Before turning to the subject of whether or not America wants to exist or will continue to exist as a free country – “To Be, or Not to Be,” not that there’s much freedom left in it – let’s focus for a moment on the two illustrations of “The Immigration Question: Part One.”
The first illustration of the Huns invading Italy from the north is by Spanish painter Upiano Checa (1860-1916). The Huns were nomadic and as a rule did not settle anywhere or put down roots. They were not colonizers, but raiders. They existed to invade, rape, loot, destroy, plunder, collect booty and slaves, demand tribute, and to subjugate, then move on. While the Huns established an empire-of-devastation over a wide swath of Europe in the fifth century, theirs was more of an ISIS empire. They temporarily occupied whatever region they happened to invade and ravish. But the nomadic character of the Huns prevented their occupation from coalescing into a Hunnic “caliphate.” Their “empire” dissolved. Some elements of the Huns eventually settled in what is now Hungary.
The “Huns” in the second illustration, a Daily Mail photo of a boatload of “refugees” crossing the Mediterranean heading for Italy, Greece, or Malta, plan to settle or colonize any European country they can reach, claim asylum, collect as much government assistance and booty as possible, harass and prey on those countries’ indigenous inhabitants, and in general foul the nests of those forced to pay for their disruptive and alien presence. The EU is in a dither about the invasion because of the costs of sustaining the “settlers” in the various welfare states, to which the settlers contribute little or nothing in the way of tax revenues.
The newcomers will refuse to assimilate, viewing assimilation as an insult and offensive to their religious, collectivist, or tribal “heritage” or identity. They are mostly Muslims and are encouraged to procreate through religiously sanctioned polygamy to increase their numbers in the colonized countries with the end of becoming demographically powerful political blocs able to effect a broader submission of the non-Muslim segments of the indigenous populations. In Britain and on the Continent, Muslims consider welfare as a form of jizya, or a tribute paid to the conquerors, as a sign of non-Muslim submission to Islam.
This absorption-in-reverse, or reverse assimilation, is well advanced in countries like France, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. Britain likewise has sealed its fate by refusing to acknowledge that Islam is more an ideology of conquest than it is a “please-allow-us-to-worship-as-we-please” religion. This kneejerk refusal and blanking out is pathologically criminal.
What permits this ongoing invasion is Western governments’ altruism-cum-political correctness, which fosters the tenacious fallacy of a workable multiculturalism and a cultural “diversity” of antithetical political and moral values. It’s a brand of “affirmative action” practiced by the West on an international scale. It’s self-sacrifice practiced by Western governments, with freedom of speech and other liberties, once enjoyed by indigenous populations, being the sacrificial lambs.
The “refugees” don’t need to be Muslims, although they overwhelmingly are, displaced directly or indirectly by especially Barack Obama’s unauthorized interventions in Libya and his insipid “war” against ISIS. But does any Western policymaker realistically expect hordes of “asylum seekers” from the Mideast and African chaos to care about the cultural values of the countries the hordes invade and settle in? Has a single “refugee” the foggiest notion of freedom except perhaps as relief from a miserable existence in his country of origin? The slightest conception of liberty?
"Veni, vidi, vici. I came, I saw, I conquered." That was the message Julius Caesar sent to the Roman Senate in 49 B.C. about one of his military victories. He used an army of Roman legions to overcome Pharnaces II of Pontus in what is now Turkey. Muslims can say much the same thing – Venimus, vidimus, vicimus – about Europe, however using armies of “refugees” and numerous pram-pushing human brood mares.
And now, on to “Alas, poor Yorick.” We knew him well, a fellow of infinite appetites for women and power. He rode our backs a thousand times, and now that he is gone, how pleasing it is that he can no longer do us harm – except from the grave by his lawmaking.
Of all the Kennedys who have reigned over and ruined this country, the most decrepit and maliciously nihilist was Ted Kennedy. When you absorb the purpose of his immigration bills, you will see that he regards the ethnic groups with which he wishes to “swamp” Caucasian, “WASPish” society as the lowest of the low, as ignorant animals who will drown American culture and philosophy by their numbers and with their indifference and hostility to American values. Kennedy and his allies behind these immigration bills were the activist racists, a fact that meshes well with the whole Democratic Part/Progressive agenda concerning American blacks that they are kept on the welfare state plantation.
The Kennedys were involved in three immigration bills: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (or the Hart-Celler Act or INA); and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 or the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which was not passed. Another immigration bill is known as the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act ("McCain-Kennedy Bill of 2005), also not passed by the Senate. In all instances, Democrats partnered with Republicans to endorse these bills. Ted Kennedy was also the mover of the Immigration Act of 1990.
The Hart-Celler Act abolished the national origins quota system that was American immigration policy since the 1920s, replacing it with a preference system that focused on immigrants' skills and family relationships with citizens or U.S. residents. Numerical restrictions on visas were set at 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota, not including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or "special immigrants" (including those born in "independent" nations in the Western Hemisphere, former citizens, ministers, and employees of the U.S. government abroad)…..
The 1965 act marked a radical break from the immigration policies of the past. The law as it stood then excluded Asians and Africans and preferred northern and western Europeans over southern and eastern ones. At the height of the civil rights movement of the 1960s the law was seen as an embarrassment by, among others, President John F. Kennedy, who called the then-quota-system "nearly intolerable.” After Kennedy's assassination, President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill at the foot of the Statue of Liberty as a symbolic foothold of signing the bill.
In order to convince the American people of the legislation's merits, its proponents assured that passage would not influence America's culture significantly. President Johnson called the bill "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions,” while Secretary of State Dean Rusk and other politicians, including Senator Ted Kennedy, hastened to reassure the populace that the demographic mix would not be affected; these assertions would later prove grossly inaccurate [italics mine].
“Grossly inaccurate”? Or so transparently false and devious that Kennedy and his cronies felt the need to reassure the American public that not much would change. No one at the time, not to my knowledge, ever questioned the policy of the federal government of practicing its own brand of judging individuals by their skin color, that is, of racism. But that is precisely what the government has done.
Roy Beck in his NumbersUSA article, “Ted Kennedy's Immigration Legacy -- and why did he do it?” of September 2009, observed about the opposition to Ted Kennedy’s immigration initiatives:
The first group saw his immigration policies as emblematic of a Kennedy inclination to destroy the America as they loved it. The second group saw his immigration policies as an aberration that fatally undermined what they saw as many wonderful Kennedy initiatives to improve America. Whichever it was -- or something in between -- Ted Kennedy's immigration policies have destroyed the ability of the United States to be an environmentally sustainable nation in any decade soon because of the gigantic U.S. population growth that he has forced.
And Ted Kennedy's immigration policies have knocked hundreds of thousands of Americans out of the middle class as their occupations have collapsed and wages declined because of inundation with Kennedy's favored foreign workers, or because they have directly lost their jobs to foreign competitors.
Beck is confounded by Kennedy’s motives for pushing and seeing passed immigration legislation that has changed the demographic character of the U.S. However, he does offer this suggestion:
Among less-immigration advocates, a debate has long waged over whether the gigantic changes from immigration were what Kennedy sought, or if they were mostly an unintended consequence that he chose to ignore. Why was he willing to allow his immigration policies to diminish -- and in some cases -- negate his efforts in other areas?
Among those who disliked Kennedy the most, there has been a sense that Ted Kennedy fundamentally distrusted and disliked the citizens of this country. The line of thinking is something like this: Even though the majority of these citizens had elected his brother President, and appeared likely to elect another brother to the office, Ted Kennedy wanted a different citizenry.
Perhaps there was a sub-conscious hatred for the overall American people because of the assassinations (although one assassin was a foreigner and the other had tried to emigrate to the Soviet Union). Perhaps he had some Irish immigrant chips on his shoulder about WASPS disrespecting his family. If he disliked the balance of power among the citizens of this country, wildly increasing immigration levels could largely shift the balance of political power and ideology in the country.
Which it certainly has. I am less forgiving about Kennedy’s motives. Given the scurrilous nature of Kennedy’s private and public record, there is no reason to give Kennedy the benefit of the doubt. His successor in spirit, Barack Obama, comes from the same malign mould.
So, now we're faced with the crime wave of illegal immigrants. They’re allowed to slip across the border and commit mayhem Obama’s blessing. These are the “refugees” – the Mexican Huns – Obama wishes to run free in this country. What other motive could he have but an insatiable thirst to see America suffer?
The FBI has compiled a report on the frequency and kinds of crimes committed by our own invading Huns. WND ran a story on June 9th, “FBI data backs up Trump claims on illegals and crime.”
Largely unreported data published by the FBI appears to back up Donald Trump’s contentions regarding illegal aliens from Mexico committing drug and violent crime offenses in the U.S.
According to the FBI, criminal gangs – in some regions comprised significantly of illegal aliens – are wreaking havoc in the U.S., with 65 jurisdictions nationwide reporting gang-related offenses committed with firearms account for at least 95 percent of crime in those areas. The FBI further documented gangs in Southwestern border regions consisting of up to 80 percent illegal aliens were committing a multitude of crimes in America, “including drug-related crimes, weapons trafficking, alien smuggling, human trafficking, prostitution, extortion, robbery, auto theft, assault, homicide, racketeering, and money laundering.”
The Constitution Party echoes the same statistics. In an undated article, “Illegal Alien Crime and Violence by the Numbers: We’re All Victims,” Peter M. Gemma reports:
At first glance, the statistics are jolting. According to the United Nations, 97 percent of the illegal immigrants who enter the U.S. clandestinely do so across the almost 2,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico, but only 20 percent of those who cross the border illegally are caught.
A new study published by the Migration Policy Institute and the Wilson Center sheds light on the passage of Central Americans through Mexico, in a phenomenon called “transmigration”. Among the findings cited is the fact that arrests by the U.S. Border Patrol of individuals from countries other than Mexico have increased from 59,000 in FY 2010 to 99,000 in FY 2012. Fox News, obtained reports by the House Judiciary Committee and nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. They are the result of the committee’s subpoena request for Department of Homeland Security records from October 2008 to July 2011. The information was analyzed by the CRS and show 276,412 reported charges against illegal and criminal immigrants over that three-year period as identified by Secure Communities, a federal program that essentially attempts to make best use of resources by identifying and prioritizing which illegal immigrants pose the biggest threat to public safety and should be arrested or deported.
Fox News reports, “Of the 160,000 people in the database, more than 26,000 were re-arrested — accounting for nearly 58,000 crimes and violations. They allegedly committed nearly 8,500 drunken-driving offenses and more than 6,000 drug-related violations. The records also show major criminal offenses, which included murder, battery, rape, kidnapping and nearly 3,000 thefts. Roughly two percent of the crimes included child molestation, lynching, and torture, according to the 13-page Congressional Research Service report.”
Finally, Breitbart Big Journalism, on July 10th, in the wake of Donald Trump’s much excoriated remarks about Mexican illegals and crime, ran “Rape Deniers: 9 Facts About Illegal Alien Crime The Media Covers Up.”
Did you know that in the state of Texas alone over the last few years, more than 2000 illegal aliens were deported after committing sex crimes? Did you know that in the state of Texas alone over the last few years, nearly a thousand illegal aliens have been convicted of sex crimes against children?
Of course you didn’t. The media has covered these horrors up for years, and even after Donald Trump dared reveal these horrors, the rape-deniers in the media continue to cover them up. The media is covering up all kinds of horrific statistic regarding illegal aliens. Before we get to those, let’s start with why.
To Democrats and their media allies, a few hundred raped children a year is seen as a small price to pay for the political benefits that come with an unsecure border. Mexicans vote 3-to-1 for Democrats.…[Italics mine]
Aside from all the sexual offenses committed against minors by these savages, all the other crimes committed against Americans nationwide by the Mexican and South American Huns, whom I guess Obama would call “refugees” or “undocumented guest workers,” or “asylum seekers.”
Should Barack Obama be impeached? Forced from office? Yes, and not just on his criminal immigration policies designed to unleash jihadist and Mexican barbarians on the U.S. There is now his Iran “deal” by which Iran can do what it pleases to develop nuclear weapons capability. Here is the presidential oath of office, which Obama has violated so many times it is hard to keep count:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Which he has not done since taking office so many sad and gruesome years ago. Because, by defending the Constitution, it is implied he will defend this country from foreign powers and from domestic enemies. But he can’t defend either the country or the Constitution if his agenda is to see both torn apart by Islam and Amnesty.
*"The Huns at the Battle of Chalons" from A Popular History of France From The Earliest Times, Vol. I of VI. , Illustration by A. De Neuville (1836-1885).