How Barack Obama will ensure his victory in 2012

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.

© Selwyn Duke