Prof. Paul Eidelberg
This article is indebted to Ann Coulter’s book, “Adios America!” (2015), one of the most timely books that has appeared since the Kennedy clan addressed the problem of how the Democratic Party could beat the Republican Party in a presidential election, and win that office repeatedly, without interruption, for a least a generation and thus shape the American way of life well into the future.
Ponder this passage from Coulter’s book:
In the 10 elections since Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1932 victory, no democratic candidate has received more than 50 percent of the white vote. In the past five elections, only one candidate – Mr. Jimmy Carter in 1976 – received more than 40 percent.… Few Americans realize it, but the Democratic Party would have lost every presidential election from 1968 and to the present if only whites had been allowed to vote. Jimmy Carter carried only 47 percent of the white vote in 1976, but was elected because his 83 percent support from blacks more than made up the deficit. Bill Clinton did even worse among white voters, getting only 39 percent of their vote in 1992 and 43 percent in 1995. But Clinton, too, got five out six black votes … enough to give him wins over George Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996 (p. 85)
This repeated failure of the Democratic Party to win elections without the black vote, and since this failure seems to be independent of the party’s campaign rhetoric, the Kennedy clan (John, Robert, and Teddy) realized that the only way to win an election was not by changing its campaign rhetoric, but by changing the demographic character of the electorate!
Since the party invariably won a preponderant majority of the black or let us say non-Caucasian vote, all that was needed to win one presidential election after another was to liberalize the immigration laws so as to facilitate an influx to the United States of people from Third World, especially Hispanics in general and Mexicans in particular.
Therefore, once the Democrats controlled the Executive Branch, they could supplement liberal immigrant laws with administrative practices that would multiply the immigrant population by means of (1) family reunification policies; (2) entitlements such as hospital care and maternity benefits; (3) legal aid, and relaxed policies for obtaining a driver’s license.
Leaving aside the influx of illegal immigrants, Coulter notes that two-thirds of all legal immigrants enter America via family unification policies. But this means, she says, that “America has no say about the single largest category of immigrants and we end up with gems like the Boston Marathon bombers, and one hundred thousand Somalis in Minnesota. Entire villages from Pakistan are dumped on the country, based not on their expertise in nuclear engineering, but because everyone in the village is related to the first guy who got in”’ (p. 233)!
The preceding information explains the Democratic Party’s desire for third world immigrants, a lust not entirely absent in Republicans such as Marco Rubio, who advocates amnesty for various illegal immigrants, which the constitution-oriented Ted Cruz rejects but with vague qualifications.
Only Donald Trump comes down hard on immigration, but his republican credentials are tarnished by his liberal position on same sex marriage and his record of supporting liberal democrats.
Is it any wonder that the eminent political scientist, Samuel Huntington, who is concerned about the influx of Hispanics, authored a book entitled WHO ARE WE?☼
Centinel2012 