Marco Rubio is Dead to Me

By Selwyn Duke

Young, handsome and Hispanic, Marco Rubio was once hailed as one of the new faces of the Republican Party. But now we learn that he actually brings two new faces to the GOP.

One that says one thing one moment and another that says a different thing at a different moment.

After all, while Rubio appeared in this deceptive ad touting the supposed conservative nature of his amnesty bill, The Examiner tells us the following:

In a Spanish-language interview Sunday with the network Univision, Sen. Marco Rubio, the leading Republican on the Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform group, made his strongest statement yet that legalization of the nation’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants must happen before any new border security or internal enforcement measures are in place, and will in no way be conditional on any security requirements.

“Let’s be clear,” Rubio said. “Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.”

And then comes the death of the nation.

The Gang of Eight (GOE) scamnesty bill would grant legalization to more than 30 million migrants — and the number could be far higher — over the next 10 years, who will then have further access to taxpayer-funded services, programs and handouts. Moreover, demographic electoral analysis clearly shows that virtually all these new “Americans” would vote for socialist politicians (read: liberal Democrats), just as they did in their native lands. So I understand why GOE-Scam authors Dick Durbin (D-IL), Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) consider the bill a good idea. I understand why Mexico considers it a good idea. I understand why China, Russia and any other nation that wanted American power and culture neutralized would consider it a good idea. But why, Senator Rubio, do you consider the bill a good idea? You and your politics keep some very strange and alarming bedfellows.

So I have something to say, and this isn’t just for Rubio. Any politician — Democrat, Republican or independent — who supports amnesty in any form or by any name is dead to me.

Dead.

Immigration is a deal-breaker issue because it involves forces with the power to reshape your land into a different nation altogether. Thus, I would say that there can be no compromise on it, except that compromise isn’t even on the horizon. That is to say, imagine the powers-that-be didn’t have the will to punish the current crop of apprehended bank robbers; instead, they wanted to grant them amnesty and let them keep their ill-gotten gains. But they promised that if we agreed to this plan, they would increase police presence and reinforce bank-vault doors in the future. Would you consider this compromise? Would it even be that if we granted amnesty to only 20 percent of bank robbers?

Agreeing to facilitate law-breaking isn’t compromise — it’s capitulation. In a sane world, you don’t allow criminals to reap the benefits of their law-breaking; you punish them. Compromise would be if we were discussing ending all immigration — as we should do — but then agreed to settle for a mere reduction in the numbers.

But it appears that some so-called “conservatives” have taken a high-dose stupid pill. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Ronald Reagan got bitten by his 1986 amnesty (which he called a “mistake”) when he agree to legalize the law-breakers in return for a Democrat promise of border enforcement, a promise that wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. And since then we’ve had six more amnesties.

Fact: the Democrats have never secured the border.

And they never will.

Oh, if the new arrivals had a history of voting GOP, the border would be locked down so tight a bacterium couldn’t breach it. There’d be a wall with a fence on top of it, military patrols and Star Wars-type drones with heat-seeking technology buzzing about. But the Democrats have no intention of rejecting their main constituency: anyone who isn’t Americanized.       

And that’s the point. Allowing immigration doesn’t just invite new people into your nation — it invites new voters into your nation. And any Republican who believes that the Hispanic voting bloc can be wooed with Rubioesque pandering is far too ignorant and dangerous to hold office.

If Marco Rubio and his fellow travelers want to hasten the death of traditional America, they are dead to me. Let’s ensure that their political careers rest in peace long before the republic does.   

                    Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

                                                © 2013 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved

Comments

[Pascal]

So, they're all dead to you now? And of course you are figuratively speaking. However, our Dem and SKUNC politicians are far ahead of you on that score -- literally. If you are of no use to them, what good are you?

I haven't posted this here in your comments before, but it's time. It is not safe to rely on and follow leaders who never have a harsh word to say about Malthusian, Utilitarian, and Green nutcases. Someone who is smart enough to write on the political scene but never takes into account the influence of and advances by the Sustainability crowd (and the misanthropes who have always nurtured them) is not really thinking outside the box.

[Libertymark]

Amen! Dead!

[Selwyn Duke]

Pascal,

Thank you for responding. However, I'm not really sure what your point is.

[Pascal]

Thanks for asking. I did not know where to expand my comment so that I could be clearer in a short space.

Take, for instance, "In a sane world, you don’t allow criminals to reap the benefits of their law-breaking; you punish them."

Why presume their behavior is not sane?

Who really believes that the given reason for what we have been witnessing is that there are too many illegals in the country? Not when every effort has been to block border enforcement year after year, and even flagrantly lie about his intentions as has John McCain, only to allow in more illegals yet. It's planned. Jay Leno's writers were pitch perfect, referring to the amnesty bill for "11 million documented Democrats." But why would large numbers of GOP go along? It's why I call them not RINOs but Statists Knowingly Undermining National Charters -- SKUNCs -- (putting them in league with other allegedly Rightist turncoats in all Western nations).

Sorry, that is not the point, but it may help shed light on why there is a point.

We are dealing with a ruling class that demonstrates repeatedly they are adhering to a moral code that is diametrically opposed to what is at the core of Judeo-Christian morality. Ours is more or less live and let live. What underlies my point is that every policy they favor -- such as destroying the one nation who made it possible for individuals to prosper as never before -- is aligned with the neo-Malthusian belief that there being too many people on the planet, live and lead to die is the proper moral course. So naturally, the whims of individuals to thrive must be diminished and controlled. Hence you will never hear them deny a 501(c) 3 tax break to some extremist Sustainability cult nor even utter a harsh word in that direction. No, they save ALL their vitriol for observant Christians and Jews and even the non-observant but decent (in a traditional sense) human being. Also that vitriol is juxtaposed to their affinity for what they call "the religion of peace" -- as in peace of the graveyard is what I think they have been slyly implying (but maybe that's just me.)

In summary Selwyn, when I see someone bright suggest, even facetiously, that what we are witnessing is insanity, I say that someone has not considered all the evidence.

You may ask me, why am I so certain as to their adherence to this new (and really pagan) morality? Because to a man, no matter their claims, the not purely misanthropic (a special case) believe because there is no God to provide (as promised in Gen 22) someone has to act in His stead.

One more thing. A personal poll of many conservatives I find troubling. Even though they and I agree on many political issues, they will say to me "but there ARE too many people." Tell that to your maker.

[Selwyn Duke]

Dear Pascal,

I'm well aware of the motivations of which you speak. However, there can be other explanations for the behavior you cite. And while I won't delve into that here (they'll be part of a book I'm writing), suffice it to say that you usually don't go wrong if you adhere to the adage, "Never attribute to malice what is better explained by stupidity."

Putting that aside, however, I stand by my statement regardless of what motivates these foolish men. And the mistake you're making is twofold. First, it depends on how you define the word "sane." I do not regard it as sanity -- although I realize this is departure from the clinical definition -- when people embrace egregious lies such as the people-as-pox nonsense. Even more to the point, though, when I spoke of a "sane nation," I wasn't just referring to the politicians. They occupy the government, but a "nation" includes the people. And if the people were sane -- again, I'm not speaking clinically -- they wouldn't elect feckless politicians who can't bring themselves to protect the country against invasion.

Thank you again for participating.

[Pascal]

"I'm well aware of the motivations of which you speak. However, there can be other explanations for the behavior you cite."

1) Of course there can be other motivations. Need I remind you that Pascal codified the laws of probability? ALL motives are viable. Imagine you are watching a crap game. What do you call when seemingly savvy people dismiss repeated hits of any die that landed on 1?

My point was that you appeared (now confirmed) to consistently ignore one category of conclusions despite a large cache of evidence, and consign the evidence to all other causes.

2) Citing Hanlon's Razor to me is more than a bit trite since it appears to have been a derivative and shortened version of Heinlein's Razor which ends "But do NOT overlook malice." And a whole slew of people who should know that still stick stubbornly to Hanlon. At what point does it become clear to the audience that author's choice of razor is more a matter of convenience than one of perspicacity? Again I point you to the analogy the repeated counts of the dice attributed to other causes.

The point: This mindset is a tremendous encumberment to considering all solutions. And, as a result, it amounts to providing a disservice to all who expect you to be using your brain to its fullest, without reservation. Reservations occur more frequently when one lives in fear of dismissal and worse.

3) "They wouldn't elect feckless politicians." I see Selwyn that I read your columns significantly more often than you do mine. Just this week I compared one pol, Michael Bloomberg, to a high roller who buys the pot. http://pascalfervor.blogspot.com/2013/06/its-all-in-cards.html

The point: assigning the blame on ALL voters AGAIN overlooks some falls of the dice.

In conclusion, let me reword for you of a line I am sure you have played with in the past. Repeatedly using the same methods that never work is a close enough definition of insanity for the sane man.

[Pascal]

Blocked?

[Pascal]

My response was lost. Is it in your spam filter?

[Pascal]

Thank you.

[Statusmonkey]

Consider it done!

If I ever see assclown Rubio's name on a ballot again, then with God as my witness, I will vote a straight Democrat ticket.

All these brilliant tacticians and GOP self-appointed field commanders (who supposedly worry and worry about keeping the party viable) had better find a way to make sure Rubio is primaried next time.