Understanding the Democrats’ Scheme

By John F. Gaski

 Poor Bill and Brit, and many others, indeed. It is time to think the unthinkable and speak the ineffable. Apart from the troubling question of intent, or whether Obama-Pelosi-Reid just have a novel view of the public interest, the national Democrats are unnaturally and mysteriously sanguine despite growing backlash by the American people. Why? One reason:  The Dems don’t believe they will ever have to face a real election again. Is their plan not becoming obvious? It is very straightforward: 

 

(1) Grant amnesty to the illegal aliens (the correct term for lawbreaking invaders, regardless of their natural and rational motives) which will create up to 30 million reliably Democrat voters — especially after being registered at least once each by ACORN. That is cushion enough to carry any national election. Why else could Dems be so fixated on this agenda item? 

 

(2)  Speaking of which, between ACORN and the SEIU, the Democrats will be stealing all the elections they really need anyway, starting next November. (The New Jersey and Virginia governorships aren’t quite as big a prize as control of the U.S. Congress, are they? And one wonders what the real margin of Republican victory in New Jersey was, absent ACORN’s intervention.) 

Many laymen still don’t understand how the ACORN scam works. To them, ACORN’s excuse that they are merely committing voter registration fraud, not vote fraud, seems plausible. Here’s the deal: Register 100,000 phony voters such as Mickey Mouse and the Seven Dwarves, thus expanding the nominal voter rolls, and the Democrat vote counters then have the latitude to create 100,000 extra votes out of thin air on election night. This is what “community organizer” really means, and Barack Obama is forever stained by his ACORN background. Not that it matters to him. 

America should brace for the biggest vote fraud and election theft caper of all time on election night 2010 — and in the months following. We now know as well that the Dems are guaranteed to win any statewide recount where there is a Democrat Secretary of State. And who, we must ask, is there to enforce the election laws now? 

 

What of Florida 2000? It is easy to correct the prevailing misconception. One can usually tell what offenses against the commonweal the liberal Democrats are committing by what accusations they make against others (into which they project their own tendencies). In November 2000, Democrats did everything they could to try to steal a national election for the second time in forty years, right before a nation’s very eyes, with local partisan functionaries inventing Gore votes out of those dimpled chads. Still, the Democrats have claimed since Y2000 that George W. Bush stole that year’s election, even though every Florida recount, including those sponsored by the media, demonstrated that Bush 43 really won under the law. Republicans have been so ineffective in publicizing these true results in answer to the Democrat mantra that the propaganda has largely taken hold in the public consciousness. 

 

(3) As if they need it, the Dems will be secretly encouraging (maybe even hiring) third-party candidates wherever they need them, because they know that is the way to split the opposition vote. It almost always happens that way to the Democrats’ benefit. If people such as Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck don’t realize this soon, instead of talking up the third-party route, they will only help to ensure a permanent Democrat stranglehold on Congress and the presidency — although any one of this litany of methods would probably be sufficient for that. So the Dems are actually conservative in the sense of wanting some built-in redundancy! 

 

(4) What do we suppose the extra trillion dollars of “stimulus” money to be spent from 2010 to 2012 is really for? Just a coincidence, or a ready-made election slush fund? How much has already been committed to ACORN and SEIU? 

 

(5) Then there is the “universal voter registration” plan that the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund has spotlighted, granting automatic voting privilege to anyone who has ever registered for practically anything, anywhere, anytime. The Democrats and their henchmen could work with that, couldn’t they? Or why are they so eager to enact it? Their entire history has been to oppose laws that prevent vote fraud, after all. (What could be their motive for that particular laxity?) 

 

These five strategies should be enough to ensure permanent Democrat control of our federal government — a virtual dictatorship. For them, it is a royal flush. But another part of the scheme may be the most pernicious of all. The worst is yet to come. 

 

(6) When you become dependent on the decision of a Democrat bureaucrat for crucial medical treatment — after the health care takeover — how much power does that give the Democrats over you? Elderly voters tend to vote more conservative than younger voters, so letting the elderly dies because care is “too expensive” can reshape the political profile of the electorate. But can we reasonably foresee that party registration or political contributions might enter the bureaucrat’s calculus? Might it occur to the intense partisans of the Obama administration to grant lifesaving treatment to those they regard as “their people,” but not to others? What a neat way to eliminate the opposition! Party registration is already public information. And if they can overturn the secret ballot for union elections via “card check,” how long before they try to impose the same more generally, so they will always know how you have voted? Do not trust the judiciary to save us, either, after President Obama packs the courts with more ultra-leftists. 

 

Chilling, isn’t it? But not extreme: Obama himself has notoriously displayed his disregard for human life by the stated willingness to sacrifice “grandma” to a pain pill and his coarse support for unrestricted abortion — even opposition to the Infant Born Alive Act, which he has tried to subvert. 

 

When the Democrats achieve literal death-grip power over the lives of all our citizens, that’s when they also achieve their long-cherished dream of absolute power in a virtual one-party state. Now is it becoming transparent (so to speak) what the real scheme behind their mania for “health-care reform” is? Now does it all make sense? This is not your father’s Democrat party. 

 

This issue is not about health care, ultimately. It is about raw political power and the long-promised radical takeover of the United States. For anyone who hasn’t thought of all this before, I guarantee that Obama and his party’s other leaders have. 

 

Dictatorship in a one-party state indeed seems to loom for us. As one prominent commentator has pointed out, the normal order of the human condition is tyranny, subjugation, and dictatorship, with only a couple of respite periods throughout history, including our time in the West over the past two centuries or so. It just took that long for the totalitarian types to gain near-total power in our country, which they are now consolidating over the coming year. What are the betting odds that they will ever let it go voluntarily? 

 

No wonder the national Democrats aren’t concerned about having to face the electorate again.  Pity the naïve, hapless Republicans who actually imagine they have a fair chance later this year and in ’12!  

 

The long-time president of my university, Fr. Theodore Hesburgh, used to say, “At our school, we ask all the questions, even the tough ones.” How’d I do, Father? 

 

The most troubling aspect of my analysis is that it represents the logical extension of irrefutable, objective facts. At least five of the six premises are no more and no less than observable Democrat behavior, and the other is a mild extrapolation at most. This is not good. 

 

It’s over, America. We are now living under a proto-dictatorship in the United States. In less than a year, the full reification of it will be apparent to all. Have a nice day. R.I.P., U.S.A. 

 John F. Gaski, Ph.D. is Associate Professor, Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame, and is author of the recently-published Frugal Cool:  How to Get Rich-Without Making Very Much Money (Corby Books). He is also a specialist in social and political power and a long-time registered Democrat. 

‘The Life and Religion of Mohammed’ by Rev. J.L. Menezes

IS ISLAM A “RELIGION?” – OR A “CULT OF DEATH?”

Gordon Bishop On the Issues

You won’t find it in bookstores. Even Amazon.com doesn’t keep it in inventory. And if it were up to certain “moderate” Muslim American leaders, you wouldn’t be able to read it at all.

This book is about the self –annointed prophet, Mohammed, who wrote the Koran (Qur’an) because Allah (his God) told him to create this new ideology or religion in the 7th Century. Since then, the Muslim world has been trapped in a time warp of the dark, medieval ages that has long been out of sync with the modern, civilized world.

Simply put, this book dares to tell the truth about the so-called “moderate” Muslims who don’t want you to know the truth about the founder of this anti-life, Islamic movement, which is more about the death to all Jews, Christians and “infidels” than a genuine religion of faith and life.

The book, The Life and Religion of Mohammed – The Prophet of Arabia, was not written to insult Muslims. Hardly. The author, Reverend J.L. Menezes, was a Roman Catholic priest who lived and administered among Muslims, and who strove to speak “the truth in charity” to the souls in his care.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), considered by many to be a “moderate” Muslim group (three of whose former associates have been indicted on terrorism-related charges) was so angry about this Mohammed book that, when a well-known conservative magazine dared to offer it for sale on their website, CAIR threatened to organize a boycott of one of the magazine’s major advertisers. The magazine caved and took the book off their website – even though every claim in the book with which CAIR took issue can be readily established from Islamic sources.

Here’s a quick guide into the dark mind of Mohammed:

– How worldly ambition gradually blinded Mohammed’s mind and overwhelmed his early searches for the true God.
– How Mohammed ordered the assassinations of several of his chief opponents.
– How Mohammed again and again justified his plunder and licentiousness with new “divine revelations.”
– Why Mohammed grew so bitter against both Jews and Christians, after initally courting their favor.
– How even Mohammed’s replies to his critics in the Koran are insufficient to refute the charge that he fabricated revelations.
– Islamic “tolerance: Mohammed let Jews and Christians live in his domains – if they paid tribute and accepted second-class status.
– The early history of Islam: Just as bloody as the life of its founder.
– The crisis caused in Islam by the death of Mohammed’s only son – which continues to this day.
– How the Koran doesn’t limit Muslims to four wives, as is widely believed, but actually sets no real limit.
– Why the new religion Mohammed taught became so commonly identified with war and politics.
– Muslim Sunnis, Shiites, Sufis, Motazalites and more: the differences between the various Muslim sects, which is now playing out in the Iraqi War: Muslims killing Muslims.

To read more – click the here.

The paragraph below comes form a web article that references the book mentioned above but has another take in its review. It sheds new light on the ‘Unholy Alliance” between te left and Islam.

 The ideal Muslim state is one ruled by Muslim religious leaders and is paradise on Earth. All people are treated with respect, both the faithful and the infidel. The poor and infirm are cared for and peaceful, law abiding folks are the norm. In effect, the perfect Muslim society appears pretty much what liberal Democrats promise if they were in complete control. I do not intend this as sarcasm. The best I can determine from this site projects the same world order the Democrats demand with the added benefit of strict morality maintained by an enforcement arm of the government to see everyone walks the straight and narrow. Of course, most good people will find such enforcement no burden as they will be able to live free of the fear of crime and assault. Even random dishonesty will be weeded out. Those who object will be bad people and no one will mind if bad people are harshly dealt with. A good and moral paradise without crime or fear where everyone, the faithful and the infidel live in brotherly love and mutual respect.

For the full article – click here.