By: Julia Hahn, Breitbart.com
October 31, 2015
Hedge-fund billionaire Paul Singer’s decision to throw his financial weight behind the?donor-class 2016 favorite, Sen. Marco Rubio (R.-FL), has sparked fresh questions about Rubio’s coziness with the financial interests funding his career. Singer was a major financial force behind the Rubio-Obama amnesty and immigration expansion push in 2013.
As?Politico reported at?the time, Singer “quietly go[t] involved in the fight for immigration reform, making a six-figure donation… to the National Immigration Forum”— a George Soros-backed organization that lobbied for Rubio’s legislation to issue 33 million green cards to foreign nationals in the span of a single decade. The announcement of Singer’s endorsement highlights an intra-party tension that has emerged with new strength since the inauguration of Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-WI) as Speaker of the House.
There is a growing chasm between the more than 9 in 10 GOP voters who want to see future immigration rates cut, versus GOP donors that are desperately seeking to install leaders in the White House and Congress who will further expand the nation’s already record breaking immigration rates that are transforming the country’s economy and electorate.
RINOTRACKER RESPONSE FROM CHRIS ADAMO:
Given the magnitude of the breach between Beltway Republicans and the American people, several grim truths of the situation must be forthrightly recognized. The political left has deviated so dangerously far from the nation’s best interests that a GOP unwilling to strenuously oppose America’s leftward drift must be regarded as complicit in the impending disaster. As such, it becomes imperative that the party’s individual members be evaluated as either beneficial to the nation’s restoration, or detrimental to it. Despite Marco Rubio’s occasional soaring rhetoric, his overall effect is not good. He clearly falls on the wrong side.
The role played here by open-borders guru Paul Singer and those like him demand another grim “moment of truth” when assessing modern politics. In recent months, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators have coined the term “Donor Class,” to describe those, like Singer, who play within political circles as a result of the exorbitant sums of money they give to their preferred candidates.
Yet in light of the self-serving influence they wield, and the drastic alterations of public policy implemented on their behalf, it might be more fitting to concede the existence of a “bribery class.” In a perfect world, genuine contributions are bestowed on a candidate with no expectation of personal return, other than said candidate maintaining an allegiance to the principles on which he or she originally campaigned. However, when major sums of money are infused into campaign coffers with the expectation of a specific course of action in response, the big picture becomes horribly distorted. And “We the People” are shut out of a process that was originally constitutionally established on our behalf.
Of course Marco Rubio vehemently denies that he has been thusly manipulated. But what else would he be expected to say? As one who is too often credited for being an eloquent advocate of conservatism, his donor list reads like a “who’s who” of corporate cronyism, including such notables as Goldman Sachs, Microsoft (who’s CEO, Bill Gates, just professed his “love affair” with socialism), along with Morgan Stanley and Oracle. So although Rubio’s words ring of patriotism, the Constitution, and the American way, his track record reflects something far different, and portends disaster for America were he ever to ascend to the White House.
More than his assertions of dedication to conservatism, Rubio’s time in Washington has been defined by such betrayals as his participation in the pro-amnesty “Gang of 8,” which included such notable Democrats as New York’s ultra-liberal Senator Charles Schumer and John McCain of Arizona (though on paper, McCain professes to be “Republican”).
It was this treacherous effort to steam-roll amnesty through the Congress that sufficiently emboldened Barack Obama to bypass that body and the Constitution altogether with his flagrant abuse of power known as “Executive Amnesty.” And despite the total contempt for the American people represented in that excess, Rubio has since contended that, if elected president, he would not rescind Obama’s overreach until such time as the Congress passed an identical measure under the guise of “immigration reform.” In short, Rubio would prefer that Obama’s “Executive Amnesty” be rubber stamped by the House and Senate, but will abide by it in any case.
Heralded as a “rising star” of the Republican Party, Rubio’s ascension to prominence is increasingly revealed to have resulted from “Ruling Class” machinations intended to advance an anti-American agenda while throwing a few meaningless crumbs to those rubes on Main Street. And with Jeb Bush’s long-planned coronation in serious doubt, the “movers and shakers” are flocking to Rubio in ever greater numbers.
However, despite intermittently sounding like a heart-felt conservative, the end result of a Rubio presidency would undoubtedly be the addition of thirty million or more new “undocumented Democrats” to the voting rolls of the political left. The America of the Founders cannot survive such an enormous influx, whether or not Rubio’s billionaire “backers” enjoy any short-term dividend reaped from it.
E-mail Christopher G. Adamo at: chrisadamo@ สล็อตออนไลน์ผ่านมือถือ www.leonardopettinari.com