53percenter's Blog

President Trump’s initiative to build a border wall on the southern border of the U.S. is meeting with an extraordinary amount of resistance from the Democratic Party.   The Democrats have gathered their forces and are exerting an unprecedented resistance to Pres. Trump’s efforts to control illegal immigration, when only a few years ago they voted for a border wall.

In order to understand the anti-wall effort, it’s necessary to briefly review the history of the Democratic Party’s immigration model of politics.  Only an historical perspective can provide the necessary background essential to comprehending the hysterical nature of the DNC’s resistance to President Trump’s border wall project.

The Democrats have a long history of endeavoring to manipulate political power.  Since the governmental leaders of the U.S. are elected, and each person has an equal vote in local, state, and national elections, the Democrats have always attempted to manipulate the numbers of Democrat voters. 

There are two basic facets to the political power game in the U.S.  The first is that all elections take place within geographical boundaries.  This may seem so obvious it is not worth discussing, but a brief review of the Democrat attempt to secure political power will reveal how important geographical boundaries are.

Political power in the U.S. is not inherited, it is based on majority elections within states.  This means that whoever successfully influences voters in a geographical area will win the elections. The earliest blatant attempt at such control was developed and perpetrated by Elbridge Gerry, the governor of Massachusetts in the early 1800s.  His scheme of voter manipulation was to map out the location of known voters by their past political preferences.  He ended up ultimately redrawing districts to capture the largest number of known voters who supported his party.  This method is now widely known as gerrymandering and the most outrageously blatant gerrymandered congressional district is Congressional District 4 in IL. This is the district that recently ousted Luis Gutierrez and replaced him with Jesus Garcia in Chicago. 

The Oxford English Dictionary discusses how the term gerrymander was invented in 1812, when a newspaper editor and writer were discussing Governor Gerry’s district.  The district was laid out in a shape that roughly corresponded to the shape of a salamander.  Upon hearing this term, an artist who contributed to newspapers combined Gerry’s name with “salamander” and came up with “gerrymander.”

That the most blatantly gerrymandered congressional district in the entire U.S. is located in Chicago is no coincidence.  Chicago Democrats have long practiced manipulating voters by any means possible. 

The next important date in Chicago’s link to illegal immigration occurred in 1933 when Edward Joseph Kelly was elected Chicago’s mayor. This is important because it started the long line of Chicago’s Democratic mayors which has continued to this day.

This was follow by another landmark date in Chicago’s history of voter manipulation occurred in 1984 when Mayor Harold Washington issued Executive Order 85-1, proclaiming that immigration status shall no longer be a factor in the distribution of Chicago benefits.  Chicago was the first big American city to declare itself, through this statement, a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. 

Mayor Washington declared that immigration status would not be a factor for Chicago residents.  This is critically important because it provided an historical precedent encouraging northward immigration over the southern border and established the Democratic Party’s encouragement of illegal immigration.

After World War II outmigration became a concern for all big northern Democrat-controlled cities since the growth of suburbs and the baby boom prompted young couples to leave big cities and seek more space for their families.  But this outmigration created a huge problem for the big Democratic cities from Boston to Los Angeles: how to restore and stabilize their city’s population and keep control of Congress.  The solution was to allow illegal immigration and support them with benefits. 

Providing illegal immigrants with benefits such as food stamps and housing were crucial, since illegal immigrants were not well educated and did not earn enough income to be self-sufficient.  This concern prompted President Lyndon Baines Johnson to establish the Great Society welfare programs, and he himself admitted the programs were intended to strengthen America’s big cities.  LBJ stopped the agricultural guest worker program, called the Bracero program, just at the time he started the Great Society. This allowed illegal immigrants to come to Chicago and not worry about being educated well enough to support themselves.  The lack of income was made up through free benefits. 

The Center for Immigration Studies found that by 2005 the average illegal immigrant family in Chicago obtained tens pf thousands of dollars worth of benefits per year, mostly in the value of public education.

The link between education and immigration cannot be underestimated.  In Illinois and other states some of the biggest campaign contributors are teacher unions, and as residents left the big cities the unions needed to keep their jobs and pensions.  Today Chicago is 47% Hispanic, whereas in 1970 it was only 2%.  The need for city residents compelled Democrats to change/ignore all the immigration laws and work to repopulate northern cities.  Not all cities encouraged illegal immigration. Chicago was the first but New York’s mayor Ed Koch made a sanctuary proclamation a few months later.

The die had been cast.  Big northern cities became obsessed with promoting illegal immigration to keep up their populations.  The number of congressional members is totally dependent upon population. But Chicago also turned illegal immigrants into voters. In 1982 the FBI found that 100,000 voters were illegal in that year’s election.  Other cities picked up the practice, but Chicago was the first to have its mayor declare itself a sanctuary for illegal immigration through Mayor Washington’s Executive Order 85-1.

Today Chicago needs federal benefit dollars and deficit spending to finance not only the immigrants but the pensions of its union members.  In Chicago all the high property taxes paid by residents goes only to public-sector pensions.  Illinois has a total of ten cities where all the property taxes go to pensions.  This is putting enormous financial stress on residents, so as a result Chicago and Pelosi are now more motivated than ever to eliminate immigration quotas, keep the southern border open and restore the populations of the traditional Democrat-run big cities.

Only when one fully understands the public sector union demands for money and need to restore big city populations can the battle between President Trump and Nancy Pelosi be fully understood. Pelosi is convinced that if the Democratic big cities give up illegal immigration the Democratic Party is finished.

President Trump’s initiative to build a border wall on the southern border of the U.S. is meeting with an extraordinary amount of resistance from the Democratic Party.   The Democrats have gathered their forces and are exerting an unprecedented resistance to Pres. Trump’s efforts to control illegal immigration, when only a few years ago they voted for a border wall.

In order to understand the anti-wall effort, it’s necessary to briefly review the history of the Democratic Party’s immigration model of politics.  Only an historical perspective can provide the necessary background essential to comprehending the hysterical nature of the DNC’s resistance to President Trump’s border wall project.

The Democrats have a long history of endeavoring to manipulate political power.  Since the governmental leaders of the U.S. are elected, and each person has an equal vote in local, state, and national elections, the Democrats have always attempted to manipulate the numbers of Democrat voters. 

There are two basic facets to the political power game in the U.S.  The first is that all elections take place within geographical boundaries.  This may seem so obvious it is not worth discussing, but a brief review of the Democrat attempt to secure political power will reveal how important geographical boundaries are.

Political power in the U.S. is not inherited, it is based on majority elections within states.  This means that whoever successfully influences voters in a geographical area will win the elections. The earliest blatant attempt at such control was developed and perpetrated by Elbridge Gerry, the governor of Massachusetts in the early 1800s.  His scheme of voter manipulation was to map out the location of known voters by their past political preferences.  He ended up ultimately redrawing districts to capture the largest number of known voters who supported his party.  This method is now widely known as gerrymandering and the most outrageously blatant gerrymandered congressional district is Congressional District 4 in IL. This is the district that recently ousted Luis Gutierrez and replaced him with Jesus Garcia in Chicago. 

The Oxford English Dictionary discusses how the term gerrymander was invented in 1812, when a newspaper editor and writer were discussing Governor Gerry’s district.  The district was laid out in a shape that roughly corresponded to the shape of a salamander.  Upon hearing this term, an artist who contributed to newspapers combined Gerry’s name with “salamander” and came up with “gerrymander.”

That the most blatantly gerrymandered congressional district in the entire U.S. is located in Chicago is no coincidence.  Chicago Democrats have long practiced manipulating voters by any means possible. 

The next important date in Chicago’s link to illegal immigration occurred in 1933 when Edward Joseph Kelly was elected Chicago’s mayor. This is important because it started the long line of Chicago’s Democratic mayors which has continued to this day.

This was follow by another landmark date in Chicago’s history of voter manipulation occurred in 1984 when Mayor Harold Washington issued Executive Order 85-1, proclaiming that immigration status shall no longer be a factor in the distribution of Chicago benefits.  Chicago was the first big American city to declare itself, through this statement, a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. 

Mayor Washington declared that immigration status would not be a factor for Chicago residents.  This is critically important because it provided an historical precedent encouraging northward immigration over the southern border and established the Democratic Party’s encouragement of illegal immigration.

After World War II outmigration became a concern for all big northern Democrat-controlled cities since the growth of suburbs and the baby boom prompted young couples to leave big cities and seek more space for their families.  But this outmigration created a huge problem for the big Democratic cities from Boston to Los Angeles: how to restore and stabilize their city’s population and keep control of Congress.  The solution was to allow illegal immigration and support them with benefits. 

Providing illegal immigrants with benefits such as food stamps and housing were crucial, since illegal immigrants were not well educated and did not earn enough income to be self-sufficient.  This concern prompted President Lyndon Baines Johnson to establish the Great Society welfare programs, and he himself admitted the programs were intended to strengthen America’s big cities.  LBJ stopped the agricultural guest worker program, called the Bracero program, just at the time he started the Great Society. This allowed illegal immigrants to come to Chicago and not worry about being educated well enough to support themselves.  The lack of income was made up through free benefits. 

The Center for Immigration Studies found that by 2005 the average illegal immigrant family in Chicago obtained tens pf thousands of dollars worth of benefits per year, mostly in the value of public education.

The link between education and immigration cannot be underestimated.  In Illinois and other states some of the biggest campaign contributors are teacher unions, and as residents left the big cities the unions needed to keep their jobs and pensions.  Today Chicago is 47% Hispanic, whereas in 1970 it was only 2%.  The need for city residents compelled Democrats to change/ignore all the immigration laws and work to repopulate northern cities.  Not all cities encouraged illegal immigration. Chicago was the first but New York’s mayor Ed Koch made a sanctuary proclamation a few months later.

The die had been cast.  Big northern cities became obsessed with promoting illegal immigration to keep up their populations.  The number of congressional members is totally dependent upon population. But Chicago also turned illegal immigrants into voters. In 1982 the FBI found that 100,000 voters were illegal in that year’s election.  Other cities picked up the practice, but Chicago was the first to have its mayor declare itself a sanctuary for illegal immigration through Mayor Washington’s Executive Order 85-1.

Today Chicago needs federal benefit dollars and deficit spending to finance not only the immigrants but the pensions of its union members.  In Chicago all the high property taxes paid by residents goes only to public-sector pensions.  Illinois has a total of ten cities where all the property taxes go to pensions.  This is putting enormous financial stress on residents, so as a result Chicago and Pelosi are now more motivated than ever to eliminate immigration quotas, keep the southern border open and restore the populations of the traditional Democrat-run big cities.

Only when one fully understands the public sector union demands for money and need to restore big city populations can the battle between President Trump and Nancy Pelosi be fully understood. Pelosi is convinced that if the Democratic big cities give up illegal immigration the Democratic Party is finished.

For years, many have bemoaned the slide of America’s higher education system down the slippery slope of moral relativism and the embracing of virtually all facets of progressive dogma while rejecting most elements of conservatism. The mere invitation of a conservative commentator to speak on college campuses is now reason enough for rioting and mass student protests. Bozo the Clown has a better chance of giving a commencement address at an Ivy League school than does Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, or their conservative contemporaries. Nowhere is this truth more prevalent than at our most prestigious law schools, and the products of those schools are now reflecting that decades-long liberal drift.

Individuals from this new class of legal eagles have advanced in all branches of government and at all levels — local, state, and federal. They have attended notable law schools, they are African-American, and they are hellbent on ushering in an era of seeking what today’s liberal law schools are pouring into their students by the bucket full — not “justice” but “social justice.”

Now finding themselves in positions of power, these social justice warriors have a deep-rooted belief in the fundamental unfairness of America in general, and our judicial system in particular. They believe that crimes for which underprivileged groups, namely blacks and Latinos, have higher rates of sentencing and incarceration, are the product of an at best a biased, and at worst a racist system; a system which they are a part of and can find ways to affect. One example is when the Obama/Holder DOJ released 6,000 people from federal prisons and reduced the sentences of as many as 46,000 others as a part of their sentencing-reform efforts in 2015.

Those at the executive and legislative level include names like Barack Obama (a ’91 Harvard Law graduate), Eric Holder (’73 Columbia), Kamala Harris (’89 Cal-Berkeley), and Loretta Lynch (’84 Harvard), among others. These are nationally prominent figures; however, those in the judicial level are of much lesser note. Few Americans can name a judge or two, and judges tend not to be in the news, thus this infiltration has happened largely under the radar. Were it not for the egregiousness of her actions and the celebrity status of Jessie Smollett, Kim Foxx would exist in relative anonymity.

The decision by Cook County Illinois State’s Attorney Kim Foxx (’97 Southern Illinois) to dismiss all sixteen felony charges against  Jessie Smollett, wipe his record clean, seal documents from public view, and allow him to walk with only time served (16 hours of community service at Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition) is representative of an ever-growing class of young ethnic-minority lawyers advancing through the ranks of our judicial system and taking it upon themselves to place a thumb on what used to and should be the blind scales of justice in favor of the “marginalized.”

Foxx has drawn the ire of Chicago law enforcement, and apparently this is not the first time. A Washington Post article on Foxx’s malfeasance included this: “It’s outrageous, but this is nothing new for Kim Foxx,” said Martin Preib, second vice president of the Fraternal Order of Police Chicago Lodge 7.”

The Chicago P.D. has argued that Foxx, who is African-American, has a pattern of favoring offenders over cops. Foxx is not alone. Last November, another young African-American attorney, Rachel Rollins (’99 Georgetown), won her race to become Suffolk County (Boston, MA) district attorney. After the election, Rollins published to her website a list of charges that her office will not be prosecuting, including larceny, shoplifting, drug possession with intent to distribute, and resisting arrest. She is simply not going to prosecute those arrested for these crimes, stating:

 “Instead of prosecuting, these cases should be (1) outright dismissed prior to arraignment or (2) where appropriate, diverted and treated as a civil infraction for which community service is satisfactory…”

As is the case with the cantankerous relationship between prosecutor and police department in Chicago, Rollins and the local P.D. don’t appear to be bosom buddies. Boston Police Protection Union President Michael Leary is quoted as saying:

“Our job is already dangerous. It’s unbelievable to think people are willing to make it more dangerous for us. I fear that officers will begin to see even more aggressiveness than we already face on a daily basis… if there are no consequences, offenders will figure ‘why not resist?’”

Earlier this month, Brooklyn’s new District Attorney Eric Gonzalez (’92 Cornell) introduced what his office has dubbed as “sweeping reforms” via his Justice 2020 Initiative.  According to the DA’s website, “Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez today announced his plan for a groundbreaking initiative to transform Brooklyn’s justice system into a progressive model designed to keep Brooklyn safe and strengthen community trust by ensuring fairness and equal justice for all.” There it is: “equal justice for all.” What do the initiative’s reforms looks like? It’s first two pillars read:

“Considering non-jail resolutions at every juncture of a case…”

“Establishing early release as the default position…”

No discussion about the incredible things liberals do is complete without California. Perhaps following the lead of Contra Costa County (San Francisco Bay Area), which in 2009 announced that assaults, thefts, burglaries, and felony drug cases would no longer be prosecuted, California voters passed Proposition 47, which essentially introduced crime with no consequences to the Golden State.

Prop 47, the “Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative” is very pro-thief. Under its provisions, offenses that were once felonies, including shoplifting, grand theft, receiving stolen property, forgery, fraud, and more, are recategorized as misdemeanors. It states that theft of property worth less than $950 is not prosecutable. Such thefts result in the perpetrators getting the equivalent of a warning for J-walking. They face essentially no punishment.

Predictably, retailers and the law-abiding public are feeling the hurt. This quote showed up in National Review: “Every bicycle in our building has been stolen,” says Karen Burns, president of a San Francisco condo association. “I’ve caught so many people stealing packages. They don’t care. They know nothing will happen to them. It’s crazy. It’s horrible.”

Large retailers say shoplifting has increased at least 15 percent, and in some cases doubled since voters approved Prop 47. Fox News wrote that “shoplifting reports to the Los Angeles Police Department jumped by a quarter in the first year,” and added this incredible bit of detail, “We’ve heard of cases where they’re going into stores with a calculator so they can make sure that what they steal is worth less than $950,” said Robin Shakely, Sacramento County assistant chief deputy district attorney.”

The Independent Sentinel carried this story about one local business owner: “Hobby shop owner Perry Lutz says his struggle to survive as a small businessman became a lot harder after California voters reduced theft penalties 1½ years ago.

“About a half-dozen times this year, shoplifters have stolen expensive drones or another of the remote-controlled toys he sells in HobbyTown USA, a small shop in Rocklin, northeast of Sacramento. ‘It’s just pretty much open season,’ Lutz said. ‘They’ll pick the $800 unit and just grab it and run out the door.’”

Thieves know that if it’s worth less than $950, they will not be pursued by law enforcement, and even if they are, and they’re caught, there will be no penalty.

This new breed of lawyers who’ve been raised and trained on “social justice” in our law schools are becoming prosecutors and judges and are slowly changing the landscape of our legal system. While they publicly state a belief that their reforms are “making communities safer,” it’s difficult to see how. What they are really doing is enabling criminal behavior in the name of “fairness and equality.” Exactly how it’s fair to allow people to get away with criminal activity is unclear, but this much is certain — they are steadily moving up the justice system ranks.

Derrick Wilburn is a Centennial Institute Fellow and Executive Director of the Rocky Mountain Black Conservatives

For years, many have bemoaned the slide of America’s higher education system down the slippery slope of moral relativism and the embracing of virtually all facets of progressive dogma while rejecting most elements of conservatism. The mere invitation of a conservative commentator to speak on college campuses is now reason enough for rioting and mass student protests. Bozo the Clown has a better chance of giving a commencement address at an Ivy League school than does Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, or their conservative contemporaries. Nowhere is this truth more prevalent than at our most prestigious law schools, and the products of those schools are now reflecting that decades-long liberal drift.

Individuals from this new class of legal eagles have advanced in all branches of government and at all levels — local, state, and federal. They have attended notable law schools, they are African-American, and they are hellbent on ushering in an era of seeking what today’s liberal law schools are pouring into their students by the bucket full — not “justice” but “social justice.”

Now finding themselves in positions of power, these social justice warriors have a deep-rooted belief in the fundamental unfairness of America in general, and our judicial system in particular. They believe that crimes for which underprivileged groups, namely blacks and Latinos, have higher rates of sentencing and incarceration, are the product of an at best a biased, and at worst a racist system; a system which they are a part of and can find ways to affect. One example is when the Obama/Holder DOJ released 6,000 people from federal prisons and reduced the sentences of as many as 46,000 others as a part of their sentencing-reform efforts in 2015.

Those at the executive and legislative level include names like Barack Obama (a ’91 Harvard Law graduate), Eric Holder (’73 Columbia), Kamala Harris (’89 Cal-Berkeley), and Loretta Lynch (’84 Harvard), among others. These are nationally prominent figures; however, those in the judicial level are of much lesser note. Few Americans can name a judge or two, and judges tend not to be in the news, thus this infiltration has happened largely under the radar. Were it not for the egregiousness of her actions and the celebrity status of Jessie Smollett, Kim Foxx would exist in relative anonymity.

The decision by Cook County Illinois State’s Attorney Kim Foxx (’97 Southern Illinois) to dismiss all sixteen felony charges against  Jessie Smollett, wipe his record clean, seal documents from public view, and allow him to walk with only time served (16 hours of community service at Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition) is representative of an ever-growing class of young ethnic-minority lawyers advancing through the ranks of our judicial system and taking it upon themselves to place a thumb on what used to and should be the blind scales of justice in favor of the “marginalized.”

Foxx has drawn the ire of Chicago law enforcement, and apparently this is not the first time. A Washington Post article on Foxx’s malfeasance included this: “It’s outrageous, but this is nothing new for Kim Foxx,” said Martin Preib, second vice president of the Fraternal Order of Police Chicago Lodge 7.”

The Chicago P.D. has argued that Foxx, who is African-American, has a pattern of favoring offenders over cops. Foxx is not alone. Last November, another young African-American attorney, Rachel Rollins (’99 Georgetown), won her race to become Suffolk County (Boston, MA) district attorney. After the election, Rollins published to her website a list of charges that her office will not be prosecuting, including larceny, shoplifting, drug possession with intent to distribute, and resisting arrest. She is simply not going to prosecute those arrested for these crimes, stating:

 “Instead of prosecuting, these cases should be (1) outright dismissed prior to arraignment or (2) where appropriate, diverted and treated as a civil infraction for which community service is satisfactory…”

As is the case with the cantankerous relationship between prosecutor and police department in Chicago, Rollins and the local P.D. don’t appear to be bosom buddies. Boston Police Protection Union President Michael Leary is quoted as saying:

“Our job is already dangerous. It’s unbelievable to think people are willing to make it more dangerous for us. I fear that officers will begin to see even more aggressiveness than we already face on a daily basis… if there are no consequences, offenders will figure ‘why not resist?’”

Earlier this month, Brooklyn’s new District Attorney Eric Gonzalez (’92 Cornell) introduced what his office has dubbed as “sweeping reforms” via his Justice 2020 Initiative.  According to the DA’s website, “Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez today announced his plan for a groundbreaking initiative to transform Brooklyn’s justice system into a progressive model designed to keep Brooklyn safe and strengthen community trust by ensuring fairness and equal justice for all.” There it is: “equal justice for all.” What do the initiative’s reforms looks like? It’s first two pillars read:

“Considering non-jail resolutions at every juncture of a case…”

“Establishing early release as the default position…”

No discussion about the incredible things liberals do is complete without California. Perhaps following the lead of Contra Costa County (San Francisco Bay Area), which in 2009 announced that assaults, thefts, burglaries, and felony drug cases would no longer be prosecuted, California voters passed Proposition 47, which essentially introduced crime with no consequences to the Golden State.

Prop 47, the “Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative” is very pro-thief. Under its provisions, offenses that were once felonies, including shoplifting, grand theft, receiving stolen property, forgery, fraud, and more, are recategorized as misdemeanors. It states that theft of property worth less than $950 is not prosecutable. Such thefts result in the perpetrators getting the equivalent of a warning for J-walking. They face essentially no punishment.

Predictably, retailers and the law-abiding public are feeling the hurt. This quote showed up in National Review: “Every bicycle in our building has been stolen,” says Karen Burns, president of a San Francisco condo association. “I’ve caught so many people stealing packages. They don’t care. They know nothing will happen to them. It’s crazy. It’s horrible.”

Large retailers say shoplifting has increased at least 15 percent, and in some cases doubled since voters approved Prop 47. Fox News wrote that “shoplifting reports to the Los Angeles Police Department jumped by a quarter in the first year,” and added this incredible bit of detail, “We’ve heard of cases where they’re going into stores with a calculator so they can make sure that what they steal is worth less than $950,” said Robin Shakely, Sacramento County assistant chief deputy district attorney.”

The Independent Sentinel carried this story about one local business owner: “Hobby shop owner Perry Lutz says his struggle to survive as a small businessman became a lot harder after California voters reduced theft penalties 1½ years ago.

“About a half-dozen times this year, shoplifters have stolen expensive drones or another of the remote-controlled toys he sells in HobbyTown USA, a small shop in Rocklin, northeast of Sacramento. ‘It’s just pretty much open season,’ Lutz said. ‘They’ll pick the $800 unit and just grab it and run out the door.’”

Thieves know that if it’s worth less than $950, they will not be pursued by law enforcement, and even if they are, and they’re caught, there will be no penalty.

This new breed of lawyers who’ve been raised and trained on “social justice” in our law schools are becoming prosecutors and judges and are slowly changing the landscape of our legal system. While they publicly state a belief that their reforms are “making communities safer,” it’s difficult to see how. What they are really doing is enabling criminal behavior in the name of “fairness and equality.” Exactly how it’s fair to allow people to get away with criminal activity is unclear, but this much is certain — they are steadily moving up the justice system ranks.

Derrick Wilburn is a Centennial Institute Fellow and Executive Director of the Rocky Mountain Black Conservatives