Eh... No sane person or group of people belonging to the same demographic would rejoice at becoming a minority in a country where they've been the majority for 200 years. That would just fly in face of human biology, instinct, and self interest. I know why it's happening, for a complex variety of reasons, but I'm not going to celebrate it like some brain dead neo-Marxist without an ounce of foresight.
Get real man. Where do you see a reconstructionist movement occurring today in America? Or anything remotely similar?
Not celebrating, I just don't give two ****s.
Reconstructionist: I don't think this term means what YOU think it means.
Christian Reconstructionist Dominionism was founded by Rousas Rushdoony together with Gary North as a spinoff of the Chalcedon Foundation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rousas_Rushdoony
The Institutes of Biblical Law, Rushdoony's most well known book, covers several themes that are now mainstream Republican thought.
1.
Old Testament law should be applied to modern society and that there should be a
Christian theonomy, a concept developed in his colleague Greg Bahnsen's controversial book Theonomy in Christian Ethics, which Rushdoony heartily endorsed. In the Institutes, Rushdoony supported the
reinstatement of the Mosaic law's penal sanctions.
2. Although he supported the separation of church and state at the national level, Rushdoony also believed that both institutions were
under the rule of God, and thus he conceived secularism as posing endless false dichotomies.
3. Rushdoony believed that a
republic is a better form of civil government than a democracy.
** According to Rushdoony, a republic avoided mob rule and the rule of the "51%" of society; in other words "might does not make right" in a republic. Rushdoony wrote that America's separation of powers between 3 branches of government is a far more neutral and better method of civil government than a direct democracy, stating "[t]he [American] Constitution was designed to
perpetuate a Christian order".
**Of course the notion that democracy represents mob rule is a logical fallacy, as there has never been a pure and direct democracy, even in Ancient Greece, thus ALL democracies function in either a monarchy or a republic anyway. The monarchy is usually a constitutional monarchy with a parliament and a prime minister as head of state. In a constitutional republic, representatives are elected democratically.
But Rushdoony perpetuated the myth that "America is not a democracy" which is parroted by empty-headed yokels every single day now.
They are indeed empty-headed yokels for the simple reason that they do not understand how democracy functions inside a republican government.
Sure Check, in your world there was no Italian box on the census, just a 'Dirty Garlic Eater' box. Alternative facts.
Italians were counted as white on the 1900 census.
You're the one who tried to imply Italian was different than white, not me.
BTW, this white Christan billionaire set works marvelously well with the white Jewish billionaire set to control about 99% of industry, government, media, finance, etc.
Ahhh, I bet you lifted that straight out of Henry Ford's "The International Jew", didn't you?
I disagree with your analysis of why the DNC shafted the Bernster. They shafted him for what he represented- a threat to their control of the DNC, and it's future. They couldn't care less if he called himself a socialist for 40 years. If the Bern man had Wall Streets blessing, he would have had the DNCs as well.
Younger voters, especially first timers, were very surprised by what happened there. That's why many of them didn't even bother to vote when it came time for the Main Event. By cheating Sanders of his chance to compete, they lost many 18-24 year olds who sat home on November 6.
Yeah, a person who insists that they are NOT a Democrat running on the Democratic ticket, that IS a threat to their control of the DNC.
It's a textbook threat whenever ANYONE outside a party insists on running as a member while not being a member.
The party still has to field an official candidate.
And they DID care that he called himself a socialist, even though in REALITY he was just a New Deal liberal Democrat in the mold of FDR ever since he first showed up in Congress.
You just revealed how little you understand about Bernie. I loved the guy but he damaged his own chances.
He could have joined the party in 2010, reshaped it by using his famous crowdfunding and charisma and by 2016 he would have been DRAFTED by the DNC.
The Never Hillarys GOT their choice, it's name is Trump. Stupid is as stupid does.