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.

Constitution Week, 9/13/14
Bitfire Inc.
320 West 37th Street
Suite 600
New York, NY  10018

The political impact of the Tea Party is a subject which has been debated ceaselessly over the course of the past six years. Even as it has made tremendous strides in mobilizing public opposition to disastrous statist manipulations of the economy and health care, the tangible results of this nationwide experiment in philosophical education and civic action have been ambiguous, at best. Many in the class of newcomers ushered into Congress on a wave of conservative resistance in 2010 have turned their backs on the citizens who voted them into office, in an all-too-familiar pattern of ostensible outsiders being absorbed by the corporatist leviathan which dominates policymaking in the nation’s capital. Even as advocates of liberty gain a more prominent foothold in public debates over these issues-while having their philosophy mischaracterized by the usual suspects-it can plausibly be argued that the scope of government, as well as its manifold abuses, expands with each passing year.

That’s why I believe the most enduring contribution the Tea Party has made to our national discourse and political environment has been its dissemination of knowledge about this nation’s founding documents to the broader American public. It has popularized many of the ideas espoused by invaluable organizations like the Federalist Society, Tenth Amendment Center, and Institute for Justice, as well as individuals like Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman, prompting millions of Americans to explore the ideological basis for the creation of this country.

That’s why I’m  delighted to spread the word about Constitution Week in New York City, an event explicitly dedicated to preparing liberty-minded individuals and patriotic citizens for a robust defense of that charter of negative liberties so reviled-and wantonly violated-by the current occupant of the White House. Last year, a small group of creative activists banded together to host this grassroots event in the hope of generating a boomlet within the local liberty community. Exceeding all expectations, this event turned into a rousing, standing-room only success. This year my good friend Thomas Nguy, as well as veteran physician and health care consultant Dara Grieger and Constitutional expert Shane Krauser, are hoping to repeat the success of their initial gathering.

That’s where you come in. This event will be taking place on September 13th, but you can order your tickets in advance by purchasing them online. Here’s the link! For less than the price of a typical movie ticket in the borough of Manhattan, you will have the privilege of being prepped for rhetorical combat by some of this nation’s leading experts on Constitutional law, viewing a performance from the fantastic Boston Tea Party Opera, and witnessing a panel composed of legal immigrants who will describe what it’s like living in nations ruled by bureaucrats and dictators rather than natural law. It’s a deal that you simply can’t resist, which is why I urge you to snatch up those tickets while there’s still time.

The mendacity of our current administration is at times stunning, even for those of us who should by now have become inured to the lies regurgitated by the Obama administration and its factotums for the better part of two terms. The disavowals by La Raza graduate Cecilia Munoz and village idiot Joe Biden notwithstanding, the systematic emigration of unaccompanied minors from their homelands to the southwestern United States is nothing if not a ploy designed by those in power to destroy whatever prophylactic measures the government currently takes to prevent the complete dissolution of our nation’s system of border controls. 

-You need look no further than ICE itself, whose bureaucrats acknowledge that a contract request to escort these youths was publicly advertised as early as the beginning of this year to realize how fatuous the current administration’s protestations of innocence are. The fact that this crisis is completely and utterly contrived seems not to have dissuaded the usual suspects in the mainstream  news media from putting the most appealing face on what has become an untrammeled invasion. Perhaps predictably, the fact that those tasked with protecting our nation’s security are now the functional equivalent of babysitters to carriers of lethal, communicable diseases has only exacerbated the existing tendency among press outlets to treat every breakdown of public order and security risk as a vessel for the classic illegal immigrant sob story.

-That the public is being largely denied pertinent information about the risks posed by these cherubic children-or a rational debate over whether surviving custodians/parents are practicing child abuse by forcing them to make a potentially lethal, 120+ mile trek through the Mexican desert-should come as no surprise. While concerned citizens might be surprised to learn that many of these “unaccompanied minors” are in fact vicious gang members, the fact that this tidbit is being overlooked by every single national broadcast network is nothing new when it comes to immigration coverage, unfortunately. Even the question of whether these individuals are being released into the care of human traffickers is probably not going to be raised by reporters invested in the wholesale erasure of American sovereignty.

-What galls, however, is the deafening silence by the fourth estate regarding the manipulation of access to the detainment cells and way stations, including military bases, housing these uninvited guests from Central America. Naturally, any critics of this administration’s  calculatedly disastrous immigration policy are being denied entry to the facilities housing the latest cohort of illegal aliens, as Arizona Speaker Andy Tobin learned recently. Likewise, any reporters seeking to engage in journalism-not merely act as stenographers for LULAC or the ACLU-are obstructed from practicing their craft, even as the Border Patrol officers who would seek to assist them are threatened with prosecution by their superiors, a la Fast and Furious. Thus, the freedom of information whose death the press routinely sheds crocodile tears for ends, not with a bang, and barely a whimper from the credentialed hypocrites.

-In contrast to the brick wall greeting those few genuinely patriotic lawmakers and intrepid journalists seeking the truth, the Spanish-speaking subjects of so many glowing personal interest stories over the past month are being provided with the best in legal representation that your tax dollars can buy. Someone should inform President Obama and his sidekick that these star-studded legal teams are promising their clients amnesty, which is open to them through a variety of means, including the notoriously porous refugee resettlement program.

-These unaccompanied aliens-and presumably, the adults who are assisting their perilous voyage north-are acting upon an entirely rational, understandable impulse. Namely, to leave behind a third world life of desperate poverty and lack of security in order to live in a, relatively speaking, prosperous and safe environment-one in which attempts to circumscribe their access to any welfare program will be met with howls of rage by indignant, open borders fanatics. They’re doing so because they have concluded that they will not be deported to their countries of origin, and despite the disingenuous protestations to the contrary by this administration and its apparatchiks, this is a largely accurate assessment of the situation, as columnist Ross Douthat has pointed out in the pages of the New York Times.

News & Notes

-Perhaps predictably, the political earthquake that vaporized Eric Cantor’s future career arc  doesn’t seem to have reached the denizens of Capitol Hill, K Street, or the White House. Valerie Jarrett’s recent comments about Rupert Murdoch and Dave Brat only serve to underscore the cosmic disconnect between those who make their living manipulating the political process in order to serve their financial and political interests and the people throughout the country laboring to sate their avarice. Unfortunately, just as we seem to be stuck with Murdoch, there is no prospect of Ms. Jarrett returning to Iran any time in the near future. GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, unlike his Australian counterpart, was actually born in the United States, therefore should presumably have a deeper attachment to American sovereignty and the quality of life of this nation’s citizens. Unfortunately, as Breitbart reports, that is simply not the case.

-One group that passionately detests the United States-at least, as it’s currently constituted-is the National Council of La Raza. Shockingly, they seem to have drawn all the wrong conclusions from Eric Cantor’s epic primary defeat, demonstrating yet again the utter futility of hispandering in  hopes of garnering that ever-elusive, much-heralded latino vote. One man who does not tailor his message in order to appeal to segmented ethnic groups is the gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo, a man whose praises we have sung repeatedly on this website. Of course, the open borders elites who control the GOP machinery despise Congressman Tancredo, which is all the more reason registered Republicans in the state of Colorado should go out and vote for him in today’s primary.

And with that important admonition, we conclude today’s Daily Rattle.

It’s been over a year since we lost Andrew Breitbart, although it seems much longer, and his departure is just as piercing today, as we confront an administration unencumbered by the rule of law, overseen by a politically neutered Congress, and whose actions are facilitated by a press whose slavish devotion to the left’s ideological agenda is something you would expect to find in the former Soviet Union.  I don’t think we can exaggerate the importance of the space he occupied within the counterrevolutionary movement against the domestic left, and particularly, its allies among the mainstream media. Sitting through a screening of Hating Breitbart, a remarkable film directed by Andrew Marcus which examines why his enemies hated him-and went to such great lengths to misrepresent, vilify or simply ignore his message-reminded me yet again of what a groundbreaking figure he was in disseminating news and information that had been suppressed by what Jim Lehrer nostalgically calls America’s “gatekeepers.”

The beauty of this documentary is that it captures the essence of Andrew Breitbart both as the public face of an online samizdat as well as the individual whose unique personality and character shaped the movement which arrived at an historical moment when-as Andrew Klaven observes-quantum leaps of technology had made the stranglehold the fourth estate exercised over the distribution of information increasingly obsolescent. This is one of the recurring themes of Hating Breitbart, whose interview subjects accurately diagnose the dilemma facing a mainstream media which has consistently failed to adapt to the challenges imposed by progress. In this regard, the campaign to destroy Andrew Breitbart’s reputation made practical sense not only because he offered an alternative form of news gathering and media consumption, but a wholly different business model.

Nothing illustrates the threat this new form of investigative reporting posed to the existing model of journalism more vividly than the mainstream media’s reaction to the  2009 sting conducted by Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe, which uncovered ACORN employees colluding with putative criminals in order to exploit the American taxpayer. True to form, the paper of record didn’t deign to print anything about these potentially criminal activities, even after the organization itself had been defunded by a bipartisan majority in Congress. A multimillion dollar organization that was a mainstay of the post-McGovern Democratic Party, which had generated the shock troops of the activist left, and whom the sitting President had once served as counsel to, was forced to disband. The fact that this galvanic political event went officially unnoticed by this country’s media barons demonstrated beyond dispute that their newspapers and television networks had no interest in uncovering the truth, or even distributing high quality news or information if it didn’t gibe with their sacred cows.

The ferocity with which these entities attacked the reputation of Andrew Breitbart, and to a lesser extent, James O’Keefe, reflected  not only their alienation from any ideas that did not come from the Columbia School of Journalism, but their recognition that a new form of journalism was rendering their filters-and by extension, their credentials-null. The backlash against Breitbart, and the concept of citizen journalism itself, was a reactionary gambit by institutions which had invested their reputations in preserving a decaying edifice. A reflexive instinct similar to the MPAA’s attempt to suffocate online speech through proposed laws like SOPA and the Protect IP Act.

The struggle between the bastions of big journalism and Andrew Breitbart over the nature of the ACORN revelations constitutes one third of Hating Breitbart, the remainder of the documentary devoted to an examining a subject, i.e. the framing mechanisms the media uses with regard to race, which I think is by far the most important part of this film.

Many people have accused Andrew Breitbart of being a provocateur; someone who stoked outrage simply for the sake of professional advancement and personal aggrandizement. The idea that his actions and demeanor served as a facade used to generate publicity is superficially appealing, because he was-unlike so many conservatives-brilliant at marketing and keenly aware of how important it was to disseminating your product, which in his case was the message that the left and its instruments in the media industrial complex were engaged in the big lie. However, Bretbart’s outrage wasn’t artificial, it was born of genuine passion for truth and anger at those who have dedicated all of their energies to suppressing it.

His response to the premeditated media smear campaign against the Tea Party prior to the 2010 elections is a perfect example of this-genuinely felt-righteous indignation. For those who don’t recall the circumstances of this controversy-in fact, extensive slanderous/libelous campaign based upon an elaborately crafted myth-it began with charges by a group of bottom-feeders from the Congressional Black Caucus-led by nepotism beneficiary Andre Carson-that they were bombarded with racial epithets as they ostentatiously paraded by a group of anti-Obamacare protestors along the steps of the U.S. Capitol. The genesis of this media creation was a demonstration against a singularly unpopular and unsustainable public policy attended by thousands of individuals from states and cities across the nation. Instead of covering the mass opposition to this plan among the people it was to be forced upon-or examining how it was conceived-the national press corps decided to use the opportunity to defame a group of its political antagonists who threatened Barack Obama’s signature political achievement.

Andrew Breitbart spent months refuting these charges, which were not supported by any contemporaneous accounts from people who didn’t have a vested interest in maintaining this fiction-and which were leveled by people who routinely manipulated the subject of race to engage in political burlesque-because he was incensed by an injustice. He was outraged that the mainstream media would impugn the integrity of millions of Americans simply to shape a narrative that dovetailed with the political ambitions of the current administration. Rather than talk about the vision of a national, grassroots movement which was lobbying for liberty-rather than simply spoils for a particular race, guild, or corporate interest-he spent the better part of 2010 debunking the regurgitated lies of cretinous flunkies like Terry Moran and Tommy Christopher. The reason he did so is because he was genuinely enraged by the lies-and what they implied-and believed that the American public needed to know who was lying to them and why they were doing so.

This is a part of Andrew Breitbart’s composition that I wish more of his admirers would seek to emulate. You hear conservatives condemn or lament the litany of abuses by the left and its accomplices in the media time and again, but rarely do they grasp the immorality of these deceptions, let alone point it out to the broader American pubic. The depth of Breitbart’s fury was commensurate with the outrageousness of the lie we were being asked to accept. Namely, that an organic, nationwide movement to roll back government encroachments upon our freedom of choice was simply some sort of paroxysm of racist tourette’s on the political stage. The insidiousness of this story-line is something that should have generated more righteous anger, even among people who have become inured to the media’s factory line of disinformation.

The third and final part of Hating Breitbart, which examines the Shirley Sherrod controversy-wherein he was personally vilified-is arguably the most critical aspect of this documentary, because it provides us with the sharpest demarcation in philosophy between Breitbart and his enemies. While the former believed in equality of opportunity and the basic principles of the Constitution-at its most fundamental core, free will and voluntary exchange-the latter, including Ben Jealous and the husband of Mrs. Sherrod, desire a spoils-based society that takes the cult of multiculturalism as its  starting point.

Breitbart was an exponent of individual rights, not the group rights that Julian Bond, Ben Jealous, et. al. seek to impose as the dominant mode of political discourse in this country. The dangers of embracing this mentality do not consist merely of defrauding the American taxpayer, or even distorting history, but of causing permanent damage to future generations. Prominent conservative blogger Dan Riehl explains just why this reliance upon racial categorization and definition is so corrosive in a welfare state, not only to the body politic, but even-perhaps especially so-to the intended beneficiaries of this racial spoils system. If government benefits are entitlements, then any attempt to curb these payments-or critique the system under which they are distributed-is a personal attack. And when you’re classified according to your ethnicity or race, it is by definition a racist assault.

This is one of the invaluable insights of Hating Breitbart, and one of the many reasons you should see this film. Have it screened in your city. Follow the Hating Breitbart Facebook page, and follow the film’s Twitter page. You need to see and hear Andrew Breitbart for yourself in order to discover why he was such a visionary leader, and why he was so irreplaceable to the conservative moment and the new media. Congratulations to Andrew Marcus, Evan Coyne Maloney,  Maura Flynn, Katie O’Malley and everyone responsible for putting this story together. It’s one that needed to be told, and needs to be remembered.

One of the mainstays of this administration’s immigration policy is non-enforcement, coupled with an overwhelming tendency to deceive the public about what it is doing. Of course, its lapdogs in the mainstream media have been more than willing to facilitate this deception, so long as it bolsters the President’s chances of enacting an even more sweeping wholesale amnesty. The notion that there might be Americans who hold a differing perspective is inconceivable within the media bubble.

Forget for a moment that a well-respected, private research university had already established that Obama and his cronies were lying about their dereliction of duty over a year ago. Or that the head of the House Judiciary Committee had repeatedly proven that this administration’s deportation statistics were complete fabrications. Let’s overlook that Mark Krikorian had written an extensively documented monograph which demonstrated how President Obama and his administration was thoroughly undermining immigration enforcement prior to the 2010 Republican landslide.

Unfortunately, nothing came of that historic election due to the slavish devotion of the new speaker to the Chamber of Commerce and its cheap labor at all costs benefactors. Something else that didn’t change was the White House’s commitment to eviscerating the remaining vestiges of immigration enforcement. So it comes as no surprise that a breakup of the most lucrative immigration fraud ring in recent memory was initiated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and not the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

After all, why should the training of ICE agents be put to waste enforcing immigration law when they can be used to protect the profits of multi-millionaire NFL commissioners, becoming, in effect, the Who Dat Police, or nab malefactors trying to dump malicious pots of Chinese honey upon American shores? It would be amusing, if it weren’t so tragic. The fraud-ridden nature of the immigrant investor visa is so transparent that even National Public Radio felt compelled to do a remarkably impartial story exploring its defects, which are evident to anyone who’s done even a cursory examination of the program.

This is the exception to the rule, however, as the mainstream media-from those blissfully immune from the devastating consequences of open borders at NPR to the demagogues at the New York Times-lay down the party line on mass immigration. Like those charged with overseeing immigration enforcement in this administration, the ostensible “gatekeepers” are not going to do anything in their power to address one of the most pressing issues of our time. That is our job as citizens, and one that is worthy of our efforts.

One of the more obnoxious political phenomena this election cycle is the continued fixation of the media upon placing voters into specific taxonomic, ethnic boxes. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the press corps insist upon classifying all potential voters who hail from Spanish-speaking countries into the same amorphous, unitary bloc, regardless of the variant cultures and/or beliefs present within this “group.” A good antidote to this blinkered perspective is provided by Fausta Wertz, a respected blogger and writer who focuses primarily upon Latin American politics. She’s gone to the trouble of republishing her 2006 essay which illuminates the misconceptions that have gone into creating what she describes as the Hispanic mirage.

The only way to get past an illusion is to dispel it, and the best way to do so is by discovering the truth.

With the New Hampshire presidential primary fast approaching, it might be time to look at two of the Republican candidates who’ve often drawn comparisons in the mainstream media. Namely, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman and 2008 GOP runner-up Mitt Romney. The rap on both men is very similar, i.e. both are technocratic, not very inspiring-yet seemingly competent-moderates who have extreme difficulties rallying the Republican faithful. And while Mr. Huntsman has increased the pace of his attacks on Governor Romney in recent days, you can’t help but notice the similarities between the two candidates.

While many conservative pundits have attempted-unsuccessfully in my view-to argue that Huntsman is an unabashed conservative, you can’t help but get the impression that supporters of past presidential campaigns by Pete McCloskey, John Anderson, Arlen Specter, and Lynn Martin, among many other liberal politicians who sought the GOP nod, said the very same thing about their preferred candidate. The fact remains that Huntsman-much like Mitt Romney, who garnered only one percent of  voters who labeled conservatism as their top priority in the Iowa caucuses-appeals predominately to those Republicans who are outliers within the party. They both garner plaudits from institutional left wing media organs and earn scorn from right wing opinion shapers, although Huntsman’s seemingly conscious effort to attack conservative sacred cows, and like defeated presidential candidate John McCain-one of Romney’s newest supporters-gratuitously insult conservatives, no doubt makes him a preferable opponent of President Obama to people like Stephen Colbert. 

Granted, there are some differences, both substantive and superficial, between the two men that require acknowledgement. While Mitt Romney’s rhetorical bellicosity towards China has been much remarked upon during this campaign, Huntsman-reflecting his history as a diplomat-has gone out of his way to allay concerns that a trade war between the PRC and the United States is imminent. Another distinction between the two is their approach with respect to national security and foreign policy issues. A perfect illustration of how they differ can be found in this exchange between the men over what should be done in the Afghanistan theater of war. But perhaps the greatest divide between the two candidates lies in an issue that has thus far escaped critical scrutiny, which is to say immigration.

While Huntsman has adopted the line of the open borders lobby-including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, whose leadership has slandered any patriotic American who embraces sensible immigration policies even as Mormons die as a result-Romney has thus far espoused one of the toughest stances against illegal immigration to be found among Republican challengers to Barack Obama. He has pledged to veto the DREAM Act, opposed sanctuary cities, supported E-Verify, and highlighted the importance of employer sanctions, which everyone recognizes as the keystone of any successful regime of immigration enforcement in this country. It was the relentless criticism of Romney-and to a lesser extent, Michele Bachmann-that torpedoed the presidential aspirations of Rick Perry, which we can all be grateful for. And perhaps most impressively of all, when pressed to explain how he would deal with illegal aliens who remain in this country despite stepped-up enforcement efforts, he gave the perfect answer.

Even so, there are good arguments to be made against Mitt Romney’s presidential candidacy from a patriotic immigration reform perspective. Beyond the accusation that his tough stance against illegal immigration is merely a cynical political ploy-an accusation whose refutation is not helped by gaffes like these-there is Romney’s distressing support for H1-B visas and legal immigration mechanisms that are not only rife with fraud but existentially harmful to American citizens. However, even when you take into account these severe limitations, Mitt Romney still can be said to have a far superior record on issues of immigration and border security than his fellow Mormon ex-governor, Jon Huntsman. Whether good enough is good enough is a question that Republican voters will have to answer for themselves.