Soon, Within the Lives of Most of You, the American Dream Will Slip Away.

Vanity ^ | November 23, 2014 | Nathan Bedford

[nathanbedford]

Soon, within the lives of most of you, the American dream will slip away.

If we accept that demographics in national presidential elections are increasingly running against Republicans and even more against conservatives, we must assume that the norm will be left-leaning Presidents. Looking beyond the 2014 election and the 2016 election as well, as demographics continue to run against us, the Senate will also increasingly trend left. However, the hold by Republicans and conservatives in the House of Representatives looks to be solid for some years to come, primarily because Republicans dominate state legislatures and draw district lines.

Regardless of the outcome of the 2016 election this demographic disadvantage condemns conservatism to a defensive posture for the foreseeable future, absent some sort of cataclysmic event like slavery and the Civil War or the Great Depression which fundamentally changes party alignment and enables Republicans to regularly gain national power. Absent such a tectonic shift, Democrats will routinely prevail after the 2016 election and its consequences are played out. As conservatives are forced back to the House of Representatives as a defensive citadel, they will try to serve our children and grandchildren by stopping an increasingly aggressive Democrat President in the Obama mold, that is, an executive who imposes power through executive action (and inaction), and bureaucratic lawmaking and adjudication. Conservatives will strive to do that but too many Republicans will not.

In other words, Democrat Presidents will operate where they can be free of the checks and balances invested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives. The House will look in vain to the courts to bring the executive back under the control of the Constitution but that will become hopeless in short order as increasingly leftist Senates confirm increasingly leftist judges. The precedent set by Harry Reid to jigger the rules of the Senate will become irreversibly fixed in favor of Democrats when they ultimately retake the Senate. Over time, perhaps sooner than we would like to think, constitutionalists will find no salvation in the courts. The recent trend in the Supreme Court to overrule Obama's blatant excesses like recess appointments is a trend which will not continue because the court will change with more leftist judges appointed by Democrats and because leftist Presidents will simply become more clever which is to say, more devious.

Government by bureaucracy will accelerate. Even if the House of Representatives can check the creation of new agencies, existing agencies are so ubiquitous, so powerful and so unrestrained that an aggressive President in the Obama mold can simply rule through them. He will build on the precedents being established now by Barack Obama. These agencies have assumed the Article I power to legislate, the Article II power to prosecute, and, worse, the Article III power to adjudicate the very same crimes they have created. The Montesquieu ideal of a government of separated powers with checks and balances will simply die as an increasingly dependent electorate supports Democrat politicians who want to Get Things Done which translates in the English language to pandering to more dependent voters. The courts have traditionally granted unwarranted deference to bureaucratic fiats. There is little hope to be found among The Nine. The power of the purse in the House of Representatives will not avail. The House of Representatives will be virtually powerless to stop bureaucratic tyranny.

Whatever indirect control that would exist in the Senate over appointments to the bureaucracy will be abdicated as Democrats regain control of the Senate within the next two or three cycles. Meanwhile, recent history tells us that lack of unity by Senate Republicans means the Democrats can combine with Mavericks to confirm their appointments. There is simply no stomach in the Senate to resist even extreme radical leftists in posts like Attorney General. There is virtually no hope that the appointment process will control the bureaucracy even considering the unlikely possibility that the Republicans now in the majority in the Senate might actually withhold all confirmations apart from defense appointments. There are too few senators like Ted Cruz to carry this strategy out. We have seen how the McCain/Graham/Ayotte fifth column operates. The media will simply pile on.

The obvious need not be belabored, the power of impeachment will be rendered obsolete by a recalcitrant Senate composed of Democrats and Rino Republicans. As always, they will be supported by a blatantly partisan media. Anyway, House leadership will not countenance articles of impeachment.

Conservatives and Republicans in the House of Representatives will have the power of the purse as its sole remaining lever to try to restrain a federal government governing against the people.

In other words if the Right can manage to hold the House of Representatives, the situation will look like the era of Obama post 2010 and if the House is lost the picture will resemble the era of Obama post 2008. If the House is lost to Republicans, the power of the purse disappears entirely; if Republicans can hold the House that power will sadly be even less effective in bringing a overweening government under control than it has been post 2010. The Republican House has simply not been able to reduce spending and certainly has not been able to curb executive excesses. We are contemplating dispiriting stages of increasing impotence for the House of Representatives and, by extension, for conservatism. It is easy to see an increasingly uncivil society with the American dream slipping irretrievably away.

To paint a pessimistic future even darker, this gloomy assessment is predicated on the assumption that the center will hold, that the citadel of the House of Representatives will not only remain Republican but remain unified and committed to some level of conservatism. These assumptions have been challenged by recent history. We saw the House turned over to the other party in 2006 and, even discounting such a possibility in the next few cycles, it is quite likely that the Republican majority will attrite as the Democrat money machine is able to pick off marginal Republican House seats. Other Members will simply be bought off with "honest" graft and by K Street. Republican leaders will behave in the mold of Speaker Boehner and talk conservative while they walk Rino. Even if the House remains nominally Republican for the foreseeable future, the power of the House of Representatives to shape the destiny of the country toward a decent society will inevitably diminish over time because the House acting alone does not have the tools even with the power of the purse. While the House acting alone does not possess the tools, the Senate does not have the heart.

But what about the last election when the people rose up and swept the Democrats out of control of the Senate, swept many of them out of the House of Representatives, swept them out of state houses, elected Republican governors in Maryland Massachusetts and Illinois of all places, is this not a shift in the national sentiment and does it not mean that Republicans, contrary to the above scenario, will be able to hold the Senate and will be able to elect a president in 2016? Does it not mean that conservatism retains its appeal for the majority of Americans? Wrong question. Wrong time horizon.

If you believe that demographics is destiny, Barack Obama is shaping our destiny by executive fiat. He is importing unknown millions of a dependent class who will eventually vote overwhelmingly Democrat. These voters will not be certified in time for the 2016 election but perhaps by 2020. What is clear is that at some not too distant point in the future, in time to gain power over the lives of your children and my grandchildren, perhaps ten million to twenty million new voters will be enrolled mostly on the Democrat side.

Obama believes that he is in a win-win position. Either the Republicans acquiesce in his power grabs or overreact and impeach him or shut down the government. To protest that it will be Obama himself who will have actually shut down the government is like a tree falling in an empty forest; the media will report it the other way. Either way, Obama, banking on support of the media, wins because he is eagerly courting both government shutdown and impeachment. After all, he has the historical examples of the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the reaction to the last government shutdown. Conventional wisdom holds that Republicans overreached in both examples. And Republican leadership has uncritically accepted conventional wisdom.

The Republicans just won a stunning election victory and their momentum should carry them on to exercising effective political power. Nothing could be more illustrative of the Republican malaise than their inability to mount a coherent response to Obama's usurpations even after the people so overwhelmingly elected them to do so. Rather than educating the public about Obama's shredding the Constitution and what that means in their daily lives, establishment Republican leaders admonish their own to avoid the "P" word and the "S"hutdown word. This in the wake of an election in which they undermined conservative candidates everywhere. Scarcely a word has been uttered by any Republican leader that would educate the public about the gravity of this assault on the Constitution by Barack Obama. After knowing for months that Obama's immigration diktat was coming, the Republicans mounted no sustained effort to convince the country that their liberty is at stake.

Beyond that, no evidence that the Republican leadership is endeavoring to connect the in-flood of untold millions of immigrants with lower wages, lost jobs, flooded emergency rooms, overcrowded schools, dangerous streets, higher taxes, terrorist infiltration and terrorist attacks, and bigger more bloated government. There is no effective coordinated attempt by the Republican leadership to tell the people why this is such a miscarriage of their liberty and a looting of their purse. Republican leadership has been lobotomized.

Instead of educating the country, the Republican establishment disparages Tea Party conservatives who would. If the Republicans can do no better now in the wake of such a stunning election victory, how will they behave when they inevitably lose future elections? Somewhere over the time horizon the chance of retrieving the country from the brink will be irretrievably lost. That day is probably closer than we think.

We are describing an inevitability arising out of demographics but there is another aphorism besides demographics is destiny: Culture trumps politics. Just as conservatives are being swamped by demographics so conservatives are clearly losing the culture war. The culture which shapes our politics has been co-opted by the left. It is not necessary to recount every institution which has been given over to leftism but, clearly, our universities and high schools, our eleemosynary institutions and foundations like Ford Rockefeller etc., Hollywood, public service unions and private sector unions, the media and many of our churches have all been infiltrated and are now dominated by the left. Most galling, in many cases left has contrived to force conservative taxpayers to involuntarily fund the indoctrinations of our children through their ubiquitous cultural domination.

Even if demographics inevitabilities were not about to swamp us, our elections are being lost in the culture and, therefore, there is no guarantee, indeed no reason to believe, that Republican victories, if they can somehow be had, will lead to conservative governance. Recent history, cultural realities and common sense rule out that assumption. Thus, we are moving to the conclusion that there is very little chance of long-term conservative governance in American national politics. More, even if Republicans are elected and nominally take control of the federal government, for example in 2016, there is very little reason to believe that they will govern as conservatives. Finally, once we get past the 2016 election and any Republican administration then elected, we are confronted with the dismal prospect of spending years in the political wilderness as we impotently watch the country disintegrate.

Why is the country in danger of disintegration? Even without Obama, the Democrat party has surrendered itself to Marxism so any subsequent Democrat presidents are likely to govern in the manner of Barack Obama and that implies an increasing level of tyranny. They will have his administration as a precedent for more usurpations. The capacity as well as the incentive of Republicans to protect us from tyranny is illusory.

But even without Democrats in control, the federal government is on automatic pilot toward a terrible fiscal reckoning with a national debt of approximately $18 trillion, unfunded liabilities probably well in excess of $100 million, incalculable trillions of dollars of derivative threats floating above Wall Street, a world economy in deflation mode with no one really understanding why, certainly no one at the Fed which has been unable to fix it. The country faces external threats from Islamic radicals, Russian thugs, and an expansionist and aggressive China. If we do nothing, events are likely to take over to our peril.

What to do? By all means we should strive to elect conservatives but over time we are unlikely to prevail because of demographics, culture, media and the infamous pusillanimity of Republican leadership. We are unlikely to win any elections and, even having won, unlikely to produce conservative governance. The solution clearly is not to be found in Washington. To continually seek the solution in Washington with the evidence of failure after failure is to deserve to be defined as "insane." Yet, if we don't act….

There is a solution outside of Washington in an arena untainted by many of the influences which render conservatives impotent in Washington and that, of course, is in our state legislatures where many conservatives hold sway and where the playing field is much more to our advantage. The Article V movement does offer a constitutionally authorized way to save the Republic. With the wave of Republican victories in state legislatures in the last election the odds of getting effective amendments through have been increased while the ability to derail unwise amendments has reached moral certainty. As a conservative I entertain a jaundiced view of the moral nature of man and I do not except state legislators from that judgment, I merely say that they will be corrupt in a different way from the national legislators, a way less dangerous than the corruption in those who hold so much power over every aspect of our lives in Washington.

The upside is certainly not guaranteed, it is a daunting task after all to convince three quarters of the states to ratify a change to the Constitution, but it is certainly more likely than reforming Washington. To line up three quarters of the states behind amendments that would actually change Washington procedurally where it counts, for example, in reining in the bureaucracy and the judiciary, is not an easy undertaking and probably would require some sort of national shock to overcome inertia but every day the likelihood of that shock increases.

We can either grab hold of the remedy supplied to us by the framers of the Constitution and embark on reforming our government according to conservative lines through the Article V process or we can passively watch the crackup.

We can use the Constitution to restore the Constitution.

[Rapscallion]

perhaps you missed the references to culture.

Perhaps I did. Did you have a comment, though?

[Defiant]

Dale, I think your characterization of this excellent piece as verbal mush exposes your lack of clarity of thought and inability to read something with more than a short excerpt and provide insightful analysis.

I agree with the analysis of where things stand and where they are likely to go from here. We are at a precipice. The Article 5 movement proscribes a remedy that would work to save the Republic, but it is a long-shot effort by a desperate people. I commend the effort, and agree that we should do all in our power to see those amendments come about, but we also need to be realistic and consider our options if that last, best hope fails.

We can move. I don't think we should have to give up our ancestral home to those who have stolen it from within, using votes harvested from without and a foreign philosophy, marxism, that has been hidden from view to deceive a proud and free people who would never have approved it willingly.

We can initiate a fight. States should not have to accept blatantly unconstitutional governance imposed by Washington simply because federal judges appointed by Washington have blessed the actions. The Constitution is fairly easy to understand, and it is one thing to accept interpretations that are a stretch, but another to accept rulings that nullify or clearly render the Constitutional meaningless. In such situations, it is within a State's power to say, "enough". You have lost your ability to command deference, the wizard behind the curtain is exposed as simply a lying tyrant who seeks only power and will say or do anything to maintain it. States can, and should, secede in such circumstances, where the other party to the Constitution has breached the contract by substantial and continuous disregard of its plain requirements. I dislike this option because I don't want war against fellow Americans, and want to do all I can to avoid it.

One other option is to borrow a page from Obama's Cloward Piven strategy. The left knows the trend is in its favor and wants to incrementally heat the pot until what was once America is boiled. Then they will spring their trap, their true nature will be revealed, and it will all be over. A permanent dictatorship of some form, call it fascist or marxist or a blend of the worst tyrannies suffered by mankind. We won't be able to write or speak out. Religion will be oppressed. Poverty will be imposed. There will be concentration camps. There will be armored personal carriers roving residential streets. Wealth will be confiscated. Utopia will have arrived.

But that day could not come all at once, there are too many people who would fight and the left is not yet strong enough. Guys like Boehner and McConnell serve a purpose for the left, by keeping the process moving forward at just the right speed. Every time the left moves too quickly, guys like Boehner get voted in to slow it down to just the right speed, while keeping the remnant population of Americans satisfied that the threat to their homeland has been thwarted. They are the Yin to Obama's Yang, both forces working together as one progressive party, always moving left.

This dynamic needs to be blown up if the left's march to absolutism is ever going to be stopped. How? By bringing on the crisis before the left is ready for it. Cloward Piven sought to destroy our society by overloading the system. That's what Obama's national debt is all about, to bring about the eventual collapse of our economy, and make people desperate, hungry and insecure in their homes. From that collapse will come the best opportunity of the left to create a new system from the ashes, one that has nothing to do with a stupid piece of paper signed by a bunch of white, slave owning men 225 years ago, but one created by the best and brightest of our age, the Grubers, Obamas and Warrens. A people diluted 30 percent by illegal aliens, composed 12 percent of blacks taught to hate the country, 5 percent Muslim and with a native white population whose children have been indoctrinated from age 3 in the religion of the federal government, and who care more about DWTS than the rule of law, will create a majority that will go along with whatever new framework comes along.

Collapse the system now, cause the economic structure that we know will eventually collapse to collapse right now, and we still have the numbers and the will to restore America from the ashes. As the ballerina said, never let a crisis go to waste, and from that crisis, if it comes about while people still remember Reagan, we can use the crisis to our advantage. We still have Texas and all those red areas you saw on recent maps of the election. From those strongholds, and a federal government that can no longer pay its workers and has lost its credibility, a movement of the states, especially the red states, to deny the will of the central government and restore freedom to the people can succeed.

We are attached to the notion that America pays its debts and that our economic system is strong enough to find a way to grow its way out of the current hole. I am attached to it. It would normally be treason to seek to bring down all that our property and livelihood depend on. But we are also betraying our country to let that attachment keep us from saving the country from a future led by marxists. Does anyone here really think that our debt will ever be repaid without default or inflating our way out of it? So the only thing we are doing is accelerating the process to occur at a time when we can handle it better.

How to bring about the collapse? Let the Democrats have their way on spending. Give Obama what he asks for. Print money like there's no tomorrow. Conservatives, no shutdowns, no fighting the White House for a few miserable cuts. Raise taxes on those who are dumb enough to still want to work. Boehner will be excited! Old people, quit contributing to the system. Retire, get your social security. Take your money out of the market and banks, put it into cars, land, gold, foreign currency, seeds, something you can have and hold onto after the collapse. Better buy some guns while you are at it so you can defend your things. Put your kids on welfare, take that medicare you were too proud to accept, move to a trailer, buy an RV and tour around America, and stop contributing to a doomed system. Start a solar company and take as many millions as you can get. In other words, white people, remove your wealth from the economy and join the welfare state and be crony capitalists, to the extent you can. Without the engine of the American work ethic pulling the cart, it will stall.

Do whatever it takes to get governments and the wealthy to quit financing the US government. China and Russia already want to find a new global currency. When we lose economic power, they will pounce. It could all come down rather quickly. When it does, there will be chaos. Power will devolve to localities and states away from Washington.

The left has been playing the long game for more than a century. They need another 20 or 30 years and the game will be over. We have a short window of time to find a way to deny them that victory. None of our options are easy, and success is uncertain, to say the least. Our nation has been debased, diluted, undone. There is a leaderless remnant of the Americans left within the land that was America. We need a plan, we need leaders, we need to start fighting back. Thanks, NB, for laying out the future so eloquently.

[dalereed]

If you have to use that much verbage to say something so simple you’re sick.

[ckilmer]

The short hand way I have to say what we’re talking about here is that the greatness of the USA was founded on the twin pillars of limited government and unlimited resources. That the era of unlimited resources ended technologically in 1970 when US oil production peaked. This has had an effect on the political domain of pushing the political world toward unlimited government.

The context in which Madison wrote the federalist papers was not a world limited resources in which the victors squabbled over tiny stuff. There was an enormous continent out there with enormous riches and boundless land.

While the frontier closed in 1890 or so, rapid technological and industrial change had the effect of opening up vast new resources. This period as I mentioned ended in 1970.

We are in the opening years of a reversal of the trend of limited resources because of changes in technology. We are moving toward a period of unlimited resources. This will have an effect in the political world as well. It will tend to make it easier to push for limited government.

Therefor the twin goals of the pubbies should be toward unlimited resources and limited government. The way you get to unlimited resources is to collapse the price of energy and water everywhere. *The most direct approach to achieving that is byo lftr msr portable nuclear reactors.*

I too agree that the whole climate thing is a fraud.

However, its only a matter of time before the numbers start to work in a big way for solar and wind—solar especially. Solar does something very unique. It takes people off grid. My brother drives Amish around the country. The Amish Stepped away from technology 100 years ago most especially because they didn’t want to be tied to the grid. So their houses are lit at night by kerosene. (Rockefellar made his first millions by the sale of kerosene around the USA back in the 1870-90’s.) But solar enables the Amish to generate power on their own property= which means they are not dependent on the grid. So some of the bishops allow it. For the same reason some Amish bishops will allow internal combustion engines to power the pumps for dairy milkers but they won’t allow the pumps to be powered by electricity.

In my opinion while renewable energy is good for the same reason that its good to have diverse sources of income—however renewables won’t deliver any time soon —drastically cheaper energy than coal. That’s what’s needed. Drastically cheaper energy. That’s what drives civilization.

If the pubbies were smart —which they generally are not — they would promote 4th generation portable lftr nuclear reactors which promise to cut the cost of electricity to 1/4-1/10th the cost of current cheapest coal. And then the pubbies would promise to push the sort of technological development that would collapse the cost of energy and water and thereby turn the deserts green. That would nearly double the habitable size of the USA and triple the habitable size of Mexico.

All this stuff is going to happen anyway. Its just a matter of who gets the credit.

If the pubbies affix their brand to cheap energy and green deserts — then they have more political power to promote limited government.

[Lazamataz]

I hate words.

[Defiant]

You are a douche.

How's that for short and sweet?

[discostu]

Sorry but it is cherry picking. You went for a state that was set in their ways, a liberal bastion for a very long time. If the country followed CA then we’d get one GOP president every 20 years. Since that’s not the case clearly America doesn’t follow CA and pointing to CA is cherry picking. And yes, adding New England is still cherry picking, and adding New York doesn’t change it. Until you add a swing state you’re cherry picking, and of course you won’t add a swing state because their very existence proves you wrong.

No, the number of swing states stays pretty much the same. Some states get added, some get subtracted, Ohio has been one since the 1880s, but the core concept remains. They aren’t swinging blue, the swings are going to go strong for the GOP candidate in 2 years. Put money on it.

If the voting door got shut for the GOP after WWII then why have we won the presidency more times than they have since then? If the GOP door is swung shut then why do we control more House seats, more Senate seats, and more Governorships than close to 100 years? The fact is the demographic theory of voting patterns fails miserably when compared to actual election results.

No there’s a mushy middle in MA, CA, RI, etc. Look at the congressional district maps. Even in states that are hardcore to one side or the other have the zones that aren’t. I live in hard right AZ, but I live in the democrat city of hard right AZ, though thanks to the mushy middle it looks like we just might have our first heterosexual GOP House rep in over 30 years.

There is no serious data that support the “demographic bomb” theory. The fact is how races vote cycle. Yes these days all blacks vote dem, but the numbers are sliding, and not that long ago they all voted GOP. The actual serious data is the election results, and they support the mushy middle idea, there’s a large quantity of unaligned people, following the wind, and the wind constantly shifts back and forth.

Not my problem if you don’t find it persuasive. I’ll take over 100 years of election results over any “projections” you’ve got. The results are predictable and consistent whether or not you’re persuaded.

[discostu]

Sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s not. The big negative is they don’t really care what’s working, they tend to focus on the negatives, which is the stuff that irritates them, which is what makes them vote in the other party even when the party in power is doing a good job. When you have an idiot like Obama in the White House yeah it’s good, Reagan would have benefited by not being under cut in the midterms though.

[ckilmer]

Changes of some sort of another are coming and they are coming rapidly the question for conservatives is, how do we accommodate this change in liberty?
..........................
If the pubbies were smart —which they generally are not — they would promote 4th generation portable lftr nuclear reactors which promise to cut the cost of electricity to 1/4-1/10th the cost of current cheapest coal. And then the pubbies would promise to push the sort of technological development that would collapse the cost of energy and water and thereby turn the deserts green. That would nearly double the habitable size of the USA and triple the habitable size of Mexico and double the size of the habitable earth.

Sadly the Chinese read US research on the topic 4 years ago and walked into the USA —and with the DOE’s blessing —took all the research the USA had accumulated on the subject. Now the Chinese have the lead in this research.

[nathanbedford]

270 electoral college votes are needed to elect the president.

California, which you discount as only one state, yields a guaranteed 20% of that sum, 55 votes, to the Democrat.

Add New England which are conceded-32 votes-12%. The Democrat is almost 1/3 of the way home now.

Let's return to the West Coast to add Washington and Oregon-19 votes-9%. 106 votes so far, 40% home.

Add New York and New Jersey which you have conceded, 43 votes or another 16%-149 votes or more than halfway now at 55% of votes needed.

We forgot the most Democrat state in the nation (and no surprise to me but contrary to your thesis, the most diverse state in the union), Hawaii, with four votes-153.

We agreed on Maryland, another 10 votes-163 total means the Democrat is 60% home.

At this point the Democrat needs 136 more votes. The Republican needs 270 votes.

You speak of the swing states. I said the swing states are rapidly reducing in number. It used to be that we can count Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin as swing states. (Actually, California was the swing state and so was New Jersey not very long ago but no more. The trend is not our friend it is certainly not the friend of your argument.) If the states are swinging they are swinging toward the Democrats.

If the Democrat sweeps these states he picks up another 76 votes, about half of what he needs leaving him short only 60 votes.

At this point the numbers come down in practical terms to the Republicans running the table or facing defeat. Worse, the Republicans cannot afford to lose any one of Texas, Florida, Ohio and have any realistic chance of winning. I remind you of Florida's recent vote history and I note the correlation between that history and the growth of the Hispanic demographic. Republican strategist all lose sleep nights when they consider the Hispanic population in Texas and the danger that it poses if it conforms to the Hispanic voting in the rest of the nation. In that case, game over. As to Ohio, Obama carried Ohio twice.

It used to be that Virginia was a solid Republican state but it is now become a blue state. There was a area in northern Virginia called "Mosby's Confederacy" centered around Loudoun County, horse country, Loudoun County has now gone Democrat for the last few elections. If the GOP cannot carry Mosby's Confederacy in the Old Dominion, it really is time secede. It is now questionable whether the GOP can carry North Carolina. North Carolina a swing state!

The swing states have gone blue and blue states have gone swing. The demographic data is clear and devastating. The history, contrary to your assertions, is equally clear and devastating. The reality of the electoral college is devastating.

[nathanbedford]

I hate words.

The first thing you know they multiply like bacteria and become sentences and then those pesky paragraphs. Sooner or later the population explodes and pages result!

There is no end to the damage they can do. They start feuds, even wars, confuse the unwary and deceive the gullible. We all know that in the wrong hands, or rather the wrong mouths, they come out as hate speech and some people's feelings are actually hurt.

The only solution is for all of us to transfer our posting to Twitter where we would be disciplined to 145 words, more than enough to piss off the average reader there.

[Theophilus]

I would amend that to: “Worship the one true God precisely as He directs me in his Word”, but otherwise, AMEN. And I’ll include the dream of defying these “demographical inevitabilities” by having and raising as many children as God sees fit reward me with.

[21twelve]

“a place for God fearing people to go and start a renewed Western Christian society.”

I met a Chinese missionary that talked about how Christianity exploded in China under Mao and their persecution. The Chinese Christians pray that American Christians would be persecuted as well, so that our faith can grow.

I told him after his presentation “Thanks for the nice talk, but can you ask your friends to quit praying for us!?”

[tennis0755]

Can an objective viewing of our situation lead to any other conclusion? I think not. NathanBedford, I thank you. This is really the only fight that matters.
Too few on the other side realize what will follow America’s demise. We all know them. They wish no harm, but for the moment they can’t be reached. Culture trumps politics.
Sadly, their regret may likely come too late.

[discostu]

All those numbers your throwing around were basically the same for all 3 Bush victories (actually the snow belt states mostly had more electoral vote back then). It is a surmountable obstacle.

The swing states are not reducing in number. 3 of those 4 states you mention have GOP governors (1 is actually on the hopefuls list for next year’s run), so clearly the GOP can win statewide elections in those states in spite of going for Obama 2 years ago. So those states are clearly still swinging.

Sorry but the demographic doom picture quite simply fails when one looks at the empirical evidence. You aren’t the first to think one side has a permanent majority, and you won’t be the first one wrong. You also won’t be the last. But you’re wrong. And you’ll see this in 2 years. Heck you could see it right now if you’d just open your eyes and look at the results from a few weeks ago.

[nathanbedford]

The Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the last six national elections; they have won the popular vote but once since 1988. This is the reality of history that cannot be cavalierly dismissed.

In addition to the states named in my last post, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio and Virginia all went Democrat and all only a few years ago would have been firmly in the Republican column. Pennsylvania can hardly be described as a swing state, it is turning blue. The election in 2014 is a reaction to Obama's overreach and is an outlier. The electorate of given states has demonstrated that it will occasionally vote a Republican as governor but not as president, a phenomenon I alluded to in one of my posts.

As to the wrongheadedness of forecasting permit majorities, consider the permanency of the Democrat hold on cities since the Irish immigration, consider the permanency of the Democrat hold on the Northeast, consider the permanency of the Democrat hold in California, Oregon and Washington, these states have simply been lost to the Republican cause, absent a set of circumstances which generates an outlier. That is why we have lost the last 5/6 popular votes. Consider the permanency of the hold of the Democrat party in the South from 1860 to 1968-a century is not permanent but it works for my time horizon.

If I am wrong we win, if you are wrong we get clobbered.

[discostu]

If you count Perot as a conservative our side won the popular vote both time Clinton got elected. And again, that’s really just the mushy middle sliding around.

Ohio hasn’t been firmly in anybody’s column for 120 years, it’s been a swing state since the 1880s. But they have a GOP governor, and will probably break GOP in 2 years.

No the election of 2014 was a typical second midterm. Barring 1998 what happened a few weeks ago is what’s been happening in second midterms for over 100 years, the party of the sitting president gets their ass kicked. It’s not an outlier, it’s the pattern.

Those things aren’t as permanent as you think. It’s just be a gradual change. Again look at black voting. Used to be the GOP had them solid, then slowly but surely the Dems took them, but the last few election results show the dems losing them. One of these days we’ll get CA back, and the cities. And then we’ll lose them again. And then we’ll get them back. It’s a cycle, highly repetitive, easily predicted, and often ignored by people who find the cycle inconvenient for their patently false narrative.

Anyway, we’re in a circle here. Saying the same thing, it’s done. Have fun. See you in two years when you are proven wrong.

[nathanbedford]

In two years the experts working for the networks will call the elections in the majority of races literally within minutes after the polls close. They do this based on their study of demographics.

If you were paid to predict, or retroactively identify, the voting pattern of any individual whom you cannot see, whose name you do not know, and whose address you do not know but of whom you were allowed to ask only one question, that question would almost certainly be:

What is your race?

If he or she identifies himself to be black, you would be right 90 to 95% of the time with the obvious answer and you would pick up your paycheck.

If he or she identifies himself to be Hispanic, you would be right 60 to 70% of the time.

If he or she identifies herself as Jewish, you would be right about 70% of the time.

If he or she identifies himself to be white, you would be right barely more than half the time.

If he or she identifies himself as Polynesian, Eskimo, or American Indian you would be right about 90% of the time.

Gender, class, income, education all important pieces of data but not one is as important as race. Demographics make electoral destiny and race above all determines demographic tendencies. The demographics of race are clear.

I hope to talk to you again before two years.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.

Team Planning Guide for your "National Day of Reckoning" protest against Obama's Illegal Amnesty - (click)



.