) That’ll never happen anyway.
            C) You’re angry because the world doesn’t conform to your pipe-dream ideal. Grow up.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Religion has done nothing but keep people separated and has created all kinds of evil in the country. Religion needs to accept free will and tolerance.

          • Sean
            Sean says:

            A) Religion also brings people together.
            B) There’s nothing wrong with separating people.
            C) ‘Religion’ is a vague term that can mean just about anything.
            D) You have a risibly shallow understanding of how religion works (I’m not even Christian and I can see that).

          • Sean
            Sean says:

            That doesn’t even make sense.

            John, you’re griping about the need to unite people, meanwhile you’re just a guy who’s probably typing away at a public library computer in the middle of the day, without a social life. “Uniting” people won’t make your life any better.

            Besides which, “unite” people behind whose banner?

          • mrdoug1
            mrdoug1 says:

            Obama is a petty and insecure person, too. He also shoved through one of the worst laws in the history of the nation. And he routinely disregards, ignores and gives the middle finger to the Constitution. I’ll take Adams any day.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Rather than educate the American people, let alone anyone else, you just scapegoat immigrants and call it conservativism. That’s why there is no American Greatness left.

          • Brother John
            Brother John says:

            Pure idiocy. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the definition of “scapegoat.” With so many people unable to separate their own interests from larger questions of policy and principle, one wonders how deep in the United States your roots are.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Oh, I know what scapegoat means, and that’s why I chose it. I don’t have “my interests”, I am concerned about returning us to a Natural Rights government. Something modern “conservatives” can’t understand because they are ignorant and indoctrinated.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Natural Rights, if it is to have an ethnic or regional growth area, is in the latin and African countries. They are embracing the freedoms we have long ago abandoned. The Libre Initiative, the Coherente movement, various independent movements.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Sure, and people are rebelling against them. There is going to be extreme evolution over the next 20 years in these countries.

          • AndRebecca
            AndRebecca says:

            They are embracing communist dictatorships in Africa and South America. And they are being murdered by the millions if they disagree with the Leftist thugs running their countries. The cities in S.A. and Africa have the highest violent crime rates in the world and corruption from top to bottom.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Nothing changes overnight, but libertarian parties are being formed to combat socialism. Venezuelans are finally waking up to the reality and so are many others.

          • AndRebecca
            AndRebecca says:

            Yeah right. The followers of Ayn Rand, aka Alisa Rosenbaum from Russia are going to change the world…She did do drugs or so I’ve read. Is that your thing?

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            i really wouldn’t know, I don’t know much about her, nor have read any of her books. She hated libertarians.

          • AndRebecca
            AndRebecca says:

            You don’t seem to know much of anything but that doesn’t stop you from spewing out your uninformed views including Ayn Rand hated libertarians…I think Atlas is really shrugging right now.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            [Question] Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?

            [Rand] Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they
            hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.

          • AndRebecca
            AndRebecca says:

            I have never heard that Rand quote. Some of the Libertarians I know of say they got their ideas from Rand and idolize her… Some Libertarians seem to be O.K., but a whole bunch of them are not. Conservative Americans believe the Founders got it right. Libertarians don’t believe that. Rand seems to be more of an old-style atheist who believed in some sort of morals, while the Libertine-arians are against all laws, especially the ones regarding indecent behavior. The Founders were very much for both laws and morals. They didn’t believe a people could be free without Biblical morals. Rand’s married lover Nathaniel Branden AKA Nathan Blumenthal wrote a book about her where he claimed he “created” her and she didn’t do it on her own. Both of them were friends with other Eastern Europeans and supported many of their ideas which were anti-Christian and anti-moral.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Actual Libertarians are precisely of the mind of Thomas Jefferson. We do believe they got it right, and that includes open borders.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            I’ll be glad to quote it. First, admit that you are ignorant and lazy and therefore need people to explain and prove history to you.

          • AndRebecca
            AndRebecca says:

            You can’t quote it so you resort to name calling. But, you make yourself sound totally ignorant so keep replying.

          • CosmotKat
            CosmotKat says:

            “you just scapegoat immigrants and call it conservativism.”
            What person on the right scapegoats immigrants and calls it conservatism? That’s what progressives do. Most Americans just want immigration laws upheld. That’s not conservatism that’s intellectual honesty. Are you dumb or just really naive?

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Pretty much all of them. They blame them for the lack of jobs, low wages, etc, etc, yet, somehow, that never happened during the 80s or 90s, because the economy didn’t suck because government didn’t suck like it does today.

          • CosmotKat
            CosmotKat says:

            No, like open borders, a Democratic administration using tax payer money to support Islamic terrorism, out of control spending, lies, disinformation and inept progressive policies.

          • CosmotKat
            CosmotKat says:

            It’s open under the current administration and in fact the President is sending invitations to break our laws all the time. Hitler was proud of his association with the Democratic party and especially fond of the party’s eugencs program.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            And now Republicans proudly parrot Democrat policies. Again, you miss the point. We thrived under open borders for 100 years, but then the Chinese started coming and they worked hard and created businesses. And that scared European Americans.

          • CosmotKat
            CosmotKat says:

            False narrative, pal and I don’t miss points if they are made and so far you haven’t made a point.. What open borders? The immigration policies of the 19th and early 20th century allowed immigration through lawful means. Since the 1965 immigration act the borders have been flooded by illegals and this is the fault of Democrat policies. The Chinese were like any other immigrant group they paid their dues and discrimination toward them was a bi-partisan issue, but hardly different from how the Irish, the Italians and any other ethnic group who reached our shores. the Mexicans and the Muslims have been treated differently. Scared Europeans? That’s ignorant.

          • Gwynn Ap Nudd
            Gwynn Ap Nudd says:

            Homogeneity is strength and diversity is weakness. Obviously if America was still 200 million and 90% White, we’d be much better off. But your freedom loving Hebrews wanted a polygot Empire. After all, the weaker we are, the stronger they are.

          • Gwynn Ap Nudd
            Gwynn Ap Nudd says:

            Read Sir John Glubb. Most regimes only last 200-250 years. In Great Civilizations, another regime rises, usually within a hundred years and a few hundred miles away. But when America falls, it falls for good. Far too much diversity. There’s just no there there anymore. Nothing in common. Hopefully Whites can grab a chunk or two for themselves and build America 2.0 – avoiding the mistakes of the last time, like open borders and minorities.

          • akulkis
            akulkis says:

            It’s not a race, it’s a RELIGION. A system of beliefs… specific ally, a system of beliefs that advocates that the Constitution is a suicide pact for whites.

          • akulkis
            akulkis says:

            Gwen…minor correction. The Jews are NOT Hebrews. The Hebrew relig is guided ONLY by the Old Testament, and most significantly the Torah (aka the Pentateuch — the first 5 books of the Bible). JUDAISM is a satanic heresy, which holds “the [Babylonian] Talmud” as SUPERIOR to the Pentateuch…supposedly to “explain” what the Pentetauch means… but most of these “explanations” lead to utterly immoral conclusions. It’s all Hasbara.

          • akulkis
            akulkis says:

            You are too stupid for this conversation.

            Either that, or you are a pathological liar.

            While we do not have Open Border de jure, we sure as hell do have Open Borders de facto.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            You’re too racist for this conversation. Black markets find a way, you can’t outlaw natural human behavior successfully. Not ever.

          • akulkis
            akulkis says:

            ! MILLION plu IT workers out of work… while we have 1.5 Million H1-Bs in IT jobs…many of them ENTRY LEVEL and just-above entry-level… when the H1-B visa law SPECIFICALLY states that the H10B visa is to be used ONLY for people with rarte skills which cannot be found in the U.S.

            And now, recently, McDonalds corporate headquarters fired 80 accountants and replaced them with 80 Indian H1-B accountants — again, in complete violation of the H1-B law…. because H10B law SPECIFICALLY states that the law shall not EVER be used to replace an already-employed American worker — if the person is working for you, then you HAVE found the talent you’re looking for, and have absolutely NO NEED for an H1-B visa employee with “unobtainable tant or skills”

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Do you know how many IT jobs are being created around the world? People need to think globally. Americans are putting up IT all over and they need people.

          • TrainedHistorian
            TrainedHistorian says:

            The laws of supply and demand work regardless of individuals. Smearing people for “blaming immigrants” because they want to limit the extent of low-skilled immigration into an economy that no longer rewards low skilled labor with high real wages is as fair as smearing them for “blaming immigrants” for the force of gravity.

            The laws of supply and demand work regardless of blame, and they prove that we do have not have a shortage of low-skilled work for well over 30 years.

          • akulkis
            akulkis says:

            For a while, I was working, basically, as a glorified garbage man at a local mall. EVERY morning the number of dirty diapers left in the parking lot was appalling. I can tell you EXACTLY where they came from… Middle Eastern, Mexican and Central American women. I’ve SERVED in the army in those regions, and that’s how they behave… Don’t want something… just drop it on the ground. How can you tell if a ghetto neighborhood has been taken over by Mexican who have pushed out the blacks? DIRTY DIAPERS all over the streets.

            These people are utterly UNCIVILIZED, and do not belong here.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Wow, you can just smell a diaper and know the race of the person that left it. THAT IS AMAZING!!!!

          • Peter Henderson
            Peter Henderson says:

            If we are all immigrants, as people of your persuasion are fond of saying, then Trump is not “scapegoating” immigrants but a couple narrow subsets of immigrants. America has the same right to vet immigrants as other countries. Our country is too precious to become a giant homeless shelter. You are the bigot in that you think our mainly Anglo-Saxon culture has no value, no distinctiveness, no right to preserve itself, but I bet you sympathize with the minorities having their cultural festivals and history months.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            That’s the problem when you think some people have fewer and lesser rights than others based on stupid, bigoted reasons.

          • TrainedHistorian
            TrainedHistorian says:

            Mass immigration, like all forms of population growth, most certainly does not make housing (aka land) cheaper. Never has, never will.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            And that is often offset by less expensive building methods, less expensive labor, more apartment buildings. Do you know we have millions and millions of unused apartments and housing units, capable of handing tens of millions of immigrants?

          • Johannessen
            Johannessen says:

            I don’t know where you are, but in Minnesota, our vacancy rate for apartments is less than 1% and renting a room (just a room, not even an actual apartment) is generally $600/month. We also have a negative inventory of starter homes (100,000-160,000), so i’m not sure where these millions of units are, but certainly not anywhere that i’ve ever lived.

          • Johannessen
            Johannessen says:

            i feel for you. Makes me wonder even more where all of John’s millions of vacant apartments and homes are. If they existed, it would lower the average price for everyone, which is sorely needed.

          • dreamfeed
            dreamfeed says:

            Vegas? Two years ago I was renting a 4br house with a quarter acre for $1200 in PA. National housing supply doesn’t really have much to do with local markets.

          • mrdoug1
            mrdoug1 says:

            You basically want the country to be overrun. Yup, I get it. You’re evil and anti-American. You’re a traitor, you ingrate.

          • TrainedHistorian
            TrainedHistorian says:

            NO. HOusing costs are most definitely NOT offset that way. Just look at trends in housing costs in tUS consumers’ budgets. Housing costs have continued to climb since at least the 1960s. You fail to understand the basics of supply and demand. The great bulk of housing costs are certainly NOT the building costs and labor! They are the LAND costs, which RISE with demand (i.e. population increase). That is why a very large, extremely well-built mansion in a rural area can cost a small fraction of a tiny, extremely chearply built cottage in an urban area with a growing population. That’s why you may depreciate the cost of the built structure, but you may not typically, depreciate the value of the land it is built on.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Sure, if the demand goes up, then the market will react to bring that cost back down. That’s why there was such a massive correction in home prices, despite the artificial bubble. The demand was artificial. We actually have enough free housing for 25,000,000 people right now.

          • TrainedHistorian
            TrainedHistorian says:

            But that cheap (it’s never free) is housing not where the jobs are by and large and so this trend is helping the bottom very little. Otherwise the percent of US consumers’ incomes needed for housing (and related transportation costs which are largely a form of housing costs) would not be so high relative to what it was to the forty to thirty years ago. When we see a real moderation long term of housing costs to American budgets then we can declare the problem solved, but we aren’t there yet, if we ever will be.

            The trends in housing costs have been unfavorable for the bottom third to half (essentially anyone who cannot earn enough to own outright) over the last 35 years or so. Rising housing costs are part of the cost of mass immigration (in addition to the net fiscal costs already noted by the other commentators) which special interests keep glossing over with their simplistic argument that immigration keeps all costs low. It most certainly does not keep housing prices low which are a far larger part of most peoples budgets than the tiny amount they save on say produce from underpriced farm labor. Tere needs to be more honesty about who benefits most from rising housing prices due to immigration, and a cessation to smearing everyone opposed to current or higher levels of low-skilled immigration as simply “anti-immigrant” or “racist” etc.

          • crazy j
            crazy j says:

            Madison? Oh you mean that genius who went to war the largest military empire on Earth and got the our freshly built Capital burned to the ground?

          • Latinreader
            Latinreader says:

            “I will work harder.” (If you haven’t read “Animal Farm,” catch up on your education. it’s nice and short.)

          • akulkis
            akulkis says:

            You moron, at that time, we NEEDED immigrants, lest the French in the Mississippi valley and Mexico take the land from us. Once Jefferson accomplished the Louisiana Purchase, we needed MORE people to settle that land, to protect it from being taken by the British up in Canada, and the French down in Mexico.

            NONE of those immigrants came here with their hand out, begging for welfare. All they wanted was a place where they could farm their own land (not somebody elses), and build, with their own hands, their own houses (rather than renting from some parasitical lord of the so-called nobility. And none of them took money out of the economy by sending it via Western Union to their parents back where they left from..

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            We still need immigrants. And we also need less regulation and rules about hiring so we can get to 100% employment. Blame the government if someone is out of a job, not immigrants. Immigrants create jobs because they pass the money they earn on right to another American. Unless you won’t allow them to bring their families, in which case, they send the money out of the country, because black markets have negative side effects, dummy.

          • AndRebecca
            AndRebecca says:

            All of the first Presidents stated the same thing Adams did about being a moral people and that meant Christian to them. All the Leftist garbage we have in the country didn’t happen on a Federal level until after WWII. Then they started getting rid of Christianity in the name of diversity. We hear the same garbage out of the Left today.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Right, but that is because Republicans always adopt and grow the unconstitutional librul agenda in the end.

          • AndRebecca
            AndRebecca says:

            Yes, both political parties have been infected with Leftism. Some of the Democrats are out and out Socialists and Communists. The Republicans who go along with the Democrats get their money from the same crony-Capitalists as the Democrats and are materialists just like the ones on the Left.

          • OhSayCanYouSee
            OhSayCanYouSee says:

            The extension of your logic can be seen in Israel today, with the slow kill off of the Palestinian population to promote a more religiously/racially pure citizenry. Only thing that should sound familiar, it cost us Americans 418,500 lives to eradicate that scourge from the earth. Are you suggesting we need to do that again here in America?

          • Brother John
            Brother John says:

            Here in the United States, I haven’t suggested we do anything for the moment apart from using our brains to formulate immigration policy and see to it that it serves the interests of American citizens.

            As far as Israel goes, the ones killing off the “Palestinians” are other “Palestinians” and Arabs. Many religions and ethnicities live in relative peace in Israel, but Jews are not permitted to settle in nearby lands without fear of official violence.

          • OhSayCanYouSee
            OhSayCanYouSee says:

            ‘For the moment?’…ill give you the benefit of the doubt. Yes we do need to reform an immigration policy that serves our interests, values, history, and is constitutional. Anything outside of that is on the scrap heap of history and we will keep it there through our vote.
            I guess you mean like Americans kill Americans everyday, but this is not the same as leaders discussing a public policy to preserve the national identity through means of settlement and control that repeats the scourge that the world defeated and as a result created Isreal. We, and I believe a clear voting majority agree – although there is a very vocal minority who don’t -, will not have our nation reform immigration policy that proposes to keep America ‘cleansed’ of humanity that are here because their parents broke the law or not allowed in because they don’t speak, look, pray, love or vote like current citizens want them too.

          • Brother John
            Brother John says:

            Since your post sounds to me, anyway, like a combination of race-baiting and hysterics, I’ll just let this go for now. But, I will say that Americans — and indeed, citizens of every country — have the absolute right to keep out non-citizens on any basis they wish. Absolute, no right of appeal, full stop. If we through our representatives choose to keep out persons from one place or another, or of one religion or another, then that’s hard cookies.

          • mrdoug1
            mrdoug1 says:

            Of course they and we do. There is no meaning of “country” or “nation” without borders controlled by the national populace.

          • mrdoug1
            mrdoug1 says:

            Those other lands also persecute Christians, routinely. No complaints from OhSayCanYouSee there, you’ll note.

          • mrdoug1
            mrdoug1 says:

            Brother, it’s almost futile to argue with John Ash. He is demonstrably ignorant and a DNC/Leftist talking points machine. The DNC talking points will continue. What a shame we have so many citizens who despise this country. Also known as Obama and Hillary voters.

          • CosmotKat
            CosmotKat says:

            It’s because you have no brain. You put forth nonsense and disinformation like an Islamic terrorist creates chaos through suicide bombers. You make nothing more than two-faced political arguments intended to inflame rather than drive thoughtful commentary. trolls like you are amusing for your lack of knowledge and contempt for the truth.

          • CosmotKat
            CosmotKat says:

            Your contempt for the truth and the american people demonstrates no intimate knowledge of the constitution. So, I understand the constitution much better than you, chump.

          • Peter Henderson
            Peter Henderson says:

            The Constitution would have a better chance of working with Muslims than most people. They have honor and courage, believe in God and family, and rightly condemn people who treat sex as a recreation to be indulged in with strangers with no attached commitment. One of the great ironies of the Project for a New American Century is that conservatives end up vilifying people whose mores are just a stricter version of the mores they have been defending against the “progressive” hedonists for decades. I agree with you about the perpetual underclass that votes Democratic, but, as Hitler demonstrated, ignorant masses can sometimes be turned around. Which is why the left fears what it calls ‘populism.’

          • Brother John the Deplorable
            Brother John the Deplorable says:

            They have honor and courage, believe in God and family, and rightly
            condemn people who treat sex as a recreation to be indulged in with
            strangers with no attached commitment.

            All true. The thing is, they’ll be the first to tell you that Sharia isn’t compatible with any Western law tradition; violations of those laws (as opposed to mere mores in the west) earns you a trip to the rope at the end of a crane; and while those things are vitally necessary for a healthy free society, those are — as I’m sure you well understand! — hardly sufficient on their own.

          • Peter Henderson
            Peter Henderson says:

            In America, prostitution is illegal, and homosexuality was illegal until recently. The prohibition against ‘cruel or unusual punishments’ would likely preclude the death penalty for adultery, but not for rape or pedophilia. I strongly doubt Islam favors the death penalty for all violations of sharia. Now, with regard to adultery and homosexuality, I doubt the death penalty would be applied more than rarely. Of course when it is applied the neocons give it front page coverage. Christianity has its share of fanatics and we used to burn witches. Stalin used to execute train conductors for failing to get their trains to run on time. So I am not sure these isolated instances of lynching sexual offenders are more than outliers that give openings to neocon war propagandists. Supposedly there are many thousands of prostitutes in Teheran. If the government’s policy were to behead adulterers that would not be the case. btw in parts of Israel where the Orthodox hold sway there are laws against wearing bikinis, driving on the Sabbath, and so on, and outsiders who flout them have rocks hurled at them, according to the CIA fact book.

          • June Maulfair
            June Maulfair says:

            Just how young are you? There were internment camps for the Japanese and Germans during WWII and we didn’t let them immigrate here while the war was ongoing. We had Ellis Island where new immigrants were quarantined to prevent illnesses from spreading, where their backgrounds were checked before they were allowed into the general populace. Our government has gotten more stupid instead of smarter when it comes to immigration.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            How young are you, because before all that, immigrants were 100% free to come and go as they pleased without any hassle from the Federal government. Because why? Because it’s not a delegated power of theirs.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Can you show me immigration power in the Constitution? No, you can’t. What does the 10th Amendment say about that?

          • Johannessen
            Johannessen says:

            do you understand what happened after those first 100 years as to why it isn’t working as it should any longer? The Champion of Progressivism, Woodrow Wilson, decided that the constitution isn’t an outline of what power belongs to the federal government, but rather only what powers specifically are not. He literally destroyed the 10th amendment without any legal basis, and said anything not specifically prohibited to the federal government is and should be the purview of the federal government. Since then, we’ve just expanded and expanded the scope to the point where they now have considered it legal to require every citizen to buy a product or be punished by the government.

            Bring back the 10th amendment and return anything not specifically designated to the federal government in the constitution back to the states, and we might take a step in the right direction. Even better would return the senators to being selected by state governments so that they will fight for states rights instead of money, and we’ll actually make a little progress.

          • JDL
            JDL says:

            “It worked perfectly for the first 100 years.” Have you ever read about slavery or the civil war? Early immigration in America was encouraged so that the Spanish, French, and British could not colonize and control Florida, the Mississippi Valley, and the entirety of the west. As this necessity diminished, immigration policy changed to reflect the times as it is changing today.

          • CosmotKat
            CosmotKat says:

            Patently false and ignorant. The worst policy of the last half of the 20th century was the Immigration act of 1965 even worse than Wade vs. Roe. It was based on a lie and has been a source of deceit and dishonesty ever since cementing the notion that Democrats are in the same league of liars and deceivers as the greatest totalitarians of the last century.

          • akulkis
            akulkis says:

            How about the fact that the “properly functioning Constitution” no longer exists PRECISELY because the Jews who you advocate for so much are the ones who constantly argue that the Constitution does NOT mean what it says.

            By the way, ISREAL has not existed since around 800 BC. All that exists now is Judea….and even though they now have a reclaimed Judea (misnamed Isreal) to go back to… the vast majority refuse to do so..

          • Peter Henderson
            Peter Henderson says:

            Immigrants from England or western Europe are fine. The problems began when the big corporations started recruiting the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Uneducated and illiterate in English, it was nice that they were able to come here and many, such as the Poles, turned into patriots, but others turned into crime gangs or welfare cases. You can’t have democracy if the masses don’t give a damn and are too ignorant to vote intelligently. We have a CULTURE which undergirds our national life and its maintenance should not be taken for granted. I’m not saying diversity cannot be a source of strength but too much diversity and we get the present situation with plutocrats using the media to confuse and manipulate the masses. “Divide and rule.”

          • Peter Henderson
            Peter Henderson says:

            I think you hold the now-commonplace view that what is called racism and bigotry is factually and morally erroneous. That is a kind of provincialism on your part. In the future what looks like settled dogma to you will be overturned. Does the public not have a right to preferences with regard to the competence and cultural orientation of people who are allowed into the country? Why not?? Are you saying you would be happy with America allowing 500 million South Americans into the US? If not where do you draw the line and on what basis? I draw the line on the basis of whether the applicants would serve our national purposes, which include altruism but also include the preservation of a culture of freedom and Judeo-Christian values as they are called (which values are sometimes better instantiated by people outside these traditions.) What criteria do YOU propose?

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            No, because it strips people of their rights, which is anti-American, anti-Constitutioanl, and anti-Christian.

          • Mace Dindu
            Mace Dindu says:

            Hahaha. Tell that to Liberians. You do understand that it’s the people, not the constitution, that makes the constitution “function,” right?

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            And? Conservatives have not only failed spectacularly in upholding the Constitution, but they willfully deviate from it. And then claim that “oh, my, if we let in immigrants, they will destroy the Constitution”. It’s intellectually retarded.

          • Tehy
            Tehy says:

            oh please. “stolen from others”. We had a fair amount of land to ourselves, they all tried to kill us simultaneously, and we beat them back. Israel still repping as one of the smallest countries in the world with no real natural resources to speak of, by the by. Now Palestine suckles at our teat while shooting missiles at us.

            Israel exists because I for one want a country where me and my people are put first. America is great, love it, and I can only hope Americans realise the same thing. Trump 2016.

          • dreamfeed
            dreamfeed says:

            Isreal exists because we (the US) support it. You guys would have been gone long ago without our help.

          • Johannessen
            Johannessen says:

            please see the 6 days war. Israel enjoys our help, but its existence is not reliant on it. Perhaps in 1949, but not in 2016

          • mrdoug1
            mrdoug1 says:

            Every single country on earth was, at some point, “stolen from others.” That’s how countries are formed and are settled – by the victors. You may not like it because it’s harsh, and it’s not warm and fuzzy, but it’s the truth.

          • brian_in_arizona
            brian_in_arizona says:

            So you are saying the only thing that separates Argentina and Brazil from the US is our Constitution? All three countries were founded by European settlers who revolted against their foreign masters, all three imported both unwilling immigrants (aka African slaves) and willing European immigrants, and all three slaughtered and displaced their indigenous peoples. Were they too dumb or too proud to simply adopt our Constitution? Is it too late for them now?

          • Nick
            Nick says:

            I live in California. All the “invitees” here don’t understand or care about the constitution. And their votes allow the democrats stamp on it daily.

            Expect that as the future after you invite in several more tens of millions. It ain’t pretty.

          • gitliani
            gitliani says:

            Ignore him. When the Muslims, who are a patient lot, are the majority, we can see how much he likes Sharia Law. If he lives that long being an infidel.

          • gitliani
            gitliani says:

            Ah, there is the rub. ‘properly functioning Constitution’…liberals believe the Constitution is a living organism, ever changing with the times. That was NOT how it was written. If it was, there would have been no need for Amendments, just reinterpret for the times and leave it at that. But there is a path for Amendments, albeit a difficult one, so that it wouldn’t be changed on a whim. Especially the whim of a president who prefers end-arounds rather than engaging Congress.The makeup of the populace, does indeed matter. If it didn’t, why the sudden push to get as many new immigrants sworn in BEFORE the election? Why such an abnormal rush? If the populace doesn’t matter, why the push to turn illegals into voting citizens BEFORE those that are patiently waiting in line?

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            And when have the Republicans defended the Constitution? The answer is….NEVER. From the beginning, Republicans believed that the 10th Amendment was optional, that the US was a nation, not a republican federation, that “national interests” are more important, that war was the solution, etc, etc, etc.

            The Constitution would be FAR safer if we got rid of all Republicans and replaced them with immigrants.

          • Johannessen
            Johannessen says:

            you’re a moron and know nothing of history. It was Wilson who really opposed the 10th and argued that those powers not specifically prohibited by the constitution were the purview of the federal government. That, John, was the death of the 10th, not anything Republicans ever thought about it.

            And as a usual progressive who believes he is better than everyone else, you advocate for the death of everyone who doesn’t share your political philosophy. As usual, that is very inclusive and tolerant of you.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Oh, please, the assault has its basis in things done by Lincoln and others. The 1875 Page Act was patently unconstitutional. The attack on the Constitution was started in earnest with Republican nationalists.

          • gitliani
            gitliani says:

            The Republicans are the ONLY party to believe in the 10th Amendment. The Dems believe ANY & EVERY power is delegated to the Dem Party. The states have NOTHING to say except if granted to them, not by the Constitution, but by THE DEMS, and only THE DEMS.If you got rid of ALL REPS then who would pay for all those free government handouts? Hollywood? The Liberal Elite? Surely not all those taxpayers who pay NO taxes, especially the poor, and, according to Kaine, do NOT support the military, the teachers, the police, the firefighters, etc.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Okay, then show me the delegated authority over drug use and immigration. Or a standing national army. Or NASA. Or the Air Force. Or the NSA, FBI, etc. Thanks.

          • mrdoug1
            mrdoug1 says:

            Bizarre assertion. So you believe the mindset and culture of the people arriving is unimportant, trivial, meaningless, as long as there’s a “functioning Constitution?” What does that mean? How does a Constitution “function” if not via the voluntary compact between its citizens who are steeped in, respect and observe its fundamental principles?

          • CosmotKat
            CosmotKat says:

            Making a comment like that seems to support the same logic that you shouldn’t exist as a human being.

            Did it enter your mind that some Jews may not have wanted to live here and have a life goal of some higher purpose than your own?

            “With a properly functioning Constitution, the make up of the populace doesn’t matter.”

            Whenever a Progressive cannot make a valid argument they point to the very document they hate. There is a reason why the notion that progressives have a contempt for the truth and the american people as it jumps out in your commentary.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Sure, Jews should have been able to live anywhere, but we should have specifically offered them all a place to live. They would have added immensely to our wealth. It would have added up to $300B to our GDP and it only is 8 million people. We have more than enough housing for them right now. But sure, they never needed to go to make a new country and kick out Palestinians.

          • CosmotKat
            CosmotKat says:

            More progressive theories and speculation based on false assumptions. Nice.

            Constantinople was a magnificent city and it never needed the Ottoman Turks to destroy it and kick out the Greeks. what’s your point moron?

          • Latinreader
            Latinreader says:

            Have any other countries that you feel that way about? Pakistan, for example, which was created at the same time?

          • Jaycephus
            Jaycephus says:

            If you are for the introduction of an acid to the thing you want to preserve, then you are an idiot. You are an idiot.

          • COOLJACKER
            COOLJACKER says:

            “With a properly functioning Constitution, the make up of the populace doesn’t matter.”
            Liberia has the exact same constitution as the United States, you absolute idiot.

          • A Wise Man
            A Wise Man says:

            bahahahaha What a joke! Liberia has an identical constitution but it’s just as fucked up as the rest of Africa. Genetics matter, culture matters, race matters.

          • akulkis
            akulkis says:

            And why has the Constitution increasingly been used AGAINST the American public, starting with the arrival of all those Jews? A document which was created to PROTECT the public from the government and most specifically, the bureaucracy.

          • Peter Henderson
            Peter Henderson says:

            To strengthen our country by promoting the same Bolshevism here they promoted in Europe (and promoted here as best they could)? Don’t mean to be cynical or sound like a bigot but the Communist movement is as Jewish as lox and bagels, though most of the facts are buried. I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood and I can tell you Trotsky was more popular than Ike. The idea of a Jewish homeland is a good one for reasons explained by Churchill in his article (which is online), though they could have gone about it more tactfully. The British were feeling desperate and made contradictory promises and basically screwed the Palestinians.

          • Peter Henderson
            Peter Henderson says:

            Your idea of an argument is to attach a label. I see nothing wrong with being racist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, sexist, homophobic — what have I left out? If a group is going to make political demands as a group and in view of its having a distinctive status of some sort, such as having been wronged by some other group, it is perfectly fair to review its claims and dispute them or make counter-claims if warranted. Statistically speaking, blacks commit a lot of crimes and Jews are left-wing. If you deny that there are unchallengeable statistics to prove you wrong. I suspect you would happily endorse negative generalizations about Baptists or Muslims or Catholics or NRA members, or what-have-you, so long as they are taken as generalizations and not as true of every member of the group.

          • Peter Henderson
            Peter Henderson says:

            Most humans are racist according to the left. But a lot of humans see something wrong with throwing around these labels in lieu of an argument. Why should white people put up with being blamed for everything? Why shouldn’t they turn around and point the accusing finger at some other group?

          • Peter Henderson
            Peter Henderson says:

            That comment sums you up. You want to conform. You have no idea what the reasoning behind your opinions is, you just know they are considered “politically correct” and that’s good enough for you.

      • Sean
        Sean says:

        Here’s one you’ll like.

        The word ‘racist,’ as defined by you all on the left, is itself inherently racist.

      • Timbones
        Timbones says:

        I don’t think you’re explicitly anti-white. I just think you have such an open mind, your brains fell out.

      • Monsieur Voltaire✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ
        Monsieur Voltaire✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ says:

        There’s no arguing with people like you. If you think that 3,000+ years of ethical evolution within wildly different social groups around the earth are all a fairy-tale, I have a “bring democracy to…” war to sell you. You don’t have to dislike other ways, you have to merely understand that they are different and–to the extent we import hundreds of thousands (rather than the odd individual), we are importing their deeply-rooted ethics as well, which are often incompatible with ours.

        Some mentalities, cultures and the systems of government that come with them are endemic of certain social groups. Period. You can’t wish this truth away. Magic-dirt theory has been proven to be sheer insanity, as have been the aforementioned “democratizing” wars. That’s what our Fathers understood instinctively (back then, it was considered common-sense, as quaint as it may sound today). That’s why they understood that importing entire POPULATIONS from alien cultures would have been destructive to the fabric of America. QED.

      • akulkis
        akulkis says:

        1 MILLION+ IT workers on unemployment, or worse, have fallen off of unemployment, all so that we the managerial class can employ 1 million barely-competent Indians and Pakistanis.
        (ANd believe me, having worked with H1-B types from the Indian Subcontinent, they display all the creativity of a rock…. And this in a field where creativity is DEMANDED, because nearly every problem is new in someway, or else the problem is fixed through automated scripting, so that in the future, when the problem arises, the computer detects and fixes the issue before it even becomes a noticable problem. No, the Indian and Pakistani way is to do things by hand… just like back home, where their 5,000+ year old civilization has still not discovered the secrets of indoor plumbing and running water — which the Roman civilization accomplished in less than 500 years — and living in the SAME sort of mountainous terrain which is the key to the Roman aqueduct system.

        The Japanese exhibit a GREAT ability to copy, and miniaturize. The Chinese and adequate ability toe copy. The Pakis and Indians haven’t even figured out how to copy 2500 year old technology…. and yet the managers are turning over the country’s high-tech infrastructure to these technologically barely-literate carpet baggers at the expense of the people who built it.

        • John Ash
          John Ash says:

          You idiot, we don’t hire those people because they are cheap and barely competent, but because they are better than the Americans seeking those jobs. My brother in law is now a highly paid American citizen who beat out other Americans for the job. Sucks to come in second, I guess.

    • crazy j
      crazy j says:

      I wouldn’t say it’s anti white racism, but more of the being bankrolled by the donor class corruption.

      • CosmotKat
        CosmotKat says:

        Silicon Valley pretenders favor hiring the technology equivalent of cheap lawn care workers for their firms further killing the technical prowess once found in the United States, but not much anymore.

    • Neal
      Neal says:

      If you live in a country where you can be arrested for fishing without a license…but not for entering that country illegally…it’s safe to say that country is run by idiots.

      • John Ash
        John Ash says:

        You can definitely be arrested for entering the country without papers and spend months in a detainment facility. But the states have the legal authority to arrest you for fishing, the Feds have no authority to arrest immigrants.

        • boxty woot
          boxty woot says:

          I think you need to proofread your last sentence. It makes no sense. The Feds say only they have the authority to arrest illegals.

          • AndRebecca
            AndRebecca says:

            The Feds do not make it a habit to arrest illegals and when they do, they are told to let them go. Even murderers… You need a license to fish, and if you don’t conform to the state rules while fishing, you will get a ticket by an armed fish and game officer and if you have a problem with that, you will get arrested and put in jail.

      • Cleanthes
        Cleanthes says:

        That’s what Sam Francis called “anarcho tyranny”. I prefer not to see it as idiocy, but malice.

        • Peter Henderson
          Peter Henderson says:

          It is a form of racism or cultural genocide, not on the part of the immigrants but on the part of the politicians who want to see whites become a minority, thinking this will facilitate the destruction of the traditional Christian culture. It could blow up in their face though, since most Mexicans are Christians and they don’t give a poop about the Holocaust, nor are they great admirers of Dr. King.

          • AndRebecca
            AndRebecca says:

            Most Mexicans aren’t Christian. Mexico is a socialist country and few people are Christian. Ditto for all of South America. According to Pew, whites will be a minority in America in twenty years. First we will have more Hispanics and then more Asians… and it is about the destruction of traditional Christian culture.

          • Peter Henderson
            Peter Henderson says:

            According to Pew, 81% of Mexicans identify as Catholics, 18% as Protestants, and 7% say they have no affiliation. Mexican Americans are more secular, with 17% unaffiliated. So either the secular ones come here (younger males) or coming here makes you more secular or both. Socialist societies differ in their attitude to the non-economic stuff.
            http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/08/on-religion-mexicans-are-more-catholic-and-often-more-traditional-than-mexican-americans/

          • AndRebecca
            AndRebecca says:

            Half of the priests in Mexico are not Christians. I guess it depends on your idea of what a Christian is. Socialist societies are hostile to Christians and persecute them almost as much as Communist societies, as we are seeing in this country. So you want the mass immigration of anyone and everyone as long as it is from Mexico. You would love California.

          • Peter Henderson
            Peter Henderson says:

            I am not a fan of socialism or capitalism. Pre-modernity seems preferable. But why do you say these priests are not Christians? Do they believe the Nicene Creed?

          • AndRebecca
            AndRebecca says:

            Do you mean post-modernism? Why do you bring up a subject you know nothing about? You were talking about Mexicans being potentially great citizens of America due to their being Christian. Their version of Christianity is not the same as an American’s. They know it and you should as well. Many Catholic priests are known for their views and actions on Social Justice, a non-Christian heresy. Post-modernism is re-wrapped Marxism. We have a long history of fighting with Mexico. Now we have a breach of the border which is allowing drugs and illegals to stream in. The U.S. Customs and Border Patrol has a site with news you can view, plus you can see videos of illegal border crossers on the net… Have you ever heard of La Rasa, Paulo Freire, Aztlan or heard of all the Socialists in the Democratic Party, some of whom are Mexican-Americans? I live in the Southwest and run into Lefty Mexicans and some other bad actors from there more often than I would wish. They are into politics and can be seen regularly on TV in anti-American protests.

          • Peter Henderson
            Peter Henderson says:

            First of all I meant pre-modernity e.g. monarchism. A constitutional monarchy with a pre-industrial society seems preferable to what we have now in many ways. I was speaking somewhat facetiously. I am familiar with post-modernism, though I am not an expert on it. As for the Mexicans I am sure that SOME priests are as you say. I have heard of Friere and that crowd. I know that the drug imports are a problem though I suspect there are some high-ups in America facilitating the process. We really should invade Mexico: a nation willing to invade any country that makes Israel nervous but unwilling to clean house next door is behaving oddly. The drug gangs are more powerful than the government and need to be wiped out. Just don’t look for support to big banks like HSBC that make profits laundering drug money.Getting back to the clergy, I am not sure you can judge the religious sentiments of the rank and file on the basis of what is fashionable among the clergy. I don’t object to mild socialism since capitalism is now in the hands of shadowy forces. The cultural Marxism you rightly object to is probably not a big enthusiasm for most Latin Americans immigrants. I think they would be more likely to whistle at a pretty girl than the average American at this point!

          • AndRebecca
            AndRebecca says:

            A pre-modern society is also Marxist. That is his Utopia. F. Engels in “Origins” makes the case for Marx that we should go back even further to barbarian days. The 1450s seem for many educated people to be the start of Modernity. What do you like about pre-modernity? A lack of sanitation, no electricity, illiteracy, having kings and queens rule over you, poor nutrition and in general, a short and brutal life? …As for Mexico, when we had our big war with them, the generals asked those in Washington if we should take Mexico City and they said not to. Because we couldn’t expect to get them to become part of the American culture. The Mexicans already in the U.S. were different in their attitudes and beliefs… In Mexico their final revolution was a Socialist one, and now they have a socialist government and that is their big problem and they seem to be fine with it. They’ve had Christian persecution. We gave up on trying to change them. The Democrats of today want them here Because they do not understand or appreciate the Anglo-American culture which was set up here. I happen to live in the Southwest and know quite a bit about Mexicans and Mexican Americans and their politics and religion. And, some of my Anglo ancestors came to the S.W. in the early 1800s and even fought in the Texas Revolution. So, I’ve long been interested in this topic and have studied it more than most, plus I’ve had personal experiences as well.

          • Peter Henderson
            Peter Henderson says:

            Who argues that the modern period starts in the 1450s? I guess ‘modern’ can mean different things. As for Marx’s view of pre-modernity it certainly wasn’t egalitarian or free from religion so I don’t know why he would see it as a state to strive for. All the technological advances you mention are off topic. I was commenting about my preference for the political and spiritual characteristics of pre-modernity. You could argue that no technological progress can occur without soul-deadening modern attitudes and lifestyles, but it’s a hard case to make and in the end I might prefer to do without video games in order to have better family relationships. I don’t want to bring a lot of Mexicans in but I’m just saying the are not the worst people you could bring in.

          • AndRebecca
            AndRebecca says:

            Technological advances are a gigantic part of what makes modern civilization different than what came before… You sure don’t want to talk about reality. You want some romantic utopian world and then deny that’s what you want. People had hard brutal lives due to the politics and lack of spiritual characteristics in pre-modern times. Ditto, the people in Mexico today. SOCIALISTS want to bring Mexicans in and SOCIALISTS have changed America into the anti-Christian place it is today, just like they have in European nations. I’m not a socialist and I’m against immigration done in order to further change American culture, which is what is being done. We are purposefully bringing in people from all over the world who do not understand or agree with basic Anglo structures, political or otherwise. We have a war on America perpetrated by the Leftists in Washington and the immigrant situation is part of it. Even the diversity textbooks used in the U.S. today are anti-American and anti-Christian. The textbooks are particularly anti-Christian family and pro unwed-motherhood. They even state women having children out of wedlock is a type of family on the same level as a married couple in a Christian home and maybe even superior to it, just as Engels did in the book mentioned above.

          • Peter Henderson
            Peter Henderson says:

            It’s unfair to give modern ways of thinking about politics or religion credit for technological advance. And a sincere Christian cannot put material advances above spirituality. I agree with the rest of what you say. Can you mention the name of one of these textbooks or an article that talks about them?

          • AndRebecca
            AndRebecca says:

            Do you want the truth or some kind of lies about modern civilization? You can’t have both. In 1453 the Turks (Muslims) cut off all the trading routes to the Orient causing people like Columbus to figure out other ways of going to the East. The second thing in the 1450s, Gutenberg’s Bible was printed opening up knowledge for all, based on the Bible. Most people don’t know these two things, and they are generally not taught in schools today. Modern Civilization is Western European Christian (nearly all Protestant) Civilization. It didn’t happen anywhere else and the entire culture was changed…Now the Left is “changing” it for the worse. Here’s only one of many thousands of books where they teach that everything the Anglos did in America was wrong and the Leftist garbage around today is right: “School and Society, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives,” 2006, editor in Chief: Emily Barrosse. McGraw-Hill Co. This book is nothing but propaganda… In the 1940s a decree by Pres. Truman on higher education started the ball rolling on getting Christianity out of the schools and secular humanism in. His decree can be found and read on the net, but be aware there are shorter versions of it and explanations which are incorrect. The decree also states we are a democracy not a republic, which is not how we were founded but is a Leftist idea. In the 1950s our government allowed some communists to write a book “Taxonomy of Educational Objectives,” which taught teachers non-Christian educational objectives. This book is often called “Bloom’s Taxonomy.” Robert J. Marzano also wrote Leftie teaching books… There are more laws and decrees, etc., like getting prayer out of the schools. The Left today wants pornography in the schools and it’s there. But they still show up to school board meetings crying “book burning!” in schools where they won’t have it. And the latest appointed Librarian to Congress is known for bringing pornography into the libraries. Thanks for asking!

          • Peter Henderson
            Peter Henderson says:

            Thank you for the references. If I were wealthy I would try to put together a collection of leftists textbooks and generally set up a database on leftism. Conservative object to this thing or that but what’s needed is to put it all together, write up an indictment, and demand action from those politicians who want our support. It’s one thing to support the lesser evil, but social conservative throw their support to neocons who plan to deliver absolutely nothing in return. In fact, behind our backs the “big donors” blackball pro-life candidates like Jack Kemp.

          • AndRebecca
            AndRebecca says:

            The big donors support the Democratic Party and RINOs. The crony capitalists make big money doing whatever the Leftists in the government want. They are all totally corrupt. And, you’re right, there seems to be no organized opposition. But, there is some. Whenever anyone starts something like the Tea Party they are vilified and are not supported like they should be. And, many on the right are for homosexual marriage, legalization of pot, and whatever else the Democrats are for. And yes, they teach filth in the schools and go naked in gay pride parades but feign offense at Trump’s language. The Left decided a long time ago that they would take over America by changing it socially. They’ve infiltrated all the institutions and they are now the establishment. The idea that they are for helping the poor is just part of their propaganda. I like your idea of collecting Leftist books and putting a database on the net. Often you can find books there already, if you know where to look, some of them posted by the Communists and Socialists themselves. They tell all on their sites. The atheists have sites and videos as well. They are horrible, nasty people and sell themselves as great… I don’t know much of anything about Jack kemp and his run for office.

          • Peter Henderson
            Peter Henderson says:

            David Frum says in his 90s book Dead Right that Kemp, very popular and likable, would never be president because the big donors didn’t like his pro-life stance. What if the big donors favored kicking out the blacks. Would the GOP be for that too? … The only way to fight a taboo is to break it. That’s where conservatives fall down. They don’t break the left’s thought and speech taboos (at least not intentionally) and if one does the others condemn him as often as they defend him. And that is because the media right are all shills more or less. Even someone like Alex Jones knows better than to cross swords with certain interests.
            Anti-leftism could catch on if we had more and better role models. Trump’s appeal is partly that he is such a role model, refusing to apologize, etc.

          • Peter Henderson
            Peter Henderson says:

            It’s very important IMO to propagate the attitude: We do not hope to convince you, we hope to defeat you. It is not necessary to convince everybody. And never apologize for ‘offending’ leftists. I think it’s right to apologize if you hurt someone’s feelings but not if you ‘offend’ them because conservatives put up with being offended every time they turn on the TV.

          • AndRebecca
            AndRebecca says:

            Conservatives are offended every time they turn on the TV or use the net, or even when out shopping by hearing and seeing some of the stuff going on around them.

          • TechZilla
            TechZilla says:

            The PRI are not Socialists, they just call themselves that for cred. They are corpratist third-way politics, heavy on mafioso and drug cartels, and globalism. Like the DNC, just professional post-modernist lairs.

          • AndRebecca
            AndRebecca says:

            The DNC is full of Left-wing activists, and they want more, that’s why they want all the immigrants from third world corrupt countries here. There’s nothing stopping a Socialist from being a thug or drug runner, and they are globalists. Socialists are the original globalists. That’s why they started the corrupt United Nations. And, I agree, they are all post-modern liars and cheaters and thieves.

  17. Sean
    Sean says:

    Good essay.

    It used to be that, for many conservatives, to be a conservative meant to stand for whatever it was the liberals stood for thirty years previously. Nowadays, to be a conservative means to stand for whatever it was liberals stood for ten years ago.

    • John Ash
      John Ash says:

      The writer apparently wants it to stand for whatever the people want it to stand for, because they don’t like being told what it means. Whatever, it’s two faux conservative factions bitching about each other. What made American great was a system of ethical government. Not religion, not morals, not speaking a certain way, not the the ethnic or racial makeup or the language we use. We are so far away from what made America great that it is hilarious watching the various ridiculous factions get all pretentious with each other.

      • Sean
        Sean says:

        “What made American great was a system of ethical government. Not religion, not morals, not speaking a certain way, not the the ethnic or racial makeup or the language we use.”

        So you’re kidding when you claim you’re not a liberal, right?

  18. Sam
    Sam says:

    Another great piece

    Abandonment of conservatism is the correct strategy. Denounce current conservatism as a fraud and as Conquests Law embodied and blaze the trail for big tent patriotism. Furthermore, the only victory comes when patriots follow alt-rights in rejecting the power of the racism card. If patriots can retain institutions while taking that stand(and the related ones of sexism, homophobia,etc.) it is over for the left. They have enormous cultural and status clout but if challenged openly it will break apart but it demands courage and persistency. No wonder Cuckservatives find it so easy to surrender.

    “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket”

    P.S. Re Economics
    If Publius wants to appeal to someone who could equally run rings around Pethokoukis when it comes to the current state then David Stockman is the guy to read. Peter Schaeffer* is another great figure who often will badger Tyler Cowen and others with inconvienient economic facts about immigration. There is nothing contradictory of restrictionism and economic growth. Most of what passes for free market economics today has been retrofitted so as not to offend leftist cultural sensibilities. One may ask why the single greatest factor in terms of econ growth; IQ, is never mentioned by established economists. One
    wonders…

    *http://www.unz.com/isteve/alex-tabarroks-open-borders-and-the-welfare-state-vs-peter-schaeffers-comment-tsunami/#comments

  19. Kneel
    Kneel says:

    John Ash must be a paid Hillary troll or just an idiot when he writes these kind of stupid comments.

    “John Ash Bill Kristollnacht • a day ago
    Because I’m offended by the author’s combined bad writing, stupid ideas and ridiculous comparisons with his use of Publius. It offends me to my core.

    Without his stolen gravitas, he is just a conventional idiot, easily ignored and entirely harmless.”

    or this little gem

    “John Ash Tehy • 26 minutes ago
    But it was stolen from others. And that has lead to 60 years of bloodshed.

    Think of this. They created Israel for the same reasons Hitler wanted Jews sent to Palestine before the Palestinians said “oh, no, don’t send them here”. White Anglo Saxon Protestants wanted nothing to do with them.

    Israel exists because of anti-semitism and xenophobia.”

  20. vaccinia
    vaccinia says:

    It has been about 2 decades since I decided that there was really not a lick of difference between Progs and the eGOP. They have both come out of the closet. Dems have, through Bernie, actually declared themselves socialists. The eGOP has declared it’s loyalty towards…..what exactly? I suppose the closest ideal is the Chamber of Commerce. Both talk the talk, but NEVER, walk the walk.

    Then there is this…..Movement. We, the People, have noted when they piss down our backs and tell us, it’s raining! The entrenched politicians ONLY think about retaining POWER, never what the people actually want. I don’t know if the revolution starts this Nov or further in the future, but it is coming…..if we get stuck with hillary the wreckage will only hasten it. Hopefully, we can contain it to the ballot box and aviod the ammo box.

  21. CruzC0ntrol
    CruzC0ntrol says:

    I’m so sick of the purists on both sides. I’m sick of the lying and spin. Trump is refreshing because he has common sense and doesn’t let the purists infect his vision of what the problems truly are at this time and space.

    Most of all I’m just happy to have JAG back making elegant arguments in defense of us normals.

  22. Sam McGowan
    Sam McGowan says:

    I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, those today who call themselves “conservative,” aren’t. They’re right wing progressives and have no idea what “conservative” really means.

  23. james weigel
    james weigel says:

    I read both articles and have to side with Publius. And I say that as someone who isn’t particularly supportive of Trump, but can see what “conservatives” like Pethokoukis are really asking for is complete surrender on all issues of the culture wars, particularly borders, so that our movement can somehow gain some type of false respectability in the eyes of the people we are supposed to be fighting and driving to our side!

    Today’s left sees racism in everything. Trump is not suggesting that we destroy everything James P. cherishes in this country, rather stop cowering and accepting the status quo as the best we can do. To do that, we have to stand up and call out the detractors on their bullshit when they try to shut us down with ad hominems. Yea, things could be a lot worse. They could also be a lot better, and if you are so enamored by the Obama year’s economic “success” maybe you should ask why even so many millennials and others flocked to a 70+ yr old socialist over the chosen criminal candidate who embraced it.

  24. Andrew Ryan
    Andrew Ryan says:

    People made fun of Trump not for saying ‘black lives are horrible’ but for saying that things had ‘never been worse’ for black people. The latter is obviously absurd, and I hope I don’t have to explain why.

    • gda
      gda says:

      As usual, Trump is imprecise with his words and the leftists pounce. Anyone with common sense knows what Trump really meant. But no, we must have the MSM endlessly explain how bigoted/evil/stupid his comments were to us ignoramuses so we understand his inate evilness.

      • Andrew Ryan
        Andrew Ryan says:

        “so we understand his innate evilness”

        Not innately evil in this case – it came across like he didn’t know his history and was out of touch with the people he was trying to reach. Excusing that as ‘imprecise with words’ isn’t good enough.

  25. OhSayCanYouSee
    OhSayCanYouSee says:

    I was really trying to get through this as an exercise in open mindedness but this one stopped me in my tracks:

    “Either way, he—and all the others like him—are obstacles to the near- and long-term project of saving what’s left of American and Western civilization. To climb out of the hole we’re in, we don’t need liberals, we don’t need cowards, and we don’t need traitors. The former dug the hole in the first place, with ample “conservative” assistance. Need any more be said about the latter two?”

    Not mentioning that Reagan of which the author lauds was the conservative author of that “conservative assistance” Reaganomics used Laffer and Keynesian economic policies at the same time. How does the modern father of conservative thought get a way with that one? Cut taxes by 25% and increase defense industrial complex spending that in the end exploded the budget deficit from 1 to 3 trillion dollars is supposed to be a model of achievement that in the authors view is the fault of Liberals? How much did you get paid for that?

  26. Mike
    Mike says:

    Fine article as always, thanks.

    My explanation for the toxic, usually youthful “conservative intellectual” is that they just don’t have the background to understand the flaws in their arguments. They were never working stiffs, they grew up in the same upscale subdivisions and attended the same universities as their outright leftist peers.

    The conclusion I draw from this is not that they were contaminated by their peers, but that both categories are products of the same environment, the only difference being these conservatives are more appreciative of classical economics and less personally immersed in the degenerate counterculture.

    The ones that survive to adulthood will probably learn that a people’s character and government are not separable. A righteous and inoffensive people will choose the same type of government, and will require very little management by it. But a culturally divided people will end up with a government comparatively at war with itself which is what we have now. There is no substitute for neighbors who see and hear the same things as one another.

  27. WutYouTalkinBout
    WutYouTalkinBout says:

    This should be required reading for any true conservative. God bless you for the best conservative case for Trump I have read yet.

  28. mlindroo
    mlindroo says:

    > Leftist: “Black lives are horrible.”

    What “leftists” are saying this..?

    The progressive argument is African Americans to some extent suffer from racism e.g. in the form of police brutality motivated by racial profiling. But conservatives are the only only ones who feel African American society/culture is IN GENERAL “horrible”.

    As for the conservative split, good luck to you, “Decius” … how are you going to keep your nativist movement in the mainstream without folks such as Jim Pethokoukis? Trump is generally trailing in the polls because conservatives with a university degree are rejecting him in droves. His only enthusiastic supporters are uneducated working class whites.

    • Mike
      Mike says:

      If you are using “uneducated” as a euphemism for “not seeing the benefits of our allegedly wonderful economy” you would be correct. However as more and more citizens of all races start to feel “uneducated” and generally dumped on by the globalists, what is mainstream and what is not will change. At this point they have to rely on nearly ubiquitous media bias to keep them even in the running, and that can’t last forever.

      • mlindroo
        mlindroo says:

        Your case would be more persuasive if Trump would be attracting “citizens of all races” who feel “generally dumped on by the globalists”.
        Instead, he seems perpetually stuck in the low 40s since only angry white class males without a college degree really love him. He is performing worse than Romney did among just about every other demographic group, including seniors and whites with college degrees which every 21st century Republican presidential nominee to date has overwhelmingly won. Until now, that is.

  29. Olusola Olusola
    Olusola Olusola says:

    There is no significant case against conservative here! Between 2000 and 2008, Bush tax cut/economy plan only added 4.33 trillion dollars to US gross debt increasing it from 5.67 trillion (2008) to 10.03 trillion dollars (2016). The Obama tax increase plan added 9.4 trillion dollars to the debt increasing it from 10.0 trillion to 19.4 trillion dollars. Since Bush tax cut is similar to Trump tax cut , it might help in reducing the deficit of the national debt better than Clinton would! After all Clinton’s tax increase is the continuation of Obama tax increase plan. In fact the so called experts had predicted an increase of 4.06 trillion dollars for Obama plan against McCain plan of experts estimated increase of about 7 trillion dollars. Yet Obama tax plan didn’t only surpass McCain’s expert predicted value but also doubled Bush deficit increase.

    This shows that Trump has a winning argument when it comes to tax cut plan, and that experts’ prediction can’t be trusted and can also be bias. Trump needs this argument to nail Clinton in her unrealistic Obama tax plan.

  30. rickv404
    rickv404 says:

    Yeah, everything is not fine, and your Trump is not bound to make everything better. On the contrary.

  31. Paul Frantizek
    Paul Frantizek says:

    “[All] conservatives can rouse themselves to address any more is the economy. They rationalize such a narrow focus by insisting economics trumps all.”

    That’s because they ceased being conservatives back in the 90s (sometime between NAFTA and PRC/WTO). They’re really neoliberals now, although they shun any tag with the appellation ‘liberal’ for marketing reasons.

    ‘The conservatism that conserves nothing’ is how I’ve taken to describe it.

  32. Dongald TrumPenis
    Dongald TrumPenis says:

    “Do any liberals ever write “a liberal case” for something obviously conservative, such as the traditional two-parent family or constitutional originalism?”

    Killer point. Conservatwits are always looking to make us think they mean something other than what they are saying.

  33. wilgus
    wilgus says:

    Two problems with the Publius response:

    1. Even if the situation is more dire than Pethokoukis says, Trump is not the solution. He is a shallow, self-centered, ignorant, impulsive boor. He is no Reagan. Four years of predictable Clinton will be better than four years of irrational and unpredictable Trump, from every viewpoint–national security, the economy, etc.

    2. Pethokoukis is correct that Trump’s gloomy worldview is not justified. Income and asset inequality and opportunity inequality is the major domestic issue. This is shown by the fact that much of Publius’s response is devoted to issues of inequality. Inequality is fixable. Trump’s tax plan would increase inequality; Clinton’s would not.

    • Chris706
      Chris706 says:

      And here I though Hillary was the “shallow, self-centered, ignorant, impulsive boor.” And an unindicted felon. The only thing “predictable” about Hillary is that there will be unending scandals.

      “Trump’s gloomy worldview?” I would think that saying “we can fix this” is far more optimistic than saying “this is as good as it can get.”

  34. RJones
    RJones says:

    Read me out as well…I’m completely done with a school of thought that is, for all practical purposes, ineffective. It is time for those who wish to fight back to use our collective economic power to start forcing some change. Let’s begin by selecting those universities we support and those we do not. Then, we should decide which media and entertainment we will consume or not. After that, let’s take a look at companies and decide which products to buy based partly on the positions that corporate leaders embrace. We do not need to fund our own destruction. This type of action is easy for conservatives given some leadership and – How about this? – a little marketing/branding.

  35. Kuni Leml
    Kuni Leml says:

    Welcome to what happens after 35+ years of trickle-down/supply-side Satanomics.

    You want wealth to trickle-down back down to those who do the work that creates the wealth, bring back union thugs.

      • Kuni Leml
        Kuni Leml says:

        Marry good Soviet woman. She strong like bull, smart like streetcar, and she pull plow.

        You don’t need western style decadent tractor from Gorky.

        P.S. The difference between Stalin sending his goons to take away the majority of people’s private property in the Soviet Union and our own parasite class gaming the system and bribing the political class to redistribute, upwards to themselves, the wealth created by those who do the work, which is also eliminating the majority of people’s private property, is nothing relevant.

        The difference between a small number of parasites pretending to be Capitalists controlling most of the wealth & property under this modern version of Feudalism that 35+ years of trickle-down/supply-side Satanomics has created, is no different than the Soviet ruling class controlling most of the wealth & property under Communism.

  36. Nick
    Nick says:

    James P used to be on my reading list, but as I read him more and more, I read him less and less, if you get my drift. He shows up on Larry Kudlow’s show on Saturday morning and I can’t distinguish anything he says from a leftist.

    Then again, I read a bunch of NR’s reviews of Pence last night. Damned with faint praise because he didn’t outrightly defend some of Trump’s dumb comments. Comments they attack. Goldberg said Pence won, except, well, he didn’t really.

    I’m sick of them all.

  37. christopher swift
    christopher swift says:

    I’ve never understood the ludicrous crowing about expanding the GDP. It is individual prosperity that counts and without it the GDP is meaningless.

  38. Jack Sparrow
    Jack Sparrow says:

    “Reagan’s message in 1980 was, in a nutshell, ‘Things are really bad right now, but I
    know how to make them better and together we can do it.’ (Can you think
    of any candidate who has spoken like that a bit more recently?)”

    Yes, Ted Cruz. Unfortunately the party nominated some lunatic instead.