Even before the election, with the realization that a Barack Obama presidency lay on the horizon, many saw a silver lining in the cloud that drifted into Washington, DC, from the left coast. “The right will be re-energized,” many thought, “and we’ll have a better Republican candidate and improved prospects in 2012.” Moreover, it was figured that Obama will exacerbate a bad situation, causing a meltdown in our economy and emboldening enemies without and within, thereby creating fertile ground for a Republican victory. Of course, the GOP nominee may in fact be better four years hence, although he is far more likely to be so in terms of persona than policy. But his prospects are a different matter.
No one likes the bearer of bad news, but, in this case, to render good news would be to offer bad prognostication. Frankly, I don’t see anything short of divine or devilish intervention (and the latter favors the president-elect) that will prevent Obama from being a two-term president.
There are numerous reasons for this. First, the mainstream media may take minor potshots at him occasionally for circulation purposes and to convince themselves they’re still journalists, but, ultimately, they will remain his all-powerful public relations team. Second, Obama is a remarkably effective demagogue. Sure, as with all of the species, it amounts to illusion; in Obama’s case, this involves formidable but not singular ability, a resonant voice, and that activist media which smoothes out the rough edges. Yet there is one factor which, barring some monumental event that upsets the rotten-apple cart (a distinct possibility), will guarantee the ascent of the leftist agenda and descent of our culture at a rate heretofore unseen in America. It is a simple thing to understand, and, lamentably, I don’t think I’m wrong about it.
The coup de grace Obama will use against rightist opposition is mostly embodied in one word: Amnesty. This, along with some other measures, will both grow the Hispanic voting block and ingratiate Obama to it. This will enable him to create a powerful coalition of blacks, young voters and Hispanics that, along with the older whites he will be able to retain, will constitute an insurmountable electoral force. And this is why amnesty has long been a dream of the Democrats. Even easier than brainwashing new voters (which the media and academia specialize in) is importing them.
The last time the left proposed amnesty for the 20-30 million (a realistic estimate) illegals in our nation, they were blocked by the Republicans. Now, however, with a president who will enjoy great popular and media support, more significant Democrat majorities in the Houses, and with sheer attrition-induced exhaustion in the opposition, I suspect that it will be impossible to forestall.
So how monolithically Democrat will this larger Hispanic voting block be? Well, let’s begin by considering this research by the Pew Hispanic Center:
“Hispanics voted for Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden over Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin by a margin of more than two-to-one in the 2008 presidential election, 66% versus 32% . . . . Latino youth, just as all youth nationwide, supported Obama over McCain by a lopsided margin – 76% versus 19%.”
A new infusion of foreign-born Hispanic voters will tilt this block even further left, and it isn’t hard to understand why. Most such people have a socialist political orientation, which is why governments in Mexico and much of central and South America also tend have one. And the proof is in U.S.-election pudding, too; for instance, in the 1990s, first-time Hispanic voters cast ballots for Bill Clinton by a ratio of 15 to 1. People’s passions don’t change simply because they set foot on American terra firma.
Barack Obama and his fellow travelers know this well, and they have already done much to curry favor with Hispanics. Obama said during the primaries that American children needed to learn Spanish, and he will continue to send the message – albeit in more subtle ways – that he is sympathetic to the Latinization of the U.S. These messages will be downplayed by the mainstream media but emphasized in the Spanish one, which was in the tank for Obama even more than the former. I also expect him to appoint an ample number of Hispanics to posts in his administration.
Of course, like many others, I envision that the coming years will bring some very tough times. And while it’s usually the case that a president who presides over a nation in distress doesn’t win re-election, I suspect Obama will defy this trend. Why?
That media again.
President Bush, through only some fault of his own, will be the gift that keeps on giving. The media have already cemented the narrative, “The last eight years have destroyed the nation, and it will take a long time to repair the damage.” How long might this be? For as long as leftists need a diversionary tactic with which to deflect attention from their misbegotten policies.
This could, of course, be a very long period. As I wrote recently, Bush will become an “. . . omnipresent phantom of failure. It’s much like how, decades after Napoleon Bonaparte’s exile to barren Saint Helena, British children were kept in line with the admonition, ‘Be good, or Nappy will get you.’ Bush’s power will greatly outlive his tenure.”
Yes, if you don’t elect me, Bushy will get you. And there is yet so, so much work to be done. Pass the New York Times and the café latte.
But having a water-carrying mainstream media isn’t enough – the left will also try to stifle voices that would report the truth. To this end, they will attempt to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. And although it may be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of two years hence, this may not be the case once Obama has the opportunity to appoint two or three justices. Also lying further down the road may be hate-speech laws, which target “hate” about as much as legislation that would destroy talk radio ensures fairness. They already exist in most of the western world and, incredibly, some judges actually view this as precedent. Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, that affirmative-action appointee, said herself that the Internet makes other nations’ court rulings readily available and that we should learn from them. Said she, “[As judges and lawyers] we must look beyond our borders, to the laws and constitutions of other nations.” By the way, some people call this a judicial philosophy. I call it malfeasance and treason.
So this is our probable dystopian reality. Yet we do have some recourse. And here is what I recommend for now.
The Founding Fathers meant for us to be a nation of states, not a nation state; they intended for most power to rest on the state level and for localities to largely shape their own destinies. We must embrace this model with boldness and vigor. Huge swaths of our nation are now in the pocket of the left, but there are yet bastions of light wherein traditionalists can hold sway. In these places, campaign hard and seize control of the local governments. Then, resist any and every unconstitutional mandate. Just as there was a cold war, we need to initiate a cold revolution.
We have already seen examples of this, and one that leaps to mind is Judge Roy Moore and his refusal to remove the Ten Commandments from in front of Alabama’s Supreme Court building. While some on the right said he was wrong, reasoning that we must follow the rule of law, I must respectfully and passionately disagree. When the law becomes lawless, we owe it no allegiance. When perfidious judges will unabashedly claim that the will of the American people as expressed through domestic law – both within the Constitution and without – can be subordinated to the will of foreigners as expressed through alien constitutions and laws, they become enemies. They then deserve nothing but the deepest contempt we can muster.
When the only possible unity is
under the banner of secular-fascism, we need to become dividers, not uniters. And this, my friends, is a real message of
change and hope.
© 2008 Selwyn Duke -- All Rights Reserved
What a bunch hogwash. Try again. If you're going to pull the wool over our eyes you're going to have to do better than that.
Posted by: P.U. | November 13, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Many fine points brought up in this post, Mr. Duke, and many things to watch out for in the coming months. However, one can only wonder how long the modern left's coalition of extremists and ethnic identity groups can hold together once the American citizen's voice is further disenfranchised.
Posted by: J. Landers | November 14, 2008 at 08:01 PM
"What a bunch hogwash. Try again. If you're going to pull the wool over our eyes you're going to have to do better than that."
Actually, P.U., it is "U" who needs to come up with something better. You wrote a few sentences, while Mr. Duke wrote an essay. Counter it point for point, otherwise, your little more than a troll.
Posted by: Mr. Mike | November 14, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Mr. Mike,
..."otherwise, your little more than a troll."
I believe you wanted to say YOU'RE little more than a troll. When you make simple grammatical errors like that, you seem less than a troll. Check Copyblogger..."Five Grammatical Errors That Make You Look Dumb." Then you can peddle hogwash point for point on a level with your "Mr. Duke."
Thanks for playing...
Mr. P.U.
Posted by: P.U. | November 15, 2008 at 10:26 AM
“…the modern left's coalition of extremists and ethnic identity groups can hold together once the American citizen's voice is further disenfranchised.” - J. Landers
Boy, talk about showing your keester in public. This guy doesn’t think that those he labels as “extremists and ethnic identity groups” rate as citizens. What do they have to do?
Take a test, pay a poll tax, own property (be white, conservative, Christians) before they can add to the “American citizen’s” (please excuse the word here)…collective voice?
I have to tell you, that thinking is as Un-American as it gets. It's sad that it's so common on the Right.
Posted by: 1 man 1 vote | November 15, 2008 at 10:42 AM
"When the only possible unity is under the banner of secular-fascism, we need to become dividers, not uniters. And this, my friends, is a real message of change and hope."
Posted by: phx | November 15, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Posted by: phx | November 15, 2008 at 12:41 PM
"When the only possible unity is under the banner of secular-fascism, we need to become dividers, not uniters [sic]. And this, my friends, is a real message of change and hope." - pbx
You've got that in quotes. Who said it...Ted Haggard?
Posted by: ab | November 15, 2008 at 07:56 PM
hmmm.... not sure that's a real quote.
It presents an ideal of "unity" that is dependent upon a "banner" of something that flies against American (or what USED to be American) values. Clearly this nation is, was, and continues to be "divided" as long as it is a republic. That's the point of this post. Our "Republic" forever seeks to be "a more perfect Union", yet will always adhere (Godwilling) to the aims of all Men, and their Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. Change and Hope be damned!!!!
Posted by: W. Tieff | November 16, 2008 at 06:16 AM
How old are you? The "banner" of America in your frame of reference is gone. Nobody is sitting at the back of the bus anymore. Nobody is going peacefully to internment camps like in World War Two. Nobody is saying, "Yes boss" anymore. Nobody is going to line up for the Draft if the government is foolish enough to try that again. We aren't going to burn witches in the name of God like the first settlers...even though you would like us to. We aren't going to humbly stand in soup lines like the unemployed did in the Depression while the rich eat steak dinners and send their kids to fancy schools. What you see as America for the most part is gone and the rest will thankfully soon follow. Stop looking behind you, you'll strain your eyes.
Posted by: ab | November 16, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Duke says: “I don’t see anything short of divine or devilish intervention (and the latter favors the president-elect) that will prevent Obama from being a two-term president.”
Selwyn,
Your fascination with good and evil rivals that of a thirteenth century monk. I’ll bet you see little angles with harps and devils with pitch forks and pointed tails at the grocery store. (I guess that’s a vision or hallucination depending on your concept of reality.)
It’s a shame you don’t secret yourself in some mountain monastery in the Alps, take a vow of silence and devote the rest of your life to copying things down on paper. That would be good for the rest of us.
That vow of silence anyway.
Those with your point of view make the progress of a society like swimming upstream with an anvil tied to its ankles. Time for you to get out of the way, superstition has done enough damage already. You are like the Western version of the Taliban, a bunch who certainly has done enough damage to their society.
In one day recently, a Roman Catholic priest refused Communion to those who voted for Obama and the Taliban threw acid in the faces of young girls because they went to school. They are not so different.
So do what you do. Beat your back with knotted ropes, handle snakes, drink battery acid, roll around on the floor speaking gibberish. Fast for month, go on a Pilgrimage to Mecca, stone an adulteress.
Go ahead; listen to the con-man in the expensive suit and hair that wouldn’t move in a hurricane who casts a lustful eye on your pocketbook. Listen to the celibate fellow in a Roman collar who casts a lustful eye on your kids. Listen to all the crazy voices in your head, and Selwyn, if you actually believe in a loving and merciful God…
Just leave the rest of us alone.
Posted by: Bill | November 16, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Bill,
How dare you compare an Obama voter refused communion by the Catholic Church to a schoolgirl being attacked with acid by the Taliban? I do not think that anyone refused communion is visibly scarred for the rest of their life, and to use that imagery as a comparison by which to attach a stigma is vile in the purest sense. I notice that instead of writing a logical essay in response to Mr. Duke's ideas you use stereotypes and insults to denigrate the man's character. You say Mr. Duke is holding us back from progress, yet by your rhetoric I can see that you view any dissent from your personal opinions as foolish. Do we not have a right to state our opinions for others to hear? If others look to Mr. Duke and agree with his statements are they less of a human being than you? Isn't a testament to Mr. Duke's character that he allows your venomous discharge to stand on his website for others to read? I feel I'm safe in assuming that if you had the power to shut down his site you would not afford him the same consideration. Do you hate to hear the words good and evil? I find it interesting how the people who usually harp about relativism are the first ones to judge others who might have a differing thought or belief.
Posted by: Joseph | November 16, 2008 at 03:08 PM
Questions from Joseph:
Q. “How dare you compare an Obama voter refused communion by the Catholic Church to a schoolgirl being attacked with acid by the Taliban?”
A. (They both used one of the strongest forms of coercion they have available to them to achieve their goals. That’s obvious isn’t it?)
Q. “Do we not have a right to state our opinions for others to hear?”
A. (Of course you do and you know it.)
Q. “If others look to Mr. Duke and agree with his statements are they less of a human being than you?”
A. (No….Why do you guys always refer to him as “Mister” Duke? It sounds like a cult thing.)
Q. “Isn't a testament to Mr. Duke's character that he allows your venomous discharge to stand on his website for others to read?”
A. (Sure it is.)
Q. “I feel I'm safe in assuming that if you had the power to shut down his site you would not afford him the same consideration.”
A. (Nope.)
Q. “Do you hate to hear the words good and evil?”
A. (The way Duke does it, yes. He has political ends not spiritual ones.)
Q. “I find it interesting how the people who usually harp about relativism are the first ones to judge others who might have a differing thought or belief.”
A. (No you don’t, it’s the standard Duke sermon.)
Posted by: Bill | November 16, 2008 at 06:55 PM
Bill,
I am beginning to see a trend in your method of rebuttal. You seem to focus more on tangetial statements rather than the gestalt of what idea is wholly expressed. My point was that you observed one remark by Mr. Duke in his essay and you went on to attack him personally rather than to give an argument with any sort of forethought. That is a dishonorable action in my opinion. If you disagree with some obscure comment from Mr. Duke you would do much better to rationally explain your case without scurrilous insult and deceitful parallelisms of Catholicism and Islam. I also observe something of a contradiction in your response to me. You accuse Mr. Duke of having spiritual delusions of demons and angels in your first diatribe, yet you state that Mr. Duke has political ends not spiritual ones towards me. Which is it? Is he insane, or is he manipulative? I want to hear some critical thinking here so give me some facts if your going to answer me, otherwise give up.
Posted by: Joseph | November 16, 2008 at 08:37 PM
Joseph,
You ask if I think Duke is insane or manipulative. Duke is a right wing revolutionary. He’s also brilliant and a talented writer. I think he’s dangerous. I do give up, you can figure out the rest for yourself.
Posted by: Bill | November 16, 2008 at 11:09 PM
"Take a test, pay a poll tax, own property (be white, conservative, Christians) before they can add to the “American citizen’s” (please excuse the word here)…collective voice?
I have to tell you, that thinking is as Un-American as it gets. It's sad that it's so common on the Right."
Hmm...interesting that I never mentioned anything about anyone belonging to these groups as not being citizens, nor that they do not deserve their voting rights. But you immediately jumped to this conclusion, and with quite a bit of venom as well.
You are the one showing your own bigoted "keester" here - and you obviously have it in for "white conservative Christians." It's OK in your mind because those are the proper ones to hold in contempt in the typical leftist's viewpoint... Cut back on the Chomsky and general teeth-gnashing and accept that it is not "un-American" for someone to make an observation about your political side.
I merely made an observation that the left currently contains many fragmented groups with their own interests "united" under a banner of hatred of the right (specifically Bush and the neocons). In all fairness, this is not to even say that the right has elements of that (albeit in a different form) which I am willing to acknowledge. Can you do the same, I wonder?
Posted by: J. Landers | November 19, 2008 at 07:50 AM
Yes, I suppose a democracy is the fairest form of representation selection (from a populus perspective), but not always the best way to select the best people. Nor is it the best for the long term designs of the country. A democracy depends upon the intelligence of the people and morality of the people.
"Democracies usually collapse not too long after the plebes discover that they can vote themselves both bread and circuses ...for a while."
-Robert Heinlein, Expanded Universe
Posted by: ? | November 19, 2008 at 10:32 AM