Virginia & South Carolina: The Analytical Folly of Court Prophets

June 22, 2014 Local Opinion , News Stories 1571 Views
Virginia & South Carolina: The Analytical Folly of Court Prophets

In practice, many kings compromised their responsibilities under God and ruled for their own glory, wealth, and power. There were also false prophets who told the king what he wanted to hear and whose advice brought suffering and injustice upon kingdom and people. The phrase “court prophets” used today refers to advisors who tell their leaders what they want to hear without regard to truth or possible consequences. Failure to study both the moral and socio-economic consequences of political policy is a common advisory failure of such “court prophets.”

For nearly 30 years, American immigration policy has served the interests of big business and ethnic politics rather than the American people. Short-term corporate profits from lower wages and ethnic pandering have been its highest priorities, regardless of the consequent harm to American workers and taxpayers. It now threatens to transform American politics form center-right to far left. Thus even our freedoms are being traded for political and monetary gain. Corporations are profiting $435 Billion per year by suppressing the wages of the average American worker by nearly $2,800 per year. Why have you never heard this? It is because those who profit from it have suppressed such statistics, making us a nation of low-information voters in regard to immigration issues. It has been going on for so long that even its political drivers and their pundits are unfamiliar with the full scope of its devastation and danger.

This low-immigration-information state of the media, the political class, and the public is why the defeat of Eric Cantor, the Republican Majority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, has been so shocking to the politicos and pundits. They are in disbelief that immigration policy would be important to voters. But most of the American people have been suffering increased unemployment and depressed wages, while the establishment elites and pundits prosper with blind indifference to the suffering of their fellow Americans. But all it took was an honest and courageous economics professor, Dave Brat, educating the people on the causes of their suffering, to lift the politically correct taboo off the immigration issue. Lifting that taboo may be the spark that causes a cleansing fire to sweep corruption and injustice out of Congress and corporate America.

The race was not close. Dave Brat got 55.5 percent of the vote to Eric Cantor’s 44.5 percent. The 2014 primary turnout was 38 percent higher than the 2012 turnout, pulling 17,971 more voters to the primary polls than in a Presidential election year. Amazing!

There was an important ethical dimension. Cantor tried to deceive voters on his pro-amnesty actions with mailings claiming he was fighting against amnesty.

All the money was on the pro-amnesty and cheap labor side. Brat raised $223,000. Cantor raised over $5.4 million, 79 percent from outside Virginia.

Most important, Brat was not intimidated by political correctness. He made immigration an important part of his campaign in addition to standard Republican positions advocating strong adherence to Constitutional principles, a free economy, strong national security, and respect for faith and family. Although the media insists on calling him a Tea Party candidate, he got no Tea Party money or endorsements. But hundreds of grassroots volunteers, including many Tea Party members, were willing make the personal contacts that win elections.

Low-information pundits immediately countered that Mr. Amnesty and Cheap Labor himself, Lindsey Graham, won his South Carolina Senate primary with 56 percent of the vote. Careful analysis, however, gives little comfort to those who believe that any Southern state is safe for amnesty and cheap labor advocates.

South Carolina does not have party registration. Anyone can vote in whatever primary they choose. Democrat crossovers to Republican primaries are common and sometimes massive in South Carolina for strategic political reasons. Comparing the primary and general election results for 2010 with the primary results for 2014 evidences a huge crossover, undoubtedly orchestrated by Graham and his more liberal political friends. My preliminary estimate is that there was a crossover of between 8 to 17 percent of the vote, which would make Graham’s share of the normal Republican vote in general elections between 39 to 48 percent, close to what several polls were indicating. Statewide, only 15.9 percent of registered voters turned out for the primaries. Only 113,273, or 24 percent of those, voted in the Democratic primary. In Charleston County, only 10 percent of those voting voted in the Democratic primary. In Greenville County, only 8.5 percent of primary participants voted in the Democratic primary. Crossover Democrats won it for Graham and hurt down-ballot conservative Republican primary candidates throughout the state.

More importantly, Lindsey Graham’s amnesty record and current amnesty/cheap labor bill were scarcely mentioned in media coverage or advertising. With the help of dark money liberal PACs, including $1.0 million from Mark Zuckerberg’s deceptively named, Americans for a Conservative Direction, Graham’s total spending exceeded $8.5 million. Despite his record, they portrayed him as a conservative. There was only one little publicized TV debate attended by Graham.

Graham’s three most formidable conservative opponents played it safe with the media and did not make an issue of Graham’s legislative record on immigration or votes for liberal Supreme Court justices. This was a fatal mistake on their part. Dave Brat’s bold truth turned out the vote and won the election for him. Graham’s opponents had limited financial resources that were only deployed a week before election day, assuming from polls that there would be a runoff. Their underestimation of Graham’s ability to mobilize Democratic voters was a second fatal mistake.

Bold conservative advocacy wins. Low-information establishment pundits paralyze.

Share this story
Email

About author

Related articles