Plan to Destroy America

[flockofseagulls104]

I first heard about this today. It seems to be well underway. This guy, former Governor of Colorado, was certainly prescient. He formulated this plan in 2004, and the democrats have been running it to perfection since then.

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf/fo ... -3-181.pdf

A synopsis of the plan:

I. We must first make America a bilingual- bicultural country.
II. I would then invent “multiculturalism” and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture.
III. We can make the United States a “Hispanic Quebec” without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity.
IV. Having done all this, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated
V. I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of Victimology.
VI. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would “celebrate diversity.”
VII. Then I would place all these subjects off limits – make it taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to “heretic” in the 16th century – a word that stops discussion and paralyzes thinking – a word like “racist” or “xenophobe” that halts argument and conversation [I think they settled on 'racist']
VIII. Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis’s book, Mexifornia

Seems to me,every aspect of his plan has been promoted by the democrats since then. Except maybe VIII. But maybe that too. I hadn't heard of that book, but I will certainly look for it.

He is a liberal democrat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lamm

This is 'verified' by Snopes, for all those who think that is of value.
https://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp

[Bob Juch]

I first heard about this today. It seems to be well underway. This guy, former Governor of Colorado, was certainly prescient. He formulated this plan in 2004, and the democrats have been running it to perfection since then.

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf/fo ... -3-181.pdf

A synopsis of the plan:

I. We must first make America a bilingual- bicultural country.
II. I would then invent “multiculturalism” and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture.
III. We can make the United States a “Hispanic Quebec” without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity.
IV. Having done all this, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated
V. I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of Victimology.
VI. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would “celebrate diversity.”
VII. Then I would place all these subjects off limits – make it taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to “heretic” in the 16th century – a word that stops discussion and paralyzes thinking – a word like “racist” or “xenophobe” that halts argument and conversation [I think they settled on 'racist']
VIII. Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis’s book, Mexifornia

Seems to me,every aspect of his plan has been promoted by the democrats since then. Except maybe VIII. But maybe that too. I hadn't heard of that book, but I will certainly look for it.

He is a liberal democrat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lamm

This is 'verified' by Snopes, for all those who think that is of value.
https://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp

He's not a liberal. I'd call him a DINO. He's in favor of very ill people having a "duty to die." http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/29/us/go ... o-die.html

[silverscreenselect]

IV. Having done all this, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated

Well, they're not doing a very good job.

http://fortune.com/2016/06/23/census-bureau-race-age/

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article ... ted-states

I assume you are talking about Hispanics, but your facts are off there as well. While Hispanic education levels do trail those of other ethnicities, the gap has been cut significantly over the past decade.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... education/

So, as usual, your sources seem a mix of incorrect or incomplete "facts" and wild, fear mongering speculation.

[flockofseagulls104]

I first heard about this today. It seems to be well underway. This guy, former Governor of Colorado, was certainly prescient. He formulated this plan in 2004, and the democrats have been running it to perfection since then.

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf/fo ... -3-181.pdf

A synopsis of the plan:

I. We must first make America a bilingual- bicultural country.
II. I would then invent “multiculturalism” and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture.
III. We can make the United States a “Hispanic Quebec” without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity.
IV. Having done all this, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated
V. I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of Victimology.
VI. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would “celebrate diversity.”
VII. Then I would place all these subjects off limits – make it taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to “heretic” in the 16th century – a word that stops discussion and paralyzes thinking – a word like “racist” or “xenophobe” that halts argument and conversation [I think they settled on 'racist']
VIII. Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis’s book, Mexifornia

Seems to me,every aspect of his plan has been promoted by the democrats since then. Except maybe VIII. But maybe that too. I hadn't heard of that book, but I will certainly look for it.

He is a liberal democrat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lamm

This is 'verified' by Snopes, for all those who think that is of value.
https://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp

He's not a liberal. I'd call him a DINO. He's in favor of very ill people having a "duty to die." http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/29/us/go ... o-die.html

That sounds like a very democrat position to me. On both ends of the life span. Regardless, the democrats are doing everything they can to implement this plan. And I am a r****t for even bringing it up. As is trump.

[silverscreenselect]

II. I would then invent “multiculturalism” and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture.

Multiculturalism has been going on in this country for as long as we've had immigrants in sizable numbers for specific countries. Lots of big cities had Chinatowns and Little Italys and first generation immigrants spoke little or no English. Even today, I see commercials for these DNA ancestry testing websites in which Americans of European origin are excited to learn about and celebrate their exact ancestry.

People who spout this sort of nonsense seem to think that our problems just result from the influx of Hispanic and African immigration in the past few decades, but it's been going on for a whole lot longer, ever since the Pilgrims decided to maintain their own culture here.

[flockofseagulls104]

II. I would then invent “multiculturalism” and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture.

Multiculturalism has been going on in this country for as long as we've had immigrants in sizable numbers for specific countries. Lots of big cities had Chinatowns and Little Italys and first generation immigrants spoke little or no English. Even today, I see commercials for these DNA ancestry testing websites in which Americans of European origin are excited to learn about and celebrate their exact ancestry.

People who spout this sort of nonsense seem to think that our problems just result from the influx of Hispanic and African immigration in the past few decades, but it's been going on for a whole lot longer, ever since the Pilgrims decided to maintain their own culture here.

Read the whole thing, SSS. We have always been a melting pot. Now we don't encourage assimilation. Diversity is much more important than unity for democrats. The thought police have invented something called Cultural Appropriation which is another one of the new concepts we can't criticise without being called a r***ist or worse. The people implementing the plan have invented and imposed a lot of these new unimpeachable concepts that seemingly have come out of nowhere but are not questionable by 'enlightened' people. Like white privilege, microaggressions, choice of pronouns, etc. If you question any of these concepts, you are relegated to 'deplorable' status and nothing else you say or think can be considered, only mocked.

[silverscreenselect]

We have always been a melting pot. Now we don't encourage assimilation. Diversity is much more important than unity for democrats.

Flock, I'm kind of curious what actual experience you have in and among the ethnic community, other than reading Victor Hansen and listening to Sean Hannity. I do live in and among a large number of immigrants, including two of the other three units in my building. The adult immigrants often don't speak a lot of English, but their kids are quite fluent and quite up on the same culture as most kids of that age are. That's no different from what conditions were in Little Italy a century ago.

[Bob Juch]

Flock should change his handle to Bill the Butcher.

[jarnon]

The first two countries Lamm mentions, Canada and Belgium, have managed to make multiculturalism work. So have some others like Switzerland. But you can add Israel, Ukraine, and Spain to his list.

Read the whole thing, SSS. We have always been a melting pot. Now we don't encourage assimilation. Diversity is much more important than unity for democrats. The thought police have invented something called Cultural Appropriation which is another one of the new concepts we can't criticise without being called a r***ist or worse. The people implementing the plan have invented and imposed a lot of these new unimpeachable concepts that seemingly have come out of nowhere but are not questionable by 'enlightened' people. Like white privilege, microaggressions, choice of pronouns, etc. If you question any of these concepts, you are relegated to 'deplorable' status and nothing else you say or think can be considered, only mocked.

Flock, you'll appreciate this SNL sketch:

[flockofseagulls104]

We have always been a melting pot. Now we don't encourage assimilation. Diversity is much more important than unity for democrats.

Flock, I'm kind of curious what actual experience you have in and among the ethnic community, other than reading Victor Hansen and listening to Sean Hannity. I do live in and among a large number of immigrants, including two of the other three units in my building. The adult immigrants often don't speak a lot of English, but their kids are quite fluent and quite up on the same culture as most kids of that age are. That's no different from what conditions were in Little Italy a century ago.

Really? Aside from the fact I do not listen or watch hannity, have never read or heard about hanson until yesterday, that you know nothing about what my experience is, that your experience is anecdotal and has nothing to do with the country and culture as a whole, and that you have no idea what conditions actually were anywhere a century ago, everything you have said is true.

What I quoted is the opinion of a liberal democrat more than a decade ago, and most of his points are in operation today. Get over your hannity fixation and see if you can make a reasoned and coherent addition to the discussion.

One more thing, if you are speaking of immigrants, please specify whether they are people who have gone through the legal process of immigration or not. It is a valid distinction.

[silverscreenselect]

that your experience is anecdotal and has nothing to do with the country and culture as a whole, and that you have no idea what conditions actually were anywhere a century ago, everything you have said is true.

My personal experience is anecdotal. However, I back it up with evidence and statistics, some of which I've quoted to you now and in the past. I do have an idea about conditions 100 years ago for the same reason I have an idea who was President 100 years ago (Woodrow Wilson). On the other hand, you never seem to do anything put out there fear mongering op ed pieces backed by nothing but stereotypical prejudices. They may or may not come directly from Hannity, but that sort of nonsense easily makes the rounds on right wing websites and Fox News to whatever source you happen to be looking at.

[flockofseagulls104]

that your experience is anecdotal and has nothing to do with the country and culture as a whole, and that you have no idea what conditions actually were anywhere a century ago, everything you have said is true.

My personal experience is anecdotal. However, I back it up with evidence and statistics, some of which I've quoted to you now and in the past. I do have an idea about conditions 100 years ago for the same reason I have an idea who was President 100 years ago (Woodrow Wilson). On the other hand, you never seem to do anything put out there fear mongering op ed pieces backed by nothing but stereotypical prejudices. They may or may not come directly from Hannity, but that sort of nonsense easily makes the rounds on right wing websites and Fox News to whatever source you happen to be looking at.

Exactly. I did not write the plan. I brought it up for discussion. Somehow I have crossed the line into stereotypical prejudices [R***ISM!]. I have actually done nothing of the sort, but what does it matter? R**ism is whatever the left decides it is. While SSS's bigotted, stereotypical profile of me is all fine and dandy. Meanwhile, he gets to ignore the point of the thread.

SSS, you seem to be the one with a problem here.

[Estonut]

I do live in and among a large number of immigrants, including two of the other three units in my building.

So you live in the "white unit?"

[Bob78164]

There's a simpler way to destroy America. Stop people from voting.

That's what Scott Walker is doing. There are a couple of vacancies in the Wisconsin Legislature. It seems pretty clear that Wisconsin law requires special elections to fill them because they occurred before the second Tuesday in May of an election year. But Governor Scott Walker is refusing to call elections, probably because he's afraid Democrats will flip the seats. If this decision stands, the people of those districts will be without representation in one house of the Wisconsin Legislature for more than a year, until January 2019. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

There's a simpler way to destroy America. Stop people from voting.

That's what Scott Walker is doing. There are a couple of vacancies in the Wisconsin Legislature. It seems pretty clear that Wisconsin law requires special elections to fill them because they occurred before the second Tuesday in May of an election year. But Governor Scott Walker is refusing to call elections, probably because he's afraid Democrats will flip the seats. If this decision stands, the people of those districts will be without representation in one house of the Wisconsin Legislature for more than a year, until January 2019. --Bob

Alabama is taking up legislation to abolish special elections for U.S. Senators. Gee, I wonder why.

[Bob78164]

There's a simpler way to destroy America. Stop people from voting.

That's what Scott Walker is doing. There are a couple of vacancies in the Wisconsin Legislature. It seems pretty clear that Wisconsin law requires special elections to fill them because they occurred before the second Tuesday in May of an election year. But Governor Scott Walker is refusing to call elections, probably because he's afraid Democrats will flip the seats. If this decision stands, the people of those districts will be without representation in one house of the Wisconsin Legislature for more than a year, until January 2019. --Bob

Alabama is taking up legislation to abolish special elections for U.S. Senators. Gee, I wonder why.

Kind of hard for me to believe. Particularly since the Republican candidate in the special election did win 6 of Alabama's 7 Congressional Districts. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

There's a simpler way to destroy America. Stop people from voting.

That's what Scott Walker is doing. There are a couple of vacancies in the Wisconsin Legislature. It seems pretty clear that Wisconsin law requires special elections to fill them because they occurred before the second Tuesday in May of an election year. But Governor Scott Walker is refusing to call elections, probably because he's afraid Democrats will flip the seats. If this decision stands, the people of those districts will be without representation in one house of the Wisconsin Legislature for more than a year, until January 2019. --Bob

Talk about whataboutism... Or have the Democrat Focus Group Approved Words Committee removed that phrase from the list that all democrats should use? What's the approved word for today, bob?

[Bob Juch]

I've got an idea how to destroy America: Attack the FBI and Department of Justice, destroying the faith Americans have in them.

[Estonut]

I've got an idea how to destroy America: Expose the FBI and Department of Justice, destroying the faith Americans have in them.

Fixed it for ya!

[silverscreenselect]

I've got an idea how to destroy America: Expose the FBI and Department of Justice, destroying the faith Americans have in them.

Fixed it for ya!

What's really amazing is how all those FBI agents and Justice Department officials pretended to be Republicans for years just so they could all spring a trap on Donald Trump at just the right time.

[flockofseagulls104]

I've got an idea how to destroy America: Expose the FBI and Department of Justice, destroying the faith Americans have in them.

Fixed it for ya!

What's really amazing is how all those FBI agents and Justice Department officials pretended to be Republicans for years just so they could all spring a trap on Donald Trump at just the right time.

Republicans? They're not republicans. They're all Russian agents! We need a special counsel! Let's spend more millions of dollars!

[Bob78164]

On the original post, I think I like what David Brooks has to say:

[W]hen you wade into the evidence you find that the case for restricting immigration is pathetically weak. The only people who have less actual data on their side are the people who deny climate change.

You don’t have to rely on pointy-headed academics. Get in your car. If you start in rural New England and drive down into Appalachia or across into the Upper Midwest you will be driving through county after county with few immigrants. These rural places are often 95 percent white. These places lack the diversity restrictionists say is straining the social fabric.

Are these counties marked by high social cohesion, economic dynamism, surging wages and healthy family values? No. Quite the opposite. They are often marked by economic stagnation, social isolation, family breakdown and high opioid addiction. Charles Murray wrote a whole book, “Coming Apart,” on the social breakdown among working-class whites, many of whom live in these low immigrant areas.

. . . .

. . . [R]estrictionists are stuck in a mono-cultural system that undermines their own values: industry, faithfulness and self-discipline. Of course they react with defensive animosity to the immigrants who out-hustle and out-build them. You’d react negatively, too, if confronted with people who are better versions of what you wish you were yourself.

But why trust actual data when you can rely on preconceptions? --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

On the original post, I think I like what David Brooks has to say:

[W]hen you wade into the evidence you find that the case for restricting immigration is pathetically weak. The only people who have less actual data on their side are the people who deny climate change.

You don’t have to rely on pointy-headed academics. Get in your car. If you start in rural New England and drive down into Appalachia or across into the Upper Midwest you will be driving through county after county with few immigrants. These rural places are often 95 percent white. These places lack the diversity restrictionists say is straining the social fabric.

Are these counties marked by high social cohesion, economic dynamism, surging wages and healthy family values? No. Quite the opposite. They are often marked by economic stagnation, social isolation, family breakdown and high opioid addiction. Charles Murray wrote a whole book, “Coming Apart,” on the social breakdown among working-class whites, many of whom live in these low immigrant areas.

. . . .

. . . [R]estrictionists are stuck in a mono-cultural system that undermines their own values: industry, faithfulness and self-discipline. Of course they react with defensive animosity to the immigrants who out-hustle and out-build them. You’d react negatively, too, if confronted with people who are better versions of what you wish you were yourself.

But why trust actual data when you can rely on preconceptions? --Bob

Again, anyone who doesn't distinguish between people who have moved here by following the legal process and those that don't are pushing an agenda. The agenda, which is intentionally downplayed and NEVER mentioned by the MSM, is that democrats believe that most people who have come here illegally will vote for democrats if given the right to vote. Many republicans want to have cheap labor. That is what this is all about. That is why the democrats are willing to shut down the government, hurting American citizens, to fight for people who came here illegally instead of the people they are supposed to represent. That is why Obama, after saying many times that he didn't have the Constitutional authority, unilaterally and unconstitutionally gave many of them legal status and unilaterally decided not to enforce existing immigration laws. And that is why sanctuary cities exist at all.

If you only listen to the msm, you believe that trump wants to end DACA and deport everyone because he is a white supremacist or whatever else they are calling him today. The truth is that he knows that the DACA thing that Obama did is invalid and he is forcing Congress to legislate it, which is how it should have been done in the first place. He wants some form of legal status for these people. It is obvious, because in his latest proposal he has more than doubled the number of people included in DACA, and has said the words 'path to citizenship'. But you trump haters will continue your assigned mission no matter what the facts are.

Here is my solution:

1. Anyone who has entered this country illegally before TODAY (or some date in the past) can apply for legal status when the following conditions have been met. They will be here legally, but will not be able to apply for citizenship. However, any child who was brought here by people entering illegally (through no fault of their own) may legally apply for citizenship the way any other non-citizen would, when the following conditions are met:

A. An immediate end to Chain Migration.
B. End of the immigration lottery system. Make immigration a merit-based system, like other countries do.
C. End of Sanctuary Cities, States, etc.
D. Appropriation for trump's wall. This appropriation will require a guarantee that the appropriations must continue until the wall is built according to specifications set forth beforehand. Money for a wall has been passed by congress a couple of times before, only to have the next congress take the appropriations off the table. Many of the people who are totally against a wall today voted to fund a wall in the past. (But the msm media won't tell you that.)
The process for becoming a citizen takes many years. The wall, as trump wants it, can be built before any daca people will be eligible to take oaths of citizenship. No daca person will be granted citizenship before the wall is completed.
E. Any person entering this country illegally after the date in point 1 will be deported back to their country of origin. We will start actually enforcing our immigration laws again.

I think this is fair for all sides. No one will be 'in the shadows' anymore, and we will ensure we don't have to address this problem in the future. But will it be done? No.

[jarnon]

Here is my solution:

1. Anyone who has entered this country illegally before TODAY (or some date in the past) can apply for legal status when the following conditions have been met. They will be here legally, but will not be able to apply for citizenship. However, any child who was brought here by people entering illegally (through no fault of their own) may legally apply for citizenship the way any other non-citizen would, when the following conditions are met:

A. An immediate end to Chain Migration.
B. End of the immigration lottery system. Make immigration a merit-based system, like other countries do.
C. End of Sanctuary Cities, States, etc.
D. Appropriation for trump's wall. This appropriation will require a guarantee that the appropriations must continue until the wall is built according to specifications set forth beforehand. Money for a wall has been passed by congress a couple of times before, only to have the next congress take the appropriations off the table. Many of the people who are totally against a wall today voted to fund a wall in the past. (But the msm media won't tell you that.)
The process for becoming a citizen takes many years. The wall, as trump wants it, can be built before any daca people will be eligible to take oaths of citizenship. No daca person will be granted citizenship before the wall is completed.
E. Any person entering this country illegally after the date in point 1 will be deported back to their country of origin. We will start actually enforcing our immigration laws again.

Here's a counter-proposal:

A. "Chain migration" is a Republican dysphemism (I looked up the opposite of euphemism) for uniting families. Eliminating it is un-American IMHO, though it could be scaled back with fewer relationships and more vetting.
B. OK, but a humane society should also accept some refugees and asylum seekers (with appropriate vetting).
C. Congress can't force states to violate the Fourth Amendment, but it can allocate funds for more ICE agents to keep tabs on everyone who's arrested.
D. When illegal aliens are out of the shadows, their taxes will pay for the Wall in a few years. Since many of them are Mexican citizens, Trump can crow that Mexico paid for the Wall, as promised. But a well-built Wall should be a combination of various physical barriers and types of surveillance, not an ineffective showpiece like the Maginot Line.
E. Most illegal aliens entered legally but overstayed their visa. ICE needs to keep better track of visitors.

(I expect this post to be ignored amid partisan name-calling.)

[earendel]

As much as I dread getting into this, I would like to make a point or two.

...democrats believe that most people who have come here illegally will vote for democrats if given the right to vote.

If that's true, then maybe the solution is for the Republicans to champion policies that these people, if they could vote, would choose to support. Win their hearts.

The truth is that he knows that the DACA thing that Obama did is invalid and he is forcing Congress to legislate it, which is how it should have been done in the first place. He wants some form of legal status for these people. It is obvious, because in his latest proposal he has more than doubled the number of people included in DACA, and has said the words 'path to citizenship'. But you trump haters will continue your assigned mission no matter what the facts are.

If that is what Trump wanted, then why not simply propose a "clean bill" that would provide the "Dreamers" with their path to citizenship without holding it hostage by adding other provisions to it.

Here is my solution:
B. End of the immigration lottery system. Make immigration a merit-based system, like other countries do.

That won't solve the problem of who picks the produce that American farmers grow. Do you really think that "merit-based" immigrants are going to want to do the back-breaking toil necessary?

C. End of Sanctuary Cities, States, etc.

If the administration (and before it, the Obama administration) hadn't "weaponized" ICE, then sanctuary cities wouldn't be necessary. Candidate Trump spoke about getting rid of the "bad hombres", a laudable goal. But deporting someone (not a Hispanic, BTW) because of misdemeanors committed when he was young (one of which was expunged from his record) is a vast overreach, IMO.

D. Appropriation for trump's wall. This appropriation will require a guarantee that the appropriations must continue until the wall is built according to specifications set forth beforehand. Money for a wall has been passed by congress a couple of times before, only to have the next congress take the appropriations off the table. Many of the people who are totally against a wall today voted to fund a wall in the past. (But the msm media won't tell you that.)
The process for becoming a citizen takes many years. The wall, as trump wants it, can be built before any daca people will be eligible to take oaths of citizenship. No daca person will be granted citizenship before the wall is completed.

First, the wall is a pipe dream. I have no quarrel with the addition of more Border Patrol agents or using electronic means to patrol the border (drones, etc.). Second, Candidate Trump said that Mexico would pay for the wall - whatever happened to that?