The Ghost of Ted Kennedy: The Balkanizing of America
The Ghost of Ted Kennedy: The Balkanizing of America
by Bill Lockwood
America is committing cultural and national suicide. In part, this is due to the present balkanizing of the United States. To balkanize means to break up into small compartmental segments or units mostly hostile to one another. Disunity is the result. At the opposite end is harmony. At the hands of socialistic American and European globalists the entire western world is fracturing and splintering into thousands of warring pieces that no longer fit together. In the case of the United States these societal and cultural fractures can be traced directly to the late Ted Kennedy, the Democratic strategist who boldly lied to the America people to leave us a legacy of massive immigration. President Obama knows no better than to follow his lead and say, “This is who we are.”
World Wide Crisis
Western culture is fast disintegrating. Consider Europe. As reported by Gatestone Institute “Sweden is fast approaching a complete collapse.” At an October 9 Press Conference Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said that “Sweden is in a state of crisis” because of the massive influx of migrants. Within a few years Swedes will be a minority in their own country. “Sweden is descending into anarchy” as more than 190,000 unskilled and unemployed migrants swarm the country’s services. Police protection for Swedes is becoming scarce while applications of gun licenses goes sky-high. Violence is escalating as Muslim immigrants pour in from war-torn Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.
Denmark is no better. Jihadism from the migrant crisis is undermining the rule of law and police have little resources to handle escalating crime rates. According to The Guardian Germany, France, Macedonia and Greece are begging the ruling EU for “immigration quotas.” “With European asylum and immigration policies increasingly confused and national governments failing to come up with a coherent response to the worst migratory pressures witnessed in many countries, Berlin and Brussels are sounding the alarm.” Germany expects upwards of 800,000 immigrants next year with numbers tripling from several years ago.
The situation is no better in America. Obama’s current objective, in spite of obvious dangers to the homeland, is to bring in up to 100,000 Muslim Syrian refugees into American cities. Added to that we have witnessed both political parties being abjectly unwilling to limit the number of illegals coming across our southern border. Not only do new waves of immigrants bolster Democratic voting blocs, but ensures transforming the face of American politics—exactly what Barack Obama vowed he would accomplish. At the same time the neo-Cons in the Republican Party, such as Jeb Bush, desire to continue open border policies, declaring that illegals coming here is “an act of love.” Ironically, he also believes that we are a nation at war, apparently unmindful of the fact that if we are “at war” that mandates the closing of our own borders like we did in Iraq during the Gulf Wars. Ann Coulter has correctly pointed out that the smug liberals, who want American humbled and destroyed, are exulting in what they are proudly calling “the browning of America.” “The cultural left is overjoyed at the remaking of our society into one that is poorer, browner and less free.”
Ted Kennedy
Where does the late Ted Kennedy fit into this picture? Like most liberals who build their system on hypocrisy Kennedy was the Senator who, according to the Christian Science Monitor, “fundamentally transformed” America through his immigration policies which he foisted on America. Beginning in 1965 he led the complete revamping of our immigration system. Formerly, there were numerical caps and national quotas in place which regulated not only how many immigrants would be able to come here, but controlled which ones, favoring European nations by granting them higher quotas.
According to Kennedy the national quotas and ceiling on the number of immigrants “violated” our principles. When critics argued that the changes he was proposing would alter the mix of the country into ‘voting blocs’ favoring Democrats, which any person of sound mind could foresee, he famously stood on the floor of the Senate and LIED. “The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”
Today, with chain migration, refugee programs, amnesty programs, green card lotteries, H1-B Visa acts, various immigration acts and domestic resettlement programs that continue to swamp the American welfare state, our national values are practically non-existent, our streets are becoming battle zones and even preachers who preach the pure gospel of Jesus Christ must go into the pulpits locked and loaded. The Balkanization of America is in full swing. But this makes some Americans happy. Democratic political strategists Ruy Teixeira and John Judis have been gloating about it for 20 years. A post-1965 immigration, they predicted, would soon produce a country where Republicans could not win an election, anywhere. Then Democrats could do whatever they want. This is exactly what is occurring and explains why the Jeb Bush’s of the world look and sound like the Democrats of yesterday—open borders, nationalized education, and increasing welfare.
Jefferson on Immigration
This brings us back to the Founders. Why did the Founding generation want to control the flow of immigration into this country? What reasoning did they bring forward to justify immigration “quota’s” which were tilted toward European nations? No greater thinker there is than Thomas Jefferson, whose sound reasoning on these matters is probably lost to most in modern America who desire to frame all issues in terms of black, brown, or white skin. The basic clue, however, is grounded in the sharing of values and whether America would be able to exist in the future as a free society based upon these common principles. Ted Kennedy knew this as well but exploited the racial divide in order to conquer.
Here is Jefferson in his Notes on the State of Virginia explaining why excessive immigration would destroy a once-free America. “…But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent.
Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another.”
Continuing, Jefferson explained regarding immigrants from nations who not share our values, “It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.”
One might suppose that Jefferson was a prophet from the above description. Then with clarity of foresight he asked, “May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable? Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here. If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements….”
To Obama’s braggadocio “This is who we are” explanation of massive immigration from all points of the compass, perhaps someone ought to point out that “this is not who we were, nor should be”—if we expect to be free. But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles.
Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty.
These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures. But, if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience 27 years and three months longer, for the attainment of any degree of population desired, or expected?
May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable? Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here. If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements….
[From Notes on the State of Virginia, ed. William Peden (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Virginia, 1954), 84-5.]