SelwynDuke.com

Does the GOP’s Demographic Death Spiral End in a Texas Graveyard?

By Selwyn Duke

If Democratic voters were rapidly increasing in number and Republican voters rapidly decreasing, it should be pretty big news, shouldn’t it?

Not when at issue is a third rail of American social commentary: race.

Recently I wrote a piece on race and voting patterns, using as a lede the story about how white births now account for less than 50 percent of the U.S. total for the first time in history. And while most respondents agreed with my analysis, some reacted predictably: Uncomfortable even hearing about race and/or frightened by what lies ahead, they rationalized away obvious facts.

And here is one: You cannot understand where our nation is headed ideologically without grasping the link between racial identification and voting patterns — and demographic changes that will yield Democratic hegemony.

One response to my piece was that “it’s not about race.” This is true — in a sense. It’s about how group identification correlates with many other factors. For instance, Scandinavian immigrants are very liberal, and Jews vote Democratic upwards of 80 percent of the time. Thus, if these two white populations were increasing rapidly, it would make sense to discuss their future impact on the political landscape. But they’re not.

Another response was that I was confusing race with culture. Actually, though, this confuses the “what” with the “why.”

And here is a significant “what”: Republicans derive 90 percent of their presidential-election vote from whites. Democrats win the non-white vote by, on average, more than 70 percent.

Read the rest here.

Demographic Tipping Point: Whites Now Less than Half of US Births

By Selwyn Duke

Bill Clinton once said that he looked forward to the day when whites were a minority in America. While he won’t live to see such a time, a demographic milestone that should send a tingle up Slick Willie’s leg was just reached.  Writes The New York Times:

After years of speculation, estimates and projections, the Census Bureau has made it official: White births are no longer a majority in the United States.

Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 49.6 percent of all births in the 12-month period that ended last July, according to Census Bureau data made public on Thursday, while minorities — including Hispanics, blacks, Asians and those of mixed race — reached 50.4 percent, representing a majority for the first time in the country’s history.

Obviously, a big reason for this demographic shift is migration – and mainly the legal variety.  As a result of Ted Kennedy’s Immigration Reform Act of 1965, the level of yearly immigration increased from approximately 250,000 prior to ‘65 to about 1,000,000 afterwards.  And its nature changed also: 85 percent of our new arrivals now hail from the Third World and Asia.  This radical departure from America’s traditional immigration patterns has created a demographic transformation possibly unprecedented in world history – except for cases of actual invasion.

How You Can Tell if a Candidate Is Serious About Ending Illegal Migration

By Selwyn Duke

Imagine that your son has a habit of sprinkling copious amounts of bird seed and setting up impromptu birdbaths in your yard. You then notice that your property is starting to seem like an aviary, and, as beautiful as the birds are, they’re becoming bothersome. So you approach your husband and ask him to remedy the problem. He then promises to build a scarecrow, but doesn’t complete the job.

And, when the situation persists and you again ask him to help, he simply scratches his head and replies, “You know, it’s just not realistic to remove all these birds from our property; it’s time-consuming, expensive, and uncompassionate to boot. Besides, every time I chase a few away, more come a little while later.” Now, given that he’s not even hinting at the obvious solution, let alone addressing it, would you think he was very serious about remedying the problem?

On illegal migration, our politicians are for the birds. When pressed on it, the best of them will talk about building fences, beefing up the border patrol, and, sometimes even, militarizing our southern border. And these measures are all well and good. But when asked what we should do about the 12 to 25 million illegals already on our shores, the issue suddenly becomes more complex than high-temperature superconductivity. The politicians will scratch their heads and then utter something to the effect of, “Well, we can’t deport 12 million people.” It’s a response that some say is a reason and others call an excuse. But I say that, in certain cases at least, it’s something else: a dodge. How do I know? Because obvious solutions can’t elude everyone.

Read the rest here.

What conservatives and the GOP dare not say about immigration

By Selwyn Duke

In a recent election piece, pundit Ann Coulter identified illegal migration as one of the two most important issues of our time.  She writes that if we fail at halting it, “the country will be changed permanently.”  She continues:

Taxes can be raised and lowered.  Regulations can be removed (though they rarely are).  Attorneys general and Cabinet members can be fired.  Laws can be repealed.  Even Supreme Court justices eventually die.

But capitulate on illegal immigration, and the entire country will have the electorate of California.  There will be no turning back.

She expands on this later in the piece:

[W]e ought to be able to learn the perils of illegal immigration by looking at California.

Massive legal and illegal immigration has already so changed the California electorate that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore.

…If even Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, two bright, attractive, successful female business executives – one pro-life and one pro-choice – can't win a statewide election in California spending millions of their own dollars in the middle of the 2010 Republican sweep, it's buenas noches, muchachos.   

Coulter is, of course, right – but she only dare hint at the real problem.  The fact is that halting illegal migration will do nothing to forestall the socialist electoral shift to which she refers.

Destroying the Republic “for the Children”

By Selwyn Duke

We’ve all heard about the tactic of using children as human shields, as practiced by Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and others. The idea is that you place civilians — preferably women and children — at military targets to reduce the chances that your enemy will attack and so that, if he does, he’ll look like a heartless miscreant who targets the least among us. Morally, it’s the least of tactics.

Yet while we Westerners have made the practice illegal under the Geneva Convention, it’s not unknown in the United States — in our political battles. In the 1990s especially, it became common to claim that all and sundry must support a given statist policy “for the children.” As an example, when Republican-backed welfare reform was instituted, Ted Kennedy called it “legislative child abuse.” And when President G.W. Bush threatened to veto an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in 2007, Democrats brought children to a press conference on the matter and later had a 12-year-old SCHIP recipient read a heartstring-tugging Democrat radio address about the program.

The latest use of this tactic was by Texas Governor Rick Perry in the Florida Republican debate when he invoked the welfare of the children to justify his granting in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens. And while imprudently using the word “heartless” to describe the idea’s opponents didn’t help his presidential fortunes, the tactic certainly helps the cause of illegality. Why, virtually every measure proposed to combat invasion U.S.A. is supposedly off limits because it hurts children, who are innocents and here through no fault of their own.

Read the rest here.

Defend It Like Beckham: Soccer Star Condemned for Having Too Many Children

By Selwyn Duke

Adorning an article in the Guardian is a picture you might think represented a prototypical family: a handsome couple standing behind three healthy, well-grown children. But according to the British paper, the parents — soccer star David Beckham and his wife, Victoria — are to be condemned. The problem is that, with the birth of a fourth child, the Beckhams have become “bad role models and environmentally irresponsible,” writes Guardian scribbler Tracy McVeigh.

In reality, though, the irresponsibility lies with McVeigh.

It’s hard to write an 850-word piece in which virtually every sentence serves to deceive, but McVeigh might have birthed just such an illegitimate bit of childishness. She quotes “campaigners,” environmentalists, a Green MP, and others who all bleat the same message: The sky is falling due to overpopulation. And we’ll all end up languishing in a Soylent Green sewer of endless humanity unless, as zoologist David Attenborough says, we eliminate the “absurd taboo” against discussing family size.

Okay, let’s discuss it.

Attenborough is right: There is a population problem in the world.

It is that birthrates have been collapsing for decades, a phenomenon that has grave implications for society.

Read the rest here.

Austria's Geert Wilders Rails against Immigration and Muslim Influence

Is this footage of the best statesman in Europe? This is a video of Austrian parliamentarian Ewald Stadler violating every tenet of political correctness and giving the Turkish ambassador to his nation a dressing down the Turk will never forget.  It's chicken soup for the soul for anyone who is sick and tired of how Western nations subordinate the interests of their native citizens to those of unassimilable foreigners.

I don't know much about Stadler's general ideology, but on this issue our politicians could certainly take a leaf out of his book. Geert Wilders, you have some competition.

Importing Disaster: Demographic Changes Mean Democrat Future

By Selwyn Duke

At a gathering some years ago, I had a political conversation with a man who had recently arrived here from Denmark.  He was advocating his home country’s socialist system, which, of course, led to profound disagreement.  He was good natured and cordial, however, so the debate ended on a polite note.  Yet it also ended on an ironic one: When asked if he wanted to return home, his answer was no.

This is a common phenomenon.  We see it, for instance, in liberal northerners who move to the South for the lower taxes and cost of living and greater freedom but then continue to vote for the kind of politicians who made the Northeast a nice place to leave.  And while this befuddles many, it’s simply man’s nature.  Of course people want that which is good, such as a better lifestyle, but wanting and attaining are two different things.  Everyone wants good health, for example, but many nevertheless are too attached to unhealthful foods and practices to relinquish them.  Oh, they might move into your healthy body if they could, but they would likely do to it what a government–subsidized project does to a good neighborhood.

Up from Mexico Way: A Lawsuit Against U.S. Gun Manufacturers

By Selwyn Duke

In the early days it was Pancho Villa, then it was undocumented Democrats and drug runners, and now we have the latest incursion across our southern border: The Mexican government is poised to file a lawsuit against our domestic firearms manufacturers over U.S.-made guns that are finding their way into Mexico. Writes CBS News:

"Sources say Mexico's frustration with U.S. efforts to stop the flow of weapons has pushed them into this novel approach. The law firm [that has been retained] is looking at charges that may include civil RICO. The contract was signed on November 2, 2010 by a representative of Mexico's Attorney General, at their Washington embassy.

"On November 5, 2010 President Felipe Calderon expressed his frustration to CBS News correspondent Peter Greenberg: 'We seized more than 90,000 weapons.... I am talking like 50,000 assault weapons, AR-15 machine guns, more than 8,000 grenades and almost 10 million bullets. Amazing figures and according to all those cases, the ones we are able to track, most of these are American weapons.'"

Frustration with efforts to stop a cross-border flow....

Wow, we wouldn’t know anything about that.

Read the rest here.

Illegal Aliens Get More Welfare Benefits Than Citizens

By Selwyn Duke

Whether or not illegal aliens are doing jobs Americans won’t do, they’re certainly getting benefits Americans don’t get. This is the finding of a Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) report stating that a whopping 70 percent of illegal-immigrant households with children receive handouts via a government program. The rate for immigrant households with children overall (both legal and illegal) is 57 percent, versus only 39 percent for such native households.

This puts the lie to open-border advocates’ claim that immigration is a net plus for our nation. While this might have been true prior to the nanny state’s rise, when immigrants had to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, today’s statist, entitlement culture has changed that equation. As pressing one for English and Mexican flags waved in street protests evidence, many today come here not to assimilate but because “America, land of the free” has come to mean free stuff for non-Americans.

Read the rest here.