Sacajawea Shows the Way

Most readers have likely heard of Senator Elizabeth Warren, a democrat representing the Cherokee nation. For our foreign readers who may not be familiar with the phenotype, below are photographs to orient your frame of reference.

Cherokee male

Cherokee male

Cherokee female

Cherokee female

I don’t detect much resemblance and so am a bit skeptical of claims to tribal lineage by the nut in the feather cap…but that’s not important right now.

What is important is that Warren is quite a current darling. Very near this blog’s inception, I speculated that the then seemingly inevitable coronation of our first lesbian president would be throttled by her party’s ongoing pivot away from decreasingly useful white idiots. And one can’t get less white than this little redskin.

Though in the typical republican stampede to dump the greatest possible tonnage of Adelson shit on their constituents, Warren is contrasting herself quite cannily. Some excerpts from her and others.

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has offered herself as the great progressive hope of the Democratic Party by calling out Citigroup on the Senate floor and saying that the government is setting itself up for more bailouts of big banks that will rob the middle class.

“Enough is enough with Wall Street insiders getting key position after key position and the kind of cronyism we have seen in the executive branch,” she said. “Enough is enough with Citigroup passing 11th-hour deregulatory provisions that nobody takes ownership over but that everybody comes to regret.”

“The only chance we’ve got is if those families will turn back to their government and say, ‘I demand that you work for me, not for the billionaires, not for the millionaires. That you work for me.’”

Regarding the universally reviled cromnibus: “A vote for this bill is a vote for future taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street. We all need to stand and fight this giveaway to the most powerful banks in the country.”

“For many conservatives,” wrote Noah Rothman on HotAir, “Warren … far better represented their position on the bill than did House Republican leadership.”

People are growing increasingly weary of the insider game being played at their expense.  Weary of the extraordinary ostentatiousness of contemporary plutocrats in tandem with their religious zeal to import the whole of the Subcon, or at least its salary structure.

And the concluding quote above is what so amazes. This desiccated, priggish, traitorous schoolmarm is actually maneuvering into a position that many millions of whites in the middle and lower economic strata will find eminently appealing. And how do the moon-faced and lachrymose respond?

Trade: If there’s one thing that McConnell, Boehner and Obama agree on, it’s giving the president “fast-track” trade authority. That would mean any trade agreements negotiated by the Obama administration would be subject to a “yes” or “no” vote in Congress, with no amendments.

The two GOP leaders are free-trade champions, and the Obama administration is in the midst of negotiating a massive trade deal with about a dozen countries, including Australia, Singapore and Peru. So the issue will be a priority for both.

But it won’t come without a fight. Liberal Democrats say such trade deals usually don’t provide strong environmental or labor protections and can end up costing American jobs. Some conservative Republicans have also expressed reservations about granting the president such broad authority.

“Republicans don’t necessarily want to give the president more authority on anything,” said Feehery. At a time of “populist rage against globalization, (passing fast track) is not as easy as people might think.”

And also from McConnell: “I would bust it up if I were setting the agenda in the Senate, start with border security, H-1B visa expansion, H-2A ag worker provisions, E–Verify and some of the other things I think we can get pretty broad agreement on,”

Remaining American workers will be elated to learn that Republicans now come with even more offshoring and outsourcing. And how about an H-1B expansion? There’s always a billion more Indians from where the last one came. Though Mitch does mention border security and E-verify for those last 17 credulous conservatives.

And this brings me to something I see these poor dupes swallow over and again: the notion that border security and interior enforcement mechanisms are in any way relevant if all of The Immigrant People are legal. What the republicans have on conceptual offer are conertina-topped walls scaling to Jupiter flanking an open gate the size of Texas. Just enjoy that vivid image upon every utterance of the words “border security” and you will comprehend the ploy. Home security safeguards are costly theater when the front door is open and the wall around it bulldozed. The ranks of those not grasping this are going to steadily decrease–from sheer repetition of disappointment if nothing else.

Though in the meantime the republicans, and their morbid array of Tajik tributaries, are somehow making strides in the white sub-consciousness toward the belief that there is actually a political party in America that hates them on par with the democrats.

Nice work, palefaces.


5 thoughts on “Sacajawea Shows the Way

  1. The Republicans are doggedly determined to resist becoming the majority party.

    There has been “an open gate the size of Texas” waiting for years for the party that decides to get serious about representing white working class interests. This is difficult for the Democrats, as their core mission is to destroy white working class interests, but they are still in the game because the Republicans just won’t hit that hole. You would think more people would be asking why.

  2. The “they’re fine once they’re legal” view seems to be what passes for conservative immigration restriction in the US today. For these people, “border control” just means a massive new bureaucracy supervising the free movement of the Third World into America. By the way, I think you may have the captions to these two photos the wrong way round.

    • You would easily believe how many self-styled conservatives I talk to who say: “I’m not against immigration, but rather illegal immigration. To which the obvious reply: “Alright, we’ll make them all legal. Happy now?”

      Ummm…I’m not racist!


      • I think the correct approach to immigration would be to say there are some people who have something to offer, to benefit the country. (Certain educated people who could be of a big help).

        I am not against all immigration in to Europe for example, but it is not about legality or illegality, it is about who is going to be a helpful, peaceful citizen. It is better a illegal doctor who saves lives and intergrates peacefully into the country, than a legal (you know what type). In my opinion.

        Also, the photo captions are so hilarious. 🙂 .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s