Old Glory and La Raza

The recent protests by Hispanics across the country have exposed what thirty years of multicultural appeasement in dealing with the problem of illegal immigration has begotten us- a fragmented landscape of shamefully unassimilated ethnic minorities. The schadenfreude that many Americans experienced at the expense of the French, when their unassimilated Muslim enclaves turned the Champs Elysees into Beirut west, has quickly turned full circle. The question is whether their televised protests did more harm than good to their cause. Whose country is this?

Americans are as a lot a docile bunch. But what kind of patriot can stand by idly and watch people waving flags of Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras on American soil? Teddy Roosevelt said years ago there is only room for one flag in this country, the American flag. Hyphenated Americanism is not American at all. This is the core concept of the "melting pot" theory that we were taught in grade school- a rare theory that actually proved it can work in reality. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries immigrants poured into America through Ellis Island, with the hope of someday becoming an American. Although many were victims of abject discrimination and many lived in ghetto-type segregated neighborhoods, they understood the path to success was through assimilation into the greater culture, rather than demand it change to suit their cultural ideals. They worked to teach themselves English while working long days and difficult jobs, and most beamed with pride the day they could call themselves "citizens". Although there were Italian social clubs, Irish bars and Jewish bakeries, anyone inside would identify themselves as "Americans".

Do these protesters have any desire to become American citizens, learn American history and government, and adapt the ideals of the American Dream? Or do they simply wish to live parasitically in America, draining our social programs of American tax dollars, and espousing the greatness of their native land while refusing to even learn to speak English? In spite of the efforts of the press and our politicians to paint the nicest face possible on these "undocumented workers", popular opinion polls consistently that over 80% of Americans are opposed to illegal immigration. This does not make us racists or supremacists; it merely speaks to the fact that Americans want things done the right way, legally.

I cannot make the argument as to why many Americans are upset better than Hoover fellow Victor Davis Hanson (www.victorhanson.com)

They are struck by the Orwellian incongruities--Mexican flags, chants of
"Mexico, Mexico," and the spectacle of illegal alien residents lecturing citizen
hosts on what is permissible in their own country.

He continues:

Had the demonstrators marched chanting "God Bless America", confined their flag
waving to Old Glory, and expressed thanks to a magnanimous United States that
gave them a second chance when a corrupt Mexico has precluded their first, then
they would have won public support.

The sad truth is that anyone who voices opposition to illegal immigration will be branded as racist. But it is not race, rather nationalism that is at stake. Mass, unchecked immigration is a zero-sum game. One society wins and one (usually the richer) loses. When we import the poor and uneducated from depressed countries, and allow them equal access to our system built on the Rule of Law without demanding equal accountability, we weaken the fabric of our society and cheapen the sweat and blood equity of our founders, ourselves, and our posterity.

History shows us that first generation immigrants will face a hard time despite the circumstances. Future generations, if properly assimilated, will do exponentially better. None of those waving foreign flags wish to return to their native lands. They have conveyed by voting with their feet that they wish to be "Americans." We should not let them down by lowering our standards for the future generations of all "Americans."

Anyone Seen the Pope?

The case of Abdul Rahman, the Afghan man who has proclaimed his Christianity and been arrested for it, is fascinating on many levels. The legal precedents for the fledgling Afghan judicial branch will be established. The "conflict of cultures" and which path the new government of the old caliphate will choose. Some may even see it as a test case for the Afghan government as a whole- will they submit to the West, and prove they are puppets of George Bush, an illegitimate government established by an infidel interloper? Or will they stick with the Islamic jihadists, and "chop him into tiny pieces" as his jailers have inferred, thus proving the hopelessness of trying to bring 20th century consensual government to a people hitherto living under 8th century sharia? By branding him mentally disturbed, dropping the charges, and allowing him to seek political asylum, they seem to have skirted all these tough issues. If these issues are not settled by dialogue today they will, as history shows us, be settled by a future generation with more force.

We have heard many Islamic clerics weigh in on the matter, but where in the name of Jesus Christ are all the Christian leaders of the world? Don't get me wrong, at best I am by anyone's' definition a bad Christian, but is the Pope going to step up and go to bat for his Man? Buddhists and Hindus right next door in India have been butchered in the name of Allah (peace be upon him), they could show a sign of solidarity against intolerance by welcoming with open arms a fellow infidel. Reverend Jackson? Pat Robertson? Why won't any Christians help a brother out? Come on, I have put a few bucks in the basket they pass around, can't the Vatican at least offer to pay this guy's airfare outta Kabul?

I hope it is for the reason I believe it is for, and not the reason I fear.

I believe it is because these faux God brokers are actually just politicians in disguise, with all the pratfalls of common politicians, only unelected. (OK, so the Pope is at least elected.) They are savvy enough to realize it would be foolish to hinge their bets on so risky an outcome. I hope they are so personally wrapped up in defrauding Americans that they fail to notice Abdul Rahman at all. But what I fear is much worse. They are much more willing to kill and die for Allah than we are for our Western ideals.

If the Pope can't stand up, we are all dhimmi now.

UN-Necessary?

With the death of former Yugoslavian Caeser Slobodan Milosevic on March 11, the United Nations International Criminal Court breathed a collective sigh of relief. Gone, with the last breath of a psychopath, also was the onerous responsibility of meeting the standards of "international justice". Not that the Western idea of justice was on the table to begin with, as the worst Milosevic faced for the ethnic cleansing of a quarter of a million people was life in prison. Since his May 1999 indictment for war crimes, the thumb-twiddling Hague court allowed Milosevic to employ every antic imaginable to essentially take over his own trial. Saddam Hussein and friends have apparently noticed this, and are currently employing a few pages from the deceased strongman's playbook.
The core problem with the U.N. court is the same one that plagues any type of decision making body so large and so diverse. John Adams once observed that in his opinion, "One useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress." The point, extrapolated to the U.N. court, is that it will operate to the standards of the lowest common denominator. How can a court whose judges hail from Jordan, Venezuela and China be considered anything but hypocritical? This is the virus that infects the U.N. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination boasts two members, India and Pakistan, whose ethnics have butchered each over ownership of a few miles of valueless dirt in the Hindu Kush for hundreds of years. The Committee on Migrant Workers has Mexico as a member but the United States is conspicuously absent. A fox in the henhouse, even one that has been tamed, will not be able to resist the urge to grab a chicken and run when the farmer isn't looking.
The U.N. was truly a great idea at it's inception. Today, however, it has become a joke. The admission of nations that are non-democratic goes against the principles the U.N. supposedly stands for. The current state of the U.N. exemplifies what happens when standards are lowered. While the notion of the entire world sharing the same kind of wealth and luxury the United States has is noble and humanitarian, it is also suicidal (see Empire, Roman) When the citizens fell victim to the concept of "cultural equivalence", they were destroyed by a primitive band of nomads. By contrast, earlier in their history they stood firm against the forces of Hannibal, destroyed the great power of Carthage in the Punic Wars and conquered Greek, Macedonian, Armenian, Persian civilizations. The difference was not in the size of their army or their armaments; it was in their Roman pride. In the latter years, they questioned their own beliefs and institutions, the things that made Rome great to begin with. When they lost their pride and conviction, they lost their will to fight and were subsequently defeated by bands of unorganized barbarians. Let us not,at this pivotal time in history, forget what it means to be an American.