By Peter Skjurkiss, AMERICAN THINKER
The United States is importing people with a religious and cultural propensity to commit horrific acts of hatred and revenge against Western Civilization. This is madness rooted in politics.
On November 28, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, a Somali-born Muslim inspired by ISIS, went on a rampage at Ohio State University. He injured 11 when he rammed his car into a group of students with murderous intent and then immediately went on a knife attack before campus security shot him dead.
No soon had this fanatic’s body reached room temperature then Stephanie Clemons Thompson, employed as something called an “assistant director of resident life a Ohio State,” started calling for sympathy and compassion for Artan and lamented that he was taken out so quickly. In her Facebook posing, Thompson refers to Artan as a “BUCKEYE, a member of our family.”
True, Artan was no doubt properly enrolled at OSU, just as he was legally in the U.S., brought here as a refugee sponsored by Catholic Charities. But although the i’s may have been dotted, the t’s crossed, and all the technicalities satisfied, this man was never a Buckeye or an American in any true sense. He was an alien in our society, brought here perhaps with good intentions but with no critical thinking involved.
This incident at OSU is an example of the Obama administration’s reckless refugee resettlement policy. One has to wonder how many others like Abdul Razak Ali Artan are here existing like potential time bombs, ready to explode if America does not show what they consider to be proper deference to them and their religion.
There can be no question that the current refugee resettlement program is extremely risky. To understand why many people in power support and defend it is to understand how far the madness of multiculturalism and diversity has affected policy.
Multiculturalism is the belief that all cultures are the same and should be placed on equal footing. It is a tolerance for all values. At its beginning, even the strongest proponents of multiculturalism never believed that multiculturalism was valid. They pushed this philosophy so as not to appear to be overly condescending to those from, shall we say, developing cultures. Think of it as a type of noblesse oblige, if you will. But as is so often the case of those pushing a false narrative, the multiculturalists came to believe their own propaganda over time.
Now in elite circles, it’s goodbye Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and the Constitution and hello to diversity. And don’t think multiculturalism isn’t buried within the motive of Hampshire College in Amherst, MA to lower the U.S. flag on campus after the election, restoring it after protests.
In the recent campaign, Hillary Clinton, a person who came frighteningly close to being elected president, said she thought that America’s commitment to diversity is a reaffirmation as to who we are as Americans. It is as if the American character is now to be defined by its unlimited openness to diversity and to other cultures.
Judging from the actions of Democrat politicians, immigrants who come here from Third World cultures and with Third World mindsets are not expected to blend in. Heaven forbid, as that would be an affront to their “dignity” and go against the grain of multiculturalism. As a result, separate enclaves are popping up across the country, even in the heartland. The Democratic Party celebrates Balkanization as this enlarges their constituency base, never caring how it weakens overall American culture and strength.
In a commencement address, Secretary of State John Kerry echoed this theme. He lectured Americans that we must be prepared to live in a borderless world, a world that he and his fellow globalists are busily trying to construct. And here, Kerry did not mean borderless in terms of only goods and services and capital. He meant people, too. And John Kerry’s position is in full accord with the agenda of the globalist elite.
As Prof. Edward J. Erler notes, taken to its logical conclusion, proof of one’s true commitment to diversity requires — nay, demands — that security and national sovereignty be sacrificed for its sake. In the distorted minds of the elite, one way to do this is to open the flood gates to people who are alien to our values and harbor at the very least a latent hostility to the American way of life. Frau Merkel of Germany is the ultimate example of this form of national suicide. Prof. Erler’s point is that massive overdosing on multiculturalism and diversity goes a long way to explain why refugees from Islamic terrorist areas are not being vetted before gaining entrance to the US.
Of course, the commitment of the elites to multiculturalism smacks of hypocrisy. When you consider that among all of us, they are the most insulated from the adverse affects of their insane policy, due to their wealth and power. One has to wonder what the elite reaction would be if Muslim terrorists periodically ran amok in murderous rampages in the Georgetown section of Washington, D.C. or at Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, the inner sanctums of the elite, instead of at a state university catering to the middle class.
So it is in this poisonous environment of multiculturalism über alles that the likes of a thoroughly brainwashed university administrator can openly grieve over the passing of Abdul Razak Ali Artan, the terrorist at Ohio State.
With the election of Donald Trump and a Republican Congress, America dodged a bullet. There is now a chance for sanity to prevail regarding immigration. But draining all the politically correct swamps at universities and colleges across the country where all must bow before the idols of multiculturalism and diversity will take more than a new president to accomplish. But it must be done. Mitch Daniels at Purdue University is an example of how to push back the multicultural madness. And when this process begins in earnest, don’t be surprised at what crawls out.
@ honeybee:
Alternate response: Doberman or Weimaranner? Probably the latter, hence the republic.
Hey, don’ get me wrong. Some of my best friends is krauts. Kidding aside, google, “Thomas Nast” and “Carl Schurz” (he was German-Korean, actually, since a Park was named after him.)
@ Sebastien Zorn:
The German who immigrated to the USA in the 18th, 19th centuries were a very different breed then the Nazis.
https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/png02
@ honeybee:
Yes, I think I may have mentioned elsewhere that when I was very young, maybe 6 or 7, I had a disagreement with a slightly older gentile friend about who the worst tyrants were in history. He insisted that they were the Germans. I knew better, of course. Now, to be fair, he had far more historical knowledge than I, his bedtime probably being after primetime, and so he would have had the opportunity to watch “Hogan’s Heros.” But, I, having just learned about the American Revolution insisted, “no, no, no, it was the British”. Of course, it is a bit of a close one, though, if you think about it dispassionately. On the one hand, the British did commit probably the worst atrocity known in the annals of human history: they taxed tea! — Oh, the humanity! On the other hand, Even being too young to be told of the fate that befell 19 members of my family including my paternal grand-parents and great-grand-parents in Hungary, but just going on a 6 year old’s close observation and keen use of reason: If I had know where lederhosen came from, that would have been reason enough to hate the bastards. No wonder they started so many wars. Bring on the stilleto heels and whips, Marlena. CRack! Franklin was right. Ok, so I guess that makes me a racist. So sue me. Oh, damn, you probably can.
@ yamit82:
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Benjamin Franklin tried to have German immigration banned in Penn., he believe the Germans would have a negative effect on language and culture.
“All men are created equal except the ones I dislike” Dicha of Deborah
@ yamit82:
The 1907 banned people who believe in polygamy, see:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263879/when-teddy-roosevelt-banned-muslims-america-daniel-greenfield
The “Gentleman’s Agreement” of 1907 got Japan to stop issuing visas to the U.S.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentlemen's_Agreement_of_1907
And the earliest immigration laws of the 1790s restricted immigration to whites of good moral character. Americans of African descent but excluding other non-whites were granted citizenship in a separate bill in 1870.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1870
American Indians got citizenship in the 1920s in a separate bill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act
see
The Chinese exclusion act was renewed in different forms until the early 1940s. Restrictions on Chinese immigration were lifted as they were imposed on Japanese.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Coolie_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
The Chinese Exclusion Act, signed into law on May 6, 1882, by President Chester A. Arthur, effectively halted Chinese immigration for ten years and prohibited Chinese from becoming US citizens. Through the Geary Act of 1892, the law was extended for another ten years before becoming permanent in 1902.
Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) – Open Collections Program – Harvard …
ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/exclusion.html
@ Birdalone:
@ Sebastien Zorn:
History of U.S. Immigration Policies
Outlined below are thumbnail sketches of immigration-related legislation adopted between 1790 and 1990. More detailed information on the most recent legislative changes, beginning in 1952, are also available separately.
1790
In an area previously controlled by individual states, an act was adopted that established a uniform rule for naturalization by setting the residence requirement at two years.
1819
Congress enacted the first significant federal legislation relating specifically to immigration. Among its provisions, it: (1) established the continuing reporting of immigration to the United States; and (2) set specific sustenance rules for passengers of ships leaving U.S. ports for Europe.
1864
Congress first centralized control over immigration under the Secretary of State with a Commissioner. The importation of contract laborers was legalized in this legislation.
1875
Direct federal regulation of immigration was established by a law that prohibited entry of prostitutes and convicts.
1882
The Chinese exclusion law curbed Chinese immigration. Also excluded were persons convicted of political offenses, lunatics, idiots, and persons likely to become public charges. The law placed a head tax on each immigrant.
1885
Admission of contract laborers was banned.
1888
Provisions were adopted–the first since 1798–to provide for expulsion of aliens.
1891
The Bureau of Immigration was established under the Treasury Department to federally administer all immigration laws (except the Chinese Exclusion Act).
1903
Immigration law was consolidated. Polygamists and political radicals were added to the exclusion list.
1906
Procedural safeguards for naturalization were enacted. Knowledge of English was made a basic requirement.
1907
A bill increased the head tax on immigrants, and added people with physical or mental defects or tuberculosis and children unaccompanied by parents to the exclusion list. Japanese immigration became restricted.
1917
Added to the exclusion list were illiterates, persons of psychopathic inferiority, men as well as women entering for immoral purposes, alcoholics, stowaways, and vagrants.
1921
The first quantitative immigration law was adopted. It set temporary annual quotas according to nationality. A book review of Not Like Us: Immigrants and Minorities in America, 1890-1924, which discusses this period is available here.
1924
The first permanent immigration quota law established a preference quota system, nonquota status, and consular control system. It also established the Border Patrol.
1929
The annual quotas of the 1924 Act were made permanent.
1943
Legislation provided for the importation of agricultural workers from North, South, and Central America–the basis of the “Bracero Program.” At the same time the Chinese exclusion laws were repealed.
1946
Procedures were adopted to facilitate immigration of foreign-born wives, fiance(e)s, husbands, and children of U.S. armed forces personnel.
1948
The first U.S. policy was adopted for admitting persons fleeing persecution. It permitted 205,000 refugees to enter the United States over two years (later increased to 415,000).
1950
The grounds for exclusion and deportation of subversives were expanded. All aliens were required to report their address annually.
1952
The multiple laws which governed immigration and naturalization to that time were brought into one comprehensive statute. It (1) reaffirmed the national origins quota system, (2) limited immigration from the Eastern Hemisphere while leaving the Western Hemisphere unrestricted, (3) established preferences for skilled workers and relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens; and (4) tightened security and screening standards and procedures.
Sebastien Zorn Said:
No, backside, Dulcito !!!!!!!!!
zoftig in the head maybe?
Sebastien Zorn Said:
Border men like their ladies zoftig.
@ honeybee:
how about liposuction?
Sebastien Zorn Said:
But not the statue of libation.
@ honeybee:
The statute of libertations has expired.
@ Birdalone:
It is you who did not read the any of the URLs. It says just what I said it says about the sculptor’s intent. And if you look at the links on immigration you will learn that the first naturalization laws of the 1790s limited immigration to free whites of good moral character and had lengthy residency and notice of intent to apply for citizenship requirements, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 excluded Chinese and the Gentleman’s Agreement of 1907 exluded Japanese with the cooperation of the Japanese government.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
No Statute of Liberty on the Tex/Mex border.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Sebastien: if you choose to not read the URL on the sculptor’s intent, at least try to learn that America had unlimited immigration until the laws of 1921-25.
Never mind.
“After the assassination of Tsar Alexander II of Russia, a government official in Ukraine menacingly addressed the local rabbi. “I suppose you know in full detail who was behind it.”
“Ach,” the rabbi replied, “I have no idea, but the government’s conclusion will be the same as always: they will blame the Jews and the chimneysweeps.”
“Why the chimneysweeps?” asked the befuddled official.
“Why the Jews?” responded the rabbi.”
http://www.aish.com/j/j/51476512.html
@ Birdalone:
Actually, it was a gift from France honoring American independence and reminding us of our debt to the French during the American Revolution for the Centennial Convention in 1876 plus a celebration of the abolition of slavery. The project was initiated in 1865 by the head of the French anti-slavery society. And when I visited the Statue in the ’90s, the plaque with the poem by Emma Lazarus was removed from the base of the statue and was sitting in a museum case inside where it had been placed long before. It was never a policy document but a paen of gratitude. Nobody could possibly have known in advance that Russian Jews would have to flee in huge numbers in the 1880’s in response to being violently scapegoated for the assassination of the Tsar. Comparatively little immigration was permitted until very recently excepting the early days of the republic when they just needed more people. The United States doesn’t really become a major player on the world stage until WWI. Before that, everybody is trying to interfere with us they way everybody is interfering with Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laws_concerning_immigration_and_naturalization_in_the_United_States
http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-72
The Statue of Liberty was meant to symbolize liberty spreading outward from America. Emma Lazarus’ poem, “The New Colossus”, was written in a ‘contest’ in 1883 to raise money to pay for the pedestal in New York harbor.
Changing the Statue of Liberty’s message would be a good start as it DOES contradict 21st century immigration policy, and is a big reason why too many believe the multi-culti “our values” concept.
http://history1800s.about.com/od/tothenewworld/f/Statue-of-Liberty-and-Immigration.htm
Bonus points: Possible to change it with Executive Order; and it would drive deBlasio to retire to Havana?
Sebastien Zorn Said:
I resent the unflattering but true depiction of my youth.
“Johnny, I understand you’ve been skipping school, not doing your homework and staying up late while we were away?
“I did it several times, so it’s my tradition. Don’t disrespect my culture or you’re racists … Mom and Dad.”
[Sounds ridiculous now, but actually a lot of white, middle class kids who became hippies really did talk like this in the ’60s. And then entered Academia.]