Is the Bush family calling in favors?

[Brian4Liberty]

Is the Bush family calling in favors?
By Brian4Liberty - February 5, 2015

(RPF) - There was a very interesting segment on the Laura Ingraham radio show today. Her guest was David Frum, and the interview was primarily about Jeb Bush. Now some people may wonder why Mitt Romney dropped out of the 2016 GOP race. The most likely cause was that the GOP power brokers abandoned him. Why would they abandon Romney, even if they preferred him over Jeb?

According to both Ingraham and Frum, the Bush family has been calling in favors, and putting pressure on GOP donors and power brokers. They relayed stories of personal phone calls to billionaires from former President George W. Bush, who no doubt was requesting some quid pro quo. How many billionaires made an extra billion or two due to the actions of the Bush presidencies? Crony corporatism always has it's beneficiaries. Is it time to call in those favors?

The other interesting aspect of the interview was Jeb's past statements on immigration. Apparently the open borders position, or some variation of immigration "reform" that increases immigration, has become the defining signal or litmus test that a candidate is a post-America globalist. It also happens to be Jeb's favorite subject, the one which animates him the most.

In a recent article, Frum elaborates on Jeb's position as gleaned from past speeches and interviews. For instance, Jeb has exhibited a disappointing lack of confidence in America, even to the point of preferring foreign immigrants over existing U.S. citizens. Frum elaborates:

"Jeb Bush’s enthusiasm for immigration, even when the immigrants are unskilled, even if they break the law, goes so deep that he even sometimes ventures to suggest that the personal characteristics of immigrants are to be preferred over those of the native-born. Here for example is an informal Jeb Bush speaking to a friendly interviewer, National Review’s Jay Nordlinger, early in 2014. “If we’re going to grow at 4% a year, we have to have young, aspiring people be able to create dynamic activity. And we can’t do that with our existing demographics.”

Bush seems to have something more in mind than just the the familiar (if overstated) claim that immigration can counter the aging of the population. He seems to think that there is some quality in the immigrants themselves that is more enterprising—more dynamic to use his favorite term—than native-born Americans. This is not only a positive judgment on the immigrants themselves. It is also a negative judgment on native-born Americans."

It remains to be seen whether a subtle smearing of the average U.S. citizen will have any effect on the Jeb Bush juggernaut at the voting booth. Obviously, it will play well with crony corporate interests on Wall St. and at the US Chamber of Commerce. "Bring on the cheap labor" is a rallying cry that they can stand behind 100%. And where that overlaps with those who want a post-America global order, it becomes doubly agreeable. Even if Jeb is not the most desirable candidate for a myriad of other reasons, with a little arm twisting and full establishment backing, it starts to sound like the best compromise candidate that the crony corporatists and globalists will be able to field in the GOP primary. With his nearly identical twin, Hillary Clinton, looking like a shoe-in on the Democrat wing of the establishment, 2016 is shaping up to be nothing but an elaborate farce.

 

[idiom]

Immigrants are debt free and class-free. So there is that.

 

[VIDEODROME]

Immigrants are debt free and class-free. So there is that.

Just making me more tempted to expatriate.

 

[osan]

The whole idea of what may be happening here, if true, is a very telling statement about how the meaner is viewed by Themme. The gaussian is VERY narrow with very flat tails. Theye correctly believe that the population, taken as a statistical gestalt, is highly predictable in its behavioral qualities. The only question that remains is the amplitude and precise distribution of the mean stoopidity/stupidity along the "stress axis". What I mean by the latter term is the general condition of the typical lifestyle. One would like to believe that the worse the conditions become on the average, the more likely a person is to take action of affect change. At this point, it seems clear to me that humans, taken in large chunks, may be trained not just to tolerate for indefinite periods levels of stress that are clearly morbid, but to become comfortable with them to the point they no longer care whether things improve.

That revelation about human nature is quite something around which to wrap one's head. To my way of viewing it, this shows what can happen when natural survival mechanisms meet with the unnatural artifice of evil men who wield the material power to place their fellows under such stress for periods that are, for all practical purposes, endless. Entire lifetimes, for example, were spent under the impossibly stressful environment of the imbecile soviets. Try to imagine living 70 years under the brands of murderous repression as represented by soviet tyranny. It is, by my estimate, the very definition of a life wasted. And yet, people clung to that life and survived. One can only wonder for how long that can stand under its own power. I pose that question seriously. I really do wonder how long the American tyranny can last before it runs out of energy.

All systems of action require energy. So far as I can see, all Empire systems run at net losses, the only questions remaining between them being the rate of loss and the available energy pool from which they may draw. I may be wrong on this point, but assuming I am not, one can wonder and ask, what is the "sustainability" of the American system of Empire? How long can it continue before is starves for fuel and its fire goes out? Equally valid: what will Theye do to keep the fire burning? How much of ITSELF (the Empire, that is) can Theye toss into the furnace before they begin having to feed essential elements as fuel, or even parts of the furnace itself just to keep the energy levels at the minimum? It's like a starving man, alone, sawing off his own leg in order not to die of starvation. You can only take so much before there is not enough remaining to continue life.

America became the world of "1984" long ago, but now its "Brave New World" candy coating is rapidly dissolving in the acidic rain the tyrants have chosen for us. It was that thin shell that kept the meaner diverted from truth. There is significantly less of it remaining and the prospects for any return are not good. I interpret this as the shedding of the gloves by Themme. It almost tastes like revenge. The quality of Theire actions is laced with a bitterly venomous anger and the attendant hatred. I am perhaps mistaken on this point, but I cannot escape the feeling that Theye are reclaiming something to which they believe themselves entitled... as if the ghosts of the kings of an age past were taking their rage out by the proxy of Theire posterity for Americans having had the temerity to step away from what I am sure Theye believed to be Theire "God-given" dominion over all men.

Interesting are these times, in a dull and clapped-out way.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Nice article, and I agree that Bush is going to face a problem on immigration (and I hope we can twist that knife as much as possible for Rand's benefit).

But, politicking aside, let's talk principles. Free immigration does not conflict with national sovereignty. Restricting immigration is not a precondition for a nation to be sovereign. For the first century of its existence, the US had a policy of free immigration. There were rules governing naturalization (who could become a citizen), but there were no restrictions whatsoever on immigration. The first anti-immigration law, the Chinese Exclusion Act, wasn't passed until 1882. Does this mean that the US wasn't a sovereign nation from 1783 to 1882? No, that's absurd, what it means is that immigration policy - free or restricted - has nothing to do with national sovereignty. A nation is sovereign if its government has exclusive power to make and enforce laws within its territory: as opposed to a situation where some foreign entity (like the UN) is interfering and overriding that government's laws. But how a national government chooses to use its power (e.g. whether it chooses to restrict immigration or not) has no effect on its status as a sovereign.

It may be that some advocates of free immigration are also globalists (like Bush), but the ideas themselves have no necessary connection.

One can be for free immigration and against globalism (or vice versa).

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The whole idea of what may be happening here, if true, is a very telling statement about how the meaner is viewed by Themme. The gaussian is VERY narrow with very flat tails. Theye correctly believe that the population, taken as a statistical gestalt, is highly predictable in its behavioral qualities. The only question that remains is the amplitude and precise distribution of the mean stoopidity/stupidity along the "stress axis". What I mean by the latter term is the general condition of the typical lifestyle. One would like to believe that the worse the conditions become on the average, the more likely a person is to take action of affect change. At this point, it seems clear to me that humans, taken in large chunks, may be trained not just to tolerate for indefinite periods levels of stress that are clearly morbid, but to become comfortable with them to the point they no longer care whether things improve.

Ah, psychohistory. Harri Seldon (or was it really R. Daneel?) agrees.

...I interpret this as the shedding of the gloves by Themme. It almost tastes like revenge. The quality of Theire actions is laced with a bitterly venomous anger and the attendant hatred. I am perhaps mistaken on this point, but I cannot escape the feeling that Theye are reclaiming something to which they believe themselves entitled... as if the ghosts of the kings of an age past were taking their rage out by the proxy of Theire posterity for Americans having had the temerity to step away from what I am sure Theye believed to be Theire "God-given" dominion over all men.

The ignorant mundane masses are to be used and abused. Sometimes that attitude from the "betters" slips out.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Link to the Ingraham interview:

http://www.lauraingraham.com/pg/jsp...tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMDc0OQ==

 

[erowe1]

If you admit that immigrants provide cheap labor, then you agree with Jeb that they provide a boon to the American workforce that the native born population doesn't.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

If you admit that immigrants provide cheap labor, then you agree with Jeb that they provide a boon to the American workforce that the native born population doesn't.

Great, put all of the "native born" Americans on welfare, that will really grow the economy. Print some money to pay for it, we'll all be rich.

 

[Working Poor]

Nice article, and I agree that Bush is going to face a problem on immigration

I think his main problem is who his daddy is and that last name of his.

 

[anaconda]

I don't think making an extra billion here or there are favors that need to be repaid. They were already paid for in previous election cycles.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

What the interview shows is not favors being called in, but marching orders being given. Jeb Bush has been Plan A for the Republican nomination by the elites for years, and those elites stand above most of the fatcats and media. Remember the week of Rand's filibuster, and the Sunday morning talk shows after that week? Was Rand, the guy who actually made big news on Capitol Hill that week, on most of the shows? No, it was Jeb, who though he denied he had decided to run for President, was somehow on all 5 shows. Note, this was in 2013, years before the '16 cycle, and six years after Jeb had supposedly left office and politics.

So, why was Bush even making the Sunday morning TV news rounds, if he wasn't thinking about running in 2016? He was inviting the Presidential questions to be floated, because he was running. The networks invited Jeb on precisely ask him presidential questions, as they were and are under marching orders to push the NWO lackey, and not any liberty figure. Saying 'he hadn't decided yet' was always part of the ruse. Rand has gotten the time he has on mainstream news via sheer persistence, and a need for the MSM to use him to retain cover for being 'balanced' even as they steamroll Bush and Hillary over us all.

 

[AuH20]

We could see the general election participation rate drop below the 50% bellwether if it's between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush.

 

[AuH20]

The whole idea of what may be happening here, if true, is a very telling statement about how the meaner is viewed by Themme. The gaussian is VERY narrow with very flat tails. Theye correctly believe that the population, taken as a statistical gestalt, is highly predictable in its behavioral qualities. The only question that remains is the amplitude and precise distribution of the mean stoopidity/stupidity along the "stress axis". What I mean by the latter term is the general condition of the typical lifestyle. One would like to believe that the worse the conditions become on the average, the more likely a person is to take action of affect change. At this point, it seems clear to me that humans, taken in large chunks, may be trained not just to tolerate for indefinite periods levels of stress that are clearly morbid, but to become comfortable with them to the point they no longer care whether things improve.

That revelation about human nature is quite something around which to wrap one's head. To my way of viewing it, this shows what can happen when natural survival mechanisms meet with the unnatural artifice of evil men who wield the material power to place their fellows under such stress for periods that are, for all practical purposes, endless. Entire lifetimes, for example, were spent under the impossibly stressful environment of the imbecile soviets. Try to imagine living 70 years under the brands of murderous repression as represented by soviet tyranny. It is, by my estimate, the very definition of a life wasted. And yet, people clung to that life and survived. One can only wonder for how long that can stand under its own power. I pose that question seriously. I really do wonder how long the American tyranny can last before it runs out of energy.

All systems of action require energy. So far as I can see, all Empire systems run at net losses, the only questions remaining between them being the rate of loss and the available energy pool from which they may draw. I may be wrong on this point, but assuming I am not, one can wonder and ask, what is the "sustainability" of the American system of Empire? How long can it continue before is starves for fuel and its fire goes out? Equally valid: what will Theye do to keep the fire burning? How much of ITSELF (the Empire, that is) can Theye toss into the furnace before they begin having to feed essential elements as fuel, or even parts of the furnace itself just to keep the energy levels at the minimum? It's like a starving man, alone, sawing off his own leg in order not to die of starvation. You can only take so much before there is not enough remaining to continue life.

America became the world of "1984" long ago, but now its "Brave New World" candy coating is rapidly dissolving in the acidic rain the tyrants have chosen for us. It was that thin shell that kept the meaner diverted from truth. There is significantly less of it remaining and the prospects for any return are not good. I interpret this as the shedding of the gloves by Themme. It almost tastes like revenge. The quality of Theire actions is laced with a bitterly venomous anger and the attendant hatred. I am perhaps mistaken on this point, but I cannot escape the feeling that Theye are reclaiming something to which they believe themselves entitled... as if the ghosts of the kings of an age past were taking their rage out by the proxy of Theire posterity for Americans having had the temerity to step away from what I am sure Theye believed to be Theire "God-given" dominion over all men.

Interesting are these times, in a dull and clapped-out way.

Instead of trying to fix the major shortfalls of the system (e.g. lowering or eliminating the personal income tax --- which they want no part of) they are floating this idea of introducing more cheap labor, when it's not really cheap from a national macroeconomic perspective. It's just cheap to certain parties since it bypasses the normal costs associated with servicing labor in this day and age. Unskilled labor was cheap in the early 1900s, not so much today as more & more predatory middle men have been introduced into the commerce game.

 

[anaconda]

What the interview shows is not favors being called in, but marching orders being given.

I agree. The Bushes aren't in the puppet masters' league.

 

[Warlord]

Bush is a boring candidate... he'll bomb out no matter how much money they throw at it

 

[ctiger2]