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.
Understanding the Democrats' Scheme
By John F. Gaski
Poor Bill O'Reilly and Brit Hume.
There they were on the O'Reilly show a few weeks ago, puzzling over why Barack Obama and the Democrats are doing so many things that
are damaging to our country. Bill and Brit agreed that they couldn't possibly be harming the nation intentionally, because negative
voter reaction would redound to them politically and electorally. Can't the Democrats see this? Did they suddenly get stupid politically?
This is so unlike them. How to explain this anomaly?
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.