Obama Amnesty Plan

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke3/5/15
Legalize Foreigners, “Take Over the Host,” Push “Citizens into the Shadows”  •  It was supposed to be a phone call for Obama administration ears only. But hear it the radio host did, she says. And what she heard should make your blood run cold

— and perhaps your rage hot. Obama’s amnesty plan is to use illegal aliens as “seedlings,” said the federal officials. They will “navigate, not assimilate,” as they “take over the host,” create a “country within a country” and start “pushing the citizens into the shadows.”

Welcome to the “fundamental transformation” of America.

The above was alleged by WCBM radio co-host Sue Payne in an interview with talk giant Mark Levin last Thursday. Payne says that while at an immigration rally, she became privy to three conference calls in which 16 Obama administration officials — including Cecilia Muñoz, director of Obama’s White House Domestic Policy Council — discussed plans for what could only be called the final destruction of traditional America and the cementing of leftist hegemony. Muñoz, by the way, is perfectly suited to this task; she was once a senior vice president for the anti-American Hispanic lobbying organization the National Council of La Raza.

Oh, la raza means “the race” (I guess the whole “‘Hispanic’ is an ethnicity” thing doesn’t cut much ice with them).

Payne opened the interview by explaining that what Obama actually did on November 21 — the day he signed his supposed executive amnesty — was create the “Task Force on New Americans” (TFNA) for the purposes of implementing his legalization scheme. And it won’t be applied to just 5 million illegals, but “13 to 15 million to give protection [to] and move…on to citizenship,” reports Payne.

Payne then said that the illegals, labeled “seedlings,” would eventually “take over the host.” She continued, “And the immigrants will come out of the shadows, and what I got from the meetings was that they would be pushing the citizens into the shadows. They would be taking over the country; in fact, one of the members of the task force actually said that we would be developing a country within a country.

To this nefarious end, the goal of the TFNA is to create a “welcoming feeling” in illegal-seeded localities, which would be redesignated “receiving communities.” They’d subsequently be transformed (fundamentally, I suppose) into what are labeled “emerging immigrant communities” — or as some would say, México Norte.

The officials also said, reports Payne, that for the seedlings to “grow” they needed “fertile soil” (a.k.a. your tax money). The officials stated that the legalized aliens needed to be redesignated as “refugees” and be given cash, medical care, credit cards for purchasing documents and — since many illegals will be older — Social Security so they can “age successfully within their country within a country,” to quote Payne. As she then put it, it’s “as if we were funding our own destruction here.”

Some may point out that Payne has no smoking gun (that we know of) in the form of, let’s say, a recording of the calls. But Levin vetted her and found her credible, calling the scheme “stunning” and reflective of “Mao’s China.” I believe her as well, but it doesn’t even matter. She simply confirms what I’ve been warning of for years and years over and over again: The Left is importing their voters, engaging in demographic warfare and authoring the death of the republic.

Mind you, legal immigration itself is a sufficient vehicle for this. Ever since the Immigration Reform and Nationality Act of 1965, 85 percent of our immigrants have hailed from the Third World and Asia, thus growing leftist constituencies that vote for socialistic Democrats by approximately a four-to-one margin; in contrast and as Pat Buchanan pointed out, “[N]early 90 percent of all Republican votes in presidential elections are provided by Americans of European descent.” This, along with hatred and bigotry, is a major reason why Obama and his ilk want to destroy white America.

But liberals crave immediate gratification, and amnesty greatly accelerates this process. Legalize 15 million socialist voters clamoring for handouts, have them bring in relatives via chain migration — give them Social Security numbers which they can use to vote (as is Obama’s plan) — and tomorrow’s leftist dystopia is today. I predicted this in 2008, by the way, writing:

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.

Admittedly, I can be criticized since the above article is titled “How Obama Will Ensure His Victory in 2012.” But titles are hooks as much as anything else. And since I don’t have a crystal ball, just a not yet crystallized brain, I’d never claim to be able to perfectly predict timing. It also turned out that Obama and the 2009 to 2011Democrat House and Senate were preoccupied with instituting ObamaCare, and that the liberal legislators were perhaps too cowardly to face re-election having passed amnesty. Regardless, I have another prediction, one I hope you’ll take seriously:

The chances are slim to nil that Obama’s amnesty will be stopped legislatively.

Obama against John Boehner is the Beltway Brawler vs. the Beltway Bawler. Moreover, I suspect establishment Republicans — who just refused to defund Obama’s scheme — want executive amnesty. Why? Because the issue has been an albatross around their necks. And while they don’t have the guts or desire to really stand against Invasion USA, they also know voting for amnesty would mean electoral disaster. So, let Obama act unilaterally, huff and puff a bit with a wink and a nod while doing nothing of substance, and “Voila!” The issue is off the table with plausible deniability of complicity.

And the courts? They may uphold the recent injunction against Obamnesty, but there’s no saying Obama won’t ignore the courts (he assuredly understands that judicial review is a jurist invention). And, anyway, amnesty was always only a matter of time with today’s cultural trajectory. Yet this cloud does have a silver lining.

The Left was very successful boiling the frog slowly with the legal importation of socialist voters and the gradual transformation of our culture via entertainment, the media and academia. But liberals’ childish haste may have led to a tactical error. By going all in on executive orders and amnesty — by transitioning from evolutionary to revolutionary change and turning the burner up high — the Left risks rousing that frog from his pan. And how should it jump?

Obama said after the November Republican victory that it was his “profound preference and interest to see Congress act on a comprehensive immigration reform bill” (emphasis added), but otherwise he’ll work via executive orders. He also offered the GOP a deal: “You send me a bill that I can sign, and those executive actions go away.”

Translation: My preference is to follow the Constitution.

But my will be done — one way or the other.

How to respond? Question: what do you do when someone says “My preference is to follow the game’s rules, but if I can’t win that way, I’ll have to cheat”? You can:

  1. Continue losing; be a Charlie Brown sucker who keeps thinking that this time Lucy won’t pull the football away.
  2. Cheat right back (hard to do without judges in your pocket).
  3. Stop playing the game.

Now, conservatives, consummate ladies and gentlemen that they are, consistently choose option one. Far be it from them to violate the “law” even when it’s unconstitutional and therefore lawless. But I prefer option three.

This means nullification. Note that the Constitution is the contract Americans have with each other. And what happens when one party subject to a contract continually violates it in order to advantage itself, aided and abetted by corrupt judges?

The contract is rendered null and void.

Remember, cheaters don’t stop cheating until forced to. Governors and their legislatures need to man-up and tell the feds, “You like acting unilaterally and unconstitutionally? Two can play that game.” And this means not just ignoring Obama’s amnesty dictates, but nullifying a multitude of other things as well.

The other option is demographic and cultural genocide and the politics attending that. The Left knows this, too. Obama noted that growing “diversity hinders conservative priorities,” wrote the DC last month. Congressman Kurt Schrader (D-OR) said recently that amnesty “will decide who is in charge of this country for the next 20 or 30 years.” And an ex-advisor to former Prime Minister Tony Blair confessed in 2009 that the goal of the British Labour Party’s massive culture-rending immigration was to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

Do you get it yet?

Defy and Nullify.

The alternative is to walk legally and quietly into that good night, going out not with a bang but a whimper, muttering something about 2016, the Supreme Court and pixie dust.


Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com • (1153 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Obama Amnesty Plan

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    An important reason why the GOP Beltway Bandits don’t really oppose amnesty is that the Cheap Labor Lobby favors it, and they prefer the money to the voters who (to some degree) understand that amnesty is intended to victimize them. Whether or not someone actually caught such a conversation (I would be a little skeptical about that), this certainly reflects the liberal mindset. They don’t like ordinary Americans, and they especially don’t like their frequent tendency to vote for Republicans. So replacing Americans with left-oriented foreigners is indeed their goal, and the sooner they do it the better it is for them.

  2. NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

    I wish more Conservatives would read this piece by Selwyn. Too many seem to think that the distinction between legal and illegal immigration is somehow of fundamental importance, when in fact it’s only a question of whether we’re destroyed sooner or later. We may be past the tipping point already, where a Conservative President can no longer be elected, and if not an amnesty will surely get us there.

    The immediate problem is the Republican Establishment, which as Tim points out prefers the easy money of the Cheap Labor Lobby to the votes of its own base, a suicidal stance that reveals just how stupid they are. How do we deal with them? Do we continue to try to take over the GOP or is this the moment we leave and found a new, “third” party (the idea being that there will be only two once the GOP is destroyed)?

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      It’s inevitable that The New Man will require being governed by different laws and principles. The New Man is more interested in bread-and-circuses than cause-and-effect. And The New Politician who has arisen will gladly feed him his pap.

      It’s gone so far, it’s questionably whether conservatives could elect a conservative president.

  3. Anniel says:

    I believe the establishment of a third party is now inevitable. The pusillanimous behavior of Boehner and McConnel over the budget battles and amnesty is an affront to their base, and they have no thought for any future but their own. The GOP is so emasculated (is that a sexist word or what?) as a group that I’m surprised the leaders function anyplace but the urinal.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I wouldn’t bet on their using urinals. Even the men probably have to sit down to urinate. But note another point, made by several conservatives. Today is the anniversary of the Edmund Pettus bridge incident in Selma. No GOP leader has bothered to attend. This only makes it easier for liberals to pretend that the villains of the story were Republicans rather than Democrats (and Bull Connor was in fact a pro-labor Democrat to boot). It’s the sort of extreme stupidity that makes you wonder if they really favor their own party any more than Obama favors his own country (as I commented on NRO).

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I am not sure that it would make much difference if Boehner and McConnell attended the event. Most people don’t know who they are. And I understand Bush II was there, who is still seen as the face of the Republican party by many of the low info crowd.

        That being said, I think it would be good for Republicans to attend such events and express their belief in and importance of the common law bedrock that all men are created equal before the law, with the stress on law.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Apparently Kevin McCarthy decided last night — after Joe Scarborough attacked them for not going — to attend. But it should have been an obvious decision — and they should have used the opportunity to educate people about genuine civil rights. Perhaps getting Condi Rice to attend and explain why she’s a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights would have been useful.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            I think it might have been very helpful to get Condi Rice to attend. But who knows if she was asked or even wanted to go there. Surely she could have arranged something herself if it was important to her.

            Frankly, I am not so sure the whole thing is that important to many people. I do not recall hearing about the 25th, 30th or 40th anniversary of the march.
            Now, every newscast I have seen over the last week or two keeps mentioning the upcoming anniversary.

            What happened? Is the 5oth so much more special or is it another opportunity by the Liar in Chief and other race baiters to stir things up?

            By the way, I thought Cooke’s article was a bit over the top. But it seems most of his are, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/07/mlk-lieutenant-refuses-to-march-with-george-w-bush-at-selma-event-video/

        The above link is to an article which shows the insults against Republicans attending the Selma event have already started.

        Frankly, I believe attending “showcase” events like this is of little value and not attending them does little damage. What will the Republicans loose, 95 instead of 94% of the black vote?

        I think it would be much better to spend more time at the grass roots level in targeted districts and work out a long term plan. There must certainly be areas where middle class blacks are open to a positive message. Perhaps if the Republicans would spend a little less time with the plutocrats and a little more with the middle class, new voters could be won over to a more conservative side.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Republicans should challenge every Democrat to see if they support that sort of intolerant behavior that dishonors the march. They should always seek an opportunity to turn the liberals’ vicious tactics back on them.

          But you’re definitely right that the GOP needs to pay more (any?) attention to the grassroots instead of K Street. If they don’t, sooner or later, the Constitution Party or some similar organization is going to get a lot of those votes — and cost the GOP some swing-state elections. (But then, how many party leaders really care about that?)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *