From AP: “‘The whole thing is a political train wreck,’ said Richard Socarides, a White House adviser on gay rights during the Clinton administration.” Hard to disagree. At one time, the bill to overturn “don’t ask, don’t tell” had several Republican sponsors. But when push came to shove, we didn’t even keep the two Maine moderates, Collins and Snowe (here’s the cloture vote). Talk about pulling a defeat out of the jaws of victory.
McCain disgraced himself. But Socarides is right to fault the Democrats’ strategy. And whose bright idea was it to highlight Lady Gaga at a pro-repeal rally the day before the vote? It’s the kind of “let’s just speak to each other and our allies on the left” foolishness that shows a disdain for even bothering to try to reach out to the opposition.
In retrospect, waiting for the military report, due by the end of the year, would have taken away a crutch some socially moderate Republicans used to vote down repeal. Holding a lame-duck vote after the election might also have been a better way to go. But what’s done is done, and the struggle will have to carry on in the next Congress, with a much larger number of Republicans onboard (with some chance of another vote this year, after the military report is released). Either way, the Democrats-only strategy will be an even bigger failure if that’s all we’ve got.
More. Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin says Harry Reid set up the vote to fail. He blogs:
The sixty votes needed to break the filibuster had already been lined up, but that was before Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to limit debates and votes on amendments. That led to a collapse in support in ending the filibuster. Servicemembers United, which has been campaigning for DADT’s repeal, saw through Reid’s political posturing.
There are going to be a lot of political postmortems on this one.
Furthermore. Shikha Dalmia, a senior analyst at the libertarian Reason Foundation, blogs ObamaCare’s First Major Casualties: Gays and Aliens.
43 Comments for “The Defeat”
posted by BobN on
Yeah, it’s the Dems fault and Lady Gaga!!
Meanwhile, lockstep Republican opposition, 100-fucking-percent solidarity, well, that’s of course excusable.
Why can’t you conservative gays even deliver one single vote?
Oh, I keep forgetting, it’s the liberals’ fault.
posted by Tom G on
No one “decided to focus on Lady Gaga”…she herself decided to hold a rally to get her fans more engaged. Yes most of them are supportive, but she was encouraging more of them to get involved and her fan base dwarfs that of any advocacy group in DC. Why would you turn on an ally? No one is suggesting that Lady Gaga be the centerpiece of repeal efforts that is a straw man.
Unfortunately, a Democrats-only strategy is the only option since Republicans aren’t really sold on the fact that we should be allowed to exist and not be locked up in prison let alone be equal citizens. Everything possible was done to appease conservatives, including water down the actual bill to the point where it was no longer even repeal. What do you think could be done to get a single Republican senator on our side? I would love to hear it.
posted by Jon Trouten on
Agreed 100%, BobN. I’m tired of the Democrats being blamed for the Republicans actions.
posted by another steve on
BoBN, if you read Miller’s post without filtering it through your own venom, you’d see that he’s not criticizing Democrats, but the “Democrats-only strategy” of groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, which under its current leadership only supports Democrats. That strategy helped ensure 100% GOP opposition, and it’s a failed strategy. But if you have your way, I guess we’ll keep following it, and losing. But at least will have partisan purity (and after all, BoB, isn’t that what really matters).
posted by BobN on
Maybe Mr. Miller can clarify what he means by “Democrats only strategy”. I don’t think another steve has a clue what he means.
He certainly doesn’t have a clue about what just happened. Besides, shouldn’t all that money the LCRs and all the ass-licking that GOProud is engaged in generate even one GOP vote to counter all the alleged partisanship of the HRC? I mean, it couldn’t be that you guys are actually throwing away your money???
posted by BobN on
My bet is that Miller means what Miller always means: gay people need to support the GOP or the GOP will not support them.
posted by Carl on
The GOP has no reason to support repeal. The groups who give far more money and time to the GOP than GLBT organizations ever could oppose repeal. Many Republicans in Congress probably genuinely believe that gays should not be in the military, and even if they don’t believe that, they aren’t going to rock the boat.
The Democrats, as always, are poor strategists, and I really doubt most of them care either. Few in Congress genuinely care about gay rights and few probably care about the pain DADT can cause.
You always hear someone say well this will happen eventually because the polls are so supportive. Polls are worthless. The bottom line is that one party has no interest in repealing this and the other part is too weak and scared and stupid to move forward even if they wanted to.
I just hope that someday we will get to move beyond assuming that if we are REALLY nice to Republicans and if we are very patient and kind and sweet, this will happen. Every time anti-gay legislation is passed, every time pro-gay legislation fails, somehow, gays or gay organizations are to blame (if only we hadn’t been so loud/so strident/so supportive of Democrats). So, as often happens with gay rights, nothing moves forward aside from fingers pointing in all directions.
posted by dc on
Well, white heterosexual men invented “homosexuality,” so white heterosexual men control how “homosexuals” are treated. That’s all it is. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are the problem. Voting for either will not change anything. The very idea of homosexuality as a category that defines and differentiates human beings needs to be questioned. Is it morally right to classify persons as homosexual or heterosexual…and treat them differently as a result? Does human worth ultimately hinge upon your sexual preference for men or women? Voting for a democrat will not change the system of thinking that perpetuates homosexuality and heterosexuality as opposites that correlate to inferiority and superiority. Rather than voting for a Democrat ass hole, gays should present an argument that challenges the very definitions of sexuality (or homosexuality) that were constructed and are maintained by an elite group of white heterosexual men and women.
posted by Amicus on
Without seeing what Susan Collins amendment was, one has to reject the idea that it was the failure to allow amendments at fault.
Indeed, the main purpose of Senators demanding their own amendments is to horse-trade. So, you get something for your base and we get something for ours. For example, last year’s hate crime legislation was amended by Republicans so that attacking someone in uniform not has its own, unique _Federal_ crime status (eyes roll).
Which, of course, gives the lie to the competing notion that the Democrats were being devious by attaching it to a must-do bill, rather than as a stand alone.
posted by Amicus on
“not has its own” s/b “now has its own”
posted by Amicus on
lockstep Republican opposition, 100-fucking-percent solidarity
====
It is kinda admirable and ridiculous at the same time, isn’t it?
The easiest job in the country is to be a GOP representative, because you can just phone it in, right?
Why should the general electorate pay the salaries of so many GOP representatives, when one salary would do?
Meaning, at some point, hard to delimit, non-compromise is absurd, even moreso when one abuses it to hijack the power of agenda, mabye.
The sad truth for Liberals is that, even with 47-48 votes in the Senate, the GOP have a “majority”, because there seems to be always a few Democratic senators, in the recent era, willing.
It’s still amazing, isn’t it, and almost tragic that none of the Dem senators put a hold, anonymous or otherwise, on ANY of the Bush-era bills, including bills with immunity provisions, etc., that all of Dick Cheney’s trips up to Capitol Hill were successful, bar none?
posted by Jorge on
Like I said earlier, I blame President Obama for getting the ball rolling too late and failing to get the job done, and the Republican Senators (not the House members, as five of them voted in favor) for marching in lockstep in opposition to a reasonable compromise on DA/DT. I don’t mind that there was opposition, but if every single Republican had voted their conscience, this law would have passed. If Obama had gotten behind repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell earlier, the study would have been completed or this vote would not have been crippled by being an election year issue, the bill would have passed. That mumbo jumbo on the amendments is either election year politics and/or something that can be done over right with more time. We cannot reward the President for his bungling, and you cannot fault the Democratic gay base for trying to hold the president and their congressional allies accountable.
posted by Jorge on
Hey! Harry Reid voted Nay!
How come no one mentioned that yet?
posted by grendel on
“Hey! Harry Reid voted Nay!
How come no one mentioned that yet?”
He knew the vote would fail and he made a tactical vote: by voting nay he can move for reconsideration and force a re-vote — not there is any time or political will for either
posted by Carl on
“I don’t mind that there was opposition, but if every single Republican had voted their conscience, this law would have passed.”
Since when do Republicans vote their conscience?
Or most politicians for that matter.
The Republicans had no reason for this to pass. They are rewarded by their base if things like this fail. And many of them genuinely oppose homosexuality, not just in the military, but in society.
posted by Bobby on
The gay community doesn’t need weirdos like Gaga embracing our cause. This is bad PR, Gaga should shut up and sing.
posted by Carl on
So it looks like the GOP, who are supposed to be so focused on fiscal conservatism now and thanks to those Tea Partiers are not interested in social issues, are still going to use gay marriage, and are struggling over whether to start dredging up DOMA again. Looks like gays are going to still be a big issue for them next year. I guess it’s nice to know that “defending” marriage is still such a priority.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42547.html
posted by another steve on
It’s striking how so many commenters are ripping the Republicans (with some justification), but refusing to acknowledge that there are going to be even more (much more) of them in Congress next year. So, what’s your strategy, guys?
My recommendation: fire partisan activist Joe Solmonese at HRC and hire a Republican who shares GOP core values and knows how to lobby the right. Like that will happen.
posted by Carl on
“My recommendation: fire partisan activist Joe Solomese at HRC and hire a Republican who shares GOP core values and knows how to lobby the right. Like that will happen.”
The problem is that GOP core values in regards to gays seems to be, “Well I might not have a problem with you/your lifestyle, but gays just have pushed too far/ignore the will of the people/need to think about traditional values.”
So what can gays do? My guess is that the answer would be that we should be polite and nice and friendly and understand that Republicans do what they have to do and maybe if we are patient enough and remember our place, then something might improve someday.
Basically, exactly where we were in 2003-2004, when Republicans started the big campaigns against gay marriage and civil unions in order to drive up turnout.
Why should someone who believes that homosexuality is immoral and feels the public is on their side and that the government is in the hands of a gay agenda ever care what any gay person has to say? This is who is likely to have control of Congress next year. There’s not much to be said that would change their mind.
posted by Carl on
I also think it’s notable that Republicans and social conservatives did not try to compromise with Democrats or gay groups on anything, and were very upset with groups which did (like the NRA). And they have been rewarded for this by voters.
posted by BobN on
“Like that will happen.”
Hey, folks like you have been trying to get folks to stop donating to the HRC.
Your new plan is brilliant in that regard.
posted by BobN on
I’ll leave the like-minds arm-twisting to guys like Ken Mehlman, another steve, once he’s done with his current engagement helping to elect an anti-gay GOP candidate in NY.
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/21/Mehlman_Backs_Pro-Family_Candidate/
Ya gotta give him credit for at least being quick about revealing his hypocrisy.
posted by Jorge on
Since when do Republicans vote their conscience?
Or most politicians for that matter.
Most politicians have no conscience? Solution 1: tea party. You walked right into that one.
Solution 2: NYC mayor Mike Bloomberg is giving money to moderate candidates in both parties.
The gay community doesn’t need weirdos like Gaga embracing our cause. This is bad PR, Gaga should shut up and sing.
If that’s the best objection anyone can muster against Lady Gaga–and it is–I say keep her.
I’ll leave the like-minds arm-twisting to guys like Ken Mehlman, another steve, once he’s done with his current engagement helping to elect an anti-gay GOP candidate in NY.
Your link does not reference the NY candidate for governor. Nor does it reference anyone who the article establishes is anti-gay. You must do something about your fuzzy thinking, BobN.
posted by Jorge on
“Hey! Harry Reid voted Nay!
How come no one mentioned that yet?”
–He knew the vote would fail and he made a tactical vote: by voting nay he can move for reconsideration and force a re-vote — not there is any time or political will for either
(Oh.)
posted by Jeremy on
The gay community doesn’t need weirdos like Gaga embracing our cause. This is bad PR, Gaga should shut up and sing.
For once I agree with you Bobby.
“Gay men are just as masculine as straight men! Lady Gaga says so!”
Might as well had had Cher and RuPaul up in Maine with her. But even if she hadn’t decided to interject herself into our issue to fluff her ego, this vote still would have failed. I had been pretty much resigned for a year that Obama, the Pentagon, and both parties were not interested in repealing DADT. That’s why, to the chagrin of gay conservatives, I have so strongly championed Log Cabin Republicans’ lawsuit. The only way we are actually going to win decisively on our issues (and goddamnit I want to win) is to go to court and make the government defend itself on every law which gives us a legal disability. We have facts, hard evidence, and the Constitution in our corner. They have… well you saw what they had in the Perry and LCR trials.
posted by BobN on
Your link does not reference the NY candidate for governor. Nor does it reference anyone who the article establishes is anti-gay. You must do something about your fuzzy thinking, BobN.
Uh… the only appearance of the word “governor” on this thread is yours. Had I referred to such a race, I would have used the term “gubernatorial” cuz I think it’s a cool/funny word.
The race in question is either for U.S. Congress or NY House. The only term used is “representative” and that could be either, I would think.
As for his status as anti-gay, please don’t tell me you read “pro-family” from a GOP candidate and think he’s open to gay rights. That sort of disingenuousness is way beyond “fuzzy”.
posted by BobN on
I wish people wouldn’t use the word “tactical” to describe procedural votes.
It’s not about “tactics”, it’s about Senate rules.
posted by Carl on
“Most politicians have no conscience? Solution 1: tea party. You walked right into that one.”
Even they don’t always go along with their conscience. The main Tea Party group, FreedomWorks, declined to endorse Christine O’Donnell because they didn’t think she could win. Only after the primary did they endorse her. The Tea Party politicians who take big money from the RNC/NRCC/NRSC are others who trade their conscience.
posted by Jorge on
Oh.
I’m batting very low on this one.
As for his status as anti-gay, please don’t tell me you read “pro-family” from a GOP candidate and think he’s open to gay rights. That sort of disingenuousness is way beyond “fuzzy”.
Don’t try to change the subject. You said he was anti-gay. The article said “pro-family.” Pro-family does not mean anti-gay. There are far more people who are pro-family than are anti-gay. If there really were evidence that the guy were not merely pro-family but anti-gay, a gay publication like the Advocate would have presented it in a heartbeat. It didn’t. So if you are going to pick up that wink-and-a-nod command code and metamorph pro-family into anti-gay, you better put up some evidence or shut up.
And when you come back admitting that you don’t have any evidence (because when you do, you always present it immediately), perhaps then you will come to understand why I place so little credibility in the euphamisms and pronouncements of the left.
Well, with a bluff like that, I’d better look it up myself.
….
I’m not impressed.
posted by Bobby on
“For once I agree with you Bobby.”
—Well thanks, Jeremy.
“Might as well had had Cher and RuPaul up in Maine with her.”
—I know! And frankly, I don’t mind Cher, RuPaul or Gaga advocating for other issues, like AIDS research, condom use, etc. But the military has an uber-masculine, uber-patriotic tone that these people simply don’t have.
” But even if she hadn’t decided to interject herself into our issue to fluff her ego, this vote still would have failed. I had been pretty much resigned for a year that Obama, the Pentagon, and both parties were not interested in repealing DADT.”
—I’m convinced that part of the reason it failed was because Reid inserted The Dream Act. It’s very offensive to include illegal aliens and gays in the same bill.
” That’s why, to the chagrin of gay conservatives, I have so strongly championed Log Cabin Republicans’ lawsuit. The only way we are actually going to win decisively on our issues (and goddamnit I want to win) is to go to court and make the government defend itself on every law which gives us a legal disability. We have facts, hard evidence, and the Constitution in our corner. They have… well you saw what they had in the Perry and LCR trials.”
—I think most gay conservatives support ending DADT, with the exception of Steve Yuhas, a gay man who served in the military, and stayed in the closet until he got out of the military and started a career in radio. Steve isn’t the devil, but he thinks that just because he was able to live with DADT other gays can to.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I’ve never heard of Steve Yuhas, but one of the co-bloggers at GayPatriot (Nick) is also a gay veteran who doesn’t think that an outright repeal of DADT is urgently necessary, although possibly DADT should be modified so as to minimize its effects on gay personnel who are willing to be “very discreet.”
But I would surmise that these gay veterans are wary of totally doing away with DADT because they believe that DADT is the only thing keeping a damper on disruptive “identity politics” bullshit from a certain fraction of gay military personnel.
posted by BobN on
Well, geez, Jorge, having “batted low”, I would think you’d be just a tiny bit less critical about my posting. If you wish to forward me a check, I’ll put myself on retainer for you, researching what and when you like. Absent $$$$$, though, I’ll post things I find and, if I am interested, I’ll do more digging.
As for the phrase “pro-family” morphing into anything, blame the GOP campaign whizzes, like Mehlman himself, for that.
posted by BobN on
I’m convinced that part of the reason it failed was because Reid inserted The Dream Act. It’s very offensive to include illegal aliens and gays in the same bill.
Except both have majority support in the country. GOP opposition to the Dream Act is particularly cynical as it was THEIR IDEA in the first place and has near-unanimous support in the Pentagon.
But, hey, what do they care about the troops.
posted by Bobby on
“Except both have majority support in the country.
—Aside from liberals and progressives, I don’t know anyone who supports illegal aliens. Even in the Hispanic community there are many Hispanics who don’t support illegal aliens.
“GOP opposition to the Dream Act is particularly cynical as it was THEIR IDEA in the first place and has near-unanimous support in the Pentagon.”
—Where did you get that information? McCain changed his tune about illegal immigration after realizing how unpopular that issue was.
“But, hey, what do they care about the troops.”
—Of course they care about the troops, if the Democrats had their way you’d see our troops being treated like the terrorists in Guantanamo.
It’s funny how the left tries to say they “support our troops” yet they’re always bitching about military recruiters, violent video games, the ROTC and the JROTC.
posted by Jorge on
Well, geez, Jorge, having “batted low”, I would think you’d be just a tiny bit less critical about my posting.
I don’t like giving up on political disputes, and I would love to see your methods thoroughly discredited. But I’ll tone it down.
If you wish to forward me a check, I’ll put myself on retainer for you, researching what and when you like. Absent $$$$$, though, I’ll post things I find and, if I am interested, I’ll do more digging.
You’re either confident or communist.
Steve isn’t the devil, but he thinks that just because he was able to live with DADT other gays can to.
He’s the devil.
Actually his site has been strangely quiet on the gay community for most of the beginning of the year.
Are gays really the root of all evil? WND says yes.
By: Steve Yuhas
Whatever you think about Ann Coulter one thing is true – the woman is not “phobic” of anything.
??????? Wow, it didn’t occur to me that fiasco would affect him.
It’s really not in my best interests to say this, but it’s after the fact anyway. Before the rise of Sarah Palin, Steve Yuhas was pretty much the only person I was aware of who did down the line social conservatism credibly–and yes, that includes on most gay rights issues. Because he was able to avoid the big gay hating pitfall, and so he could give a presentation that wasn’t vain and holier-than-thou but that got the point across. That made him very dangerous, and I think it’s fair to guess that in the years he’s been around his influence has borne fruit. I am not talking about GOProud. (Whoo! Unintentional!) I am talking more about Sarah Palin.
posted by BobN on
I don’t know anyone who supports illegal aliens.
Sure you do. You know lots of people who support illegal aliens who have lived here most of their lives since childhood and want to gain citizenship or legal residence by serving in the armed forces. Those people are the GOP leadership, including McCain.
They LOVED the idea behind the Dream Act, at least back when they were pushing it.
And to forestall Jorge’s complaints about proof. Here’s a link to the 2003 version of the bill. You’ll find McCain and some other GOP names you’ll recognize on the list of co-sponsors. You can find them on the list for 2005 and 2007, too, I hear.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN01545:@@@L&summ2=m#cosponsors
Oh, and if you live in Florida, Bobby, you know lots and lots of businessmen, most of them Republicans I would guess, who LOVE hiring illegal aliens. Cuz they’re cheap.
Lack of enforcement of laws barring the hiring of illegal aliens is why there are so many in this country. Business doesn’t want enforcement.
posted by Bobby on
“Sure you do. You know lots of people who support illegal aliens who have lived here most of their lives since childhood and want to gain citizenship or legal residence by serving in the armed forces. Those people are the GOP leadership, including McCain.”
—I have a friend who wanted to join the army and was told he couldn’t do it until he got his greencard. So believe me, the army has never been a place for wetbacks to become citizens. Greencards are different, greencards are hard to get and thus respectable. An illegal alien isn’t respectable, he is a criminal who has broken the law. And before anyone cries a river about the poor “migrant” workers, let me remind you of all the Cubans, Nicaraguans, Costa Ricans and Panamanians that Mexico has deported.
“They LOVED the idea behind the Dream Act, at least back when they were pushing it.”
—That’s the RINO republican wing of the GOP, they don’t represent all of us. Even McCain had to change his tune after finding out it was very unpopular.
“Oh, and if you live in Florida, Bobby, you know lots and lots of businessmen, most of them Republicans I would guess, who LOVE hiring illegal aliens. Cuz they’re cheap.”
—I also know lots of businesses that only hire legal residents and will not even sponsor an h1-B visa even if the legal alien pays for it.
“Lack of enforcement of laws barring the hiring of illegal aliens is why there are so many in this country. Business doesn’t want enforcement.”
—I agree, but that’s not an excuse to protect law-breakers and encourage more illegal aliens to come here.
America needs to stop acting like a giant 7/11 or a Wal-Mart, we cannot define our immigration policy by a poem written on the Statue of Liberty. My legal alien friends have suffered a lot to come to this country, I will not spit on them by supporting the children of wetbacks.
posted by Jorge on
And to forestall Jorge’s complaints about proof…
And that is powerful proof.
But then, I never understood why people like Lindsey Graham and John McCain insist on calling themselves conservatives.
Oh, and ditch the wetback crap, Bobby, you’re not funny. The fence didn’t get built, we’re still talking comprehensive immigration reform, and that judge put the brakes on the Arizona law. You want to take that out on the immigrants–excuse my political incorrectness–but really it’s your fault for being on the losing side.
posted by Bobby on
“But then, I never understood why people like Lindsey Graham and John McCain insist on calling themselves conservatives.”
—I don’t either, even Glenn Beck admits that McCain would have been worst than Obama because a progressive Republican can do much more damage and have less resistance from the GOP. And yes, McCain is a progressive even though he tries to hide it.
“Oh, and ditch the wetback crap, Bobby, you’re not funny. The fence didn’t get built, we’re still talking comprehensive immigration reform, and that judge put the brakes on the Arizona law. You want to take that out on the immigrants–excuse my political incorrectness–but really it’s your fault for being on the losing side.”
—The fence hasn’t been finished, but it has been built in several parts of America. And no, I’m not taking it out on immigrants, I’m taking it out on illegal aliens. Why is that so difficult to understand?
I’m not in the losing side, I’m on the side of the law even if Obama doesn’t want to enforce the immigration law in the books.
Either way, immigration is serious business. Do you want America to become China? Do you want us to have 600 million citizens? Are we not overcrowded enough? Honestly, I wish I had the money to buy me a farm in Idaho and get away from these Soylent Green conditions.
posted by Jorge on
And no, I’m not taking it out on immigrants, I’m taking it out on illegal aliens. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Didn’t I ask you to excuse my political correctness? I said immigrants. Why do you get so bent out of shape over such obvious provocation?
Either way, immigration is serious business. Do you want America to become China? Do you want us to have 600 million citizens? Are we not overcrowded enough?
You’re walking on thin ice here.
I don’t know how they do it in Mexico City (wait, never mind), but the way I see it, all we need to do is lower the crime rate and health-related mortality rates among everyone and then and the birth rates between demographics will even themselves out.
At least, I hope they do. The alternatives are all too frightening.
posted by Bobby on
“Didn’t I ask you to excuse my political correctness? I said immigrants. Why do you get so bent out of shape over such obvious provocation?”
—Sorry, sometimes I react before I think. My mistake.
“I don’t know how they do it in Mexico City (wait, never mind), but the way I see it, all we need to do is lower the crime rate and health-related mortality rates among everyone and then and the birth rates between demographics will even themselves out.”
—Nothing lowers the crime rate more than more law-abiding citizens carrying guns. Which by the way doesn’t happen in Mexico where gun control is really strict yet every criminal is packing and they’re not afraid to shoot.
posted by Amicus on
America needs to stop acting like a giant 7/11 or a Wal-Mart, we cannot define our immigration policy by a poem written on the Statue of Liberty.
——
But we are and aspire to be a giant 7/11 or a Wal-Mart, no?
What’s the difference if I move my plant to Mexico and pay $0.50 on the dollar fo labor, there; or, if I just leave the plant where it is and “import” the workers from Mexico, who will take the jobs for $0.50 on the dollar?
posted by Bobby on
“But we are and aspire to be a giant 7/11 or a Wal-Mart, no?”
—No, we aspire to shot at a 7/11 or a Wal-Mart, we do not aspire to see our country turned into Mumbai or Calcutta.
“What’s the difference if I move my plant to Mexico and pay $0.50 on the dollar fo labor, there; or, if I just leave the plant where it is and “import” the workers from Mexico, who will take the jobs for $0.50 on the dollar?”
—Well, that’s the reason we have to 1. Enforce immigration laws. 2. Protect our borders. 3. Increase tariffs for imported goods.
The legitimate way of the government to make money is through tariffs, land sales and lotteries, that’s what the founders wanted. Things like the IRS, the progressive income tax, the BATF, the department of education, and others are abominations.
For example, why do we need a minimum wage law? Laws like that only raise the cost of production which raises the cost of prices and stops businesses from hiring inexperienced people that aren’t worth a minimum wage salary.