Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Illegals and the Election

Illegals and the Election

The linked article is an excellent analysis of the illegal alien situation and how Conservatives should go about fighting it in confrontations against Neo-Lib Democrats. It doesn't, however, go into the ultimate reason that the Neo-Lib Democrats not only tolerate illegal immigrants but welcome them with open arms.

Despite their current Madison Avenue polished image of being for minorities and minority rights, the Democrats have a history of supporting the enslavement of people. In the early years they enacted Jim Crow laws in the South and blocked passage of the Civil Rights Act under the Eisenhower Administration as well as attempting to block its passage again in 1964. We should never forget that it was Senator Harry Byrd (D-WV) who led the filibuster against the Civil Rights Act. Yes, the same Harry Byrd who is looked upon fondly by the Democrats today and who, before it became totally unacceptable, was proud of his membership in the Ku Klux Klan.

Of course the slavery that the Democrats supported was then based on race, something that is abhorrent to Conservatives and thinking people in the 21st Century thanks largely to the anti-slavery movement that started with the advent of the Republican Party in the mid-1800's. In the 20th Century as the Neo-Lib Democrats, then called "Progressives," took control of the party and began their drive to fundamentally change America from a Republic to a Socialist state, they knew that they would need a permanent underclass to support the Socialism they envisioned. As they looked around they settled again on race as an issue and began their make-over from a party that opposed integration to one that championed it because "if we don't, the blacks (you can actually insert any race here) won't be able to make it in America." It sounded so altruistic at the time that many, including myself, were actively supportive of the idea that in order to make things right for all, some must be given privileges and pathways that were necessarily denied to mainstream Americans because white people were the majority and therefore already had the opportunity.

As I look back I am saddened by how naive I was to believe that had to be done. True in the 1960's and 70's we looked on affirmative action as absolutely necessary to right the wrongs of decades of exclusion based on race. What we didn't foresee was the true aims of the liberal-progressive-socialist Democrats, now best described as Neo-Libs, who viewed the affirmative action programs not as temporary solutions to address the decades of continued racism after the end of the Civil War but as permanent programs. Programs that would emphasize, and continue to emphasize to minorities, that without the government and more specifically without the Neo-Lib Democrat Party, they would continue to fail because "the system" was inherently unfair and the unfair system could only be addressed by Democrats. Thus began the idea, the absolute belief, that their success in life depended on them voting as a solid block for whatever Democrat was running for office. It might be called a brilliant political move by some but only if the ultimate purpose was ignored. By making minorities dependent upon the Democrats and the government the Democrats were, in effect, creating a permanent underclass. Lip service was paid to their needs, class and race distinctions were exploited and welfare was increased all with the aim not of alleviating the plight of the minorities but of perpetuating the reliance of the minorities on the government and the party by making them comfortable in their poverty. Instead of encouraging blacks to integrate and advance themselves on their own individual capabilities they encouraged them to band together and support the black community. Instead of applauding assimilation they applauded separatism. As a result today we only have some integration rather than complete integration. We have courses in Black Studies that do not prepare students for assimilation as Americans but for separatism as Black-hyphen-Americans and instead of achieving Dr. King's dream of an age where people are judged on the content of their character we are still stuck on stupid and worrying about ethnicity.

Eventually, though, the Neo-Libs' worst fear was slowly but surely beginning to materialize and more and more unhyphenated Americans with black ancestry began to surface and be noticed. Despite an educational system in heavily minority areas that was substandard and sub-performing, children were being educated and were beginning to think for themselves. Even more frightening to the left is that these individuals, as they have grown and become successful, are serving as proof that black Americans do not need government help to succeed. They need only to rely on their natural ability and willingness to work. And while the numbers are small, the more unhyphenated Americans that escape from the system of government reliance and control, the more frantic the Neo-Libs are in their search for replacements for the government-dependent underclass that they must have in order for them to retain political power, expand government and move further towards pure socialism.

Illegal aliens, primarily from Mexico and Latin America are the perfect replacement. They are used to being part of an underclass and even though that's what they are trying to escape when they leave their homes to come north the fact that the underclass in America lives much better than they did down south encourages them to accept that position here. The Neo-Libs have, however, learned that they must maintain the status quo of the underclass while only giving them hope for the future for if they give too much, if they actually do something, the underclass depopulates as they become successful through the American Dream. This leads to promises of amnesty and eventual open borders. It leads to completely irrational and false rhetoric condemning Arizona's law in order to capture the support of the illegal aliens already in the United States. In other words, the Neo-Lib Democrat Party really has no intention of solving the illegal immigrant problem. Illegal immigrants maintain the needed underclass and all it takes to stir them up and support Democrats is the threat of an illegal immigration crackdown which the Neo-Libs will immediately oppose in solidarity. In reality what the Neo-Libs are doing is protecting the status quo of their economically enslaved underclass so that they may maintain their political base and political power.

Fortunately for America the issue is much more serious than mere illegal immigrants crossing the border and working in the United States. The issue that can and will be the downfall of the Neo-Lib Democrats strategy for a permanent underclass is terrorism. Have you notice how the Neo-Libs currently in control of the government absolutely avoid the use of the term “War on Terror?” Have you thought about why?

It is actually quite simple. If we are at war then our borders must be kept secure otherwise our enemies might come across them and do harm to America. Right? But if it isn’t a war, if it’s only a law enforcement issue, then open borders is still a possibility and illegal immigrants can be cast as a human rights problem rather than a threat to the security of the nation. Obviously the Neo-Libs would like nothing more than the Islamio-fascists to go away so they refuse to use the term, “Islamic terrorism” as if that will make it something that is not a problem. And they immediately portray every act of terrorism that happens in the US, from the murder at the Arkansas recruiting office, to Ft. Hood, to the Underwear Bomber to Times Square as the act of an individual. Then they hope that they’re right and they’ve been wrong each and every time.

It kind of makes you think, doesn't it? Why would they want to make people so comfortable in their poverty that they no longer possessed the initiative to take responsibility for themselves and work to succeed? If not to expand their political power then why? I'd be interested if someone has an answer to that question.

By the way, did you ever wonder why you have to show a picture ID to do everything but vote? And why Democrats always scream like stuck pigs when the issue of voter identification is brought up? Think about it.

Follow the link for more.

No comments: