It is shocking, but true. America is already a socialist nation—for the most part. All the earmarks of socialism are incorporated into our society. From the globalist socialist United Nations controlling our shameful foreign policy machine to Big Tech monitoring and censoring free speech to confiscatory taxation—America has fallen very low on the freedom scale.
Classic socialism started out being defined as “government ownership of the means of production.” This is why the government of the Soviet Union confiscated all the businesses, factories, farms and other means of production, murdering millions in the process.
However, the above definition is not an accurate definition of socialism today. Just as classic Marxism, built on atheism, has now morphed into Neo-Marxism and the Critical Race Theory, so the definition of socialism has evolved.
Frederich Hayek wrote that the definition of socialism has come to mean income redistribution in pursuit of “equality”, not through government ownership of the means of production, but through the institutions of the welfare state and the “progressive” income tax. As America is discovering, this is all so much poison for a society.
The shift began to occur particularly during the Woodrow Wilson administration, then was put on steroids during the Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) and Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) period. “It was under FDR that the Bill of Rights suffered a severe, and potentially lethal, mutilation that has progressively (double entendre intended) weakened it ever since. FDR attempted to redefine rights, asserting that every American has a ‘right to a useful and remunerative job,’ ‘a decent home,’ ‘adequate medical care,’ ‘a good education,’ and so on.”
A visitor to the FDR memorial in Washington, D.C. will be treated to this Orwellian redefinition of rights: “Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, Freedom from Fear.” Note the shift.
According to the Founders, rights were natural rights bestowed by God and merely protected by the government. Government did not grant any right. This is emphatically clear in our own founding documents. The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States formally states that the people retain all rights absent specific enumeration in the Bill of Rights.In other words, God gave us rights and we only ceded a certain enumerated few to the government in order for more protection of them. But make no mistake, said the founders, if we have overlooked some of these rights in our enumeration, the people still owned those also!
Franklin Roosevelt deceptively changed all of that. Freedom of speech, for example, is far different than freedom from want. The only way one can be free from “want” (housing, food, medical treatment) is to forcibly redistribute what one segment of society produces and give it to another. But for government to forcibly redistribute actually means that it forcibly removes my personal production to meet the personal needs of others. This is not freedom. This is slavery, to one degree or another.
Now, decades later, we cannot seem to escape the clutch of this wicked socialism. The only debate seems to be how much or how little money we can unconstitutionally steal from one portion of society to give to another. Or, how much can we confiscate from our own citizens to give to foreign countries. This is to bribe them with liberal Marxist ideals such as “women’s studies” in Muslim countries or to put pressure on foreign nations to recognize homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. We are in the clutches of socialism.
The Old Testament prophet Jeremiah is known as “the weeping prophet.” He was a citizen of a nation that had ascended to the pinnacle of world power. That nation had set the world’s standards for economic, civil, military, and political successes. These accomplishments were not approached by any other nation until Columbus discovered America in 1492 and the United States of America declared her God-given sovereignty in 1776.
But Jeremiah uttered an anguished cry, “Oh that my head were waters and my eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people!” (9:1) and “Let my eyes flow down with tears night and day, and let them not cease; for the virgin daughter of my people has been crushed with a mighty blow, with a sorely infected wound” (14:17).
The prophet sorrowed because his nation had dissolved into anarchy. The Rule of Law that once assured peace, safety, and successes had been replaced. The prophet was perplexed by this catastrophic change in his nation’s direction. “I have listened and heard, they have spoken what is not right; No man repented of his wickedness, Saying, ‘What have I done?’” (8:6) and again “I know, O Lord, that a man’s way is not in himself, nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps” (10:23).
Jeremiah walked his city looking at the corrupt culture. No doubt he shook his head and asked “What IS happening to my country?!” He mourned, “We waited for peace, but no good came; for a time of healing, but behold, terror!” (8:15)
With one brief word the Prophet summarizes the culture of a nation in crisis—“Terror”!
Rule of Law in America?
This highlights a historical constant—when a nation dissolves the Rule of Law that sets boundaries and regulates behavior, then that nation’s foundation begins to crack, crumble and collapse. It does not matter how strong the military is. It does not matter how weak the enemy is. It does not matter how vibrant the economy is. If God is denied and the Rule of Law is ignored, catastrophe is certain.
This truth has been recognized. Perhaps one of the more recent comments, “If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.” (President Ronald Reagan August 23, 1984).
Another truism states, “A nation without God is a God-less nation.”
The truth of history repeatedly validates that when a nation turns away from God and refuses to restrict the immorality of its population, then evil rules and national collapse is near. Such a message was sent to the World Empire of Nineveh (Jonah 3:4). That nation repented and was spared collapse until it turned away from God’s Rule of Law and refused to repent. It was then destroyed.
This historical constant applies to modern America. This is not just a boring historical fact to be welcomed by a “ho-hum” sigh. This is our present reality. The United States of America is experiencing Jeremiah’s desperation, “We waited for peace, but no good came; For a time of healing, but behold, terror!” (8:15)
The added stress is the fact that many appear to have surrendered to this cultural anarchy. Night after night people are attacked, kicked to the streets, victims of arson and anarchy. The law officers are resigning. Many are surrendering to the anarchists. Now the protestors are marching into the suburbs demanding the houses be given to them. “Racism” and “reparations” are used to justify the vilest acts of inhumanity.
Two Revolutions Compared
But…this situation in the United States of America is not new. It is only a repeat of the historical constant that lawlessness destroys peace and a lawless culture does not bring personal freedom but a total national collapse.
The late 1700’s provides us with an amazing lesson validating our point. Two revolutions marked that era but each was diametrically opposed to the other. One based its foundation on the Rule of Law that comes from “the Creator” (God Almighty). The other based its foundation on the Rule of Law that is established by “Man’s Reason and Enlightenment” without God Almighty. It is this choice that America faces in 2020—which Rule of Law will our nation choose to follow?
Consider the foundation of each of these nations.
We first consider France 1789 the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” was composed. This claimed to be a document safeguarding the basic charters of human liberties. Its 17 articles, adopted between August 20 and August 26, 1789, by France’s National Assembly, served as the preamble to the Constitution of 1791. The basic principle of the Declaration was that all “men are born and remain free and equal in rights” (Article 1), these rights were specified as the rights of liberty, private property, the inviolability of the person, and resistance to oppression (Article 2). This document inspired the French Revolution. The vague terms were used to disguised a malevolent goal—yes property, liberty, and personal rights were stated BUT they would be defined far differently than the general population understood. Yes “oppression” was to be resisted BUT ONLY as defined by the elite. The general attitude of the anarchists implementing this Declaration is well voiced by a politician in recent weeks who said, “Yes everyone should have a choice in wearing face masks as long as they make the RIGHT choice.”
It is significant to note the sources of the Declaration included the major thinkers of the French Enlightenment, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire.
This Revolution was founded on a God-less basis and subsequent actions were God-less tyranny, evil, murders, arson, confiscation of private property, and the total destruction of a nation.
The second revolution to be considered was that in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania [July 1776] where The Declaration of Independence was composed and ratified. In total contrast to the French the Declaration of Independence stated, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (Preamble to the Declaration of Independence).
The contrast between The United States of America and France is stark. In fact, it is actually SHOCKING. One places trust and confidence in the protection of the Almighty Creator. The other exalts human reasoning and man’s “enlightened” freedom from religious obligations.
The greatest contrast is found in the consequent history of each nation. The USA soared to success and world influence. The economy, military, and culture of American became the envy of the world. The jurisprudence governing our civility made “true justice” a reality. France devolved further into anarchy. Historians identify the period of time (June 1793-July 1794) following France’s “Declaration of Man” as “The Terror.”
Even the blind can see this frightening contrast.
An explanation of France’s acceptance of anarchy that led to its collapse is suggested by this historian. “It is ironic that of all countries in Europe, France was the only one that could have had a revolution—not because she groaned under the lash of tyranny, but, on the contrary, because she tolerated and even invited every conceivable dissension and heresy. Restlessness, a passion for novelty and the pursuit of excitement were everywhere in the air. They were the fruits of idleness and leisure, not of poverty.” (PARIS IN THE TERROR, June 1793-July 1794. Stanley Loomis. J. B. Lippincott Company. Philadelphia and New York,1964. Page 12).
Culture cannot cancel history! The “cancel culture” is another point of absurdity that should be discussed but I do not have time to address it here. But I simply note the absolute fact that the prevailing pressure and riotous actions of today’s blasphemous culture CANNOT cancel the historical constant!
There is an idiom stating that one “cannot whistle past the graveyard.” This idiomatic phrase describes the attempt of one to stay cheerful in a dire situation. One thus described is going forward into a situation and ignoring a certain hazard. Even if the hazard is recognized the fool proceeds hoping for a good outcome. Those thus described enter a situation with little or no understanding of the possible consequences.
This is where the United States of America is in 2020. We are at a crossroad with a choice to follow the historical precedent that made our nation great or to choose the historical folly of Revolutionary France.
There is much more to say about this choice and its ramifications for modern America.
I close with a reference to another historical event that chronicles the collapse of a great nation into anarchy’s chaos. Hosea 4 addresses Israel’s surrender of allegiance to God’s Rule of Law and her acceptance of anarchy’s terror.
“Listen to the word of the Lord, O sons of Israel, for the Lord has a case against the inhabitants of the land, because there is no faithfulness or kindness or knowledge of God in the land. There is swearing, deception, murder, stealing and adultery. They employ violence, so that bloodshed follows bloodshed. Therefore, the land mourns, and everyone who lives in it languishes along with the beasts of the field and the birds of the sky, and also the fish of the sea disappear” (1-3).
Unspeakable catastrophe results when there is “no knowledge of God in the land.” There is violence, immorality, lawlessness, and disrespect for the governing legal officers. The entire scene is sadly summarized “bloodshed follows bloodshed.”
What is the answer? It is either follow man’s arrogance or submit to God’s sovereignty. One way brings “terror” and the other brings tranquility.
Hosea’s message highlights these primary points…
Truth and mercy are attributes and virtues of humanity only IF the population follows God’s Rule of Law.
Truth implies uprightness in speech and behavior. True integrity in character and conduct is possible only IF the Law of the Almighty God is permitted to transform one’s thoughts and actions.
Mercy combined with truth makes a man kind as well as honest, benevolent as well as upright. These blessings are possible only IF one submits to the Almighty God. When man rejects God’s Law and chooses anarchy, he will NEVER find kindness, honesty, benevolence and integrity. Those involved in today’s riots illustrate this truth and they join the anarchists of the French Revolution.
The knowledge of God is the only cure for the problems of society today. The cure cannot be legislated. The cure cannot be coerced by an angry mob violence. And, the cure cannot be achieved by the culture of cancelation of things that are offensive to a minority.
If we know God to be a God of truth, we will cultivate truth in our hearts, express it with our lips, and practice it in our lives.
If we know God as a God of mercy, who has shown boundless mercy to us in pardoning our multiplied and aggravated offences, we will imitate that mercy in our relations to our fellow-man.
The Prophet’s point was clear—violence, bloodshed, and anarchy result because the nation did not know God. This point was further stressed in chapter 4:
Verse 6, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.” Destruction is coming because knowledge was rejected. The people knew God but refused to obey God. Verse 7, “The more they multiplied, the more they sinned against Me; I will change their glory into shame.” The degree and examples of sin multiplied greatly. Verse 8, “They feed on the sin of My people and direct their desire toward their iniquity.” The impact of the general sinning increased the intensity and shocking nature of sin in society. Verse 10, “They will eat, but not have enough; they will play the harlot, but not increase, because they have stopped giving heed to the Lord.” There is no satisfying the anarchist’s appetite. Anarchy cannot be placated. You cannot appease terrorists. Verse 19, “And they will be ashamed.” The finality of a nation that has turned from God and chosen anarchy is sorrowfully recorded for history to hold.
The United States of America was founded upon principles taught by the Almighty Jehovah God of the Bible. If we reject that we are one nation under God’s sovereignty, we face destruction. Jeremiah 20:4, “(T)hus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I am going to make you a terror to yourself and to all your friends’.”
John Kachelman, Jr.is a Christian patriot, preacher, and missionary for Jesus Christ to foreign countries. He lives in Montgomery, AL.
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet blasted the Trump administration for its policies on immigration, the environment, and more. According to the far-left UN boss, a Chilean socialist with close ties to mass-murdering communist dictatorships, the U.S. government threatens everything from water and children to “human rights.” Many Third World regimes, by contrast, were praised by Bachelet for their alleged progress in complying with UN demands.
Among Bachelet’s most significant targets was the White House effort to secure the border and enforce U.S. immigration law. “Restrictive U.S. migration policies raise significant human rights concerns,” the UN “human rights” chief claimed during a recent session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. “Reducing the number of people trying to enter the country should not be done in disregard of asylum and migrant protections. The situation of children in detention is of particular concern.”
Bachelet, who once defected to the mass-murdering East German dictatorship, was referring to Trump’s attempts to somewhat slow the enormous flow of illegal migrants into the United States — the nation that accepts more immigrants than any other on the planet, by far. How accepting more migrants than any country on Earth could be viewed as “restrictive” was not explained. The claim about children in detention was also left unexplained, with the UN human rights chief not making clear whether she believed having children in tow should constitute a proverbial “get out of jail free” card for any and all criminals.
Of course, in the real world, pouring untreated pollutants into a river or stream — and especially into drinking water — is a crime in every single state. Under the U.S. Constitution, which delegates a few limited powers to the central government, federal authorities actually have no regulatory authority over rivers, streams, or other environmental issues. Instead, as the 10th Amendment makes clear, those powers are reserved to the states or to the people who own the property that is affected.
As if to prove that the UN does indeed intend to control every aspect of human life, even the current regulation of fuel standards in the United States is now a target of the UN’s human rights machine. “Weaker fuel emission standards for vehicles, and decreased regulations on the oil and gas industries, could also harm human rights,” claimed Bachelet, as if American energy independence and slightly less onerous (but still unconstitutional) federal regulations on the energy sector were some sort of human rights crisis requiring UN intervention.
Meanwhile, Bachelet had nothing but praises for more than a few brutal regimes that literally remain in power through terror and mass murder. Not a word of condemnation, for instance, was handed out to the mass-murdering Communist Chinese regime, which has millions of dissidents in re-education camps and continues to perpetrate forced abortions, among other horrific violations of actual human rights. Bachelet said only that she welcomes the invitation to visit to “analyze in depth the human rights situation in China,” and that other governments should “do their utmost to combat discrimination” against Chinese people in light of the coronavirus. Seriously.
Regarding her native Chile, which has been under intense attack by communist forces led in part by Venezuelan and Cuban intelligence operatives, Bachelet demanded that authorities there “address the protests’ root causes: inequalities.” In other words, to placate the violent rioters and looters seeking the overthrow of individual liberty and economic freedom with Marxism, Chile must accept more Marxism. Seriously. Her office has apparently “provided recommendations” to Chilean authorities “for a sustainable roadmap guided by human rights norms.”
Of course, this is not the first time Bachelet has attacked the Trump administration and its policies. In fact, last summer, she lashed out against the U.S. government, claiming to be “appalled” and “deeply shocked” by the enforcement of federal immigration law. Taking the globalist extremism to new heights, she even claimed the U.S. government’s practice of detaining illegal immigrant self-proclaimed “families” for prosecution may be “prohibited by international law” for being “cruel” or “degrading.”
“In most of these cases, the migrants and refugees have embarked on perilous journeys with their children in search of protection and dignity and away from violence and hunger,” Bachelet said, displaying either ignorance or dishonesty regarding the true situation at the U.S. border. “When they finally believe they have arrived in safety, they may find themselves separated from their loved ones and locked in undignified conditions. This should never happen anywhere.”
In reality, as the U.S. government has thoroughly documented, human-smuggling rings are using children — some of whom are being trafficked for sex slavery — as a pretext to avoid detention after crossing the border illegally. “They are pairing children with unrelated adults, knowing adults who enter the United States with children won’t be detained,” explained U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, citing a recent Department of Homeland Security Human Smuggling Cell report. Some of those children are kidnapped for the purpose, he continued, noting that once in the United States, they are often sold into sex or labor slavery. Many of the smugglers use fake documents to make it seem like the children are part of their “family.”
Before Bachelet’s comments, Deputy Human Rights High Commissioner Kate Gilmore lambasted the state of Alabama for trying to protect the lives of innocent children, calling the alleged attack on “women’s rights” a “crisis.” Another “human rights” spokesman for the UN also chimed in on the issue, saying the global body was “very concerned” about American states passing laws that “define all unborn children as persons.” In the UN’s view, murdering pre-born babies is a “human right,” while protecting the God-given right to life of those same children is a violation of human rights.
Of course, the UN has a very different view of “human rights” than Americans’ traditional understanding. America’s Founding Fathers declared that rights were endowed upon each individual by God, and that governments are created to protect those pre-existing, unalienable rights. The UN, by contrast, makes clear that governments and international instruments are the source of “rights” (really privileges) and that those pseudo-rights can be revoked or limited by government at will. In Article 29, the UN’s “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” states that those supposed “rights” may “in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
Is it Time for Divorce?- “How Deep is the Divide?”
by Bill Lockwood
With all of the political rancor boiling out of the Left against President Donald Trump, perhaps it is time to ask the question if the time has come for American states to consider an amicable divorce? Political separation. The chasm that divides right from left in our nation is wider than can be bridged by mere bi-partisanship. America is in the midst of a brewing civil war. The community organizers and Deep State devotees continue to foment rebellion behind the scenes while their street goose-steppers violently rampage with impunity.
What is the cause of all of this? What is the real issue? It is not about, as shallow thinkers suggest, Trump’s tweets. It is instead the same issue that has been festering beneath the surface for over a century and is just now coming to an ugly head. Will we have a limited government whereby the individual can enjoy his or her God-given liberties?; or, will we have total government control which dispenses or retracts these “freedoms” as central-planners see fit?
This is the only explanation for the intensified vicious hatred flung at President Trump. He is doing exactly what he said he would do — rolling back the gargantuan total state that has been created after the socialist will. But the heart of the left will always be about imposing their ungodly agendas on others by totalitarian-style edicts of the New World Order.
Witness some of these edicts. They range from population-control schemes; mandating the activity of each person on earth as is clearly enunciated by Agenda 21 UN goals; over-riding national sovereignty by international law; the complete destruction of capitalism; militant sexual LGBT worldviews; absolute federal and international control of our children’s education; the forced funding of the welfare state; complete domination of unconstitutionally-held land; complete control of our money supply and wealth by which slavery is promoted in the form of debt; and a thousand other similar well-established practices.
Therefore, perhaps the time has come to consider an amicable divorce. States that wish total government, go your own way. Those that eschew despotism, go another. Irreconcilable differences.
How Deep is the Divide?
To consider how deeply we are divided, ponder James Madison’s statement pertaining to government power. “The powers delegated [by the people] by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce… The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”
Those enumerated powers of which Madison spoke equal about twenty specifics (Art. 1, Sec. 8). So important was this basic concept of a limited government that the Founders added the 10th Amendment which was to serve as a lock on the the federal government.
Thomas Jefferson even wrote, “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” (1791)
We are now on that “boundless sea” and the horizon does not look promising. We have completely lost the Constitution as the people writhe beneath a centralized state. In common with every breed of despotism, communism, Marxism, socialism, Nazism, or fascism—all of which are rooted in atheism—individual rights and liberties are almost non-existent in our nation. This is exactly what the left wants. Therefore, whether one reads the U.N. Earth Charter or the Manifestos of the Humanists or the Democratic Party platform, they all cry for more government control and less freedom of the individual.
Deeper still is the principle that was observed by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830’s. He noted that that which united Americans, transcending political parties and religious differences, was a fundamental moral consensus in the heart of the people. This was so impressive to the French diplomat. Sadly, consensus does not any longer exist between the opposite sides of our divide which advocate two very different world views.
With a complete lack moral consensus today and cultural leaders of western civilization who love to have it so, it seems insufficient to even call for state conventions for the purpose of adding amendments to the constitution or even demanding the federal government retreat. Statist policies of government officials will continue unfettered and anarchy will escalate.
So, instead of middle America being forced to tolerate the near-Satanic-style assaults from the left, making it impossible for our elected president to govern, perhaps it is time for those addicted to government management of their lives to write their own constitution and go their own way.
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.]