There are three main groups of people opposed to the recently passed Arizona immigration law.  The first group is simply watching the backs of illegal immigrants and should be completely ignored because its goals are clearly bad for America.  The second group consists of law enforcement haters, and the third group is made up of the aforementioned perennially indignorant.

Illegal Alien Sympathizers

There is a minority in America that openly supports illegal immigration for a myriad of reasons.  Many of the most active supporters of amnesty for illegal aliens are members of a racist group called La Raza (translation: The Race) whose often mentioned motto is “for the race everything, outside the race nothing”.  One well known proponent of open borders and amnesty is the always slimy Juan Hernandez, the used car salesmen who refers to everyone as “my friend.”  Arizonans should remember when they vote in November that Hernandez was a member of John McCain’s 2008 Presidential campaign.

The illegal alien sympathizers love to euphemistically use the phrase Comprehensive Immigration Reform as a codeword for a blanket amnesty for illegals.  The results of their desired amnesty will be a balkanized America where racial and ethnic divisions can be leveraged in pursuit of an ideological agenda; in other words, the typical MO of the American Left.

COP Haters

The second group of people in opposition to the Arizona law are simply law enforcement haters.  These are the people for whom the text of the law means nothing.  Their view of law enforcement officers – often subconscious – paints them as head smashing thugs who simply seek to violate as many civil liberties as possible.  In the minds of these people it does not matter that the AZ authorities can only question you about your citizenship after you have already drawn their attention for another possible infraction, at which point a person has already been asked to provide identification.

These people never give the police the benefit of the doubt and they never will.

The Perennially Indignorant

The last group of people are the perennially indignorant.  This group includes almost all of the politicians and empty headed celebrities who have come out against this law, including well known intellectual luminaries like Shakira, Ricky Martin, and Linda Rondstadt.  In fact, people like that quite likely fall into the pure Illegal Alien Sympathizers group as well, but once they publicly opine about it they enter the realm of the indignorant.

There is a more sinister group of people consisting of people from all three of these groups.  These dangerously ideological people seek to legalize the illegal immigrants in America simply to produce the vote inflation that comes with stamping out another 10 or 20 million new uneducated, poor citizens.  Like the inarguably evil George Soros’ Secretary of State Project, many proponents of so-called reform seek to undermine the will of American citizens in pursuit of an immoral collectivist agenda.  This is why the illegal immigration debate is central to our war on socialism.

To those indignorant people who spew invective about the Arizona law without ever having read it themselves, this video put together by AZ Gov. Jan Brewer is for you:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

I was utterly disgusted in the 2008 election when it became clear that John McCain had decided to metaphorically keep the gloves on in his presidential campaign against the always vacuous Barack Obama.  Anyone paying attention was aware of the list of radical positions and associations that should have discredited the legitimacy of candidate Obama from the very beginning of the Democrat party primaries, but rather than pointing out these crazy positions, the McCain campaign decided to take the self-congratulatory “high road”.  As those of us in flyover country saw, in case after case where Mr. Obama should have been legitimately attacked for his radical friends and past comments, Senator McCain’s campaign made it clear that in their eyes they would prefer to lose with “class” than win by pointing out what a radical statist Barack Obama had already proven himself to be.  From his associations with Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers and Rashid Khalidi and Frank Marshall Davis, it was obvious even early in the Democrat primaries that candidate Obama was a radical anti-American hardcore leftist whose ascension to the presidency should not be allowed to occur.  Seeing the results of electing this Manchurian candidate today, it all seems even more obvious.

As we all know, John McCain’s misguided high road approach, combined with America’s inexplicable gullibility in believing the “say anything to win” Obama campaign strategy, and the historic nature of the potential first black American president created a perfect storm that swept the least qualified and most radical president in US History into the White House.  Too many Americans are only now realizing what an historic mistake it was to get swept up in that red tide.

Many of us remember the last time that a liberal took the presidency.  In 1992 Bill Clinton managed to win the election with the aid of a complicit media which made a huge deal out of a minor dip in the economy, and though President Obama makes Bill Clinton look amazingly realistic and centrist, we all worried about his far left ideology and where it would take the country.  As is often the case with liberal politicians, Mr. Clinton got momentarily intoxicated with power and pushed a little too far to the left only to be corrected by the American electorate in the elections of 1994.  Unlike Barack Obama, who is utterly blinded by his radical ideology, the consummate politician that was Bill Clinton responded by moving to the center and in many ways successfully triangulated against the opposition party.  Contrast Clinton’s rational political response to the seemingly politically suicidal route being taken by the current ruling cabal.  It did not seem to make sense, but then I read a chilling but spot-on article in American Thinker titled Understanding the Democrats’ Scheme.  In this article the author attempts to explain why the President and the congressional leadership seem so utterly unconcerned with the unprecedented push-back from Americans, most visibly represented by the widely reported and consistently denigrated Tea Party movement.  The author’s conclusion: the Democrats do not believe that they will have to face a real election again, and he makes some very chilling and valid points.

The reader understandably wants to dismiss this.  After all, this is America!  We may make some electoral mistakes, but when we do we throw the bums out, right?  When we can, we do.  The author of the article, John F. Gaski, makes some very cogent points about the tactics being employed by the Democrat party, now undeniably the party of statism.

Grant amnesty to the illegal aliens (the correct term for lawbreaking invaders, regardless of their natural and rational motives) which will create up to 30 million reliably Democrat voters — especially after being registered at least once each by ACORN. That is cushion enough to carry any national election. Why else could Dems be so fixated on this agenda item? 

This is a tactic that I like to call vote inflation.  Allow me to explain the monetary analogy.  Observers of the financial system know that when the U.S. government needs more money it often simply prints more currency which seems counterintuitive, but it works for them.  The end result is that like any commodity, more dollars in circulation means that each dollar is worth less, and many commentators have pointed out that this intentional inflation is perhaps the most insidious and hidden tax that they can levy on the American taxpayer.  Similarly, if the Democrats can legalize these undocumented workers as they euphemistically refer to them, they are in effect causing vote inflation, lessening the value of every other vote cast in America.  Though it will destroy the America that we love, it has a certain sinister brilliance to it.  These statists are playing hardball all while looking like bumbling idiots.

Many laymen still don’t understand how the ACORN scam works. To them, ACORN’s excuse that they are merely committing voter registration fraud, not vote fraud, seems plausible. Here’s the deal: Register 100,000 phony voters such as Mickey Mouse and the Seven Dwarves, thus expanding the nominal voter rolls, and the Democrat vote counters then have the latitude to create 100,000 extra votes out of thin air on election night. This is what “community organizer” really means, and Barack Obama is forever stained by his ACORN background. Not that it matters to him. 

America should brace for the biggest vote fraud and election theft caper of all time on election night 2010 — and in the months following. We now know as well that the Dems are guaranteed to win any statewide recount where there is a Democrat Secretary of State. And who, we must ask, is there to enforce the election laws now?

This is exactly how they managed to scrape up enough votes in Minnesota to ensure that Stuart Smalley secured the critical 60^th vote which has been very effectively used to steamroll over the rights of Americans who polls show are firmly against their statist health care agenda.  Why else would Democrats so thoroughly oppose laws that require that voters show identification in order to vote?  Historically, the Democrat party is the party of voter fraud.  To the left, the ends always justify the means.

As if they need it, the Dems will be secretly encouraging (maybe even hiring) third-party candidates wherever they need them, because they know that is the way to split the opposition vote. It almost always happens that way to the Democrats’ benefit. If people such as Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck don’t realize this soon, instead of talking up the third-party route, they will only help to ensure a permanent Democrat stranglehold on Congress and the presidency — although any one of this litany of methods would probably be sufficient for that. So the Dems are actually conservative in the sense of wanting some built-in redundancy!

Every time I hear a conservative-minded voter or pundit mention a third party, the hair stands up on the back of my neck.  Anyone who knows anything about the history of third parties in America knows that they simply split one party and hand the election to the other party.  When Teddy Roosevelt lost the Republican nomination to Taft in 1912, he chose to run on the Bull Moose Party ticket.  The result was that Roosevelt split the conservatives and allowed the progressive intellectual Woodrow Wilson to take the presidency with only 42% of the popular vote.  Another example of third party naiveté, in this case a debacle that I was a part of in my youth, was displayed in 1992 when Ross Perot ran on the Reform Party ticket.  Once again the result was a split of the conservative vote and the election of Bill Clinton who garnered only 43% of the popular vote.  History shows that any talk of a third party on the right will simply hand elections to the Democrats, and they know it even if naïve conservatives do not.

What do we suppose the extra trillion dollars of “stimulus” money to be spent from 2010 to 2012 is really for? Just a coincidence, or a ready-made election slush fund? How much has already been committed to ACORN and SEIU?

The so-called stimulus package was little more than a payback for union support and a mechanism for the creation of more people dependent on the government headed by Barack Obama.  There is little doubt that the jack booted purple-shirted thugs of the SEIU will be front and center during the next election cycle attempting to ensure that the Democrats maintain their statist grip on power.  ACORN and the SEIU are the enemies of every single freedom loving American.

Then there is the “universal voter registration” plan that the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund has spotlighted, granting automatic voting privilege to anyone who has ever registered for practically anything, anywhere, anytime. The Democrats and their henchmen could work with that, couldn’t they? Or why are they so eager to enact it? Their entire history has been to oppose laws that prevent vote fraud, after all. (What could be their motive for that particular laxity?)

These five strategies should be enough to ensure permanent Democrat control of our federal government — a virtual dictatorship. For them, it is a royal flush. But another part of the scheme may be the most pernicious of all. The worst is yet to come.

Before you continue, please read this article referenced in the quoted section above on the Democrats’ universal voter registration scheme.  Once again, they are playing hardball while too many naïve Americans continue to believe that this is just the normal cyclical swing to the left that we see every decade or so.  By the time that conservative Americans come to their senses, the game will be over with our cherished freedoms lost forever to the tyranny of the newly manufactured majority.

When you become dependent on the decision of a Democrat bureaucrat for crucial medical treatment — after the health care takeover — how much power does that give the Democrats over you? Elderly voters tend to vote more conservatively than younger voters, so letting the elderly die because care is “too expensive” can reshape the political profile of the electorate. But can we reasonably foresee that party registration or political contributions might enter the bureaucrat’s calculus? Might it occur to the intense partisans of the Obama administration to grant lifesaving treatment to those they regard as “their people,” but not to others? What a neat way to eliminate the opposition! Party registration is already public information. And if they can overturn the secret ballot for union elections via “card check,” how long before they try to impose the same more generally, so they will always know how you have voted? Do not trust the judiciary to save us, either, after President Obama packs the courts with more ultra-leftists. 

Chilling, isn’t it? But not extreme: Obama himself has notoriously displayed his disregard for human life by the stated willingness to sacrifice “grandma” to a pain pill and his coarse support for unrestricted abortion — even opposition to the Infant Born Alive Act, which he has tried to subvert. 

When the Democrats achieve literal death-grip power over the lives of all our citizens, that’s when they also achieve their long-cherished dream of absolute power in a virtual one-party state. Now is it becoming transparent (so to speak) what the real scheme behind their mania for “health-care reform” is? Now does it all make sense? This is not your father’s Democrat party. 

This issue is not about health care, ultimately. It is about raw political power and the long-promised radical takeover of the United States. For anyone who hasn’t thought of all this before, I guarantee that Obama and his party’s other leaders have.

Anyone who has read this far likely knows that the so-called Health Care Reform legislation has nothing to do with health care or compassion but is simply the best route to dependency-based power and control over government subjects.  I cannot stress strongly enough my dread at the reality that these statists in the Democrat party are playing permanent nation-changing hardball while too many Americans think that this is just the normal give and take while dejectedly flipping from Fox News to go watch something asinine like The Biggest Loser.  Wake up, people, before it is too late!

In addition to the points made by Gaski that I quoted above, consider how the Democrats have pursued their agenda since President Obama took office.  They have held votes on health care in the middle of the night and on holidays to try to slip them under our radar.  They have bribed egregiously dishonest politicians like Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson with our money to secure their votes on health care legislation that Americans do not want.  At the time of this writing there is just over a week until a special election in Massachusetts to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, and it has been reported that a win for the Democrat will result in immediate swearing in whereas a Republican win will incur a long enough delay to pass the health care bill first.  In the executive branch, we have seen Chicago gangster style politics on display in the White House (remember that 3 of the last 7 governors of Illinois went to jail for corruption, not counting Blagojevich) and President Obama refusing to demand that the reconciliation process for the health care bill be televised on C-SPAN, even in the face of widespread coverage showing him making that promise 8 times during his deceitful presidential campaign.

This gaggle of elitist beta males and statist myrmidons who run the country are playing for keeps, and too many people on the freedom side of the equation remain in denial.  Your grandchildren are going to ask you what you did in this battle for the soul and future of America.  What will you say?

Though spoken in a different context, this quote from Winston Churchill is perfectly fitting:

Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.