You have not viewed any products recently.
As luck would have it, we Chronicles editors were thinking about immigration, the theme of the January issue, when the President issued his marching orders on Univision. I was not especially interested in the details drawn up by the President’s clueless policy advisors: One way or another, he and they are bound and determined to tear down the last vestiges of the traditions that made America whatever it was. The only interesting aspect to his tedious recital of platitudes is the overtly revolutionary rhetoric.
For aging college radicals, America is a Jekyll and Hyde character, alternately good and evil. When they have some minority “right” to whine about, they talk about the dark side of American history, when white men whipped slaves, beat their wives and children, and burned down peaceful indian villages. But when they have some revolutionary initiative to advance, they speak of America as an experiment or, to use a term favored by my late colleague Dick Neuhaus, as a “propositional nation.”
So, at the very opening of his speech, the President waxes inarticulate on the theme of revolutionary transformation:
For more than 200 years, our tradition of welcoming immigrants from around the world has given us a tremendous advantage over other nations. It’s kept us youthful, dynamic, and entrepreneurial. It has shaped our character as a people with limitless possibilities – people not trapped by our past, but able to remake ourselves as we choose.
You see, America owes little or nothing to the courage of frontiersman or the wisdom of Adams and Jefferson or even the “genius” of Lincoln. We are what we are because we are not “trapped by our past”—which is how he chooses to characterize respect for one’s ancestors and a country’s traditions. We are great precisely because there is no “we” to speak of, only an endless flood of people who did not like where they were and wanted something different.
This means, today, that we should have no concern for the welfare or future of the traditional European population of the United States. Our only concern must be for the most recent immigrants, legal or illegal.
Tender-hearted humanitarians, whether Catholic bishops or American politicos generous with other people’s money, find it easier to sympathize with criminals and illegal immigrants than with ordinary hardworking people who wish to hang onto the fruits of their labors, their homes, and the cultural and moral principles that have made it possible for them to rear their children in comparative comfort. It is the old story of the rabbits and the hedgehog told in one of Florian’s verse fables. An ill-tempered hedgehog quarrels with his own peoples and, claiming to be a refugee from persecution, moves in with a clan of overly generous rabbits. When the hedgehog begins shooting quills at some of the rabbit children, a father complains, only to be told that the hedgehog cannot repress his nature. The chief of the rabbits informs the troublemaker, if he cannot mind his manners, to go away and have his quills clipped.
The rabbit president had one great advantage over the President of the United States: Unlike Mr. Obama, the head rabbit knew it was his duty to protect his own people first before worrying about giving protection to strangers. If one had had any doubts about Obama in the past, his Diktat on immigration “reform” should have removed them. Apart from a few weaseling words on border enforcement, which no one will possibly believe because he refuses to protect the border under current law,, the President’s only—not just primary—concern is for non-American immigrants. His duplicity is manifest in virtually every sentence. He throws down the border and calls it “immigration reform”; he proposes to amnesty 5 million illegal aliens, but claims “It’s not amnesty. Amnesty is the immigration system we have today.”
I know the poor fellow is not a native English speaker, but he’s been in this country long enough to acquire a dictionary. If he could not afford one, I feel sure there was a government grant program for children brought up in Indonesia. Amnesty, as someone ought to explain to him, means an act of deliberate forgetting and thus a pardon. What he wants to do is, sensu stricto, amnesty, while his steadfast refusal to enforce the law is dereliction of duty and, I should say, a violation of his oath of office. Mr. Obama does not care about any of this, because English is not his language, obviously, and America is not his country in any sense other than legal. It does not matter where he was born, but what does matter is his loathing of the European Americans who made this country and are, for a very short time to come, the majority element in the population. He has met the enemy, and it is us.
To call this "president" a liar is to flatter him. Bill Clinton was (and is) a liar; George W. Bush was a liar; Barack Obama simply has absolutely no regard for the reality nor the effect of his words. The bit about community organizing is perfectly apt: all one needs to know about Obama is that he is a product of the Chicago Daley machine. It is clear that he long ago shut his cortex off and plugged his brain stem into the unholy feed of the Daleys, Bilderbergers and DNC fat cats. This was an obvious coup to ease the transition to a majority-minority country by integrating an obedient cadre of bien-pensant "coloreds" into the Big Boy crowd. I was saying as early as 2004 that the mainstream press's overplay of the victory of an unremarkable new Senator was evidence of someone up high picking him for President in 2008. Lo and behold, four years later, Hussein Obama was POTUS and I had moved to Europe. A prophet is without honor in his own country.
When they have some minority “right” to whine about, they talk about the dark side of American history, when white men whipped slaves, beat their wives and children, and burned down peaceful indian villages. But when they have some revolutionary initiative to advance, they speak of America as an experiment .....' Yes, and sometimes the revolution will mimick (actually mock) the old morality to achieve their goals –example " Obama acted to”save families! He had to do it to prevent “splitting up of families,” this executive order will “ prevent parents being separated from their children’, etc. Yet, in my lifetime, both sides of the duopoly have done everything in their power to undermine, erode, remove, belittle, betray and banish the Christian faith in the minds of men. It is a sign of intellectual stature to be stupid and ignorant about 2000 years of what our new leaders call “facts on the ground.” The Hispanics probably still have better a better understanding of the word “family” than our current crop of dear leaders.
Let me repeat. The Republican leadership is quite as guilty as the leftist multicultural onslaught. Is there any sentient being who can any longer evade this fact?
Robert, "Hispanic family values," as applied to Mexicans and Central Americans, are as phony as all the rest of the immigration claptrap.
Yes, I agree about the clap trap concerning "family values". I hope I did not use the decadent reference in my post. I live in a rural area that is simply anectdotal where most of the Mexicans I know are skilled craftsmen at stone masonry, carpentry or agriculutural jobs. A few of the fathers with jobs take their family to Sunday Mass although only women and children receive regulalry. The criminals I deal with are ususally of the drug hauling or dealing variety
The great crime of the GOP is not so much that it is filled with Jacobin hot air as that it refuses to defend the interests of its primary constituents. This involves both duplicity and hypocrisy and probably makes them worse people than, say, a believing Democrat who has accepted the Communist Manifesto as Holy Writ. On the other hand, while the Bushes, Romneys, McCains, and Doles done next to nothing to protect the American stock, they are not consumed with hatred, either. Give the choice between the slow death offered by the Republicans, and the quick kill promised by the Democrats, I am cowardly enough to prefer the former.
Young Nicholas appears to be saying that Obama is so detached from reality as to be incapable of lying. If we were to to state this as a general argument, the necessary major premise would be that stupidity or some other weakness can render someone not responsible for sins he commits, and the minor is that someone capable of graduating from a university and getting elected President qualifies for such an exemption, the way a schizophrenic cannot be convicted of murder. It would be interesting to see anyone trying to make such a case. It is true that some crimes require courage and intelligence, but the sinful disposition that impels the person to the crime requires neither. Moronic cowards lie, cheat, steal, and murder, though their methods differ: For each man kills the thing he loves....The coward does it with a kiss, the brave man with a sword. I don't know how many really stupid people you know--but I once won a bet that a high school student I tutored could not read all the words on a cigarette package. (Hazardous threw him.) Yet he was a cunning liar. Also, it is probably never to say of even the worst human being, "all you need to know of X is that..." For all I know, he loves his kids and really does enjoy bassetball. There's far more to O than greed--envy and hate, for instance.
To comment on this article, please find it on the Chronicles Facebook page.