Here’s my question for conservatives
Why would you believe anything Valerie Jarrett says about what John Boehner promised to do?
I know you neither like nor trust Boehner. I neither like nor trust him much, either. And I know you’re been betrayed by the GOP before, so often that you’ve come to expect it.
But seriously, what reason would Valerie Jarrett have to be telling the truth when she says this?:
President Barack Obama’s top adviser and confidant [sic] told a group of global elites on Thursday in Las Vegas, Nevada that House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has made a commitment to the White House to try to pass amnesty legislation this year…Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s senior advisor, told attendees at the yearly invitation-only SkyBridge Alternatives Conference that Boehner would help the White House make a push [to] get immigration reform enacted in the next three months.
I can’t think of a reason to trust her. I can, however, think of a reason or two why she would lie. The first is to get people on the left pumped and enthusiastic about amnesty’s chances. The second is to get the right to start railing at Bohener and calling him a traitor (as the first person in the comments section at the article did). No down side to inciting a civil war among your opposition.
That said, I have no idea what Boehner will actually do on immigration, and as I said I don’t especially trust him. But I wouldn’t trust Jarrett as far as I could throw her to report accurately on Boehner’s true intentions or even on what Boehner told her his true intentions were, or to report on her own true intentions.
Boehner has denied making any such promises to Democrats, by the way. And Jarrett herself has backtracked and offered the following clarification:
Boehner has made [a] commitment to trying, not that he has made [a] commitment to us or time frame.
Everything clear now?
What do I think Boehner really intends to do about illegal immigrants? I think he’s torn. He may buy the idea that Republicans have to do something about this—or at least appear to do something about this—in order to appeal to Hispanic votes (I disagree that it would woo their votes from the Democrats, but he’s not consulting me). He also knows that the GOP’s big-money donors seem to want immigration reform passed, and he needs to placate them to keep the money flowing. So he likes to indicate that he would really really love to pass something of the sort (see also this). But every time he says it he is careful to add an interesting caveat, to the effect that “no action is possible until President Obama proves himself a trustworthy partner to Republicans.”
Does that seem very likely to happen? That’s Boehner’s out, I think, in case he decides not to do it or in case he can’t convince enough Republicans to do it. He can then say to everyone who wanted it, “I tried, but I couldn’t succeed because Obama’s not a trustworthy partner on this.”
I agree and find the National Chamber of Commerce to have behaved in a similar way. Who are the big money donors that want cheap immigrant labor?
1. Restaurants so all the national chains want low skill labor
2. Fruit and Veggie growers – Wheat, soybeans and potatoes are automated.
3. Meat processors
4. High Tech – they want controllable serfs on H1B visas
Guys like Ford, GM and Boeing don’t care, Walmart and Target really can hire citizens at low rates, and most construction outfits don’t contribute at a national level.
The legal immigration system needs to be revisited but rewarding illegal immigration is never justified.
Why would you believe anything Valerie Jarrett says about what John Boehner promised to do?
IIRC, Valerie Jarrett recommended against going after Bin Laden. Then there is Valerie Jarrett discussing : discussing Van Jones:
You know Van Jones, the Truther and who after 1991 proclaimed himself a Communist. [Anyone who after 1991 considered himself a Communist is a pretty good definition of a nut case.] Yep, just the man for the White House.
So to answer your question about believing Valerie Jarrett: Hell, no.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud_yNFnfrSI Video of Valerie Jarrett discussing Van Jones
I agree with your assessment of Jarrett. She will say or do anything to further the progressive agenda and cover for past sins. But I haven’t seen anything recently to suggest that Speaker Boehner is an honest or honorable man. It seems he is all to ready to trample the Constitution or ignore the conservative base of the Republican Party when it is to his advantage.
I think Boehner was probably a very good man at one time. But he has been in DC too long and has been infected by whatever disease infects long term residents there.
Now there’s the rub. Those two sentences alone speak volumes about our view the whole of Washington these days. We can’t trust our political opponents and yet can’t trust our allies either. When you get a situation like this, it’s natural for people to simply expect the worst until proven otherwise.
KRB
But he has been in DC too long and has been infected by whatever disease infects long term residents there.
Exactly, anyone that has been around zombies too long, will become a zombie them self.
Regarding an immigration agreement, Boehner need only assure Jarrett and her boss that if He likes the agreement, He can keep the agreement; period.
“I can’t think of a reason to trust her. I can, however, think of a reason or two why she would lie. The first is to get people on the left pumped and enthusiastic about amnesty’s chances. The second is to get the right to start railing at Bohener and calling him a traitor (as the first person in the comments section at the article did). No down side to inciting a civil war among your opposition.”
————————————————-
It’s only a lie if Boehner doesn’t intend to do that and she knows it.
Otherwise, she gains the same benefits from telling the truth. Since she’s a hard leftist, we know that she’ll take any position that gives her side an advantage, whether that’s lying or telling the truth. So it’s not like she’s operating on some great moral principle here.
Since Boehner himself has been recorded saying that amnesty is a top priority to big-money donors, it is plausibly if not probably true.
This strikes me as the perfect example of the classic counter-argument to conspiracy theories: people are too prone to letting things slip for the conspiracy to remain secret.
If the establishment Republicans don’t try to pass amnesty (or what could reasonably be interpreted as such) after the midterms, I’ll eat my hat.
…thankfully, my hat is small and made of chocolate.
Speaker Boner HAS to placate the NAM crowd — and the restaurant trades — and the Silicon Valley set — with words.
Of course, amnesty will be the death knell of the GOP.
1) Starts off an intra-party civil war…
2) Cedes huge chucks of the Electoral College to the opposition…
3) Ultimately imploding the economy and the national defense.
&&&
Bringing in vast numbers of Second World and Third World souls MUST cause the nation to take on the character of those cultures.
This goes way beyond interesting and tasty food choices.
Most of the planet is dialed in for monarchy or despotism. They are NOT in any way disposed towards pluralism.
One can witness this up close in Hawaii, where the vote goes along ethnic lines — time after time. The ONLY element of that polity that swings to and fro are European Americans. They’re no more than 24% of the vote.
Barry was raised in Hawaii. This is where is is coming from — politically. His daze in Chicago didn’t shift him in any regard. That famous city also votes along ethnic lines.
What can be tolerated at a state and big city level is utterly ruinous at the national or international scale.
%%%
The other terrible legacy of open borders is that America attracts the more talented — if not MOST talented fraction of alien societies.
Sometimes described as the “Talented Tenth” — this section could also be termed the “Smart Fraction.” (IQ>106)
On a short term basis, this is a zero-sum game/ looting. America is luring away EXACTLY those who have the will and the power to up lift their kin into the modern era.
By removing them, America creates a brain drain/ talent poverty effect which enhances the backwardness of those societies.
This tendency is also at the heart of the Black ‘culture’ of the ghetto.
It is humanly IMPOSSIBLE for non-Whites to accept advice/ cultural inputs from Whites. Here I speaking of general tendencies and results. This barrier is at the heart of the failure of the Peace Corps. (Pronounced corpse in ebonics)
The alien citizens scoff at American (White) collegiate wisdom — because of its SOURCE.
The occasional first adopters are rounded on as cultural traitors. Backward societies NEVER attribute their woes to themselves.
This non-thought process is equalled in the Oval Office by our man who never attributes worldly difficulties to anything he’s done. Seriously.
Like Adolf and all the rest, he’s a True Believer — in himself.
This is the source of his inverted learning curve. As time advances, the less connected with reality Barry has become.
Perfect.
DirtyJobsGuy,
You are minimizing the impact of amnesty in one respect: When coupled with the penalties on employers in Obamacare (roughly $2000-$3000 per employee!), and because illegals are specifically exempt from these penalties, there will be an economic incentive to hire illegals in place of U.S. citizens across every sector of the economy.
Now, it’s true that illegals don’t have the skills to fill every job. But I think we will be surprised (given the incentives) at just how creative industry will be at fitting them into their business model.
In this case, the “giant sucking sound” will be internal to the U.S.: from citizens to illegals.
P.S. It will also end the republic.
Matt…
I’m reminded of Roman citizens who self-enslaved themselves — so as to duck Roman tax farmers.
In the day, slaves paid no taxes.
So small farmers (Romans) ‘volunteered’ themselves to avoid the tax man. (tax farmer)
Tax farming was tax-classic. The ‘farmer’ would be given free reign to plunder all and every within his sector for a solid year.
In turn, he pledged X amount to the sovereign.
A similar scheme was used even in modern times — in feudal Europe through to the end of the Bourbon dynasty.
And, just like the Romans, the peerage didn’t have to pay taxes! (property or income) ( No wonder they could afford to live large. )
Why? Because Boehner seems to be playing for the other team more than the home team. It isn’t the other side I believe, it’s “my side” I have learned to distrust as well. I don’t have a team, anymore, if I ever did. Which is why I quit the two party system. It’s just a faster and slower acting one party system. A reflection of a time where there was choice… or a stronger perception of such.
“would you believe anything Valerie Jarrett says
about what John Boehner promised to do?”No.
More and more, I feel like I’m rooting for the Washington Generals at a Harlem Globetrotters game.
Somethin’s gotta give.
If the Left says the sun will be coming up tomorrow, better make sure they aren’t intending to nova the sun.
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
No, I don’t care what Jarrett says. But I also don’t trust Boehner as far as I can throw him.
Kaba- I agree with your assessment that he’s not an honorable man any longer. Maybe at one time. But I will throw this out for the sake of being cynical, because I also know the Obama machine doesn’t generally throw statements out like this without a reason, plus they have a well documented history of digging up dirt on their enemies.
Boener keeps bringing this topic up himself, knowing it infuriates the conservative base, then changes his mind. As Neo points out he seems to be very conflicted about the subject, and I have to wonder if Jarrett has some cards up her sleeve she’s been holding over him, or possibly, that Boener thinks she’s got something. Obama has used the IRS effectively, the NSA, etc. Boener demonstrated that he’s not all that bright politically, and there’s a decent chance they’ve found a way to yank on his choke collar when they need to, whether it’s a bluff, or real, his constant vascillating is curious.
Maybe the statement was a public reminder for him, from a ruthless political operative.
Southpaw, You could well be right in your thoughts. I would suggest that if that is true then he has both a legal and moral duty to weigh the good of the nation and his oath to same against his public image. We ask far greater sacrifices from our military for far less compensation.
southpaw:
Why do you say Boehner is “not that bright politically”?
I think that he’s done pretty well politically. He’s been in national public office for close to 25 years (and local public office for yours before that), moving steadily upward in the hierarchy. You don’t get to his position without being quite bright politically, actually. In the Obama administration he’s had to deal the entire time with the fact that Republicans don’t control Congress (first not even the House, and then just the House). He’s done pretty well at blocking things—except for Obamacare, where he wielded what power he could but couldn’t get around the Democrats’ machinations, although I don’t see what he could have done that would have been more successful there, given the way they went about it.
That doesn’t mean I care for him or his style. I don’t. But I see him as politically savvy.
A Speaker of the House, ignoring the Executive Branch’s stealing of power, wanton passage of laws and new regulations never passed or intended by Congress, ignoring certain laws and changing others that can’t be changed??
A Speaker of the House who had ONCE tried to pass legalization for illegals before upon this nation.
A Speaker of the House that has tried to block investigations in to corruption and illegality by the Executive Branch.
I do not trust him AT ALL!!
I can throw him pretty far with a hip throw. Depends on how many times they bounce though.
Neo- politically, he’s a survivor, but to your point, he became speaker of the house by virtue of the very movement that he’s doing his best to destroy.
The TEA party handed him the seat, and he’s spent the last few years trying to get rid of them. The Republicans may do well in the next election, but I will bet almost anything they will not hang onto it under his leadership. His current position of power is a result of Obama’s unpopularity, and nothing to do with anything he’s done as a legislator or a leader. The best you can hope for from him is he doesn’t screw it up – but I would put even odds that if anybody can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, he can do it.
If he continues to talk about immigration reform and “grand bargains” and his usual nonsense, he will soon find he’s back to being the minority leader. If the Republicans gain control of both houses, and he then goes into “reaching across the isle” mode , they will lose big in 2016.
I credit his ability to get elected with a few things – 1. He’s in a safe district 2. He’s voted his district a lot of money on defense spending and kept them employed. 3. He does what he’s told by the RNC, even if it means losing control power. The RNC and the DNC both have vested interests in goverment spending mountanis of tax payer money – just on different things. (but not always) Boener is a yes man.
As a speaker, he’s been a bungler – you’ve forgotten his idiotic budget deals and continuiing spending resolutions, and idle threats that blew up in his face. The first few years were painful to watch.
He’s survived, but I wouldn’t be too eager to credit his survival on smarts – some of it is dumb luck, which he seems determined to undo.