Immigration policy and revolutionary objectives

Did Obama lead a coup d'etat? He was a puppet on a string--or a consummate scammer. Graphic courtesy Mychal Massie
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

It has been reported that President Obama’s liberal immigration policy is set to accept more immigrants from Muslim nations over the next five years than the entire population of Washington, D.C.! Figures from the Department of Homeland Security show that the Obama Administration has already issued 680,000 green cards to immigrants from Muslim nations during the past five years. Unless Congress changes his policy, that number will be repeated in the next five years. As I warned four years ago, Obama’s immigration policy is animated by the slogan of his first presidential campaign “CHANGE,” by which he meant, unknown to the American people, “REGIME CHANGE”, hence revolution!

Barack Obama seeks to make revolution against Constitutional government in America, through lax immigration policy.

Obama’s radical plans compared to Karl Marx. Montage: Greg Tew, CC BY 2.0 Generic License

How immigration might lead to civil war

Obama’s immigration policy may precipitate the Second American Civil War. This would be ironic if it should become the legacy of America’s first black President. In the wake of Obama’s reelection in 2012, news of a secession movement, reminiscent of the First Civil War, swept across America. As I then warned, “a breakdown of the votes cast for Obama in that election reveals racial and ethnic data having revolutionary significance, which will become more pronounced as time goes by.”

2,400 years ago, Aristotle said in his classic, The Politics, that one of the causes of revolution, meaning regime change, is excessive “diversity of stock,” which is nothing other than “multiculturalism”! This suggests that America’s most insidious-because-unknown-enemy is not Islam or Jihadists so much as our home-grown Liberal-leftists, who exalt multiculturalism, the sinister goal of which is to undermine America’s Judeo-Christian ethos.

Multiculturalism not only defines the modus operandi of the Obama Administration, and is manifested, especially, in his Supreme Court appointments. It is also the pervasive and prevalent doctrine of U.S. colleges and universities whose faculties are dominated by the Liberal Left. These sheltered havens of higher education, where students are anaesthetized by the comforting adage “I’m okay, you’re okay,” are seedbeds of “moral relativism.”

This doctrine, as noted by former American U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, animates the American State Department. There it neutralizes or castrates American foreign policy, which is why President Obama relaxed at a baseball stadium rather than hasten to the Situation Room upon learning of the Brussels massacre.

Moral relativism, which fosters Obama’s moral indifferentism, blinds the eye to evil. We see this in America’s annual grants of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinian Authority, whose terrorists, to earn their pay, have murdered or maimed thousands of Jewish men, women, and children, in the name of Allah, whose love of death or necrophilia is symptomatic of paganism. The United States may thus be deemed one of the world’s leading patrons of terrorism, of unmitigated evil.

Therefore, Ronald Reagan aside, it hardly matters whether the U.S. is led by Liberals or Conservatives, since the foreign policy of both is tainted by moral obscurantism.

Needed: moral clarity

Reagan had the moral clarity to call the Soviet Union the “Evil Empire.” Contrast the attitude toward Islam of his successors. What is lacking? None dares call Islam an “Evil Empire,” despite its malediction of “death to America.” None possesses the wisdom to say that Evil has an enduring haven in Islamic Scripture, in what Obama calls the “Holy Qur’an.” This fact makes Islam our permanent enemy. But since this fact has been obscured in our colleges and universities, from which we draw our policy makers and decision makers, we can expect nothing more than superficiality and obscurantism, to say nothing of invective, from those participating in the so-called Presidential debates.

To be fair, an exception is Senator Ted Cruz, perhaps America’s most qualified Presidential Candidate. However, despite his proposal to monitor Muslim neighborhoods, hence mosques that preach Jihad, Obama’s immigration policy is not disturbing enough to prompt the Senator from Texas to sound a national alarm that would educate the American people about their mortal enemy. He may be aware, but he dares not say that Obama’s opening the door to the immigration of many tens of thousands Muslims constitutes not a policy but the initiation of a cultural revolution – as Obama intends. Cruz dares not say that the ethnic and spiritual character of these Muslims is utterly contrary to the national identity of the American people, and that their high birthrate will eventually make nonsense of the oft-repeated phrase of the Preamble of the America Constitution, “To form a more perfect Union.”

This is precisely what disturbed the eminent Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington in his book Who Are We? (2004). He there warns us about the great influx Latinos and Mexicans into America. This, he says, is dissolving America’s national identity–hence the title of his book Who Are We? What Huntington feared about the influx of Latinos and Mexicans is that they do not assimilate like the European immigrants of yesteryear, but retain the cultural identity of their origin. This applies a hundred-fold to Muslims, as Europe is learning today, and as is confirmed by intellectually liberated ex-Muslims, such as Syrian-born psychiatrist Dr. Wafa Sultan, now living in America, as are Somalia-born scholar Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Lebanese-born, Fouad Ajami, a professor at Johns Hopkins University.

At stake in Obama’s immigration policy is the viability of American civilization, an issue no presidential candidate has the courage and wisdom to make explicit and thus go beyond the dubious Donald Trump who doesn’t hesitate to insult his rivals while speaking nonsense about the “wonderful” people of Mexico and China – never mind their countless peons or coolies.

The level of the presidential debates is thus a national disgrace! No wonder America is called an infantocracy! But it’s simply appalling that not a single presidential candidate has the cerebral capacity and courage to tell his fellow citizens that America’s viability as a Judeo-Christian democracy, as well as the only guardian of civilization, would be shattered, and its spirit desiccated under Obama’s insidious immigration policy. This conclusion is reinforced some excellent current books, e.g., Lou Harris, Civilization and Its Enemies; Theodore Dalrymple, Our Civilization or What’s Left of It; Michael Radu, Europe’s Ghost; Bruce Bawer, How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within; Ephraim Karsh. Islamic Imperialism; Mark Steyn, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It – to name only a few funereal tomes.

Do the presidential candidates have to read books to vividly perceive that murder and mayhem punctuate daily life in the cities of the democratic world, including Jerusalem, the City of Peace?

One Response to Immigration policy and revolutionary objectives

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.