Update: Neil Munro explores Speaker Paul Ryan’s bizarre Republican trinity.

I had the pleasure of attending an informal discussion held by writer/political pundit Fred Barnes recently, where the topics ranged from his biography of Jack Kemp-co-written with McLaughlin Group colleague Morton Kondracke-to his thoughts on the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump. Taking place prior to the New York primary, and subsequent devastating losses by Ted Cruz to the now presumptive Republican nominee, it served as a fascinating overview of the internal divisions within the conservative establishment, which are even more pronounced now that the worst nightmare of many has come to fruition.

Even as Fred Barnes-like a handful of other Republican Party stalwarts-has maintained an anybody but Clinton posture-while delineating his many disagreements with Trump both tactically and strategically-the vast majority of thought leaders among formerly influential conservative think tanks, periodicals-as well as statesmen-seem to have taken the opposite tack. Some even going so far as to wholeheartedly embrace a woman who until relatively recently was seen as the bete noire of the establishment right. This is a process which seems to be accelerating with each day that elapses.

A  Trump critic in the audience-who nonetheless came to the conclusion that he was infinitely preferable, given the options, to Hillary Clinton-asked a compelling question. Namely, from where does this deep-seated animus-and unrelenting energy to thwart Donald Trump’s election, to limited effect thus far-stem? Granted, he breaks from  Republican orthodoxy on a number of issues, but if that’s the crux of the problem, then why were there no comparable anti-Romney or anti-McCain movements by the conservative intelligentsia?

If it’s simply a matter of the support Trump has drawn from loathsome figures, then why was there no corresponding outrage when John McCain aligned himself with virulent Mexican chauvinist Juan Hernandez? I’ve never subscribed to the association fallacy, but it’s worth noting that Donald Trump has never enlisted the help of The Daily Stormer in order to cultivate his popularity among white ethnics. Is the galvanizing issue for the anti-Trump movement his use of vulgarity? As absurd as that seems, the chief complaint voiced by the Stop Trump Pac appears to be Donald Trump’s penchant for uttering naughty words.

In reality, I think their objection-and the animating reason for the existence of the Dump Trump movement-is a deeply rooted fear of their own increasing irrelevance. The idea that the bond between conservative intellectuals and successful Republican campaigns is largely illusory is something that those in the anti-Trump faction simply can’t countenance. Especially the ones who manage magazines which have exiled the few writers on their staffs with a modicum of talent and intellectual integrity from their pages.

The Stop Trump crusade-if that word isn’t too offensive-is something to occupy the energies of writers and editors at The Federalist, Red State, National Review, The Weekly Standard, and virtually every other conservative publication of any consequence, through the remainder of this election cycle. It’s a raison d’être for those who would otherwise be preoccupied telling poor white people they need to die and explaining why you’re not a Christian because you happen to support a candidate they dislike, although I’m almost certain we’ll see similar broadsides in the months ahead from those who believe you’re an idiot is a persuasive riposte.

For the record, none of the aforesaid criticism means that Donald Trump is an ideal candidate, or that I believe sincere Trump critics are grievously mistaken for opposing his candidacy. The truth is that there are many objectionable aspects of Trump as a potential POTUS. Although I have several disagreements with him, I think his shockingly ignorant remarks about the attempted massacre of courageous American patriots-including my dear friend Pamela Geller-in Garland, Texas-which, to the best of my knowledge, he’s never retracted-raise the most important questions about his fitness for office.

However, it strains credibility to use this valid concern as an excuse for endorsing a woman who-lest we forget-fought to have a critic of Islam thrown into a dungeon after her own catastrophically bad foreign policy decisions led to the deaths of a United States ambassador, foreign service officer, and 2 CIA contractors.

The decision to enlist in Hillary Clinton’s unceasing quest to sink her talons into the White House is only explicable as a psychological exercise. Namely, as a means of salving the guilty consciences of those who had no meaningful impact in the fight against Obamacare, the successful grassroots campaign to derail legislative amnesty, or any of the myriad cultural wars which have embroiled our nation over the past 2 decades. It’s a way of ignoring the fact that the premiere conservative conference is a venue for selling snake oil rather than exploring the ideas which actual conservatives care about.

And the more true conservatives maintain that the primary concern of millions Americans is immaterial to true conservatism, the more irrelevant these high priests of conservative dogma will become. Just as real alpha females don’t need an inane listicle explaining how to be an alpha female, real conservatives don’t need a hackneyed blogger at Red State or contemptuous John Malkovich lookalike at National Review to explain to them why the unmaking of their country is less important than thwarting the political aspirations of the first Republican presidential candidate to intently listen to their plight and express their reservations about the direction in which this country is headed.

As a political and ideological ethos, Dump Trump is an empty vessel. However, as a case of deflection, it explains a hell of a lot.

As most of you probably already know, the unsatisfying Speakership of Congressman John Boehner is drawing to a close. After helping to rubber-stamp some of President Obama’s worst legislative ambitions, while enabling his administration’s flagrant disregard for the Constitution, and punishing dissident House members who are actual conservatives, Mr. Boehner has decided to call it a career.

Kudos to the small yet brave group of Republicans who opposed him before this current session of Congress, as well as to Congressman Mark Meadows, who got this ball rolling. Although it’s too soon to speculate as to what Boehner’s future career plans hold, I wouldn’t be surprised if he follows the path of his protege, Eric Cantor, onto K Street. After all, if you’re going to do the bidding of corporate lobbyists, you might as well make it official.

One of the mainstays of the Fox News Channel, like every other media property controlled by Rupert Murdoch, is its unstinting support of mass immigration. Granted, Lou Dobbs does have a show on Fox Business, and there are occasional appearances-and even guest hosting spots-for immigration patriots such as Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham, but that does not alter the fact that the talking heads on FNC mostly skirt the most important issue facing the American electorate going forward. We were reminded of the mind-numbing uniformity of opinion on this subject this week, as Fox news pundit and Weekly Standard alum Tucker Carlson fired Mickey Kaus, perhaps the only reason-with the possible exception of Neil Munro-someone would read The Daily Caller in the first place. The capital offense in this case was, naturally, pointing out Rupert Murdoch’s slavish devotion to open borders and its toxic effect upon the coverage of immigration issues by Fox News correspondents.

And so the media blacklisting that began in earnest with exile of Peter Brimelow for speaking unpalatable truths has cascaded down to ostensibly conservative Internet publications that abandon principle when it conflicts with the aims of rich Australian tycoons. And so the agora shrinks even further, thanks to well-heeled treason lobby. Lather, rinse, repeat.

If there’s anything you can count on in Washington politics, it’s that Speaker John Boehner will put his foot into mouth, usually during or prior to a critically important election cycle. So it is with his recent comments regarding amnesty, which he pledged to enact at some point during the next session of Congress. A more diplomatic, or less stupid, man might try to down-play his support for a universally loathed policy right before conservative Republicans head to the polls, but not Mr. Boehner. I suppose the lure of yet more Zuckerberg cash is too tempting to restrain his idiotic outbursts, re: immigration, for more than a fortnight. 

And they wonder why Republicans in Congress are so viscerally unpopular with the American public. We who have been paying attention to the utterances of people like Congressman Boehner and Paul Ryan, on the other hand, are not confused at all.

As the White House contemplates an expansion of its constitutionally dubious administrative amnesty, it’s worth taking a look at how the treason lobby’s Republican accomplices are dealing with the public’s repudiation of their most cherished legislative priority, i.e. opening the spigot to an endless stream of cheap, imported labor. A particularly revealing exchange happened a week or so ago on the Laura Ingraham Show during an interview with faux conservative Rep. Renee Ellmers, a woman who ran for Congress under the banner of the Tea Party.

Instead of listening to the concerns expressed by her constituents on the subject of immigration reform, i.e. amnesty,  however, she has decided to throw in her lot with the one of the most lavishly-funded, dense Capitol Hill lobbying networks. Which might explain why Tamar Jacoby and her allies are rallying around the embattled congresswoman even as conservative North Carolinians seek viable alternatives to the complacent incumbent.

While the Republican Party leadership doesn’t get it, Republican voters understand the necessity of preventing the implementation of another amnesty for which the GOP will (rightly) be held culpable. An amnesty that will make the election of candidates like Renee Ellmers an impossibility in the near future, something that open borders Republicans like her don’t seem to grasp.

For those of you who want to read the complete report, you can view the pdf file of A Path To Agreement here. The idea that the open borders lobby has slackened its campaign to enact full scale amnesty, or that the Republican proposals for slightly smaller amnesties are in any way acceptable, needs to be fully and forcefully refuted. Hopefully, this report will awaken more of the American public to the dire situation we’re facing with this session of Congress.

One thing we learned from the online ‘chat’ organized by the White House regarding its plans for immigration reform is that it will extend the constitutionally dubious program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Unfortunately, the Obama administration does not seem to take substantive critiques of its abuse of power very seriously, even if they come from very liberal, well-respected legal scholars.

The only path forward, therefore, is to resist the impulse on the part of Congress to enact wholesale legislative amnesty, which is still very much a threat, especially in wake of the recent budget agreement.

Hang in there, folks. It’s going to be a very bumpy ride.

Chen, 47, was charged with murder, stalking, weapons possession and tampering with physical evidence. An undocumented Chinese immigrant, Chen had been tormenting Wu for years, apparently because the employment agency she ran with her husband couldn’t find him work…

After he choked and punched Wu in 2006, he was sent to El Paso, Tex., for deportation proceedings. Instead of throwing Chen out of the country, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement put him on supervised release, a source said.

Would this undocumented vivisectionist have been eligible for President Obama’s amnesty-had it been enacted during the last session of Congress? Something tells me that Americans wouldn’t like the answer to that question.

One of the most incisive, astute observers of the growing income inequality and stratification that characterizes large portions of this nation’s economy is writer Mickey Kaus. Unique among his colleagues for being a prominent voice within the mainstream media and yellow dog Democrat who opposes the mass, unskilled immigration which the institutional left and its press organs glorify, he now writes a regular column for the conservative Washington D.C. online news magazine The Daily Caller.

Kaus’s voice is essential, because it represents the last concrete manifestation of New Deal liberalism untethered to the Democratic Party’s post-1965 infatuation with empowering “new” minorities, even at the expense of the working class Americans who were once the indelible anchor of that party’s base. The historical transformation of the Democratic Party from an ostensible ally-if not tribune-of blue collar and impoverished Americans into a political force comprised primarily of servitors to corporate interests and ethnic lobbyists is no more apparent than in the current “debate” over enacting yet another sweeping legislative amnesty.

An unintentionally hilarious illustration of this change can be found in a column written by New York Times Editor-in-Chief Bill Keller which attempts to persuade skeptical liberals that embracing the Gang of Eight scheme is in their best interests. You can pinpoint the exact moment when elite liberal opinion keelhauled its followers when he touts the benefits of this bill by approvingly citing the open borders libertarians at the Cato Institute.

This is why watching the interview of Mickey Kaus by the Center for Immigration Studies is absolutely necessary for those of us who want to know why and how the ostensible political successor to Jefferson and Jackson came to embody the most unpalatable values of aristocratic, east coast elitism while at the same time becoming the  implacable foe of ordinary, working class Americans-even those who are critical to its electoral success.

I urge you all to watch this conversation closely and use it to pose some tough questions that Democrats have been dodging about this momentous plan to fundamentally transform America. The open borders caucus-which includes virtually every single elected Democratic in the nation’s capital-needs to be held to account for its decision to abandon its constituents.