"...an utterly corrupt new religion called environmentalism..."
If the history of this planet's climate over millions of years is any guide, we are about to enter a new ice age.
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he wants to see the United States become a Muslim country.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND THE WAR FROM A FEDERALIST PERSPECTIVE
By Robert Klein Engler (03/22/06)
CHICAGO (22 March '06)--In The Federalist No. 10, James Madison argues that a constitution is needed to bring order where the Articles of Confederation could not. Madison's zeal to advance a constitution for the newly independent colonies came at the end of a long, revolutionary struggle. Along with many of his fellow revolutionaries, Madison assumed that in place of the divine right of kings, the Creator had given political power to the people, and in turn the people would be best organized into a federal republic to preserve their freedoms. Only a federal republic established by a constitution could overcome the limitation inherent in smaller, "pure democracies."
Among the many advantages of a federal republic, Madison says, "None deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction." Madison continues, "By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
Those "adversed" to the rights of other citizens were not the only problem facing the new republic. If the United States of America were to hold together and preserve freedom, it would have to deal not only with the problem of controlling factions from within, but also forces threatening the American Revolution from without. These external forces would become evident in the war of 1812.
For two years President Madison had to face one crisis after another. In 1814, he had to flee the capitol and the British burned most of the public buildings there, including the White House. Nevertheless, the United States prevailed and won the war. Madison's words were prophetic when he had said "The war has proved…that our free Government, like other free Governments, though slow in its early movements, acquires, in its progress, a force proportioned to its freedom…"
After the War of 1812, Madison envisioned a nation with clearly defined borders and strong defenses, not a nation with borders made permeable by the flow of international trade. I suspect that as Madison worked on the early draft of his ideas by the light of an oil lamp in 1787, he never imagined a time when the President of the United States would not know what foreign powers owned or managed the country's ports.
foreign threats turned into domestic factions
In order to control the conflicts born from factions, Madison wanted the newly freed colonies to adopt a constitution. He got what he wanted. "The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures." What Madison did not get, and what we have to imagine today, is a framework for how to deal with factions that emerge because the republic and its influence has grown so large that external threats are mistakenly defined as internal factions. In short, how does a republic frame an adequate foreign policy in an age of globalization where the "entangling alliances" Thomas Jefferson warned against rule the day? The obvious political solution of compromise between internal factions who vote is not adequate to a situation where one party in the contest is external and does not hold allegiance to the U. S. Constitution.
Nowadays, illegal immigration and the threat posed by Islam to the U. S. are two external forces that beset the republic James Madison help to shape. By some perspectives these two threats call for decisive action: the deportation of illegal immigrants and a protracted struggle to contain Islam. Nevertheless, much of the 21st century has seen appeasement instead of decisive action in regard to these issues. Why do the Democratic and Republican parties deal with these external threats this way?
After two hundred years the political parties in the U. S. have evolved into self perpetuating organizations that often put party needs above national interests. Some say there is really only one political party in the U. S., but it goes by two different names. Others say there are in fact two political parties, one is the stupid party and the other is the evil party. In spite of this, the first response to a problem that requires decisive action by a corrupted political party seeking to have its members reelected is to ignore the problem. If that does not work, and the problem does not go away, then party politicians give the problem a new name. The Democrats will call illegal immigrants "undocumented workers" and the Republicans will call the conflict with Islam a "war against terror."
A new name for old enemies does not bring peace. The mistake that the U. S. political parties made after the Vietnam War was to redefine foreign threats, give them new names, and treat them as domestic factions. The rise of the United Nations, and especially economic globalization contributed to an expansion of liberal political thought. That in turn helped transform real foreign threats into imagined political factions.
The hope among liberals generally was that the model for conflict resolution would be compromise instead of war. Unfortunately, most compromises are only possible within a nation and among factions who vote. In spite of United Nations propaganda, compromise hardly ever works to solve conflicts between nations with different cultures and religions. In its war with Japan, the United States asked for and won unconditional surrender. Today, it is hard to imagine how compromise will work to solve the problems of an invasion of illegal immigrants or the threat to the republic posed by Islam.
Should the foreign threats of illegal immigrants and Islam be admitted into the life of the republic as just more factions among others? To sympathetic liberals and those who believe in a world government, this may seem to be a desirable policy. However, it is an impossible policy. It is impossible because by their very definition the illegal immigrant and the devout Muslim are against the republic and not for it. Illegal immigrants are not citizens of the republic, nor are Islamic terrorists simple criminals. To admit Islam and illegal immigrants as factions is either to diminish the concept of citizenship or to diminish the concept of a republic.
Illegal immigrants and Muslims are not factions contending with other factions, or in Madison's terms, factions "united and actuated by some common impulse of passion... adversed to the rights of other citizens." They are in fact, committed to the destruction of citizenship and the abolition of the U. S. Constitution. Islam and illegal immigrants cannot be admitted as factions into the republic, because once they are present, they will forego compromise and work for the destruction of the state. The federal republic envisioned by James Madison could not survive the impact of these twin meteors.
Because Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive world views, a compromise between them seems unlikely. Even a secular republic born from the ashes of Christianity is diametrically opposed to Islam. Maryam Jameelah, a convert to Islam, understands very well the opposition of Muslims to the West when she writes, "One cannot remain true to Islam and adopt Western culture at the same time because the latter rests on the foundation of a defiant denial of a God and the Authority of His transcendental law...all of the modern arts and sciences, dress, architecture, manners, and entertainments reflect this materialistic philosophy...the Westernization of the world can be compared to a cancerous, malignant growth which destroys healthy tissue indiscriminately along with the unhealthy." Add to this comparison a recent report in the Associated Press that, "An Afghan man is being prosecuted in a Kabul court and could be sentenced to death on a charge of converting from Islam to Christianity," and the gulf between Islam and the United States becomes even more evident.
The struggle between citizens and illegal immigrants from Mexico occurs also across a cultural divide. A June 2002 poll by Zogby International found that 58 percent of the Mexican population believes the southwest territory of the U. S. rightfully belongs to Mexico. Furthermore, 57 percent believe that Mexicans should have the right to enter the U. S. without first obtaining U. S. permission. The fact that illegal immigrants work hard when they come to the U. S. is irrelevant. They could be as greedy for more money as the employers who hire them. What is relevant is that immigrants to the federal republic become assimilated citizens. This is not happening. Illegal immigrants form colonies, not neighborhoods. If someone thinks assimilation is not important, then they should talk to the French.
The Center for Immigration Studies analysis of birth records shows that in "2002 almost one in four births in the United States was to an immigrant mother, legal and illegal, the highest level in American history." Furthermore, the Center claims, "Our best estimate is that 383,000 or 42 percent of births to immigrants are to illegal alien mothers. Births to illegals now account for nearly one out of every 10 births in the United States." The Center then adds, "The enormous number and proportion of children from immigrant families may overwhelm the assimilation process, making it difficult to integrate these new second-generation Americans."
A slow and steady invasion of illegal immigrants seeking work will undermine any republic. To stop this, borders must be secure and deportation of illegal immigrants is necessary. No politician wants to take the responsibility for doing this, so illegal immigrants must be redefined as undocumented workers and given amnesty and eventually citizenship.
These policies are an attempt at a compromise and a hope to redefine illegal immigrants into a faction among other factions. To aid in this redefinition, we are told the big lie that the U. S. is a country of immigrants, when it fact our nation began as a country of settlers, not immigrants. James Madison was not an immigrant, nor was Thomas Jefferson. To falsely claim that the U. S. is a country of immigrants is to impose a 19th century view of the world upon a 21st century problem.
The more liberalism waters down the concept of citizenship by ignoring the importance of assimilation, the more we lose the flavor of the republic. Multinational corporations may be interested in reliable workers, but a republic needs more than that, it needs citizens who swear allegiance to its constitution. Without such allegiance, we are left with a Balkanized nation that promotes a bland equality where men are only equal because they share a common slavery. Then, a misguided liberalism puts its thumb on the scales of justice and creates a government of Affirmative Action bureaucrats who become a new royalty. A wave of illegal immigration is a greater threat to the republic than the British invasion during the War of 1812.
Faced with the twin threats of Islam and illegal immigration, and mistaking them as factions within the republic, party politicians have attempted to find a compromise solution. The so-called war on terror is such a compromise. It is a policy that tries to balance between doing nothing and declaring war on Islam. After the events of 9/11, the U. S. could not simply stand by and watch. Yet, before something could be done the situation had to be defined in such a way that it could be handled politically. Turning away and pretending nothing happened would only invite more 9/11s, yet saying out loud that the West, and especially the U. S. was under attack by Islam would be politically unacceptable.
Although the war on terror is a better policy than doing nothing in the face of an Islamic threat, there are a few problems with this so-called war that go beyond semantics. First, the war on terror gives the appearance of being extraconstitutional. Madison and the framers of the U. S. Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war. If the war on terror is to be a war as the framers of the Constitution intended, then Congress must eventually assume responsibility for it. A war on terror also begs the question of victory. How do we know when the war on terror is won? What nation or enemy surrenders to end the war? Will the war on terror be won when Iraq and Afghanistan have stable governments, or is their something else that will be a sign of victory? These questions would not arise if politicians faced the issue head-on.
No politician wants to say we are engaged in a cultural war with Islam and then put forth a policy that would protect the nation in such a war. Too many international economic interests and the entangling alliances of oil are at stake to define the problem for what it is. Politicians need a faction they can deal with, so they invented "Radical Islam" or "Islamo-Fascists" or a "Hijacked Islam." The war on terror then became the war in Iraq. Now, something tactical could be done, but that something would never be strategically enough. Few politicians want to embrace a cultural crisis where a clash between civilizations is on the horizon. If they did, they'd run the risk of being another Abraham Lincoln. Who holding elected office wants that fate? Politicians may praise Lincoln, but they fear ending up like him.
Madison and the future of the U. S.
Party politics being what it is, neither party can risk taking decisive action to solve to the problems besetting the republic. The Democrats and Republicans prefer amnesty and guest worker programs for illegal immigrants because it brings votes for the former and cheap labor for the latter. Likewise, a war against Islam will threaten Republican oil interests and Democratic transnational interests. Both U. S. political parties see their survival as more important than the survival of the republic. Today's political parties have replaced statesmen with politicians. Compromise will allow them to hold on until the next election. Yet, by buying time, they sell their birthright as free citizens of a republic.
At a recent rally in Chicago to promote illegal immigrants, the stylishly combed Democratic governor of Illinois offered ample proof that liberal politicians have little interest in protecting the borders of the republic. They want votes instead of security. "You are not criminals!" Governor Blagojevich reportedly said in his speech. "You are workers who love your families!" It's hard to imagine that this governor never heard that illegal immigrants break U. S. laws. Has he not heard also from President Madison and others that working and loving your family isn't all it takes to make a good citizen? Perhaps the governor's hair gets in the way of his ears.
Amnesty with a guest worker program and the war on terror are policies doomed to fail. They both are compromises where decisive action is needed. The Missouri Compromise did not prevent the Civil War but only postponed it. Likewise, no compromise could have been made with Nazism. It had to be engaged and defeated. We should remember that Illegal immigration and Islam are not factions within the republic that can be reasoned with or controlled through an electoral process. They are external threats to the existence of the republic. Illegal immigration and Islamic law have as an end the passing away of nations. In the mean time, the new world order of globalized markets, makes citizens into tourists in their own country, free to move about, but unable to effect events.
In our complicated world of so many private interests, how is it possible to act politically in defense of a common interest and the republic? A woman gets up in the morning and wants her newspaper by the door so she can read it while she has coffee. With each passing day she grows more weary of her job teaching in the city's public schools. The front page story she reads is about the violence of drug gangs in her city's uptown neighborhood. Little does she know or care that earlier this morning an illegal immigrant who cannot even read the newspaper placed it by her door.
A thousand miles away, a man looks out the wide windows of his high office. The board of directors will meet in an hour and he will be elected chairman. His decision to change overseas shipping lines was risky but necessary. The new tankers will save his oil company millions of dollars a year. That means more money and corporate power for him. He looks down to the street below and sees sunlight reflect off the polished cars as if they were jewels. Then, his secretary comes into the boardroom and reminds him to write his check for the mayor's reelection campaign.
Fast forward, if you will, twenty years. A new generation is reaching for the reins of political power in the U. S. What will they find left behind by those presently in power? The current inability of the political parties to take the decisive steps necessary and protect the republic from the foreign threats of Islam and illegal immigration will most certainly create a United States that is diminished in territory. California, and much of the Southwest may be colonies of Mexico. Across the Atlantic, Europe may be at least a third Muslim and set against U. S. interests worldwide.
In twenty years, a pandemic of bird flu or some other infectious disease from the Orient may have already decimated the U. S. population. China will remain indifferent to a cure because it can absorb a large population loss and millions dead in the West is no skin off the teeth of China's communist leadership. The quest for profits has submerged moral judgments. Multinational corporations sell toothbrushes to cannibals and vegetarians, alike. The economic laws that govern the wealth of nations no longer hold as nations gradually disappear.
Twenty years from now it may be that most major U. S. cities are controlled by Democratic, anti-American minorities. Multinational corporations dictate to the federal government through lobbyists who pay elected officials to manage the nation's domestic and foreign policy. A mass media has given to many the same shallow tastes and the same comfortable opinions. Party politics instead of decisive action has weakened our national power and opened our doors to whatever and whomever wants to enter. Tensions increase. Violence among factions grows daily. Elections solve nothing. Like the mighty Mississippi River, the current of unrest can no longer be channeled. The United States of America is poised for a second Civil War. The federal republic envisioned by James Madison hangs in the balance.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Robert Klein Engler
Robert Klein Engler lives in Chicago. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Divinity School. His book, A WINTER OF WORDS, about the turmoil at Daley College, is available from amazon.com.
Send Feedback To Robert Klein Engler
Site:
UPSSA
United Progressive Socialist States of America
|
"Mexico, Canada partnership underway with no authorization from Congress"
The United States Is Being Overthrown By Our Politicians - "A silent but all-reaching coup is taking place within the
United States. This coup is not being directed by bomb-laden Muslim terrorists, nor will it ever be covered by the mainstream media.
The seditious act is being carried out by our very own elected officials, with President Bush leading the insurrection."
"The FDA has conveniently used the excuse of looking out for consumer safety to increase their perverse regulatory power,
undermine free speech, disrupt commerce, and generally get in the way of helping people improve their health. The "half-truth" of
the safety issue is used as a ploy to reduce the rights of Americans, one freedom at a time. Once again, the FDA is seeking more
police power to intimidate supplement companies. This is one step in an overall FDA master plan to eliminate therapeutic nutritional
supplements from the free market. Those who lose are the American public." The FDA - A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
|
|
