The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Mo Brooks, Immigration Ace
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

100%, for eight years and counting:

That’s the longest perfectly unbroken streak, by three full terms, of anyone currently in congress. Brooks has accused both the Democrat and Republican parties of waging a war on whites. On account of Trump’s strange endorsement of Luther Strange, and Roy Moore’s clumsiness, a senate seat that could’ve been held by Brooks is instead currently occupied by Doug Jones:

Pay for what you get, I guess.

 
• Category: Culture/Society 
Hide 44 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Donald Trump: Winning!

  2. I think that wall needs to be much wider —- and much deeper.

  3. Hail says: • Website

    Lifetime NumbersUSA Ratings:

    Current Republican Senators
    – Great (A+, A, A-) — 17 Senators
    – Good (B+, B, B-) — 22 Senators
    – Mixed (C+, C, C-) — 8 Senators
    – Bad (D+, D, D-) — 4 Senators (Lisa Murkowski [AK], Susan Collins [ME], Lindsey Graham [SC], Hyde-Smith [MS])
    – Terrible (F, F-) — 2 Senators (Mitt Romney and Rick Scott*)

    * – Both based on only one vote so far (the 2019 Valetine’s Day Massacre bill).

    Current Democratic Senators
    – Great (A+, A, A-) — 0 Senators
    – Good (B+, B, B-) — 0 Senators
    – Mixed (C+, C, C-) — 1 Senator (Tester [MT])
    – Bad (D+, D, D-) — 17 Senators (of which the highest are: Stabenow [MI]; Feinstein** [CA]; Harris [CA]; Reed [RI]; Sanders [VT]; Manchin [WV])
    – Terrible (F, F-) — 29 Senators

    **Feinstein has consistent F ratings in the past ten years but had better ratings in the 1990s. At one point in the mid-1990s even a B+, and a C- grade as recently as 2005. (Hardline, racial pro-immigrationism may have become a D party line position about 2006 with the major Amnesty push of that year, forcing her subsequent voting career towards straight-F’s from then on.)

    _____________________________

    Career Immigration Ratings by NumbersUSA
    U.S. Senate, total: 17% ‘A’ ratings; 31% ‘F’ ratings

    • Replies: @Hail
  4. Hail says: • Website
    @Hail

    Current Republicans in U.S. House Representatives
    – Great (A+, A, A-) — 93 Representatives (e.g., Mo Brooks and Steve King)
    – Good (B+, B, B-) — 73 Representatives
    – Mixed (C+, C, C-) — 15 Representatives
    – Bad (D+, D, D-) — 3 Representatives
    – Terrible (F, F-) — 13 Representatives

    Current Democrats in U.S. House Representatives
    – Great (A+, A, A-) — 6 Representatives***
    – Good (B+, B, B-) — 2 Representatives
    – Mixed (C+, C, C-) — 2 Representatives
    – Bad (D+, D, D-) — 35 Representatives
    – Terrible (F, F-) — 188 Representatives

    *** – Some distortion due to lack of data; For new, incoming Congress members, the rating is based on only one vote so far, the 2019 Valetine’s Day Massacre bill, a ‘No’ vote on which assigns points towards an A. ‘A’ ratings thus include Rashia Tlaib (MN), A. Oscasio-Cortez (NY), and Ayanna Pressley (MA), who have all called to “Abolish ICE” and voted against the bill from the left rather than from the right.

    ____________________

    Career Immigration Ratings by NumbersUSA
    U.S. House, total: 23% ‘A’ ratings; 46% ‘F’ ratings

    (As noted, due to a higher incidence of first-time House members than first-time Senators, the U.S. Senate data can be said to be much more ‘reliable’ on the whole.)

  5. Talha says:

    Well, there you go. There’s your boy right there*.

    Make 2020 a one-issue campaign; stop immigration – all other issues can wait until after the election.

    This guy seems very consistent, so I think he can be counted on for this specific issue. So back him up with someone that has an at least 95% rating as VP like this guy and you are good to go:
    https://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/congress/14765/gradescoresheet/

    Peace.

    *Admittedly, looking at his site, he seems like a Zionist dipwad that might be amenable to attacking Iran, BUT you can pretty much count on him not to let any more Persians into the US if he does.

    • Replies: @Hail
    , @John Gruskos
    , @iffen
  6. Hail says: • Website
    @Talha

    Make 2020 a one-issue campaign; stop immigration

    #MoBrooksForPresident

    Moral Seriousness > Reality-TV politics and con-artistry.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Truth
  7. Talha says:
    @Hail

    Moral Seriousness > Reality-TV politics and con-artistry

    Yeah – people have to get serious about the quality of candidates they support and hold their feet to the fire. Better yet, support the candidate who already has a proven track-record for the topics that are important to you.

    I’ve only ever voted for one man for president, Dr. Ron Paul, because he was the only one I saw as being consistent on everything he said he stood for and his record bore witness to it.

    Peace.

  8. Candidate Trump would have endorsed Brooks, President Trump, no way. He should be sued for false advertising and I want my $50 back.

  9. Northeast says:

    Brooks is about as good as you are going to get in Congress on the National Question.

  10. Go “Big Luther”! Woooo

    I mean – Go Roy Moore! I just know he’s gonna win! He’s my guy.

    Uhh… wait..

    • Replies: @iffen
  11. do you think brooks can get this seat back again for republicans? or will it be sessions again?

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Kevin O'Keeffe
  12. Audacious, cant find you on gab so i wanted to ask here, is there data comparing white female and white males support for far right?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  13. Feryl says:

    It’s all well and good that people vote sensibly, but at the end of the day, the numbers are what they are: American action, on both an elite and popular level, did much more to reduce the numbers of immigrants in the Progressive and New Deal era than it’s done since.

    NumbersUSA grades people by vote, but these votes don’t necessarily determine how legislation is interpreted and enforced. American leadership knows the score on who’s getting into this country and who employs and houses them. The elites can facilitate cultural stability and native worker power by agreeing to reduce immigration to less than 400,000 admitted per year (as was practiced from the late 1920’s-early 1970’s, when American workers saw increasing strength). Rather than continuing the policy observed, since the Carter Admin, of allowing well over 400,000 in per year.

    However, since the late 70’s the trend has been toward greed, and social Darwinism. The nominally conservative sectors and parties have leaders who prioritize business owners who employ vast numbers of immigrants (industries that rely on large workforces of low-skilled foreign labor); said business owners also think that the New Deal era was an affront to everything good and wholesome. Thus, we’re not getting New Deal levels of (low) immigration under the aegis of the American conservative movement as it’s been constituted since the Progressive era (American “traditional” conservatives believing that the government doesn’t have a right to restrict the labor available to business owners, while Progressive and New Deal reformers sought to enhance American worker security).

    Token votes to “get tough” on immigration are meaningless, when actual attempts to limit the levels of immigration would be immediately attacked by the leaders of conservative economic sectors (construction, agriculture, etc.) who wish to keep American workers perpetually under-paid and desperate. Thus, the GOP gets to have the public image of being no-nonsense warriors, while behind closed doors they can assure titans of industry that the cheap labor stream will never dry up as long as they can help it.

    Frankly I don’t care who’s in charge if we get the same results, or basically the same results, either way. Besides, a Democrat controlled era is more likely to result in measures to protect the dignity of low-income workers, including immigrant workers. So long as we’re dumb enough to keep growing the underclass, I’m all for wealth-redistribution schemes that target the wealthy fools running the system. And I’m all for burdening business owners with more worker protection regulation and higher minimum wage laws. After all, it’s the greed of the business owners that brought the third world here all along.

    • Replies: @216
    , @Endgame Napoleon
  14. 216 says:
    @Feryl

    Ex:

    Several upstate New York Republican legislators are calling for public forums to discuss the potential effects of a bill that would grant farmworkers the ability to unionize, overtime pay and other labor rights.
    The group of lawmakers, including state Sens. Bob Antonacci, Pam Helming and Jim Seward representing Cayuga County, want hearings in rural communities across the state. They believe the legislation will result in higher labor costs for farmers.

    https://auburnpub.com/blogs/eye_on_ny/gop-lawmakers-want-public-hearings-on-ny-farmworker-labor-rights/article_73000d5d-fcbc-5928-ab35-57d51771ef4a.html

    If these numbskulls want a hint as to why the Tribal Gun is so effectively used against their party, all they need do is look in the mirror.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    , @Feryl
  15. 216 says:

    A rare moment when hell freezes over and I agree with the NYT Editorial Board

    The New York City comptroller, Scott Stringer, estimates about 5,400 properties in the city are worth more than $5 million and are not the owner’s primary residence. Some, like Mr. Griffin’s pad, are luxurious pieds-à-terre for out-of-towners. Many others were bought by shell companies that don’t reveal their true owners, meant to allow overseas tycoons to stash money out of sight.
    At a time of soaring inequality and towering infrastructure needs, taxing these gleaming penthouses is an enticing idea. The logic is straightforward: It is one way in which New Yorkers can benefit from the desire of other people to visit the city that New Yorkers own and operate.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/opinion/sunday/new-york-real-estate-tax.html

    This isn’t a true foreign buyer surcharge, but as damn near close as we’ll get.

    I don’t know the constitutional limitations “interstate commerce” as to the extent that a state could surtax foreign purchases, it might also face a challenge in court as an “export tax”.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  16. @Talha

    There are several politicians who are good on immigration, and there are several politicians who are good on foreign policy, but there are very few who are simultaneously good on both.

    John Duncan and Walter Jones were the only two congressmen who had both good Numbers USA scores and a solid foreign policy record. One is now retired and the other dead.

    In the 1920s, an overwhelming majority of congressmen in both parties supported immigration restriction and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

    Now there isn’t a single congressman who supports this basic minimum American nationalist platform.

    Trump exploited the pent up demand for nationalist politics to win the presidency, then promptly betrayed his supporters.

    • Agree: By-tor, Talha, Joseph Doaks
    • Replies: @Hail
    , @Audacious Epigone
  17. Hail says: • Website
    @John Gruskos

    In the 1920s, an overwhelming majority of congressmen in both parties supported immigration restriction and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

    Now there isn’t a single congressman who supports this basic minimum American nationalist platform.

    Maybe Rand Paul?

    His father, Ron Paul, certainly fit that bill.

  18. iffen says:
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    He’s my guy.

    Trump threw in with Big Luther to appease M. McConnell who wanted a yes man and he had one in Big Luther. Needless to say, Mo is not a yes man. It looks like neither McConnell nor Trump considered the possibility that they might lose the primary, much less the general election. Mo is not well known in the state outside of his district. If Trump had endorsed him instead of Moore, Mo would be Senator right now.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  19. iffen says:
    @Talha

    like a Zionist dipwad

    Point of order.

    Being a dipwad is a stand alone property; there are Zionist dipwads and anti-Zionist dipwads.

    Mo is not a dipwad under any meaningful use of the term. You have attributed dipwaddedness based solely upon his Zionism. This is unacceptable. I am a Zionist, twice removed, and I, sir, am no dipwad.

    • Replies: @Talha
  20. iffen says:

    There are tens of thousands of political and religious groups that work on behalf of immigrants and in favor of increased immigration. Contrast this with a small handful of anti-immigration groups. I wonder which side will prevail?

  21. iffen says:
    @prime noticer

    do you think brooks can get this seat back again for republicans? or will it be sessions again?

    Sessions doesn’t give any indication that he is interested in running. But yes, Mo could win the general election, although it would not be as lop-sided as normal. There is a % of votes that accrue to the incumbent, and I don’t have the numbers, but I am sure that that % in Alabama is on the high end.

  22. @Talha

    I don’t know your body of work here too well, but, you’re a Muslim, correct? (I don’t know many Muslims, let alone Muslims who vote in American elections. I believe one of my local doctors is a Muslim (From India), but he doesn’t vote)

    If so, I’m curious about some things and I hope you will indulge answering a few questions:

    Are you a lifelong Muslim or are you a convert to that religion? Also, to what particular branch or sect of Islam do you belong?

    Were you born in America or are you naturalized?

    Do you believe in freedom of religion in the way that most standard right-wing Americans view it? If you do subscribe to a concept of freedom of religion, what is it? I’m specifically curious about how your Islamic beliefs interact with what you consider to be the American idea of freedom of religion.

    Thank you for your time.

    • Replies: @Talha
  23. @Feryl

    Nice work, Feyrl. I was with you, right up until the moment when you suggested that the programs of Uniparty Democrats lead to more dignity and economic rewards for American workers. Democratic womb-productivity-based welfare programs, which are also supported by the Cheap Labor Lobby & Republicans, are the reason we have so many illegal / legal immigrants, willing (and able) to work for beans, undercutting the 95 million US citizens aged 16 — 65 who are out of the laborforce.

    For the bottom 80%, wages have not gone up perceptively in 40 years.

    It is not dignified to live in mom’s basement, where millions of non-custodial parents and non-womb-productive, single American adults are living due to rent that has increased 72% between 1995 and today. They live in mom’s basement, while Democratic & Republican politicians set up single-breadwinner, womb-productive immigrants and citizens in Uncle Sam-supported “independent” households, when they work cheaply, or in a part-time / temp capacity, collecting welfare during months when their earned income stays below the programs’ income limits.

    Democratic-designed welfare-for-womb-productivity programs are one reason why we have so many part-time workers. It is one reason why the average, “employed” person in the USA works only part-time. Democratic welfare programs are why we have so many temp workers—too—womb-productive immigrant and citizen temp workers, collecting welfare that covers every bill from rent to food, with monthly cash assistance and refundable child tax credits up to $6,431, increasing in amount with every additional kid produced in single-breadwinner households.

    It is bad enough that Americans who need for earned-only income from one stream to cover all household bills have to compete with so many married moms, adding a little keeping-up-with-the-Jones’ income to an ample spousal income, willing to work for low wages & very lenient absenteeism privileges since they do not need to cover a full range of household bills with earned-only income.

    Welfare programs that rig the labor market for citizens and noncitizens with unearned income, no less than the wanton levels of mass immigration, are designed to keep the economic status quo intact, and I see no sign that either party is willing to address the issue.

    Democrats are proposing a Green New Deal, and while it does at least adddress the scourge of mass underemployment, many of the jobs will likely go to noncitizens, just like a huge number of the jobs created during Trump’s tepid “recovery” have gone to the 1.5 — 1.7 million new legal immigrants admitted to the USA each year during Trump’s time in office.

    Trump has not done anything about the mass displacement of US citizens from the laborforce, other than hiring some of those noncitizens to work at his posh resorts, as if American citizens would not take jobs at fancy resorts. How many jobs have you worked at rock-bottom-low wages in America’s luxury industry? I certainly have worked my share of non-rent-covering jobs in the luxury retail industry.

    Economists are obsessed with GDP, no less than Trump on the campaign trail, where he constantly talked about getting GDP back to 4%. Well, it matters how that 4% (and lower) GDP is allocated, and during the New Deal of the 1930s, the giant GDP increase went mostly to underemployed US citizens due to the exact thing mentioned in Feyrl’s comment: the reduction of the Industrial Age mass-immigration rate.

    During FDR’s New Deal, GDP went from negative numbers to over 9%, staying there all through the Thirties except during one year. After which, we were the main exporter to war-ravaged Europe, so we were able to keep sky-high GDP for years, sustaining a bigly middle class, like China has due to being the US’ main exporter after US businesses exported millions of jobs there. China’s explosive GDP growth is also due to massive, irrational infrastructure projects, creating ghost cities and replicating tons of Western cities and monuments.

    I am not sold on the Green New Deal, but I am listening to that wing of the Democratic Party, mostly because they are addressing economic issues. But the Green New Deal is really just infrastructure spending. I am also listening because, even though the USA is $21 trillion in debt, Republicans gave the rich a massive tax cut, which they spent to buy back stocks and to employ noncitizens, including those with welfare-augmented wages that make it easy to work cheaply.

    I am listening to them because it is a much better investment of money that we don’t have to repair 50-year-old bridges that have not been properly maintained, while the US population swelled with drivers adding load and wear & tear to those bridges due to legal / illegal immigration, albeit the Green New Dealers are not talking about practical things like that.

    If Democrats had any respect for the outcome of an election, they would allocate a bigly chunk of any Green New Deal money to this infrastructure project: The Green Wall on the southern border. It would employ just as many citizens, assuming citizens (and not noncitizens) were hired to do the work, just as many construction workers and engineers. And it would give voters in a republic what they voted for. A wall is also green, whereas a government that pays citizens and noncitizens more welfare and child tax credit cash, the more natural-resource consumers they produce, is the antithesis of environmentalism.

    The other problem is the inefficiency of green-energy spending. Obama made sure that a long list of friends of friends got lucrative green-energy contracts from .gov, and every single one of his friends’ green-energy businesses failed.

    Maybe, the lackluster green-energy sector is like America’s healthcare system—which is the most expensive system in the world, with the most educated and highly-paid professionals—yet the USA has seen 3 years of falling life expectancy for whites.

    Though we have the most educated, highly paid and globetrotting group of dual-high-earner parents, living in bigger Barbie-princess palaces than any other generation of top 20%er professionals in American history, these stellar professionals have not created any breakthrough renewable-energy products, the type of sale-able products that produce sustainable businesses.

    Maybe, it is the family-friendly, above-firing hours that America’s celebrated, dual-high-earner parents keep in the fake, womb-centric, feminist era. A lot of the wanton absenteeism for “culture-fit” parents at the top and the bottom of the wage scale is made possible by computers that do more of their work.

    But as of yet, computers are not inventing new things.

    The people who produce breakthrough things, whether it is in technology, science or anything else, make sacrifices. While “needs-the-job” parents must dominate all of the jobs, keeping two household-supporting jobs with benefits under one roof, they must be accommodated to the max to avoid making any sacrifices of time if sex has led to reproduction. They also must not be asked to make sacrifices for their kids, like sacrificing a few years in a vacation-friendly, family-friendly, top-dog job to raise their own kids. That is what fawning grandparents, low-wage daycare workers and cheap foreign nannies with NannyCams are for.

    • Replies: @iffen
  24. Talha says:
    @iffen

    Being a dipwad is a stand alone property; there are Zionist dipwads and anti-Zionist dipwads.

    Correct. There was a Muslim imbecile that tried to assassinate Mufti Taqi Uthmani just a couple of days ago. That gets dipwad designation.

    Mo is a Zionist dipwad because if you look at his views on the subject, there is nothing – that I can find – that he doesn’t support with regards to Israel. He seems like one of those guys that would be willing to fellate a donkey on television for Israel:
    https://mondoweiss.net/2013/02/security-national-television/

    Now, to be sure, being a Zionist dipwad and being willing to publicly back Israel 100%, even if it means raining a firestorm down on Iran will actually help his chances. If he is willing to completely acquiesce in that area, he may have little resistance when it comes to bringing the hammer down on immigration. So it is a strategy worth trying for someone running on a one-issue ticket and not wanting to be distracted by anything else. In fact, he could even say that the US thinks so highly of Israel, that it wants to adopt similar immigration policies.

    Peace.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  25. iffen says:
    @Endgame Napoleon

    I see no sign that either party is willing to address the issue.

    A restricted UBI would solve many of the problems associated with our arbitrary, “good choice” dis-incentivizing, haphazard, unfair and wasteful “welfare” structure.

  26. Talha says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    I don’t know many Muslims, let alone Muslims who vote in American elections.

    Local candidates (for Congress or even city or county) visit mosque congregations all the time. I know plenty that vote locally, but as far as nationally – I don’t know what the exact numbers are (I’d love to see a more official poll). I know that the last candidate that really caught the eye of a lot of Muslims was Dr. Paul because he was just so genuinely different.

    Are you a lifelong Muslim or are you a convert to that religion? Also, to what particular branch or sect of Islam do you belong?

    Born into a Muslim family, though my wife is a convert. Sunni Orthodox (Hanafi in praxis, Naqshbandi in spiritual path).

    Were you born in America or are you naturalized?

    Naturalized.

    Do you believe in freedom of religion in the way that most standard right-wing Americans view it?

    When it comes to details; on some things – yes, but on some things -no.

    If you do subscribe to a concept of freedom of religion, what is it?

    I’m for anyone believing whatever they want to believe and carrying out the practice of their particular religion even if it differs from mine*. Just as an example; Islam restricts polygamy to 4 wives, but if a branch of Mormons (or the whole Mormon religion) decided to do unrestricted polygamy – they should be allowed to do so. I like the concept of having parallel legal systems to handle civil issues like marriage, divorce, inheritance, even certain financial disputes, etc. in accordance with what faith the person believes. I don’t care if someone is getting married or divorced in a way that I think is immoral or incorrect, so I don’t see any reason for them to care about me. I think this would help reduce the tug of war with some of the culture wars.

    I do not support unrestricted freedom though; for instance, I would support anti-blasphemy laws (not meaning as a capital offense, but I’m fine with fines and jail time).

    I hope that helps.

    Peace.

    *The one that I’m having a difficulty with is the whole Satanism thing. That seems to be an outlier and I wouldn’t mind having a full-scale ban on any public display of it.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
  27. @prime noticer

    do you think brooks can get this seat back again for republicans? or will it be sessions again?

    While I certainly hope Brooks runs in 2022, it’s not clear he will (Sessions definitely will not). But regardless, it would be extremely surprising if the Dougie Jones mistake isn’t corrected by some Republican at that time.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  28. @Talha

    The one that I’m having a difficulty with is the whole Satanism thing. That seems to be an outlier and I wouldn’t mind having a full-scale ban on any public display of it.

    Sadly, the First Amendment does not allow for a wholesale ban on that kind of degenerate idiocy. But municipalities that are plagued by these “Satanist” clowns can probably devise clever ways of thwarting them, in the vast majority of cases.

    • Replies: @Talha
  29. Talha says:
    @Kevin O'Keeffe

    But municipalities that are plagued by these “Satanist” clowns can probably devise clever ways of thwarting them, in the vast majority of cases.

    They better start coming up with these creative methods, because this is already happening:
    “A display from the Satanic Temple-Chicago has been placed in the Statehouse rotunda at the Capitol in Springfield, Ill.”
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/us/satan-statue-illinois-capitol.html

    “With Satanists, atheists and Christians among those in attendance, several speakers called for the removal of the Ten Commandments monument or for state government officials to install Baphomet as well. The Satanic Temple said the Ten Commandments monument violates constitutional freedom of religion rights and that installation of their statue will demonstrate religious tolerance.”
    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arkansas/articles/2018-08-16/satanic-temple-unveils-baphomet-statue-at-arkansas-capitol

    It was bound to happen sooner or later.

    I think in a Muslim-majority land (especially one defined by Islam being the official religion), this would be seen as de facto treason against the foundations of society:
    “Indeed, Shaytan is an enemy to you; so treat him as an enemy. He only invites his party to be among the companions of the Fire.” (35:6)

    Yeah sure we lose virtue-signalling rights, but I guess that’s the price you have to pay for having the right to have the government burn Satanic temples to the ground.

    Peace.

  30. @John Gruskos

    And Walter Jones had a Damascene conversion on the foreign policy side following the Iraq war–he didn’t come in that way. It is depressing that there is no Pat Buchanan wing of the Republican party anywhere in congress.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @John Gruskos
  31. @216

    Indeed. “Higher labor costs” = “higher wages for laborers”.

    • Replies: @216
  32. @216

    Imagine if the NYT thought of the country in the same way as it thinks about the city of New York!

  33. @Hail

    They’re both squishes on immigration. Not the worst of the worst by any means, but not good.

  34. 216 says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    I cannot imagine worse optics than rural GOP white politicians telling a Hispanic Dem that her co-ethnics cannot be paid more.

    Every anti-immigration voice could be marginalized, and they would still lose by large margins.

    There are too many of these Boomercons that still believe these “hard workers” are natural conservatives. What they want is the “natural slaves” of Aristotle, but they won’t get that.

    And almost always these are the same people that think the Jerusalem Embassy is somehow a winning move for 2020.

  35. Truth says:
    @Hail

    Moral Seriousness > Reality-TV politics and con-artistry.

    “OK, NOW you tell me…”

    Sincerely:

    The Right Wing

  36. @Hail

    Ron Paul and Rand Paul are both perfect examples of politicians who are great on foreign policy, but horrible on immigration.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    , @iffen
  37. @Audacious Epigone

    John Duncan was also a convert to non-interventionist foreign policy. He supported Bush I’s first Gulf War and regretted it, which steeled his determination to oppose Bush II’s invasion of Iraq.

    Duncan and Jones were both long serving congressmen, and they were both sons of long serving congressmen – a great argument against term limits, and also a great argument for political dynasties. The Adam’s family is the classic example of a great political dynasty that served America well – politicians John, John Quincy, and Charles Francis, and intellectuals Henry and Brooks.

    Scions of political dynasties controlling safe seats are not dependent on donors and media moguls to survive politically, and are thus able to consider the possibility of dissenting from the herd.

    Bring back the unreformed house of commons!

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  38. @John Gruskos

    That’s what happens when you get victims of blank-slate theory into office.

  39. @John Gruskos

    Keep walking down the path and we get to dynastic monarchy.

    That should not be construed as containing an implied normative judgment, incidentally. It is merely an observation.

  40. DoomOnYou says:

    Considering the fact that the US government has absolutely zero Constitutional authority to exercise one nanosecond of power over immigration, according to both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Brooks’ voting record is instead worthy of a failing grade – a perfect zero, in fact.
    And before you scream “Well you can move to [whatever hellhole you can Google]”, cite the specific Article, Section, and paragraph that contains the word “immigration” or any actual synonym (and look up the word “naturalization” before you try using that idiocy). And when you fail, you’ll still cling to your dependency on the world’s largest criminal syndicate, the same enterprise that’s about to destroy your economy with catastrophic debt, to keep you “safe”. I already know, because you blind partisans are the most hard-headed stubborn bastards I’ve ever had the displeasure to deal with.

    • Troll: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @John Gruskos
  41. iffen says:
    @John Gruskos

    Ron Paul and Rand Paul are both perfect examples of politicians who are great on foreign policy, but horrible on immigration.

    Ron Paul and Rand Paul are both perfect examples of politicians who are great on foreign policy, but horrible on everything else.

    No charge.

  42. Feryl says:
    @216

    Business owners are not a persecuted minority, nor should they be treated like one.

  43. @DoomOnYou

    Article I, Section 9, 1st clause:

    “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”

    Prior to the year 1808, Congress had the power to discourage immigration into the original states via a $10/head immigrant tax, and it also had the power to restrict immigration into the territories and new states in any manner it saw fit.

    1808 – present, congress has the power to restrict immigration in any manner it sees fit in both the original states and the new, a power which congress began using on January 1 1808 when a law was enacted prohibiting the immigration of slaves, a law which was enacted with the full support of both Jefferson and Madison.

    Furthermore, the states have always had the power to restrict the immigration of non-citizens, a power which many states exercised before 1808 to restrict the immigration of slaves.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS