Elections have consequences. You can’t elect someone like Obama and expect people to respect you.
Via The People’s Cube, on a tip from JeffersonSpinningInGrave.
It has taken centuries, but some blacks have assimilated into the mainstream of American civilization, presenting a challenge to cultural Marxists who have relied on a fragmentation strategy largely centered on blacks to destroy that civilization. Not to worry, moonbats; the progressives controlling the government have a solution: import a new breed of blacks, whose Third World culture, lower IQs than American blacks, inability to speak English, and in many cases Islamic beliefs add up to total unassimilability, possibly for centuries to come.
Rapidly growing numbers of black immigrants have reshaped the overall black population in the United States in recent decades, particularly in Washington and other cities with large U.S.-born African American communities, a new reportsays.
A record 3.8 million foreign-born blacks now live in the United States, the Pew Research Center reported Thursday. The influx means that the share of foreign-born blacks, largely from Africa and the Caribbean, has grown from 3.1 percent of the black population in 1980 to 8.7 percent in 2013. By 2060, 16.5 percent of the U.S. black population will be foreign-born, the report says.
Since many have no skills that would make them likely to make a positive economic contribution, the government tends to import them as “refugees.” Anyone objecting can be clubbed into silence with accusations of racism and heartlessness.
Importing massive numbers of blacks from the Third World also helps counter abortion, which is a sacrament to leftists but which slows the growth of blacks as a percentage of the population, pushing off the dream of turning the entire nation into Detroit.
But the policy also has downsides for progressive social engineers. Foreign-born blacks are more likely to be married, partially undoing the hard work accomplished by the Great Society regarding the destruction of the black family. Also, foreign-born blacks undermine the liberal depiction of America as an evil country that brought blacks here against their will.
What happens to the “ends justify the means” guerilla tactics radicals use to attack the establishment when they become the establishment? Do they go out the window in favor of sound moral principles? They do not — as demonstrated by Saul Alinsky acolytes Barack Hussein Obama and Raul Grijalva:
Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, recently caused a stir by sending letters to seven university presidents seeking background information on scientists and professors who had given congressional testimony that failed to endorse what is the conventional wisdom in some quarters regarding climate change. One of the targets was Steven Hayward, a colleague of mine at Pepperdine’s School of Public Policy.
Though the congressman lacked legal authority to demand information, his aggressive plan, which came to light in late February, should not be a surprise at a time when power holders from the White House on down are employing similar means against perceived enemies.
Mr. Grijalva left a clue about how he operates in 2013 when the magazine In These Times asked about his legislative strategy. “I’m a Saul Alinsky guy,” he said, referring to the community organizer and activist who died in 1972, “that’s where I learned this stuff.”
What sort of stuff? Mr. Grijalva sent his letters not to the professors but to university presidents, without (at least in the case of Mr. Hayward) the professors’ knowledge. Mr. Hayward was not even employed by Pepperdine at the time of his congressional testimony in 2011.
But targeting institutions and their leaders is pure Alinsky; so are the scare tactics. Mr. Grijalva’s staff sent letters asking for information about the professors, with a March 16 due date—asking, for instance, if they had accepted funding from oil companies—using official congressional letterhead, and followed up with calls from Mr. Grijalva’s congressional office. This is a page from Alinsky’s book, in both senses of the word: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have,” reads one tip in his 1971 “Rules for Radicals.”
In the bizarre upside-down world leftist radicals have us living in, merely associating someone with the industry that enables our standard of living by providing us with energy is sufficient to destroy his reputation, at least in the liberal-dominated universities and media. For the most part the latter was happy to help Grijalva go after scientists with the integrity to question the global warming hoax.
The congressman’s office arranged additional pressure by notifying national and local media that these professors were under “investigation.” On the day the letters went out, the Washington Post blared: “House Dems: Did Big Oil seek to sway scientists in climate debate?”
To its credit, the Arizona Republic noted that Grijalva’s jihad “fits the classic definition of a witch hunt.”
Why would the people of Arizona — the state of Barry Goldwater, personification of ruggedly independent liberty-minded conservativism — elect a socialist cockroach like Grijalva, who promoted a boycott of his own state? They wouldn’t. Grijalva’s district, which stretches along the undefended border, consists mainly of Mexicans.
That’s why Democrats will not lift a finger to stop the invasion until after Arizona (and Texas) have been turned blue by government-dependent Third Worlders. Their malevolent ends justify their unscrupulous means once again.