A Republican strategist is helping Americans coordinate small-dollar donations to help pro-American candidates win primary races against pro-amnesty establishment candidates.
“The problem a lot of grassroots candidates face is they never get the necessary funds to actually get their message heard by people,” said strategist Ryan Girdusky, who has founded Homeland PAC. He told Breitbart News:
When they do [get the funds], they can succeed, especially if it’s about immigration, like Dave Brat did [in 2014 Virginia]. So, by working on and making sure these messages can get out and spending [funds] on behalf of these candidates, I think we could knock out quite a few.
“Let’s knock a few out, make an example of them, and let’s see how many want to continue the fight,” he added.
Girdusky is on the same side as Republican voters. Just 5 percent of GOP voters want more migration, according to an April poll by the pro-migration Economist magazine. The poll showed 42 percent of GOP voters want fewer legal migrants, and 15 percent prefer zero legalized migrants.
Also, Girdusky has plenty of targets, because 20 GOP incumbent legislators are publicly backing the pro-amnesty, wage-cutting, pro-elite “Dignidad” bill drafted by Rep. Maria Salazar (R-FL).
Girdusky also has the experience needed for a knock-down, drag-out political fight, having created the 1776 Project PAC to help win school-board elections. “We win races where we’re outspent by the teachers by astronomical amounts, and we win more than we lose,” he told Breitbart News, adding:
I understand the base of the Republican Party better than other people do. I managed to make this PAC on school board elections that average people care about, but donors don’t. And now we’re going to immigration, where average voters are on fire and donors are completely out to lunch.
Many Republicans are unprepared for an organized populist opposition because they do not understand the deep damage done by legal and illegal migration to wages, housing, and everyday life in American communities, Girdusky said.
I don’t think many understand the system as it is [today]. The biggest problem of consultants and of politicians — I think this is just true human nature — is that we operate from a time that doesn’t exist. Everyone always reflects back to a time in their childhood and say, “Oh, things were like this, so they must be like this now.” So, they have opinions over mass immigration that were maybe true decades ago, but are not true anymore, and haven’t been true for a while … They’re working with a set of facts that are out of date and old and antiquated.
The GOP cosponsors of Rep. Maria Salazar’s “Dignidad” mass-migration and amnesty bill would be a good target for populists, he said:
[Marlin] Stutzman [R-IN] is a true open-borders believer. He does not believe we should have any borders. And he has told constituents, whom I know, that you’re racist for believing in borders. He does not believe in any sort of border in the United States whatsoever. James Baird [R-IN] is a sycophant for cheap labor. So is Mike Kelly [R-PA]. I don’t think they know even remotely what’s in the bill. I don’t think they care. I think that donors told them to support it, and they supported it.
“They have no grassroots support … it would shock them how angry and engaged grassroots supporting,” he said, adding, “I’ve only ever done grassroots support.”
In California, Salazar-supporter Rep. Kim Young is facing a primary battle from Rep. Ken Calvert, who is hanging the Salazar amnesty around her neck.
Populist candidates need to be well-spoken and reassuring, Girdusky said:
They would likely be well-known in the community or a current local elected official. They would be able to speak coherently about immigration, the need for a stronger border, and for immigration restrictions without demonizing and vilifying immigrants, and without being cartoonish about it.
They should be able to talk about the economic ramifications of the [immigration] bill that these [incumbent] members are supporting, and about how they devastate working Americans and American taxpayers. The need to be able to talk about the implications of what doubling — if not quadrupling — the overall immigration population will do in a time where we’re facing the AI revolution, and in a time where there’s a housing shortage. I mean, how badly do [incumbents] want to screw over the American citizen?
A populist message on migration must be integrated with other hot-button issues, such as AI job losses, he said.
You must relate immigration to other issues. The issue that no one is talking about right now, generally in politics, is how negatively Americans think of AI. Americans do not like AI. They don’t like that Republicans are offering AI. If [a pro-AI policy] is what the Republicans are using to defend themselves in 2026, it will be as effective as the Maginot Line during the Second World War,
The white collars do not like AI. They’re worried about it. Parents are worried about it. College kids are worried about it, everybody is. So, at the same exact time that we are automating all these jobs, and Americans are struggling to fight for whatever jobs remain … we are turning around and then challenging them with all the [imported] workers of the world.
The bill pushed by Salazar and her many GOP allies — including Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) — would devastate white-collar Americans by radically expanding the inflow of low-wage foreign graduates, even as companies rapidly offshore white-collar jobs to India, Girdusky said.
They’re saying, “Don’t worry, you’re going to enjoy how cheap everything is.” … It’s screwing your kids and their generation, their ability to make any kind of money in this life. Let’s see how angry and how happy parents are about that.
The Salazar bill and all of its Republican and Democrat sponsors display this reckless disregard for ordinary Americans, Girdusky said:
You cannot — in this type of environment where workers are feeling the crush of AI — double the amount of [imported] workers to compete with them. There is literally no way that they can win, and if they try, they’re going to [create] the most radical form of [left-wing] politics, which we will not like.
We’re not going to stop all AI development. That’s not going to happen, but we can change the way we do immigration because you cannot have a 21st Century [AI] Economy with a 20 Century [mass] migration policy. It’s lunacy.
Washington, DC, “is openly rooting for the AI — like people reading the Frankenstein book and rooting for the monster.”
Read the full article here