President Obama and his fellow Democrats are scheming to use immigration and housing policy to fulfill their dream to fundamentally transform America forever.
Over a decade ago, two liberals-John Judis and Rus Teixeira-wrote a book, The Emerging Democratic Majority, that predicted demographic changes would inevitably lead to a Democratic lock on Congress and the White House. Their argument since has been updated by both of them and by others. Back in 2009, Teixeira wrote that “that demographic and geographic "trends should take America down a very different road than has been traveled in the last eight years. A new progressive America is on the rise."
However, for a man who boasted of his plans to “fundamentally transform America” and change its “trajectory” and has used Martin Luther King’s declaration of the “fierce urgency of now” as a rallying cry, these changes are too glacial. After all, when Treasury Secretary Geithner praised Barack Obama for a legacy of having prevented the second Great Depression (sycophancy works with Obama) Obama replied “That’s not enough for me”. For a man declared to something akin to a God, what greater legacy can there be then changing the demographics of America? His legacy will last long after he left the office. Demography is destiny.
There has been much coverage of how the changing composition of the American electorate is boosting the prospects for Democrats, but the policies adopted by President Obama and supported by Harry Reid’s Senate are acting, as arsonists would say, as accelerants.
There has been much coverage of how the changing composition of the American electorate is boosting the prospects for Democrats, but the policies adopted by President Obama and supported by Harry Reid’s Senate are acting, as arsonists would say, as accelerants.
There are clues to this plan in the lax enforcement of our immigration laws, the targeting of states and law-enforcement officials that are trying to enforce those very laws, and the abuse of “prosecutorial discretion” to hand out get-out-of-jail-free cards, as well as tax dollars, to lawbreakers. One of his more potent and controversial actions was President Obama’s use of “executive authority” in 2012 to enact the Dream Act by fiat -- despite his profession just the year before that he had no power to circumvent Congress in that way (for once, he was right about the law). His order gave lawful permanent residency status and work authorization to anyone who arrived in America illegally as a minor, has been in this country for at least five years, has been in America for at least five years, was in school or has graduated from high school, or served in the military and was not yet 35 years old. This was a Dream Act alright for Obama’s dream is to “punish his enemies” and crush the Republican Party.
Since then, of course, his Open Borders policy has led to the much publicized children’s crusade crossing America’s southern border, with very little done to stop this invasiondespite risks to our fiscal health (exemplified by what immigration waves has done to California finances); our medical health and our safety and our lives (as ISIS and other Islamists groups see the virtual Bienvenidos Mat at America’s borders; the head of the immigration workers union recently warned of this dangerous terror threat -- despite White House efforts to hide this danger.
U.S. Border Patrol agents have apprehended at least 474 aliens from terrorism-linked countries attempting to sneak into the country illegally this year alone, according to a leaked document obtained by Breitbart Texas. As Barack Obama has made clear, he plans to declare amnesty by executive order once those annoying distractions known as elections are over in November. Democrats have recentlyvoted to protect his likely post-election amnesty order. Also on the docket before Obama leaves office will be the granting of asylum for hundreds of thousands of Muslims displaced by his own disastrous policies (Obama already loosened the rules for asylum seekers who have terror connections, despite the fact that others granted asylum have killed Americans). That policy has worked out so well for Europe, after all. Minneapolis has seen Somalis granted asylum become ISIS terrorists.
This is not what most Americans want and a president, a decent one anyway, would consider the views of his fellow Americans on such an important matter. But as we have seen on climate change and Obamacare, for example, Democrats don’t care to consult with the hoi polloi .
This will be one giant leap to transform the electoral map of America.
Despite claims made by some activists that immigrants are “natural Republicans,” this has been disproved by numerous studies. Illegal immigrants (surprise!) vastly favor Democrats over Republicans. The second generation becomes natural Democrats in overwhelming numbers (see Why Hispanics Don’t Vote Republican by the estimable Heather MacDonald). They favor Big Government policies -- nationalized medical care, welfare and the other entitlement programs -- by which Democrats create dependents and dependable Democrats. Thus, fast-tracking them onto the path of citizenship and the right to vote is a high priority for Democrats.
First comes the immigration, legal and illegal; then comes amnesty; then comes citizenship; and then comes immortal Democratic control. Call it the Tinkers-to Evers-to Chance plan to control the destiny of America. As Mark Krikorian has repeatedly warned, Obama is transforming America through immigration. There is an even more calculated policy being followed. To see the impact look at a map:
(The colors in the map of the states represent the split of senators
in those states, not political leaning. Colorado is more purple than
Nevada at this point but has two Dem senators, Nevada 1 of each.)
in those states, not political leaning. Colorado is more purple than
Nevada at this point but has two Dem senators, Nevada 1 of each.)
The influx into the south is changing the political alignment in southern states. The South has been a bastion for Republicans for years but that has made it a target and it is under assault. Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times recently wrote a column reporting how immigration (“Latinos in Georgia, as in much of the country, are the fastest growing minority”) is shifting the state towards the blue spectrum (the GOP has a good shot of retaining a Republican Senatorial seat in this cycle as but as the cliché goes, past performance is no guarantee of future performance).
Attorney General Eric Holder has been targeting southern states for years to loosen voter identification and other anti-voter fraud measures. Democrats are actively working to turn Texas blue (after Obama’s re-election, Jeremy Bird, Obama’s campaign national field director, started Battleground Texas, a grass-roots political organization to make Texas competitive, a long-term effort to take root perhaps by the 2020 presidential election, wrote Amy Chozick in the New York Times). Skeptics may scoff but California was once solidly Republican and now has Jerry Brown as governor and Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer as senators. Hence, as Stolberg wrote about Georgia, the Democratic Party is enjoying a “revival.” It may be slow but it is inexorable.
There are other actions taken by the White House and its Democratic allies in Congress to further control the destiny of America. For decades, Democrats have bemoaned that Republicans have an advantage in the House of Representatives since districts are based primarily on geography. Since individual districts are spread out across states, more conservative suburban, ex-urban and rural voters have more sway in deciding the composition of the House. The Democrats have done their best to redraw these lines when they have controlled state governments to favor Democrats. Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their voters rather than the democracy is supposed to work. Be that as it may, these electoral puzzle pieces often look strange for a reason (conspiracies can be complex). Illinois, Obama’s home state naturally enough-provides an illustration of how far-fetched gerrymandering can become
My street is a microcosm of what happened when Democrats took control of state government in 2010 and redrew the map. I live in the 10th district of Illinois, once held by Republicans Mark Kirk and his successor (once Kirk was elected to the Senate) Bob Dold. After 2010, the seat was won – barely -- by a Democrat. I was talking with a neighbor from across the street about the upcoming midterm election in the district, one of the most competitive in the nation (Bob Dold is running to retake the seat). I was surprised when he said he was not in the 10th anymore (he finds himself, horror of horrors, represented by a left-wing Democrat who has a solid core of support in other carefully drawn areas of her district, the 9th). When I did a deep dive to drill down on the map, I not only discovered that I escaped the same fate by just a few yards but that neighbors on the same side of the street just a few houses up were also in a different district. If only Democrats would focus such attention on fiscal and security concerns rather than their campaigns and themselves.
However, redrawing congressional district maps is only the most obvious strategy (and one, that in all fairness, has also been practiced by Republicans). Could there be a stealth plan to move Democrats into Republican-held House districts to turn them blue or at least purple?
Westchester County in New York can be used as another microcosm to reveal changes that are afoot across America that have somehow escaped the media’s attention.
George Picard of American Thinker wrote years ago about events transpiring in that well-off community:
The Obama team also has sent social engineers to Westchester County, New York, to pressure the community to settle a lawsuit brought by liberal activists over "affordable" housing. The deal requires Westchester County to spend $50 million dollars to build hundreds of affordable units and market them aggressively to minorities. As the Wall Street Journal noted, "the lawsuit was clearly a solution in search of a problem."
The Housing and Urban Development agency went on war footing. Deputy Secretary Ron Sims declared that "there was a significant amount of racial segregation" in Westchester. This is false. The county's population of minorities already mirrors that of the nation's population as a whole. Minorities do cluster in certain communities and are relatively absent in the higher-income areas, such as Scarsdale. This replicates the history of social migration in America, whether by Jews, Italians, or African-Americans themselves. As incomes increase, people move to nicer areas. In fact, even in the wealthier areas of Westchester, African-Americans are only slightly underrepresented. Regardless, the county settled to avoid the enormous costs of tangling in court with the Obama administration.
HUD has made its goals clear. Any community that accepts federal funds for housing development will have to toe the line regarding minority housing. "They are now on notice," said HUD Deputy Secretary Ron Sims. "That means in suburban areas, we're going to ask that they provide that opportunity for choice so people are able to enjoy what I call the fruits and benefits of an established neighborhood." The Westchester case could provide a new tool for fair-housing advocates fighting what they allege are discriminatory policies by cities and suburbs nationwide. The settlement marked a significant shift in federal efforts to enforce fair-housing law, particularly in suburban areas.
Indeed, Sims has said that the Westchester settlement "can serve as a model for building strong, inclusive sustainable communities in suburban areas across the United States."
Incidentally, Attorney General Holder's also criticized America for being "voluntarily segregated." So will we now be involuntarily integrated?
A Wall Street Journal editorial ("Color-Coding the Suburbs") points out a peril of this brow-beating approach:
The bigger concern, however, is the Obama Administration's intention to promote housing policies that have a history of dividing communities and creating racial tension. Integrated neighborhoods are an admirable goal, but how you get there matters.
Social engineering has long been a dream of what Jonah Goldberg would call “Liberal Fascists” and they are having a field day in Obama’s America.
The Democrats are masters at using Big Data (accumulated by means fair and foul, but mostly the latter) to accumulate the very information needed to move likely Democratic voters into districts where they can have the most impact on behalf of the Democratic Party. There were good reasons one of the first steps Barack Obama took upon becoming President was trying to bring the Census Department under White House control (“it’s called politics” as this Wall Street Journal column by John Fund depicted the ploy; the Census combined with the IRS would be powerful political tools for Democrats -- paid for by taxpayers).
The problem with these “surplus voters” is that their votes are wasted in reliably Democratic districts. Moving them into districts where they can tip the balance and the district into the Democratic column would be a masterstroke. This population transfer (dictators have a fetish for this type of social engineering, by the way) would be done -- is being done -- under the guise of “social justice,” “affordable housing,” and “redressing past racial wrongs.” Those tactics and terms intimidate protesters and stifle free speech.
Controlling both Houses of Congress is the grand plan.
Change is coming to America, district by district, state by state.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/09/the_plot_to_create_a_permanent_democratic_majority.html#ixzz3EBpvAqJ9
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment