Mexican Elite STILL In Tailspin After Trump’s Triumphant Visit, Speech

A timely post from http://www.vdare.com about Mexico and Donald Trump. This follows this post about the 9/11 anniversary. This follows this post about Donald Trump's immigration speech. This follows this post about rap songs referencing Donald Trump.
You can follow me here.

<

SAID IN SPANISH: Mexican Elite In Tailspin After Trump’s Triumphant Visit, Speech

>

---

Allan Wall

If Trump wins, August 31^st will go down as a milestone, with Trump’s lightning visit to Mexico immediately followed by his blockbuster immigration patriot speech in Phoenix. The visit, and Trump’s conduct, set the non-governing-party Mexican elite into a hysterical tailspin.
There’s not just one Mexican elite, you see. In this case, the elite affiliated with ruling PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institucional) party was opposed by the other political parties and assorted high-profile intellectuals. They are furious Trump didn’t apologize for his comments about Mexican illegal alien criminals in his campaign opening speech in June 2015 , allegedly a horrible insult to the Mexican people. The fact Trump showed up in Mexico City without an abject apology drives them even crazier.
We can only speculate about Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto’s motivation for inviting Trump. He actually invited both Trump and Hillary Clinton to visit, and Trump surprised him by calling his bluff. But, as I’ve pointed out (here and here), the Mexican government realizes that The Donald just might win the election, and Pena Nieto will then have to deal with President Trump.
Pena Nieto is not doing well politically. Maybe he thought that the Trump and/or Hillary visit would make him look like a great influence on the American election, or that neither would take him up on the offer. But it’s clear it’s hurt him.
When it comes to immigration to the U.S., all Mexican factions are in agreement: the U.S. should have open borders. But they criticize other factions for not standing up to the U.S. enough.
Here are some statements by just a few elite Mexicans. What they all have in common is they are not part of the Pena Nieto administration. There’s a lot of politics involved here, but it’s a revealing look into their mindset.

• Ricardo Anaya, the (quite fair-skinned) president of the PAN (Partido Acción Nacional). During the heady days of George W. Bush, we were lectured that the PAN was a  truly conservative and pro-American party and so we had to please them by surrendering on immigration.

Anaya tweeted:

What was [Pena] thinking to invite Donald Trump? We Mexicans have memory and dignity. Donald Trump is not welcome in Mexico.

One minute later:

Instead of demanding an apology, the government permitted Donald Trump to consummate the humiliation toward Mexicans. It’s unacceptable.

So Mexico was “humiliated” by what Trump said in a campaign speech. One would think Mexico would be “humiliated” by its citizens going to another country and committing crimes. But to them, I guess, that’s not humiliating at all.

• Josefina Vasquez Mota, the PAN’s 2012 presidential candidate. She lost, but had to get in on the Trump bashing too. Before the Trump visit, she tweeted

The meeting with Trump is inadmissible if there is not a firm defense of the Mexicans in the U.S.A. and their contributions. Respect Mexico and the Mexicans.

Was Josefina not listening to the press conference? President Pena Nieto affirmed his responsibility of protecting Mexicans in the United States. We would call what the Mexican government does meddling, but Mexicans of all parties support it. They just accuse opposing parties of not doing it enough.

• Margarita Zavala, the wife of Felipe Calderon, the previous Mexican president, and a possible candidate for president in Mexico’s upcoming 2018 election:

Mr. Donald Trump, even though you have been invited, know that you are not welcome. We Mexicans have dignity and we repudiate your discourse of hate.

I recall back in the 1990s, H. Ross Perot was lambasted in Mexico, and one of the chambers of Congress actually voted to bar him from entering Mexico, with one dissenting vote.

ADVERTISEMENT

• AMLO

But erstwhile leftist politician Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (“AMLO”), perennial presidential candidate and currently head of the MORENA (Movimiento Regeneración Nacional) party which he founded, actually had some reasonable things to say.
For one thing, Lopez Obrador said that “we shouldn’t meddle in the affairs of other countries so that no foreign government meddles in affairs belonging only to Mexicans.“ [Ante Trump, pide AMLO prudencia, firmeza y respeto, el Universal, September 1, 2016]
Don’t take it too seriously, as Lopez Obrador has been in favor of meddling on  behalf of illegals before. But his point here is valid.
AMLO also said that Pena Nieto had invited Trump as a smokescreen to cover up an increase in gasoline prices! [La visita de Trump a México es una cortina de humo para no hablar del incremento en las gasolinas: AMLO Sin Embargo, September 1, 2016]

• Jorge Castaneda

Readers of VDARE.COM are familiar with Jorge Castaneda, an elite Mexican who has been involved in this issue for decades. Way back in 1995, Castaneda wrote in the Atlantic that “Some Americans….dislike immigration, but there is very little they can do about it.” As Foreign Minister under Vicente Fox, Castaneda was an incessant meddler and is currently a professor at New York University, where I don’t doubt he fits in quite well.
On August 30^th, the day before Trump’s visit, Castaneda had this on his Facebook

Trump has come insulting every day for more than a year, and now he is invited almost in the character of a head of state, even though he is going very low in the polls.
(Trump nos ha venido insultando todos los días desde hace más de un año, y ahora se le invita con carácter casi de jefe de Estado, cuando además va muy abajo en las encuestas.)
Facebook, Aug. 30th at 11:15 p.m. Jorge G. Castañeda

There’s a video that goes along with it. Just watch to see how arrogant the guy is.
On September 1st, after having seen Trump’s speech in Phoenix, Castaneda tweeted:

Trump’s speech in Arizona didn’t move a millimeter. Wall, who pays, NAFTA, deportations. They’ve chamaquearon [fooled, deceived, with a connotation of mocking] Enrique Pena Nieto.

• Enrique Krauze and Carlos Loret De Mola Noted Mexican intellectual Enrique Krauze appeared on a morning news show in Mexico and was interviewed by Carlos Loret de Mola (more on him later.)

Krauze hyperbolically complained that “you confront a tyrant, you don’t pacify him,” comparing the meeting to that between Chamberlain and Hitler. Though Krauze doesn’t think Trump will win, he claimed that even if Trump is President Mexico’s leader should not meet with him. He added that Trump should publicly apologize to Mexicans for insulting them, promise not to build a wall and not to deport 11 million illegal Mexicans [Krauze: Trump debe ofrecer una disculpa pública a los mexicanos Televisa, August 31, 2016]
Even if you don’t understand Spanish, if you watch the video of the interview you can see the arrogance of Enrique Krauze.
As for star Mexican newsman Carlos Loret de Mola, the interviewer, he’s actually Carlos Loret de Mola Jr. His father, Carlos Loret de Mola Sr., wrote an Excelsior column in 1982 entitled “The Great Invasion: Mexico Recovers Its Own” in which he openly exulted over the reconquest (through immigration) of the U.S. Southwest. (See my You Say You Want a Reconquista?)
I’m guessing Carlos Jr. picked up some ideas from the Old Man.
There are more examples, but you get the point. For the first time in years, the Mexican elite is truly afraid of a U.S. politician. They are afraid that the jig is up, and Donald Trump is going to get control of the border.
President Pena Nieto took a risk by inviting Trump (and Hillary) but it backfired on him. So right after the Trump visit, Pena Nieto began arguing once again that Mexico will not pay for the wall.
But it doesn’t matter what the Mexican president says. President Trump could compel Mexico to pay for a wall by garnishing a portion of the billions of dollars sent back in remittances from Mexicans in the U.S.
The only way for Mexico to stop that would be to tell its people not to send money back from the U.S. Can you imagine that?
Besides, is the “Mexico’s going to pay for it” really the main point anyway? The real point is not having Mexico pay for it but the fact that a wall would be built at all. And it’s not just a wall, but the whole set of proposals Trump is making, of a potential presidency that is actually working to secure our borders and protect our workers. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
And that’s why these Mexican elitists are in a tizzy. Here at VDARE.COM we can’t endorse candidates, but wouldn’t a Trump Triumph be worth it, to see the resulting comeuppance of the arrogant Mexican elite?
American citizen Allan Wall (email him) moved back to the U.S.A. in 2008 after many years residing in Mexico. Allan`s wife is Mexican, and their two sons are bilingual. In 2005, Allan served a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his Mexidata.info articles are archived here ; his News With Views columns are archived here; and his website is here.

A timely post about from www.vdare.com about RINO's. This follows this post about Immigration and the Iraq War. This follows this post about commencement speeches, including Michelle Obama, who is highlighted by VDARE here.
You can follow me here.

Electing a New, Illegal Alien Military—With RINO Support

---

James Kirkpatrick
May 25, 2015

 

See also Memorial Day Meditation: Obama Creating A New “Hollow Army”—But Many Servicemen Still Want To Defend The Southern Border By Thomas Martel
In the Hollow Empire that is the modern United States, even the Armed Forces are becoming just another prize in a never-ending racial Cold War over resources. Thus the unedifying spectacle recently when Congress only narrowly (221-202) defeated an effort to essentially replace Americans in the United States military with illegal aliens. Twenty Republicans voted for this treasonous measure. Why?
The amendment stripping Amnesty for illegals joining the military from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was offered by Rep. Mo Brooks (AL), whom you may remember calling out President Obama and the Democrats’ “War on Whites,” to the shock and horror of the Republican Party leadership. Brooks’ amendment was a counter to language inserted into the by one Ruben Gallego (AZ), a Reconquista Democrat who explicitly links demographic change to turning formerly Red States blue [Here’s the Young Politician Republicans Should Fear, by Jordan Fabian, Fusion, May 27, 2014]
Gallego’s amendment was part of the Left’s political Grand Strategy: “Electing A New People.” Virginia’s Rep. Dave Brat noted the outrageous paradox that this effort to get illegals into the military was being added to a bill that drives out experienced American citizens and legal immigrants who wanted to stay in the military but will be RIFfed.
The scheme to turn the American military into a giant reclamation effort for illegals eerily resembles Robert McNamara’s disastrous “Project 100, 000,” which tried to salvage the American underclass by lowering recruiting standards, contributing to the shameful state of the armed services at the end of the Vietnam War. But the aim of this new scheme is not to combat American poverty, but to employ foreigners to destroy historically white institutions like the military.
We have a government which no longer governs. Public institutions and bureaucracies (even NASA) no longer even try to accomplish their stated objectives but to simply provide jobs and funding to nonwhites [Obama’s Racial Socialism, by Gregory Hood, Counter Currents, July 30, 2014]
It’s no surprise that the Democratic leadership saw the NDAA not as an opportunity to reform the military at time of crisis for American foreign policy, but as a way to bash the GOP for “xenophobia” and make the Orwellian charge Republicans were “un-American” [Dems hammer GOP as ‘xenophobic,’ by Mike Lillis, The Hill, May 14, 2015]. The Evil Party is united and increasingly even defined by an anti-White agenda
But what motivated the 20 Republicans who actually joined with the Democrats?
Some of their votes are all too easy to explain:
Hispanic Fifth-Columnism

• Carlos Curbelo, Mario Diaz-Balart, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are all Cuban-Americans. Long regarded as safely Republican, Cuban-Americans are increasingly liberal, because the smart way to advance in American politics now is to identify as part of the anti-White Coalition of the Oppressed. [Cuban-American support for Democrats growing in Florida, by Mike Cleary and Deborah Ramirez, Huffington Post, November 9, 2012] Even white Cubans like Marco Rubio and Al Cardenas apparently calculate that non-white Spanish-speakers will accept their leadership—causing Steve Sailer to term them “Conquistador-Americans.”
• Other Hispanic Republicans also show racial and/or factional motivation. “Centrist” Republican Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA), whose paternal grandparents (!) were apparently Mexican [Washington state’s new Congresswoman: Jaime Herrera may be young, but she’s got backbone, by Elizabeth Hovde, The Oregonian, December 18, 2010]worked for the appalling Rep. Cathy McMorris Rogers (WA) and specializes in concern-trolling about the “tone” Republicans take towards Hispanics [Herrera Beutler shows centrist streak as she ascends in House, by Stevie Mathieu, The Columbian, January 20, 2013]
• David Valadao (CA). The son of Portuguese immigrants, but in the upside-down world of American identity politics, a European-American descended from Portuguese-speakers can say he has the same identity as non-European, Spanish-speaking illegal immigrants. Valadao is a longtime supporter of an Amnesty/Immigration Surge. He represents a district filled with agricultural interests (including his family’s thousands of acres), but defending illegals’ civil rights must sound better than promoting the interests of the wealthy [ David Valadao is proof that the GOP can appeal to Hispanic voters, by Mario Trujillo, The Hill, May 6, 2013] .

Blind Business Boosterism

• Adam Kinzinger (IL) has long been a supporter of an Amnesty/Immigration Surge, largely because “employers” want it [Chuck Sweeny: Adam Kinzinger, Aaron Schock back major immigration reform, by Chuck Sweeny, Rockford Register Star, May 24, 2015]. Kinzinger has also already endorsed Jeb Bush for President [Kinzinger supports Jeb Bush for 2016, by Derek Beigh, Pentagraph, February 17, 2015].
• Richard Hanna (NY) supports more immigration because of ties to agricultural interests, especially dairy farmers [Hanna in favor of immigration reform, by Ellen Abbott, WRVO, January 30, 2013]
• Dan Newhouse (WA) says getting more labor for agricultural concerns is a “personal issue,” as he and his family own a 600 acre farm and he was former state agriculture director. Immigration is just about the only issue where you can boast about your self-interestedness and get applauded by the MSM [Improving immigration system personal issue for Dan Newhouse, by Geoff Folsom, Tri City Herald, July 17, 2014]
• Dave Reichert WA) has both Microsoft and cheap-labor addicted agricultural concerns in his district. Not surprisingly, his treatment of the issue is far from sophisticated, saying that the only three options are “do nothing, arrest 12 million people, or find a solution” [Reichert voices support for immigration reform, by Nina Shapiro, Seattle Weekly News, August 8, 2013].
• Elise Stefanik (NY). The youngest woman ever elected to Congress, resulting in much “you go girl”-type MSM cheerleading [Meet U.S. Representative Elise Stefanik, the Youngest Woman to Ever Break into the Old Boys’ Club of Congress, by Wendy Naugle, Glamour, January 2015]. Yet as a former aide to Paul Ryan, she’s a product of the dogmatic, corporation-financed Beltway Right and also no doubt felt pressure from dairy producers in her district [Refugees an asset to state farms, by Rey Koslowski, Times Union, May 5, 2015(PDF)].
• Fred Upton (MI). Uncle of supermodel Kate Upton (pictured right, because frankly life is too short to look at pictures of Fred Upton) Upton is one of the most stereotypical Chamber of Commerce Republicans, noted for being the recipient of huge amounts of cash from companies like Comcast and then faithfully executing his donors’ agenda [Cozy with Comcast: Fred Upton, Greg Walden, Architects of GOP Net Neutrality Plan, Receive Big Cable Cash, by Christopher Zara, International Business Times, January 22, 2015]. As Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Upton has fended off Tea Party challengers with the help of a huge war chest from his corporate backers [Fred Upton finds it’s good to be the chairman, by Darren Samuelsohn, Politico, March 15, 2012] And not surprisingly, he’s worked with Diaz-Balart to promote an Amnesty/Immigration Surge with notable backing from the agricultural community [ Upton, Diaz-Balart join in Kalamazoo to call for bipartisan immigration reform, Congressman Fred Upton, October 31, 2014].

Squishes seeking MSM approval

• Charlie Dent (PA). A “moderate” distinguished by his willingness to insult his own party to the cheers of the MSM. Surprisingly, he hasn’t faced Tea party opposition, which is something that needs to change if patriots want him to stop [Charlie Dent: A Republican Moderate (Gasp!) by Francis Clines, New York Times, February 27, 2015]
• Bob Dold (IL). The purpose of Dold’s return to Congress was to “take on his own party,” according to The Hill [Illinois Republican eyes return to Congress, by Cameron Joseph, November 10, 2013].
• Chris Gibson (NY). Also boasts about his “independence” from the GOP [S. Rep. Chris Gibson pushes back against Democratic challenger Sean Eldridge, by Ariel Zangla, Daily Freeman, August 19, 2014]. The highlight of Gibson’s career: an easy victory over Sean Eldridge, homosexual “husband” of millionaire Chris Hughes, the man who dismantled The New Republic.
• John Katko (NY). Katko has apparently chosen liberalism on immigration to prove his “independence” from the GOP, while continuing to vote for things that will keep contributions coming, like slashing an employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act [Kudos to Rep. John Katko for showing independence in immigration vote, Syracuse Post-Standard, January 14, 2015
• Frank LoBiondo (NJ). A member of the liberal Republican “Main Street Partnership” and one of the more liberal Republicans in Congress, LoBiondo represents a district with a relatively high Hispanic population and agricultural interests that want cheap labor [Immigration bill generating little heat in town halls, by Susan Davis and Alan Gomez, USA Today, August 25, 2013]
• Tom MacArthur (NJ) also uses immigration as a way to prove his “moderate” credentials [Costello, MacArthur break with GOP on revoking some immigration protections, by Jonathan Tamari, The Inquirer, January 14, 2015].
• Martha McSally now holds the Congressional seat once occupied by Gabrielle Giffords. McSally [Conservative Review Rating F, NumbersUSA Rating D+ ]believes voting against keeping Central American “refugees” is “stupid stuff,” and, judging from her vote here, believes keeping illegal out of the military is stupid too [Pioneering Combat Pilot Persists in Rise from Arizona, by Ashley Parker, New York Times, March 30, 2015]. But, naturally, McSally was willing to use the immigration issue to attack her Amnesty-supporting opponent in the last campaign [Immigration Not Top Election Issue on Arizona-Mexico border, by Alex Rogers, Time, August 13, 2014].

Jeb Bush-type Reverse Assimilation.

• Jeff Dunham (CA). Dunham is well known to VDARE.com readers, having openly redefined himself as a Hispanic booster after pulling a Jeb and marrying a first generation Hispanic. His sudden “moderation” on the issue supposedly arrived when his district was redrawn to incorporate more Hispanic voters [ Jeff Dunham evolving on immigration, by Joe Garofoli, San Francisco Gate, August 2, 2013]
• Mike Coffman (CO). Coffman is a special case—the most conservative of all the Republicans who voted for illegals in the military, as expressed by the “Conservative Review” ratings now used by conservative movement sites like Breitbart. He outscores every other Republican who voted for the bill by at least 25% [20 Traitors: Republicans who voted to gut America’s military using amnestied illegal aliens, by Matthew Boyle, Breitbart, May 14, 2015][Conservative Review Scorecard, Mike Coffman, Accessed May 24, 2015]. Yet Coffman has made the explicit choice to recognize the Hispanic demographic takeover of his distract and try to survive by essentially becoming a collaborator on immigration and racial issues, while mostly voting conservative on everything else. Given the Leftist leanings of most Hispanic voters, this of course is a poor long-term strategy.

What can we learn from all of this?
The way forward for the GOP, as VDARE.com has repeatedly urged, is for it to consolidate as the Generic American Party and adopt the “Sailer Strategy” of increasing White turnout, promoting Affordable Family Formation, high wages through low immigration, opposition to anti-White and anti-Asian racial discrimination laws (“Affirmative Action”) etc.
Four factors preventing the emergence of a National Conservative party are revealed by this vote:

1. The emerging “Hispanic” Anti-Nation. When you have Cuban-Americans and Portuguese defining themselves entirely in opposition to the white majority of the United States, something has gone wrong. Abolishing the increasingly absurd and arbitrary “Hispanic” census category, and the official benefits that derive from it, is an essential start.
2. The Agricultural Lobby. Splitting this selfish and short-sighted interest group off from the Open Borders Lobby is vital. One obvious possibility: a guest-worker program coupled with abolition of birthright citizenship. Even Treason Lobby-funding heiress Helen Krieble has indicated she would accept this. In the long run, a return to mechanization, conceivably forced by mandating high wages, and adopting a strong pro-worker position. Agricultural companies will then need to use less labor intensive methods or die.
3. RINOism. It is a cliché, but still true: Republican politicians compulsively move Leftward because they will be praised by the MSM for their “evolution.” For better or worse, immigration patriotism is mostly a conservative issue and most of these Republicans who support various Amnesty schemes are “moderates.” Therefore, immigration patriots should pay close attention to any effort at removing “moderate” Republicans and replacing them with a more conservative candidate. Though conservatism and immigration patriotism are by no means the same thing, in political terms, most of the time they are on the same side.
4. The Armed Forces. It’s disturbing that vets like Kinzinger and McSally supported this scheme. Obviously, bad things have been happening in the Armed Forcces for some time—McSally, for example, is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and the first female combat pilot. i.e. is a life-long beneficiary of Affirmative Action. It is now urgent that politicians be forced to take positions on the increasing Cultural Marxist indoctrination in the Armed Forces, as reflected on classes on “White Privilege” and the punishment against military chaplains who support traditional marriage. Veterans are an important potential source of resistance to multiculturalism and the attempt to remake America, and immigration patriots need to ensure this group remains on our side.

These Republican defections indicate again that American politics has what Mark Steyn has termed a “One-and-a-half” Party System. The Democrats and a good chunk of the Republicans can be counted on to fully support any scheme that will bring more foreigners into the country.
If patriots want to reverse this process, they will need to not just oppose mass immigration—but the underlying forces that allow pro-Amnesty Republicans to remain in office.