Democrat Party officials, politicians, labor leaders, and left-wing organizers have adopted a strategy to drastically transform America’s electorate through illegal immigration that will guarantee one-party rule and a socialist dictatorship.

The Curley Effect strategy reduces the political clout of the middle class by reshaping the American electorate. The strategy is named for Irish-American Mayor James Michael Curley, who transformed Boston from a city of poor Irish-Catholics and white Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) into an all-Irish city that would keep reelecting him.

Curley effectively drove the WASPs away by adopting government policies to confiscate their wealth and fiery rhetoric to increase his base among the poorer Irish.

The Curley Effect is a conscious effort to shape the demographics of an office-holder’s electorate by adopting destructive policies aimed at opposition voters, even when such policies cause an economic downturn for the political jurisdiction. The Curley Effect occurs when the incumbent does everything to ensure the probability of reelection and disregards the economy of the jurisdiction as the crucial determinant for reelection.

The Curley Effect happened in Detroit under Mayor Coleman Young and in Zimbabwe under President Robert Mugabe. During 24 years as mayor of Detroit, Young drove white residents and businesses out of the city, yet he remained popular among blacks who kept reelecting him, in spite of the city’s deteriorating economic base.

The Curley Effect also happened in Zimbabwe when President Robert Mugabe mistreated white farmers and openly encouraged their emigration despite the huge cost to the country’s economy.

Democrats know their party doesn’t do well nationally among white voters, compared to Republicans, but they do extremely well among black and poorer Hispanic voters, which is why they oppose Arizona’s enforcement of immigration law and promote comprehensive immigration reform.

Although Democrats claim to support mass immigration for “humanitarian” or “moral” reasons, their objective is to transform America’s electorate by granting millions of poor, low-skilled illegals immunity and citizenship to solidify their political base and ensure their power in perpetuity.

If the Democrat strategy succeeds, not only will America’s racial and cultural composition be forever changed, but also its political and religious liberties will be extinguished in the embrace of communitarianism.

For additional information about the Democrat plan to use the The Curley Effect to achieve political power by reshaping America’s electorate, see The Immigration Plot by Jerry Woodruff.

Blatant racism is the basis for the Democrats’ strategy for keeping power, counting the votes of the black sheeple as a lock, and moving to admit 12 to 20 million ILLEGAL aliens — largely hispanic — to citizenship.

Have you noticed a certain spooked look in the eyes of Republicans nowadays? Wonder why?

Democrat operative James Carville, speaking on the talk radio show Imus in the Morning, today gave a reason from his new book, Forty More Years (as in 40 more years of Democrats in power). Carville’s point is simple: Changing demographics will do the Obamanation’s job for it. Old whites vote Republican and will die out, replaced by youth and non-whites.

Reading Carville’s lines, and between them, you get the rest of it pretty easily. Most of the young, short on life experience and long on fuzzy idealism, always drift liberal (don’t I know it). Only some decades ago, before the effects of Ted Kennedy’s and some Republicans’ new immigration policy that welcomed everyone except Europeans, 90% of the US electorate was white. That is now gone forever, even though Kennedy stupidly or deviously claimed that the monumental new immigration policy would not significantly change US demographics.

Today the only real population explosion is among hispanics, especially with open borders when millions of illegal immigrants will be rewarded with citizenship, paid benefits and given voting rights. Both in Europe and the US, it’s clear that whites do not reproduce like browns and muslims do. (Carville, of course, fails to mention significant and growing pockets of muslims in the US.) Blacks of course will remain on their neo-plantation for the, uh, “benefits” the Dems hand them, delivering 90% of themselves as usual, the urban ghettos able to swing whole states against the white taxpayers, even if you call the hand-outs “tribute” in return for not burning down the cities. (Currently, most blacks probably are content with the US becoming much less white. How they will feel later, down the road the liberals are leading them on, when they are increasingly challenged by the “color” of hispanics, Asians and muslims, remains to be seen, and could get interesting.)

Carville makes the case that Dems have a lock on power for the next 40 years. Demographics, according to him, guarantee it. This used to be whispered, but now it can be said out loud in public, and in his new book. Maybe even Senator Ted Kennedy can admit he knew it all along.

Agree or disagree, but have you wondered why the Republicans seem so spooked lately, or is it mummified? And Democrats, with their media cheerleaders, have that look of a contented creature that just caught and ate a nice big fat chicken?

One common assumption about democracy is that the choice of an elected leader will represent the preference of the majority of the people governed. Let’s take a look at the last half-century of presidential elections to see how often this has been true in the United States …… never.

From the total residential and expatriate population of the United States, those eligible to vote are that subset meeting the following qualifications:

• person is of voting age
• person is a legal citizen, by birth or naturalization
• person is not institutionalized, or has not had franchise revoked due to crime

From the pool of eligible voters, only a percentage make the effort to establish their bona fides with their local precinct and place their authorized signature in the voting records, becoming registered voters.

During an election, not all of the registered voters participate. The voter turnout fluctuates from year to year, but is usually higher during presidential election years than for those in-between years featuring only state or local races.

Authentic democracy occurs when two conditions are met:

• 100% of eligible citizens register to vote
• 100% of registered voters participate in an election

The table above shows, in effect, the degree to which the United States election process differs from real democracy due to civic laziness and voter apathy.

References:

An excellent research project is ongoing at George Mason University (GMU), Fairfax, Virginia under the auspices of Dr. Michael McDonald, Associate Professor, Department of Public and International Affairs. The United States Elections Project gives a detailed summary of relevant data for the years 1980 through 2006. More importantly, it shows that the apparent decline in voter participation reported by the United States Census Bureau results from their analytical methods, rather than actual voting patterns. Two important definitions from the GMU project:

VAP — The voting-age population is defined by the Bureau of the Census as everyone residing in the United States, age 18 and older. Before 1971, the voting-age population was age 21 and older.

VEP — The voting-eligible population is the population that is eligible to vote. Counted among the voting-age population are persons who are ineligible to vote, such as non-citizens, felons (depending on state law), and mentally incapacitated persons. Not counted are persons in the military or civilians living overseas.

The voting age population totals used in our study for the years 1960 and 1964 are from the U.S. Census Bureau report for those two years. The VAP totals used for the years 1968 through 2004 are from the U.S. Census Bureau Report Registration Rates in Presidential Election Years.

Prior to 1980 the difference between the voting age population and the number of eligible voters in any given presidential election year was less than one or two percent of the total population. Since separate official VEP numbers are not available for those years, we used VAP data as the basis of calculation. However, as the discrepancy began to grow rapidly with the onslaught of illegal immigration, we used the available VEP data from 1980 onward.

The eligible voter totals (in millions) for the years 1980 through 2004 used in our computations are from the GMU research. The registration totals (in millions) for the years 1964 through 1996 used in our computations are from the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The registration totals compiled by the FEC for the year 1960 do not include sixteen states, and so we did not make a computation for that year. The voter turnout totals (in millions) for the years 1960 through 1996 are also from the FEC. Both the registration totals and the voter turnout totals for the years 2000 and 2004 are from the U.S. Census Bureau.

The percent of eligible voters who did their civic duty and registered for each presidential election is computed by dividing the registration toal by the eligible voter total (or the VAP total prior to 1980). The percent of turnout is computed by dividing the turnout total by the eligible voter total.

The Winner Total percentages from 1960 through 2000 are taken from President Elect, the unofficial website of the United States Electoral College. They differ only slightly from the numbers given on another popular reference page, History Central, which is also often quoted.

The popular support for every president-elect represents the percentage of eligible voters who actuallly wanted that candidate to be president. It is computed by multiplying the percentage turnout by the percentage of votes garnered by the winner. In every case it is considerably less than half of the electorate. Contrary to media spin, the least popular president-elect in the last half-century was Bill Clinton, who was favored by only one quarter of the electorate in both of his successful bids for the office.