Bannons Three Buckets

images-14

In CPAC Steve Bannon provided the ideological background to the Trump administration in his three buckets. The topic has not generated much discussion which is surprising as you will rarely see the philosophy of the Trumpian wing of the GOP efficiently distilled into three bullet points as Bannon did.

Security and National Sovereignty 

When you discuss security the very first thing you go to is the defense budget and this is one of the priorities of the Trump administration. As things stand we are currently spending 4x what China is for defense, assuming that China is truthful in its public declarations which many analysts doubt. At first glance it looks like we are massively outspending our leading rival, yet this may not be true. Salaries of American personel dwarf those of their Chinese counterparts. In 2015 a US serviceman of enlisted rank would have been paid a minimum of 23k per year while a chinese leuitenant colonel would have been paid 6000 yuan a month or roughly 12k per year. Around half of the military budget is maintenance and operational costs. I don’t have any details of the chinese budget but the US military has many more comittments worldwide than China which leads to a higher portion of the budget being used for operations. While spending a fourth of the money it is very possible that China gets more men and materiel than America does.

The primary opponent for the military during the Trump administration is the terrorist states and organizations. We have already seen a remarkable paradigm shift in the way the Trump administration deals with terrorists as opposed to previous administrations. By conducting the Yemen raid the Trump administration has put terrorists on notice that they would no longer honor human shields that previous administrations did. The US has more than enough military power to defeat terrorists. The only thing lacking is the willpower to actually use it which the Trump team has shown that they have.

Lastly there will be a focus on reclaiming the independence of the United States from international institutions that chip away at our national sovereignty. The TPP withdrawal was a big first step as it had provisions which allowed for international courts to supercede the local elected representatives when the profits of the companies were in danger. A focus on bilateral trade agreements as opposed to complex multinational ones is important as well as it is far easier to suspend or cancel these argeements if they are no longer in our favor. Lastly withdrawal or reformation from international organizations that limit our options on a case to case basis of course.

Economic Nationalism

President Trump summed this point up perfectly in his speech to congress. He is the American president who works for American interest and not the global president who works for global interests.

First off no matter how much the left wants to confuse the two concepts nationalism is not isolationism and isolationism is not nationalism. Nationalism is simply doing what it best for your own countries national interest without any regard for ethics, morality , or any other artificial construct. Depending on the needs of the country the specific policies involved in this may actually change. In the time of President Reagan it was very nationalistic to pursue free trade. No other country had the industrial base to compete with America at that point in time so we had free reign to exploit the rest of the world. This is no longer the case as other countries have caught up with us so it ceases to be nationalistic.

At this point in time the Trump administration will be focusing on our various trade deals and tax reform. The way that the laws are structured makes it so that it is far more profitable to site your production facilities outside the country, not only that once those profits are realized our current laws make it more favorable to keep them outside the country than to repatriate them. Economic nationalism would make sure that the laws are set up to benefit our country and not others.

Economic nationalism also applies to employment. We currently have a system where it is far more beneficial for a company to hire illegal aliens as opposed to hiring citizens. We also have a system where it is better to replace local workers with h1-b imports while having the citizens train their replacements. Our employment system must benefit our citizens first.

Deconstruction

Bannon summarized this perfectly in CPAC. “When liberals cannot pass something they stick it in a regulation somewhere”. Out of all three buckets this is the ones liberals are actually most afraid of and why they never discuss this on its merits, instead fearmongering on the word “destruction”.

In the area of climate change Obama unilaterally entered into the Paris Accords. Under normal circumstances Obama would have had to have the senate ratify the treaty like other countries did, but since he knew they would not he entered into it as an executive agreement instead. When Cap and Trade failed to pass Obama put up the Clean power plan instead to bypass the legislature. This prompted Lawrence Tribe who actually argued for the democrats in Gore V Bush to equate this to burning the constitution. In the area of immigration reform Obama bypassed congress yet again to give lawful status to 4.3 million illegals. These are just some of the worst examples of overreach and there are dozens. Trump himself may end up passing a lot of executive orders in his term, mostly to reserve the orders of the previous administration.

Democrats are afraid to have all these taken away yet they do have the option to keep them. An option they always had but were too lazy to do. They can win elections and have them passed like Republicans do instead of relying on the courts and orders to bypass the elected branches of government.

The Future of the GOP

20160323_145930_400sq.jpg

Let me first begin by saying that a lead of three million in the national popular vote is meaningless. Instead of running one big election, the US runs 52 different presidential elections and plenty of other senatorial, congressional, and gubernatorial ones. As long as you can win those that is all that matters. While it is true that a larger lead gives you claim to a mandate the national popular vote is not the metric to use for it. I will discuss the argument for mandate in another post. If the system changes then my analysis will change as well but until it does I standby my analysis in the rest of this article.

Where does the GOP go from here? The data says that in order to win future presidential elections the GOP does not need to reach out to new voting blocks. Empirical data says that the GOP absorbed a new voting block this election. Democrats argue that Trump has already hit his peak with working class votes and needs to reach out to other demographics but the data does not bear this out. The data shows the GOP only needs to unite the two factions inside its party and their electoral future is assured. Does that mean the GOP should stop all future outreach? Of course not. You want a bigger majority to get your things passed anyway and there are some groups the GOP can make inroads in.

To prove the points made in the last paragraph i will be studying the Presidential and Senatorial race in Pennsylvania. Trump of course represents the new nationalist wing of the GOP and Toomey represents the standard GOP. I encourage everyone to check the conclusions I draw and apply it to other states and I am confident the same results will come out. We have three general geographical divisions in Pennsylvania and other areas, Rural, Suburban, and Urban.

In Rural areas you have the Trumpian wing of the GOP ascendant. We routinely see Trump outperforming Toomey by anywhere from 5-20%. Lets take a look at some counties

In Clinton County Trump got 10022 votes while Toomey only got 8702 votes. That is around 15% more votes that Toomey could get if the two wings were unified.

In Elk County Trump got 10025 votes while Toomey got 8703 votes. That is around 10% more votes that Toomey could get.

In Clearfield County Trump got 24932 votes while Toomey got 22128. That is around a 10% differential.

The added benefit of these rural counties is more than just more votes. They are also spread out all over the place. This means they have a greater impact in more congressional districts. More often than not these counties represent individual small towns as well each with their own elective positions. This gives a unified GOP a bigger bench to draw from.

In the Suburbs the standard GOP wing fares better as some voters have been stayed by the GOP civil war. Throughout the election there was story after story about how Trump would end up costing the GOP the presidency, house, and senate and there was the very public resistance movements led by Mcmullin, Romney, and others.

In Montgomery County Trump got 162,731 votes while Toomey got 189,574. That is at least 10% more votes Trump could have gotten.

In Bucks County Trump got 164,361 votes while Toomey got 175,898.

In the cities Republicans usually do dismally but the trend stays the same

In Philadelphia County Trump got 108,748 votes while Toomey got 116,714. Still around an 8% increase.

The good news for Trump in the suburban and urban areas is the old adage “victory covers a multitude of sins”. Conservatives who have abandoned Trump during the election because may now be willing to fall in line since he has a proven track record of victory.

For this next part I have to rely on polling and some educated guesses as I lack some hard numbers. According to exit polls Trump won 35% of urban voters and 50% of suburban ones. If we look at these numbers we see that just by unifying the different GOP factions he can get an additional 3-7% of these votes. The GOP candidates running downticket would be able to get an additional 5-6% of the rural vote share. Quantifying this is a bit harder as I cannot see any breakdown of number of voters who voted in urban, suburban, and rural areas. To be able to come up with some sort of number however I will use the census data that says 75% of Americans live in suburban and ubran areas while 25% live in rural areas and assume that that was the breakdown in turnout as well. Using this I can come up with a rough estimate of an additional 1.5m-3m votes Trump could have gotten if the GOP were unified behind him and Toomey would have gotten 80k to 100k more votes. A unified GOP would be more than enough to secure the presidency and more seats with its current coalition.

Regarding outreach. The democrats are in a position where they have to expand their voting base. If they do that they must take up new causes which may not be popular with their current coalition. In any case what Trump showed by poaching the labor class from the democrats is that the longer a group stays in a coaliton and the more secure the party it is on it then the more its issues are taken for granted. Using this theory the GOP should go after the staunchest democrat constituencies. According to polling that would be the African Americans who vote democrat 90% of the time and the Jews which vote 70% of the time. As luck would have it Israel presents a perfect issue to woo these voters with and Trump is already trying to charm the African American voters non-stop. In fact I predict that the Flint Water Crisis will be solved or on the way to being solved within his first 100 days.

If the GOP follows these suggestions 2018 and 2020 should be won with no problems.

Demonization Works

terrorism-cartoon.gif

Let me begin with my central thesis. Demonization is a valid and effective tool in changing the behavior of a given person or group. In this case speaking of Muslims. Whenever a terrorist attack happens leftist commentators inevitably point out that if it is a white person who is caught he would be declared a lone wolf, but if it were an Islamic person the blame would spread to the entire religion. They then proceed to point out how evil the right is for doing this and how counterproductive it is. Of course no mention as to how the terrorists are almost always Muslims but we will get to that later.

First off I want to show how collective punishment does work to change behavior. If you have ever been in the military or any similar institution you may remember the entire platoon being forced to run or do push-ups or given extra duties for the infractions of a few. The result is the members of the group try to get less infractions so that their unit gets punished less.

In the Philippines, India, and other third world countries there are community lending programs which lend to a group instead of an individual. Each member of the group would get their individual loans and each would be responsible for paying it back. If one member failed to repay their loan then the entire group would be punished by getting denied loans in the future. The result is that the group members themselves, often from the same community and in some cases the same family pressured the members to pay on behalf of the bank and there was a higher repayment rate. The funds ended up being used for business as well as there was an extra consequence of squandering it.

Consider North Carolina in America. The Governor did something the left did not agree with and businesses punished the state. This of course punished the workers for the actions of the state. As a result the state rescinded the laws and it sent a chilling effect to other states.

The liberal media attempts it all the time as well. You see headlines saying a certain survey shows all Trump voters are racist, all republicans are uneducated, and every other possible variation to imply that if you vote democrat then you are a great person but if you vote republican you are a terrible one. These are of course the very same people who tell us that demonization does not work.

Back to Islam. If you see a terrorist attack or mass murder on tv and think that a muslim did it you would be justified in thinking so. In 2015 99% of all terrorist attacks were done by Muslims. We only have 2 isolated incidents aside from that done by communist extremists. To make it worse there is no isolated sect of Islam responsible for the bombings. Both Sunni’s and Shia’s have groups which do it. Even joining Islam does not save you as half the targets of the suicide bombings are fellow muslims. As you can see there is something seriously wrong with Islamic ideology so much so that even when you give the entire world to them one half would still try to kill the other for religious reasons.

I always say that if I walk down elm street and get mugged every day I would be justified in having negative stereotypes of elm street and everyone living there. No one would complain if I reroute to another street particularly if I don’t get mugged there every day. The same analogy applies to terrorism and Islam.

What do we want to achieve by doing this? The first and best result would always be to wean its followers away from Islam. This hurts the terrorists the most as while they believe in Islam they also use its moderates as a shield to prevent the authorities from clamping down harder on them. The less adherents of Islam there is the weaker terrorists become as they have less places to hide. The next thing we want to achieve is to turn the moderates of Islam against the extremists. It has been reported that most radicalization occurs in mosques and other areas populated almost exclusively by Muslims. Showing the moderates that they are in a way tainted by association with the extremists would encourage them to turn them in more and to counsel against radicalization. Lastly we also hope that the extremists themselvess see that the reputation of Islam as a whole is suffering because of them.

Do not feel guilty for holding Islam accountable because of the actions of its followers. Remember the people who justify the suicide bombings are among those who have studied the Quran the longest. Pointing out the flaws of the religion may be the only thing that can save it, if indeed it can be saved.

The Nationalist Case for Supporting Israel

my-little-pony-brohoof-baby-tee-7

The case is simple and can be summed up in one sentence. America should support Israel because they have a positive view of America and are longstanding Allies.

In the Israeli conflict we have two sides. The Palestinians who are at the very least affiliated with some jihadis who actively hate America and have no relations with us and Israel. In 2015 81% of Israelis viewed America positively and  Israel has been an American ally for the longest time.

The rationale is simple. We want to encourage more countries to be longstanding allies and to view America favorably and we want to punish countries who don’t so we can encourage the desired behavior from them. Does it mean that we should always blindly support our allies? Of course not. However the presumption of support must be given to our allies and that presumption must be stronger the longer the alliance lasts. For example if we had a new ally who was borderline in support towards us then a 60/40 case would be sufficient for us to consider the other side. For a longer ally like Britain or Israel a 70/30 or 80/20 case should be considered. In the case of Israel and Palestine, while both sides have valid arguments, they are close enough that our presumption should remain with Israel.

The counter argument is of course, would we not alienate more countries like Palestine in our quest to reward our allies? The answer is no. If we apply this consistently then nations will see there is a tangible benefit to becoming a long-term American ally and to popularize America with its population instead of demonizing it. For instance countries like the Philippines which love America should get much more foreign aid than Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern countries that hate it.

The reward MUST come after the change in behavior and not before. When you discipline a child do you reward him before he does the right thing? Or do you reward him after he gets good grades, does his homework, or a host of other things? The end result of this method of foreign policy should be an international community competing to who can be the best, most cooperative ally to be assured of US support. It is not a novel concept either. Supporting your allies and punishing your enemies have been around since ancient times. In fact the chinese have a saying “Do not trample over your old friends in your rush to make new”.

At the end of the day the issue itself is only tangential to how our decision is to be made. Unless the case is absurdly one-sided, which it is not in this case, then we must stand with our allies so we can create new allies in the future.

Trumplican View: Interventionism

69508720570954d488369dc80a15cb72

There has been some talk about the contradictions inherent in the Trumplican view on interventionism. Some people think that Trump contradicts himself every time he speaks on it. On the one hand he says that we should let Russia help fight against ISIS and that we should be more non-interventionist in other conflicts. On the other hand he says that we should kill the families of ISIS , be more indiscriminate in bombing, and loosen up the rules of engagement. Going so far as to say the Geneva Convention may be hindering us in the fight against ISIS.

In this article I would like to show that everything I just mentioned in the paragraph above is all part of one philosophy.

THE TRUMPLICAN STANCE

The Trumplican stance is that the natural state of things should be peace. It may be strange to some people given that there will be an entire generation who grew up when the country is in a state of war but there it is. Peace should be the norm and we must do everything we can to resist moving away from it. If we should move away from peace then everything must be done to return to peace as fast as we possibly can.

Let us look at it in a more practical manner. In the Trumplican view the first weapon is always economic. That is how we can make sure we stay in peace and bring the other nations to the bargaining table. Whether it is with China, Mexico, or simply talking to North Korea we use trade to come to mutually agreeable terms with them in which the US is not disadvantaged.

If there is a breakdown in that area and war is declared such as in ISIS, everything must be done to get back to peace as fast as possible. I think we can all agree that non-interventionism in the case of ISIS is no longer an option. Therefore we use every method available to beat them as fast as possible. If that involves letting Russian troops fight alongside American ones or in their own conflict zone then so be it.If that involves killing the families of ISIS members to break their will or making sure that they can no longer use human shields by loosening the rules of engagement then that is fine too. America gets into trouble when she stays in a prolonged conflict to bring democracy to an area. In war the Trumplican view is to get in, accomplish the objective, and get out as fast as we possibly can.

THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY

I have shown today how the Trumplican philosophy of interventionism is consistent with itself. You may agree or disagree with it but it is consistent. The most important question is how does it translate to policy during a Trump presidency?

A President Trump will be harder to bring to war than any other candidate, however once a war is there a President Trump will pursue it more viciously than any other candidate to end the conflict as fast as he possibly can.

Overall I believe this is a better approach as getting the war over and done with as fast as possible reduces casualties overall and let’s both sides resume their lives as fast as possible. Getting stuck in a quagmire for decades because you are unwilling to do what needs to be done is just unproductive.

The Trump Doctrine

people-who-hate-trump-cartoon

Everyone will know by now that there has been a foreign policy speech by Mr. Trump outlining his vision for a different kind of foreign policy for the United States. There have been some who called it incoherent and rambling while others have hailed it as visionary. I will be breaking down the Trump Doctrine for you in this article.

Before we get to it, we have to first realize that Trump has already done a tremendous service by offering up a different view on foreign policy than other politicians. Traditionally we have always had similar views from both Republicans and Democrats. Centred on free trade, exporting democracy thru military or cultural means, and projecting American power throughout the globe no matter the cost. Previous elections never gave us a choice on the theory but rather the choice was limited to how we would implement the specifics.

It is very healthy for a democracy to offer these topics up for discussion and decision by the people. Do you want a continuation of Nafta and eventually the TPP or do you want it reversed? Should we pay for the defense of every nation in NATO? Do we need to engage in nation building and transform middle eastern dictatorships into democracies? The answers have always been taken for granted and it is about time the questions have been asked.

Peace Through Strength

The roman emperor Hadrian was the first to coin this phrase. It is true in his time as it is now. Every foreign policy decision must be viewed thru the lens of America First. We must decide what makes the country stronger either economically , politically, or socially and act on that. After all if we are to have any value to our allies then we must be as strong as we possibly can.

This is the core principle of the Trump doctrine and as such it is the most widely criticized. People say that it calls for isolationism and abandonment of the US role in the world. It calls for none of that. It calls for a renegotiation of every agreement that we have to make sure that both sides benefit equally. America can no longer take on the burden of subsidizing the rest of the world. It can no longer afford to ship out jobs, give jobs inside the country to illegals from outside, and pay for the defense of the rest of the world. If current trends continue the US will collapse in on itself and the rest of the world will be left to fend for itself anyway.

The Trump doctrine wants America to be there for its allies, but we also want our allies to be there for us. If we find that the only way for some of the relationships we are in to continue is for the US to pay for more than its share then we should be willing to take a look at that relationship and the commitment of that ally to us. A relationship like that may not be worth keeping and it is better to find out now rather than

All nations work towards its own self-interest. It is only in America where outsourcing jobs to foreign countries is praised as a virtue, where employing illegal immigrants over citizens is seen as desirable, and where providing for the poor of other nations is considered more important that providing for the poor of other nations. All nations put their own interest first yet only in America is it called fascism. The Trump doctrine seeks to change that. After all if America is doing well then it has more resources to help the rest.

Fu-rin-ka-zan

Unpredictable like fire and immovable as mountain. This is part of the battle standard of the japanese general Shingen Takeda. Trump has been criticized for his saying that the actions of the US must be predictable and certain to its allies and then in another part of the speech say that the country must be more unpredictable in its dealings with ISIS. People point to this and dismiss the entire doctrine as contradictory.

Most generals can point out the difference between strategy and tactics. Strategy being the overall goal while tactics are how the goal is achieved. The US must be immovable as the mountain when it comes to our commitments to our allies and enemies. If our ally needs support they must know that we will be behind them and if our enemies attack they must know that the retaliation will be certain and disproportionate. The US must also be unpredictable like fire when dealing with our enemies. They know the retaliation is coming but they must not know when or how. There is no merit in telling the media that we are deploying a thousand soldiers by this date or that we are removing them by another. That just lets our enemies plan ahead. There is no merit in telling the enemy that we will not use nukes or any other methods. It is always better to let them wonder how the retaliation is coming. If there is anything dealing with terrorism has thought us is that it is a lot harder to defend from a threat which can come from any direction.

Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick

The words of Teddy Roosevelt form an integral part of the Trump Doctrine. America as a country must use all means possible to avoid war, however if war must be fought then we should do everything we possibly can to get the war over with as quickly as possible and get out. We must not engage in any useless nation building that has plagued previous administrations. As Trump has said we must not force democracy upon cultures who may not want it. Instead Trump proposes we promote western values throughout the world. If these cultures then see democracy as something that is beneficial to them then they can implement it without our intervention.

Critics are quick to point out that this is contradictory. Why call for isolationism one day, killing the families of ISIS after, and then letting Putin fight ISIS the next. They miss that this is all part of the same strategy. War is terrible and must be resisted at all cost. If we must fight though we have to use every means necessary to break the will of the enemy. Let them see what the war they have wanted so much will cost them. Utilizing countries with the same goal like Russia as allies in the fight is part of that. There are enough bodies to fill with bullets and their help can only make the fight end faster. As Trump says if America must fight it will fight to win.

Old Friends and New

The Chinese have a saying. “Do not trample over old friends in your rush to make new ones”. This is an integral part of the Trump doctrine as well. Trump says that our allies have been treated terribly and they are looking at different places for help. This is true. Let us take a look at Britain for example. We have had a long history of friendship with them and fought on the same side in every war this century. Yet in his recent trip there President Obama sided with the EU saying that if Britain left they would go to the back of the line for any new trade agreements. The US was able to finalize trade agreements with Australia and other countries in 10 months but he said that it would take 10 years for a Britain not in the EU to get one. Whether the Brits stay or leave the EU they will always remember that the US chose their relationship with Germany and the EU over them.

Let us take a look at Israel now. The US and Israel have had a very close relationship and have fought on the same side on multiple occasions. Yet we signed the deal with Iran, which Israel views as a direct threat to its existence. In our efforts to make peace with Iran we have left out Israel. Let us take North Korea, South Korea, and Japan into consideration next. We have watched North Korea one of our enemies develop nuclear weapons and become a nuclear power while we deny these very same weapons to our allies and in the case of Japan even deny them the right to have a standing army.

I hope the danger is clear here. In most of our interactions we have consistently sided with nations we would like to be friendlier or have normal relations with over our longstanding allies. If the message we are sending is that we will consistently do this then what incentive do countries have to keep long-term alliances with the US? The message we are sending them is that if they are closer to us we will take them for granted yet when they begin to pull away that is the only time we will consider them again. Our current foreign policy has made it so that it is more profitable for a country to be belligerent towards the US than to be friendly.

Our allies must be shown that there are rewards for their loyalty. If there is a conflict, the default position must be that we take their side. Does that mean we should always support them no matter what? No. Every situation must still be looked at based on its individual merits but the length and track record of our allies fighting for our interests should be a major factor into which side we take. For instance in the Brexit situation with Britain unsure of its stance and Germany a newer ally, the Trump Doctrine would have preferred to be neutral instead of heavily committing to one side.

Removing Prejudice

Martin Luther King Jr once said that we must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope. Russia has always been the great enemy to American foreign policy. The world is viewed as a chessboard with American democracy on one side and Soviet communism on the other. The Trump doctrine views this as an outdated worldview and maintains that friendly relationships and even an alliance with Russia is possible.

The US has fought against the British for independence, Germany in both world wars, and Japan in world war two. If we were to maintain our prejudice against our earlier opponents then we should have the same adversarial relationship with them that we do with Russia. We let go of this prejudice and now these three countries are some of our strongest and most committed allies.

The prejudice is so strong that Trump has been criticized for suggesting that we would be able to negotiate with Russia by the very same people who said that we could negotiate with Iran. A country that has repeatedly called out for the destruction of the US. There should be no reason why we trust that country more than we would Russia.

Desperation is Not a Strategy

Perhaps the most controversial tenant in the Trump doctrine is the statement “If you are not willing to walk, it becomes absolutely impossible to win”. This is a declaration that both countries should be willing to work together in mutual self-interest. If that goal is not achieved then it is acceptable for both sides to walk away and seek to achieve their goals using other methods. If the other side knows that you are not willing to walk away then they have no incentive to give you anything that you want.

Let us take a look at NATO. Almost every administration from Obama to Bush all the way down to Eisenhower have wanted our European allies to pay more of their fair share. Yet every administration has failed and the US is paying a historically high share of the organization. That is because member countries knew that the US would not be willing to walk away so they had no incentive to agree to pay more. After all why would you when American leadership has shown they will not do anything if you refuse.

Final Thoughts

The Trump Doctrine is controversial because it asks us to take a look at the world as it is now, not what it was decades ago. We may have had a comparative advantage in business then that may have disappeared. We may have had an implacable enemy in the Soviet Union then that no longer exists. We may have threats now like terrorism that did not exist before. We have never had a choice of a different foreign policy and it is understandable that the experts who have only known the free trade centered America would be confused and afraid. We just have to take a look at the Doctrine with our own eyes and start a discussion as to the direction we want the country to be headed.

Founding Fathers Were Illegals

22d356c25c731180e5b3fc3c88d91e8b

One of the most common arguments used to get America to accept illegal immigration is that the founders themselves were illegal immigrants. That statement is 100% true. It is also true that it is the greatest argument against illegal immigration.

Let’s take a look at what happened. They came over with ships full of colonists. They did not get any permission from the natives to land nor did they attempt to consult anybody when they got there. Yes they were illegal immigrants. They came over because they faced a tough time in their home countries and faced religious prosecution as well as a lack of economic opportunities.

What happened next? Well they had a hard time settling in. They did not know the land and how to farm it. They had to be taught how to grow corn and other crops and in the meantime supplies had to be shared by the American Indians. We have our first instance of welfare. Things worked out which lead to the first harvest and Thanksgiving.

Heavily outnumbered the colonists attempted to form relationships with the surrounding tribes forming treaties with them for self defense. In effect the American Indians were welcoming the illegal aliens in their midst and the illegal aliens in turn tried to integrate.

The success of the original colony of course encouraged other people in Europe to make the journey. After all there was fertile land for the taking. They did not apply for permission with any of the native tribes but instead just came. Another wave of what is effectively illegal immigration.

More and more settlers came and eventually the colonies formed relationships with each other instead of the various Indian tribes, creating a separate culture and in fact later on a separate country in the same continent, The United States. We see here that the illegal immigrants did not integrate into the culture of the people who welcomed them but rather formed their own as soon as enough of them were there.

Years and years pass and events unfold causing more settlers to come in. Eventually they needed more land than what was available and the United States decide to expand westward. This led to war with the native population, the American Indian War, and eventually led to them being expelled in the Trail of Tears.

Today the American Indians who welcomed the illegal immigrants have lost most of their land and live in reservations designated for them by their conquerors. The white illegal immigrant founding fathers.

I think we can see the lesson history is trying to tell us.

Trump 2016  🙂