The latest Red on Red battle is starting up. It looks to be as ugly as it can get, and who profits from this Red on Red battle, it is neither the GOP Aristocrat (though they are as likely behind it as the democrats are) nor the Conservatives in the Republican Party. What is this latest Red on Red battle?
Before anyone excommunicates him from the GOP on grounds of RINOism, ask yourself: Will there be a single Republican candidate onstage next year at the debates who challenges him on this point? Don’t say Cruz. Cruz opposes a path to citizenship but he’s in line with Paul, Rubio, etc, on legalization and work permits, which are the truly important provisions. Once legalization is granted, citizenship will inevitably follow. (That’s why it’s crucial to secure the border first, to make sure that this amnesty is the last amnesty.) If Paul’s candidacy is DOA for taking this line, I’m not sure whose candidacy is still alive.
Besides, America is already largely “beyond deportation.”
During a symposium at the Newseum on conservative engagement with Hispanic media outlets, Paul also said Republicans have plenty of ideas that appeal to Latinos, but acknowledged, “We got to get beyond deportation to get to the rest of the issues.”
“The bottom line is that the Hispanic community, the Latino community, is not going to hear us until we get beyond that issue. They’re not going to care whether we go to the same church or have the same values or believe in the same kind of future of the country until we get beyond that. So showing up helps. But you got to show up and you got to say something and it’s has to be different than what we’ve been saying.”…
“I think one way to get the door ajar is say that you know, Mrs. Garcia’s nephew is not going to be sent home to Mexico,” he said. “You know, because everybody — even those who are here illegally — know somebody who is here who doesn’t have the proper visa.”…
Paul, who voted against last year’s Senate comprehensive immigration bill, expressed frustration that the bill still keeps it illegal for immigrants with certain visas to change jobs while in the United States. He gave an example of a migrant worker who came here with a legal visa to pick crops for $9 dollars an hour but later saw a construction job that paid $14 dollars an hour.
Those within the conservative wing of the GOP have one single salient point to their argument. As a Conservative I am deeply troubled by this Red on Red war. It only serves the interests of the GOP Aristocrats and the Democrats. Keep the Conservative base of the Republican Party divided. Are you for the rule of law, or amnesty.
The one salient point Republicans like Rand Paul have, is how do you deport 20 to 30 million people without starting a civil war? Oh, it’s easy to say, seal the borders and enforce the laws, but such simplistic rhetoric does not address the issue of how do you deport 20 to 30 million people.
Personally the idea of rewarding people who have broken America’s immigration laws makes me want to throw up. But the idea of attempting to round up 20 to 30 million people gives me the Heebie-jeebies as well. It smacks of something that Adolph Hitler’s Nazi regime would attempt. I have accepted the reality (though I hate it and fight viciously against it) that today’s America has becomes a Marxist/Socialist society. That after 50 years of incessant Marxist/Socialist indoctrination and propaganda people in America would genuinely consider a Pyrrhic victory such as attempting to deport 20 to 30 million people is disturbing beyond belief.
Have we really fallen so far down the Marxist rabbit hole that we can only accept 1 solution, and a solution so drastic at that?
NO… I will never vote for amnesty. It in my mind is simply no more of a valid solution than rounding up 20 to 30 million people the way the Nazi’s did and deporting them. So many on the right have followed the Marxist/Socialists into the trap of believing that “The End Justifies the Means”. That winning at any cost is preferable to compromising anything at all.
The GOP Aristocrats, who like their Democrat brethren live only for power, desire nothing less than to see a dangerous upstart like Rand Paul destroyed by the Immigration issue. There is no doubt that they are as much behind pitting conservatives against Rand Paul as the Democrats are. It serves their interests, not those of the United States of America. Ronald Reagan was betrayed by the democrats over this exact same issue and many of today’s “The End Justifies the Means” Conservative consider it Reagan’s single worst sin.
The saying divide and conquer is as old as human civilization, even Jesus Christ acknowledged it’s truth and power when he said “A house divided cannot long stand”. Immigration is being used to divide the Conservative base of the Republican party, it is not the Conservative base that will profit from being divided and conquered, it is the GOP Aristocrats who have proven time and time again that they will sell their mothers soul to retain their seats at the tables of power, and it is the Marxist Democrats who will profit.
So go ahead, declare Rand Paul to be fatally flawed, unacceptable, and throw him to the wolves just as your master, the GOP Aristocrats and the Democrat demand that you do. You will have your Pyrrhic victory, the Democrats will retain control of the nation and the GOP Aristocrats will retain their seats at the tables of power. We will end up with amnesty, the Democrats will get their 20 to 30 million new Marxist/Socialist voters, but you will have your lofty Olympia moral superiority perches to comfort yourselves with.
For the collection of novellas by L. Sprague de Camp, see Divide and Rule (collection).
In politics and sociology, divide and rule (or divide and conquer) (derived from Greek: διαίρει καὶ βασίλευε, diaírei kaì basíleue) is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures and prevents smaller power groups from linking up.
The maxims divide et impera and divide ut regnes were utilised by the Roman ruler Caesar and the Corsican emperor Napoleon. The example of Gabinius exists, parting the Jewish nation into five conventions, reported by Flavius Josephus in Book I, 169-170 of The Wars of the Jews (De bello Judaico). Strabo also reports in Geography, 8.7.3 that the Achaean League was gradually dissolved under the Roman possession of the whole of Macedonia, owing to them not dealing with the several states in the same way, but wishing to preserve some and to destroy others.
In modern times, Traiano Boccalini cites “divide et impera” in La bilancia politica, 1,136 and 2,225 as a common principle in politics. The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose his rule. Machiavelli identifies a similar application to military strategy, advising in Book VI of The Art of War (Dell’arte della guerra), that a Captain should endeavor with every art to divide the forces of the enemy, either by making him suspicious of his men in whom he trusted, or by giving him cause that he has to separate his forces, and, because of this, become weaker.
The strategy of division and rule has been attributed to sovereigns ranging from Louis XI to the Habsburgs. Edward Coke denounces it in Chapter I of the Fourth Part of the Institutes, reporting that when it was demanded by the Lords and Commons what might be a principal motive for them to have good success in Parliament, it was answered: “Eritis insuperabiles, si fueritis inseparabiles. Explosum est illud diverbium: Divide, & impera, cum radix & vertex imperii in obedientium consensus rata sunt.” [You would be insuperable if you were inseparable. This proverb, Divide and rule, has been rejected, since the root and the summit of authority are confirmed by the consent of the subjects.] On the other hand, in a minor variation, Sir Francis Bacon wrote the phrase “separa et impera” in a letter to James I of 15 February 1615. James Madison made this recommendation in a letter to Thomas Jefferson of 24 October 1787, which summarized the thesis of The Federalist #10: “Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny, is under certain (some) qualifications, the only policy, by which a republic can be administered on just principles.” In Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch by Immanuel Kant (1795), Appendix one, Divide et impera is the third of three political maxims, the others being Fac et excusa (Act now, and make excuses later) and Si fecisti, nega (when you commit a crime, deny it).
Elements of this technique involve:
creating or encouraging divisions among the subjects to prevent alliances that could challenge the sovereign
aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate with the sovereign
fostering distrust and enmity between local rulers
encouraging meaningless expenditures that reduce the capability for political and military spending
NO… what we need is a real solution to illegal immigration, one that does not include either amnesty nor deporting 20 to 30 million people.