How Pres. Barac Obama will ensure his Victory in 2012

[The Rover]

How Barack Obama will ensure his victory in 2012

November 13, 2008

http://www.renewamerica.us:80/columns/duke/081113

By Selwyn Duke

Even before the election, with the realization that a Barack Obama presidency lay on the horizon, many saw a silver lining in the cloud that drifted into Washington, DC, from the left coast. "The right will be re-energized," many thought, "and we'll have a better Republican candidate and improved prospects in 2012." Moreover, it was figured that Obama will exacerbate a bad situation, causing a meltdown in our economy and emboldening enemies without and within, thereby creating fertile ground for a Republican victory. Of course, the GOP nominee may in fact be better four years hence, although he is far more likely to be so in terms of persona than policy. But his prospects are a different matter.

No one likes the bearer of bad news, but, in this case, to render good news would be to offer bad prognostication. Frankly, I don't see anything short of divine or devilish intervention (and the latter favors the president-elect) that will prevent Obama from being a two-term president.

There are numerous reasons for this. First, the mainstream media may take minor potshots at him occasionally for circulation purposes and to convince themselves they're still journalists, but, ultimately, they will remain his all-powerful public relations team. Second, Obama is a remarkably effective demagogue. Sure, as with all of the species, it amounts to illusion; in Obama's case, this involves formidable but not singular ability, a resonant voice, and that activist media which smoothes out the rough edges. Yet there is one factor which, barring some monumental event that upsets the rotten-apple cart (a distinct possibility), will guarantee the ascent of the leftist agenda and descent of our culture at a rate heretofore unseen in America. It is a simple thing to understand, and, lamentably, I don't think I'm wrong about it.

The coup de grace Obama will use against rightist opposition is mostly embodied in one word: Amnesty. This, along with some other measures, will both grow the Hispanic voting block and ingratiate Obama to it. This will enable him to create a powerful coalition of blacks, young voters and Hispanics that, along with the older whites he will be able to retain, will constitute an insurmountable electoral force. And this is why amnesty has long been a dream of the Democrats. Even easier than brainwashing new voters (which the media and academia specialize in) is importing them.

The last time the left proposed amnesty for the 20-30 million (a realistic estimate) illegals in our nation, they were blocked by the Republicans. Now, however, with a president who will enjoy great popular and media support, more significant Democrat majorities in the Houses, and with sheer attrition-induced exhaustion in the opposition, I suspect that it will be impossible to forestall.

So how monolithically Democrat will this larger Hispanic voting block be? Well, let's begin by considering this research by the Pew Hispanic Center:

"Hispanics voted for Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden over Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin by a margin of more than two-to-one in the 2008 presidential election, 66% versus 32% . . . . Latino youth, just as all youth nationwide, supported Obama over McCain by a lopsided margin — 76% versus 19%."

A new infusion of foreign-born Hispanic voters will tilt this block even further left, and it isn't hard to understand why. Most such people have a socialist political orientation, which is why governments in Mexico and much of central and South America also tend have one. And the proof is in U.S.-election pudding, too; for instance, in the 1990s, first-time Hispanic voters cast ballots for Bill Clinton by a ratio of 15 to 1. People's passions don't change simply because they set foot on American terra firma.

Barack Obama and his fellow travelers know this well, and they have already done much to curry favor with Hispanics. Obama said during the primaries that American children needed to learn Spanish, and he will continue to send the message — albeit in more subtle ways — that he is sympathetic to the Latinization of the U.S. These messages will be downplayed by the mainstream media but emphasized in the Spanish one, which was in the tank for Obama even more than the former. I also expect him to appoint an ample number of Hispanics to posts in his administration.

Of course, like many others, I envision that the coming years will bring some very tough times. And while it's usually the case that a president who presides over a nation in distress doesn't win re-election, I suspect Obama will defy this trend. Why?

That media again.

President Bush, through only some fault of his own, will be the gift that keeps on giving. The media have already cemented the narrative, "The last eight years have destroyed the nation, and it will take a long time to repair the damage." How long might this be? For as long as leftists need a diversionary tactic with which to deflect attention from their misbegotten policies.

This could, of course, be a very long period. As I wrote recently, Bush will become an ". . . omnipresent phantom of failure. It's much like how, decades after Napoleon Bonaparte's exile to barren Saint Helena, British children were kept in line with the admonition, 'Be good, or Nappy will get you.' Bush's power will greatly outlive his tenure."

Yes, if you don't elect me, Bushy will get you. And there is yet so, so much work to be done. Pass the New York Times and the café latte.

But having a water-carrying mainstream media isn't enough — the left will also try to stifle voices that would report the truth. To this end, they will attempt to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. And although it may be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of two years hence, this may not be the case once Obama has the opportunity to appoint two or three justices. Also lying further down the road may be hate-speech laws, which target "hate" about as much as legislation that would destroy talk radio ensures fairness. They already exist in most of the western world and, incredibly, some judges actually view this as precedent. Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, that affirmative-action appointee, said herself that the Internet makes other nations' court rulings readily available and that we should learn from them. Said she, "[As judges and lawyers] we must look beyond our borders, to the laws and constitutions of other nations." By the way, some people call this a judicial philosophy. I call it malfeasance and treason.

So this is our probable dystopian reality. Yet we do have some recourse. And here is what I recommend for now.

The Founding Fathers meant for us to be a nation of states, not a nation state; they intended for most power to rest on the state level and for localities to largely shape their own destinies. We must embrace this model with boldness and vigor. Huge swaths of our nation are now in the pocket of the left, but there are yet bastions of light wherein traditionalists can hold sway. In these places, campaign hard and seize control of the local governments. Then, resist any and every unconstitutional mandate. Just as there was a cold war, we need to initiate a cold revolution.

We have already seen examples of this, and one that leaps to mind is Judge Roy Moore and his refusal to remove the Ten Commandments from in front of Alabama's Supreme Court building. While some on the right said he was wrong, reasoning that we must follow the rule of law, I must respectfully and passionately disagree. When the law becomes lawless, we owe it no allegiance. When perfidious judges will unabashedly claim that the will of the American people as expressed through domestic law — both within the Constitution and without — can be subordinated to the will of foreigners as expressed through alien constitutions and laws, they become enemies. They then deserve nothing but the deepest contempt we can muster.

When the only possible unity is under the banner of secular-fascism, we need to become dividers, not uniters. And this, my friends, is a real message of change and hope.

[Bong-Man]

The Founding Fathers meant for us to be a nation of states, not a nation state; they intended for most power to rest on the state level and for localities to largely shape their own destinies. We must embrace this model with boldness and vigor.

Yes....We must go back to the days when a letter took 4 weeks to be delivered, and a trip across the country took 4 months by wagon.

So in other words, Obama is going to win a second term much the same way Ronald Reagan did.

[Strider]

Wow Rover, another hack writer...just like the article you posted from Ralph Novak.

Is there anyone you read who isn't an insane wingnut?

Whine whine whine...can we at least wait until Obama takes office BEFORE

predicting the fall of the United States? Talk about sore losers..it used to be that

newly elected Presidents were accorded a honeymoon period(yes, even "W" got one).

But the inauguration hasn't even happened and already you read and hear these delusional fears from people that Obama is gonna turn the country over to Marxists or that he's gonna take away everybody's guns. Gun sales went up after Obama's election...one guy was quoted as saying he was stocking up on guns because he thought Obama was going to make guns illegal because of what he said about people "clinging to guns and religion"; ironically PROVING Obama's point!

Hey, knuckleheads, I got news for ya: Obama ain't gonna take away your guns and he

doesn't want to.

And even if one day a President was elected that did want to take away your guns, it couldn't happen in a million years, as the Second Ammendment is set in stone and between the Senate and Congress, there is no way in hell you could get enough votes to ban guns for law-abiding citizens.

So get over your irrational fear already.

But by far the worse comments I've seen have been the people calling for Obama's

impeachment and, even scarier, his assasination on message boards all over the internet.

A large number of these comments originate from people in the South for some reason.

There is something wrong, when there is a sizable segment of this country that has bought the lies and propaganda put forth by the rabid right, and refuses to even give Obama a fair chance to prove himself before shouting for his impeachment and death.

This is how Obama's re-election will be ensured in 2012...the far-right nuts scaring

the moderates and independents and forcing them to vote again for Obama and the

Democrats.

Which is why I say if the GOP wants to run the Alaskan Airhead, Sarah Palin, in

2012, I say bring her on...it will be an even bigger wipeout than this year.

[wanna be drummer]

Hey, knuckleheads, I got news for ya: Obama ain't gonna take away your guns and he

doesn't want to.

Biden does

[eternal light]

President Elect Barack Obama could instruct his Secretary of the Treasury to do this

Five days before Paulson struck his deal with the banks, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown negotiated a similar bailout — only he extracted meaningful guarantees for taxpayers: voting rights at the banks, seats on their boards, 12 percent in annual dividend payments to the government, a suspension of dividend payments to shareholders, restrictions on executive bonuses, and a legal requirement that the banks lend money to homeowners and small businesses.

instead of this

In sharp contrast, this is what U.S. taxpayers received: no controlling interest, no voting rights, no seats on the bank boards and just five percent in dividend payouts to the government, while shareholders continue to collect billions in dividends every quarter. What's more, golden parachutes and bonuses already promised by the banks will still be paid out to executives — all before taxpayers are paid back.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story.../the_new_trough

[Electrophile]

Biden does

What he wants to do, and what he will do are two different things. I want a million dollars, doesn't mean it's going to happen. Regardless of his personal feelings, both his and Obama's hands are tied as far as guns go. The same as while Biden's religious beliefs speak against abortion, he is pro-choice as far as the law goes. We've had how many Republican Presidents and none of them have been able to reverse Roe v. Wade, and abortion is to the GOP what guns are to the Democrats. They both talk about wanting more restrictions and more legislation, but it just won't happen.....at least not for a long time.

[wanna be drummer]

What he wants to do, and what he will do are two different things. I want a million dollars, doesn't mean it's going to happen. Regardless of his personal feelings, both his and Obama's hands are tied as far as guns go. The same as while Biden's religious beliefs speak against abortion, he is pro-choice as far as the law goes. We've had how many Republican Presidents and none of them have been able to reverse Roe v. Wade, and abortion is to the GOP what guns are to the Democrats. They both talk about wanting more restrictions and more legislation, but it just won't happen.....at least not for a long time.

Roe v Wade and gun control are two completely differen issues. Roe v Wade was a Supreme Court case with defining principles. If it comes to the Supreme Court, Obama could easily get what he wants, since he'll be able to (probably) appoint three new Supreme Court Justices. If it comes down to Congress, he and Biden can probably get Pelosi to side with them and pass more legislation and restrictions.

[EpicForest]

No administration will be able to take aways guns any easier than they can stop the flow of illegal drugs.

Gun owners may have to one day hide their arsenal like people have to hide their drug usage. Just remember, drugs weren't illegal to start with, legislation was passed to produce that effect. If it ever comes to that point with guns, then gun toters will just have to adjust as well.

Yeah, bullets and needles are both deadly in the wrong hands.

[Electrophile]

Roe v Wade and gun control are two completely differen issues.

You missed my point completely. Guns are to the Democrats what abortion is the GOP. That statement is not saying both issues are equal. That is saying they are that respective party's "big" thing. Dems want more gun control, Republicans want the outlawing of abortion. However, neither party has been able to do much concerning either because both are entrenched in this country and will not budge.

So again, it doesn't matter what Biden personally feels or wants to do. As I said the first time, their hands are tied on the matter. Reid and Pelosi will cowtail to Obama if he, like Clinton, realizes he needs to govern as a Centrist.