Demographics, Dollars, and Cultural Marxism victory, deliverance, or colossal political disaster?

The embattled Star-Spangled Banner.
The embattled Star-Spangled Banner.

We are an embattled nation. Starting in January, the Democrats will have control of the U.S. House of Representatives with approximately 234 seats to 200 for the Republicans. One House race is still too close to call. A majority is 218. This should pose no problem for absolute Democrat dominance, since they have been voting with near 100 percent unanimity to block all of President Trump’s agenda and 2016 election mandate. The House Republicans, now in the minority, will have little chance of initiating or passing legislation supporting the Trump agenda or any genuinely conservative agenda.

The Democrats needed a gain of 23 seats, and they have super-succeeded with at least 39. While this is considerably less than the first midterm losses for Presidents Clinton and Obama, it is their best gain since picking up 49 seats in the 1974 Elections following the Watergate problems of President Nixon. Furthermore, and even more chilling, the Democrats won the national U.S. total House election returns by 8.8 million votes, receiving 53 percent versus the Republicans’45 percent.


However, in the U.S. Senate, the Republicans should pick up a net of one or two seats, depending on the Mississippi runoff on November 27. Republicans picked up four Senate seats in North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana, and Florida, but lost Arizona and Nevada. The net gain was a small but critical victory for Supreme Court and other Judicial and Cabinet nominations and defending the President, the Constitution, and the country from the soon to come most extreme Leftist-Radical assault in U.S. history. It is more positive than the 52 or 53 seat majority alone would suggest. The four Republican seats gained are all conservatives. The two lost had been previously held by liberal-leaning establishment Rinos. In Tennessee, a conservative Republican replaced a Rino.

What shall we call this? Is it as Winston Churchill once described the successful evacuation of 312,000 Commonwealth and 26,000 French soldiers surrounded by the German Army at Dunkirk in 1940 a deliverance from colossal military disaster with a victory within the deliverance? 

On June 4, 1940, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill addressed the House of Commons on completing the near-miraculous successful evacuation on May 26 of most of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), which was surrounded and under massive attack by German air, armor, and infantry forces. The BEF was most of the entire British Army! Unexpectedly, King Leopold I of Belgium, who had pleaded with the British and French to come to Belgium’s aid against German invasion, surrendered the formidable 500,000 soldiers of the Belgian Army to the Germans. This exposed the left flank of the BEF to German attack and left possible BEF withdrawal routes unprotected. Yet by the near-miraculous evacuation of the BEF by 220 small Royal Navy vessels and an astonishing 650 civilian vessels of all sorts, under heavy attack and bombing by the German Air Force, all but 30,000 BEF casualties returned safely to England. The victory within the deliverance was the devastating losses inflicted by the Royal Air Force (RAF) on the German Air Force. The RAF inflicted air-to-air combat losses on the Luftwaffe at nearly four-to-one, destroying the Germans’ previous numerical superiority.   

Churchill, however, reminded the House of Commons: “Nevertheless, our thankfulness at the escape of our Army and so many men… must not blind us to the fact that what has happened in France and Belgium is a colossal military disaster….We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations. But there was a victory inside this deliverance, which should be noted. It was gained by the Air Force.”  

I believe the Republican Party and the American people must realize that although we are better off in the Senate, owing largely to President Trump’s tremendous campaign skills and inexhaustible campaign energy, the loss of the House in numbers, but especially in consequences, was a colossal political disaster. It endangers the President’s ability to govern and certainly threatens the immense and phenomenal economic progress made for all Americans in less than two years. It also threatens to block further improvements in and even to reduce U.S. military preparedness, which had reached alarmingly low levels under President Obama’s policies. A Democrat House, as radical and leftist as we have ever seen, is likely to block any sensible immigration reform. This means our immigration problems will continually get worse with unchecked and unvetted immigration that could soon bankrupt the nation and destroy our cultural foundations and the rule of law. The new Democrat Party is a totalitarian party that has developed a hatred for traditional American cultural and religious values. More unvetted immigration would soon give them permanent political dominance.   

Demographic change was a powerful influence on 2018 election results. Since the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, U.S. immigration policy has favored the Democrat Party. There have been demographic, fiscal, and economic consequences. In 1960, foreign-born residents of the U.S. numbered 9.7 million or 5.4 percent of the population. The Department of Homeland Security estimated that the number of foreign-born residing in the U.S. had risen to 45.6 million in 2016, or 14.1 percent of the population. This does not include illegal immigrants who are estimated to be between 11 and 22 million. U.S. demographics are now near an irreversible tipping point to permanent Democrat dominance that gets nearer by the month.

The 2018 elections reflected this most strongly in the House, but it was very visible in the Arizona, Nevada, Texas and Florida Senate races and the Georgia Governor’s race. The 2020 elections will reflect it even more powerfully unless the trend is reversed.

Before 1965, the average immigrant was better educated and more skilled than the average native-born citizen. That changed dramatically in 1965 with larger and larger numbers of unskilled and poorly educated legal immigrants and larger and larger numbers of illegal immigrants with even less skills and education. This has become a fiscal drag on federal, state, and local governments. Unlawful immigrant households are especially costly because of low skills, poor education, low income, high welfare costs, and little taxes paid.  The average unlawful immigrant household costs American taxpayers $14,000 more than taxes paid per year. The net deficit is over $4,000 per year even for legal immigrant households. Cheap foreign labor, both legal and illegal, is an economic drag on American workers, suppressing their wages by nearly $500 billion per year. Businesses that use cheap foreign labor reap big profits, but the net economic and fiscal effect for the American people is negative.  A merit-based immigration system, fewer legal immigrants, and stopping illegal immigration would turn this terrible injustice around. The Democrats have shown little interest in merit-based immigration.   

The second biggest impact, which helped to leverage the demographic factor, was the Democrat Party’s Big Green Wave. They outspent Republicans almost two-to-one in House races, and in some key races more than three-to-one. The Texas Senate race between incumbent Republican Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke was the most expensive Senate race in U.S. history with O’Rourke spending $69 million by an October 17 reporting date and Cruz spending $34 million. Most of the money came from outside Texas. Another $40 million was spent by PACs not officially related to either candidate. Where did all this money come from? We have reached a point where campaigns are largely financed by persons and PACs outside of the states and congressional districts affected. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court made things much worse in their United Citizens vs. Federal Election Commission ruling in 2010. This was thought to be a conservative victory, but it turned out to shift the balance of power to big money in a huge way. Big money, often from secret sources, including laundered foreign sources, now has an enormous impact on U.S. elections. The impact of ordinary voters and local grassroots participation has been overwhelmed by big money resources. This leads to unaccountable and corrupt government. It must be changed to save our country. The Democrats somehow now have an overwhelming big money advantage, and it helped buy them a U.S. house majority in 2018.  

A third but increasingly significant factor is the growth of Cultural Marxist control of the media and educational system. President Trump had a remarkable economic record that resulted in the lowest unemployment rates on record for minorities and women and improved the annual income of almost every American by thousands of dollars. He had many extraordinary accomplishments, but few who watched CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, or listened to Public Radio or were readers of the Washington Post or the New York Times were well informed about them. More than 90 percent of their coverage was relentlessly negative, and significant Trump accomplishments got amazingly little coverage. We have a substantially dishonest news media, and the educational establishment is ruled by the heavy hand of anti-truth in the form of political correctness and propagandistic indoctrination. There is only a remnant of analytical integrity and free speech left in academia. Academia has become a bastion of Cultural Marxism and is hardly distinguishable from the Democrat Party in producing brain-numbed voters and radical leaders. It is primarily Cultural Marxism that has inspired the dishonesty, vote fraud, non-citizen voting, slanderous robo-calls, deceitful mailings, and character assassination techniques that have become standard operating procedure for Democrat campaigns.

I do not think the United States is lost yet, but the months until we go over a precipice of no return are ticking away. In Churchill’s June 4 1940 (We will fight on the beaches) speech to the House of Commons, he recognized the great courage of the British people and encouraged them to fight on. He did not sugar-coat the path to ultimate victory over formidable foes, promising nothing but “blood, toil, tears, and sweat” before victory could be won.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We don’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.—Ronald Reagan

You have no rights to post comments

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive