Big Media finally caught up with us. On one very important issue (that being on how to build and grow a political party) one Big Media – ceaselessly pro-Obama – outlet has finally caught up with us.
For years we explained (see, “Mistake In ’08” Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, and Part VIII, and the “Barack Obama Situation Comedy” Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV) that to build and grow a political party you first gather a core constituency then slowly grow the party by the addition of like-minded individuals and groups which share those interests of the core constituency.
The modern Democratic Party built by Franklin Delano Roosevelt had as a core constituency the white working class. This working class provided the party of FDR with guideposts on policy and guided the party in everything it did. The working class core of the party was white because it reflected the same characteristics as the general population.
Over the years groups were added to the FDR coalition. Senior citizens joined in on the coalition attracted by promises such as “Social Security”. In the 1960s John Fitzgerald Kennedy, a Boston Brahmin added black Americans into the Democratic Party fold with some deft politicking (and his father’s vast wealth) which smudged away the racist past of the party. JFK grew the Democratic Party by addition not subtraction.
In 2008, Barack Obama and assorted kooks decided to purposefully destroy the Democratic Party of FDR. Barack Obama and these kooks willfully embraced the idea of the new “coalition of the ascendant”. This “coalition of the ascendant” and their interests – which conflicted with the interests of the FDR coalition – made it necessary to kick out core Democratic Party constituencies such as senior citizens and the white working class.
The Barack Obama coalition slogan was a variation of the race riot 1960s slogan “burn, baby, burn”. The new Barack Obama Dimocratic Party was to be built on the embers of the burnt down FDR Democratic Party. The new Obama Dimocratic Party was to be guided by the vanguard of the proletariat which vaingloriously named itself the “creative class”.
The “creative class” leaders of the new Dimocratic Party “coalition of the ascendant” and their supreme leader Barack Obama resembled cartoonish Marxism-Leninism faculty lounge players of a bygone era. They railed against the “unitary executive” and promised a democratic revolution wherein the “masses” would have control and their new future would be filled with freedom and the fulfillment of all their desires.
The new Barack Obama Dimocratic Party achieved success on the basis of much of the successes of their old time bygone era communist parties and mass movement follies predecessors. The most important reason was their control of the organs of propaganda. Big Media helped propagandize the “masses” in this Mickey Mouse buffoon opera.
Next, the “creative class” utilized a variant of “agit-prop” from the same left/Marxist playbook. The agitation-propaganda in this case was to race-bait the culture artfully. Anyone who opposed the “leader” was a “racist”. It was the “Führerprinzip” come to America (so no surprise that self-hating Jews aided the Jew haters who are barely veiled as mere Israel haters).
It was a success. The buffoon “leader” appeared midst Greek columns in a city that itself was situated in the thin air mists associated with Olympus. High up above the teeming “masses” the “creative class” overlords were ready to adore the new leader of the future. But the “creative class” clowns forgot the past they so wanted to cast off. The pages of the book the “creative class” wanted so much to turn kept history alive.
The more pages these art school clowns turned the more history asserted itself.
Untethered to the white working class and their interests the Obama Dimocratic Party is desperately attempting to bolster its own numbers by importing new members of the “coalition of the ascendant”. Because of the massive electoral defeats of 2010 and 2014 the Obama Dimocratic Party realizes it must import new voters if it is to continue to control the levers of state power. That’s what the Obama “immigration reform” is all about. The people are revolting so the Führer will import new masses to worship him and keep alive his thousand year Reich.
Today the New York Times, catches up to us as it tries to explain, from a pro-Obama pro-illegal immigration amnesty viewpoint, why the Obama Dimocratic Party is bound for a place called “failure”, not Hope:
The Democrats’ Immigration Problem
SAN DIEGO — PRESIDENT OBAMA’S executive order eliminating the threat of deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants is good policy. It is the right thing to do. But it is a dangerous move for the Democratic Party.
Yes, immigration is an important issue for most Latinos and Asian-Americans. And yes, 63 percent of Latinos and 66 percent of Asian- Americans voted for Democratic candidates for Congress in the midterms. The executive order could solidify and expand that support for years to come.
But Latinos and Asian-Americans made up only 11 percent of the electorate. Even if immigration were the only issue driving their vote — and it most certainly was not — it could have shifted the national partisan balance of power by only a few percentage points.
That is the best spin the New York Times can muster for Obama’s dangerous usurpation of constitutional order. The desperate violation of the rule of law by a unitary executive ignores reality and history:
Whites, meanwhile, accounted for 75 percent of the electorate. Far more than any other group, whites will decide the fate of the parties in the years to come. Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, the data suggest that immigration very much matters for whites. [snip]
Polls indicate that an overwhelming majority of white Americans view illegal immigration as a serious problem. A third think immigration over all is bad for the country.
This anxiety is coupled with an increasingly clear partisan divide on immigration. [snip]
Put it all together: Many white Americans see that America is changing, believe that immigration is driving many of the negative changes and know that one party stands largely on the side of immigrants while the other party stands largely in opposition. For many whites, this is a powerful motivation to vote Republican.
As to be expected, the New York Times bathes its analysis in race-bait innuendo and flat out screeches of racism. There is no accounting for the fact that many Latinos and even Americans that support Barack Obama’s policy aims on immigration resist the constitutional usurpation of the Führer.
Having to a great extent given birth to a “black party” that once was the Democratic Party of FDR, Barack Obama seeks to preserve that “black party” with an infusion of imported voters. This “black party” will end in desolation row:
As a result there is now a tight relationship between views on immigration and the vote. In the midterms, 75 percent of Americans who felt that most illegal immigrants should be deported voted Republican. In contrast, only 35 percent of those who favored a chance for undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status supported Republican candidates. Of those who saw immigration as the nation’s most important problem, 74 percent went Republican.
For the Democrats, the consequences are severe. Only 38 percent of white voters in the midterm elections sided with Democratic candidates. Almost two-thirds of whites without a college degree voted for Republicans in the midterms; as recently as 1990, these voters overwhelmingly favored Democrats.
There was a solution to this problem for the once party of FDR now the Obama Dimocrat Party. The solution was to get a leader that would lead the Obama Dimocrat Party back to the party of FDR. This leader should have denounced Barack Obama’s unitary executive diktat as an abuse against Constitutional order. This leader could have brought back the white working class into the Democratic Party fold. This leader would have denounced the fact that Despite highest poverty numbers in 50 years, Obama okays illegals to compete for jobs in US . But the New York Times fails to see that as an obvious solution:
There are no easy solutions for the Democrats. Shifting to the right is not possible, given the party’s strong pro-immigration constituencies. Half of the Latino and Asian-American populations profess no allegiance to any party. Shifting to the right on immigration might cost more minority votes than it gains white votes.
The Democrats could simply hold tight and wait until changing demographics give them an edge. That might be an effective long-term strategy, but it is likely to give Republicans control of the levers of power for decades.
The next president of the United States will have a Republican controlled House of Representatives. Republicans will continue to control most state houses as well and in addition will continue exclusive control of both legislature and governors’ mansions in the majority of states. Because of Barack Obama’s illegal usurpations of constitutional order it is now also likely that the next president will also have a Republican Senate (especially if the Senators from South Dakota and West Virginia bolt from the lawless Obama Dimocrat Party).
The illegal illegal immigration amnesty ploy by Barack Obama is not the first gift to the next Republican president nor is it the first time the hypocrite left has sold out principle to protect their dear leader. In 2008 the hypocrite kooks attacked opponents of Barack Obama on issues such as the “unitary executive” which now they full embrace.
Those of us who respect constitutional law are not entirely alone. Even a few of those who agree with Obama on his policy goals understand the threat:
The Unilateral Presidency
Obama may be right on the substance of immigration reform, but he’s setting a dangerous precedent. [snip]
Those cheering his decision should imagine a GOP president exercising similar authority in 2017 or 2021, but on a different issue. It’s immigration now, but, as commentators as disparate as New York Magazine’s
Jonathan Chait and George W. Bush administration executive power maven John Yoo have pointed out, for a future president it could be taxes, environmental laws, workplace safety protections or elements of Obamacare that get nonlegislative overhauls when an administration uses its prosecutorial discretion (the executive tool of the moment) to curb enforcement of those laws. [snip]
But one problem eclipses the substance: The president is redirecting our national immigration policy by himself. As the New York Times noted this week, no less an authority than Obama has in recent years said that what he’s doing was beyond his authority. “The problem is that, you know, I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States,” he said on a Google Hangout last year. “My job is to execute laws that are passed.” And execute them faithfully, at that, and with care – not simply as is convenient or even compassionate.
Recently we warned against the attempts by Barack Obama henchmen to use a Palestinian-style human shield to protect Barack Obama. With ears now attuned to the worm tongues of Obama protection squads the human shield has decided not to wear armor but to nakedly intercept arrows that target Barack Obama.
In Chappaqua a human shield is born.
It didn’t have to be this way. There was no need for a shield maiden in a cage.