Social Contract meeting; and a story by Tancredo about Republicans and the border invasion
Ed H. writes:
I attended the Social Contract annual writers conference at the Key Bridge Marriot in D.C. on Sunday. This year’s speaker’s list was excellent. Ian Fletcher [see VFR items on Fletcher here] gave a first rate summary of American economic history as the story of controlled capitalism used for the protection of American identity and sovereignty. The theme was that Free Trade was never the norm, nor was laissez faire capitalism. The distortions of the Globalist Left and Globalist Right (e.g. Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Soros) are a complete aberration. Then there was a funny delivery by Tom Tancredo about his clashes with the GOP establishment on Capitol Hill over mass immigration, most notably the detestable Tom DeLay.LA replies:
Another person who attended the conference told me the following about Tancredo’s presentation. Once at a meeting of the House Republican caucus, he played a film or video that showed an aerial or graphic view, somehow represented as lights against a dark background, of illegal aliens moving through a National Park on the Mexican-U.S. border at night. When the four-minute presentation ended, only four Republican congressmen were left in the caucus room. The Republicans were so offended by ANY critical angle on illegal immigration that they just walked out.
Ed H. replies:
Yes, Tancredo was finally given permission to show the video during the end-of-week Republican get together. The night vision video showed not just illegal aliens, but long lines of illegal aliens carrying bales of drugs on their backs and being shepherded by drug cartel types carrying AK-47s. This was at Organ Pipe National Monument, U.S. soil.LA replies:
A moral tale. I always said that Tancredo struck me not just as a genuine traditionalist conservative, but as an upright, moral man. That’s why I have twice cast a write-in ballot for him for president.
A while back I wrote you that we are starting to resemble a totalitarian state in which the rulers are doing very bad things while the citizens (and officials) “don’t know about it.” In that instance, I was referring to the liberal tendency to ignore black on white crime.LA replies:
Ok, but now let’s put this story in context. Evidently it happened early in Tancredo’s term—let’s say around 2000. In 2006 the House Republicans passed an immigration bill that was 100 percent about enforcement and zero percent about “comprehehensive immigration reform” including amnesty. Meanwhile the GOP-run Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill. The two bills passed by the two Houses of Congress were diametrically opposed to each other. Subsequently the House Republicans did a most astonishing thing: they refused to meet with their Senate colleagues in a House-Senate conference to work out a compromise bill. They wouldn’t have ANYTHING to do with the egregious Senate bill. As I put it at the time, they stood like a stone wall against the worst bill in American history. As a result, “Comprehensive reform” died that year. It was brought up again in 2007, and failed to get to the Senate floor.LA continues:
Here are some more of my many articles on the 2006 Senate bill which the House killed dead by refusing to go into conference to “iron out the differences” between the bills. As I said then, how do you iron out differences between two things that have NOTHING in common with each other?October 3
Terry Morris writes:
You’ve cast two write-in ballots for Tom Tancredo for president? Two successive ballots? Meaning ‘04 and ‘08? That is great!Karl J. writes:
You mentioned writing in Tom Tancredo for President twice. I did in 2004, and in retrospect, consider it a truly wasted effort: correct me if I’m wrong, but write-ins aren’t even counted, are they?LA replies:
Casting a write-in ballot for someone who is not a write-in candidate, as I did for Tancredo in New York in 2004 and 2008, has no political or even legal meaning. The vote for that candidate is not even registered by name above the county level. But it’s not insignificant. A vote for president is an expression of one’s beliefs.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 02, 2012 11:24 AM | Send