The small town of Richmond, Maine, offers a key to understanding why we need be concerned, not only about building a mosque at Ground Zero in New York City, but anywhere.
Richmond’s history goes back to the mid-1600s. During World War II, it became the epicenter of the largest Russian-speaking settlement in the U.S. with people emigrating from the Ukraine, Russia and Poland.
Among Richmond’s residents in the late 1950s were my mother’s Russian aunt and uncle. As a child, I visited them there, experiencing the culture of that very large ethnic community. Russian influence was obvious everywhere. My visits to Richmond ended in 1975 after my great-uncle died and my great-aunt came to live with us.
Thirty years later, I visited Richmond again—but was shocked to see the change occurring after only a generation and a half. Little Russian influence remained. The children and grandchildren of the original immigrants either moved away or became Americanized to the point they no longer held tightly to their Russian cultural heritage. Over time, like many towns in the U.S. where immigrants of particular nationalities settled, Richmond had blended the cultural identity of its immigrant community into America’s “melting pot.”
Immigrants have been coming to America for more than two centuries, looking to escape the yoke of tyranny. They have sought to use their God-given talents to attain a lifestyle limited by constraints within their birth nation. But they understand doing so and becoming U.S. citizens requires allegiance to a new country—and an obligation to abide by its laws. As waves of immigrants have come to our shores, none have ever sought to bring their own laws with them to trump ours—until now.
America’s greatness has been enhanced for 235 years by immigrants possessing a good work ethic only in need of a level playing field to be nurtured. Embracing what their new country stands for, they have ultimately assimilated, coming to understand success for all is based on equality for all.
Assimilation is the process by which one group takes on cultural and other traits of a larger group “to become part of something greater.” It is a process that has served America well in maintaining the core values to which our Constitution is anchored. But, it is a process anathema to Islam.
During a visit to Cologne, Germany, in 2008, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke to a group of 20,000 Turks living in Europe. He told them, “I understand very well that you are against assimilation. One cannot expect you to assimilate. Assimilation is a crime against humanity.”
It is Muslim opposition to assimilation, coupled with Muslim populations growing at faster rates than native host populations, that raises concerns over the “Islamization” of Western Europe. Non-assimilation has generated “no-go” zones in some European cities—areas local law enforcement refuse to go because Muslim residents do not tolerate entry by non-believers.
Denmark dropped its very liberal immigration policy once the government recognized the dangers of failed Muslim assimilation within its borders. Comprising 5% of the population, Danish Muslims settled in no-go zones, while consuming 40% of welfare benefits.
American philosopher Francis Fukuyama suggests the conversion of Islamic nations to democracy is in our national security interests. He also cautions that just as dangerous to us as the threat of Islamism from outside our borders is the threat of Islamism from within. It is the latter threat to which we are exposed because of failed assimilation.
Why does Erdogan call assimilation “a crime against humanity?” It is because the “humanity” he embraces includes only Islam’s believers—i.e., non-believers are unworthy of inclusion. Thus, believers in foreign lands are instructed to isolate themselves—for the sake of purity—from non-believers.
What many people fail to understand about Islam and Muslims’ failure to assimilate “to become part of something greater” is that Muslims are embracing “reverse assimilation.” This is the process by which the influence of the host population is eventually marginalized due to the disproportionately high growth of an immigrant population which then seeks to impose its beliefs on the host. Simply put, it is the guest who comes to a host’s home, grows his family until it outnumbers the host’s family and then takes over that home.
What we fail to understand is that, to Muslims, becoming “part of something greater” means the natives surrender their individual identity and way of life to Muslims.
In 1948, the world community unanimously agreed to a UN declaration that human rights are universal. In 1981, Muslim countries distanced themselves from this, claiming Sharia law was controlling, thus limiting such rights primarily to Muslim men. That same Sharia law is now being applied in host countries—including the U.S.—under pressure from growing unassimilated Muslim populations.
Muslim supporters of the Ground Zero mosque raise the Constitution with one hand to claim religious freedom protects its construction. But, hidden in the other hand, is Sharia law—with its standard of human inequality—which they seek to impose, trumping the same Constitution they use against non-supporters. Mosque supporters need to understand they cannot have it both ways. We need to understand that as well.
Friday, April 20, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
WELFARE IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION,FOUNDERS WERE AGAINST IT!!!!!!!!
General Welfare
The “general welfare” clause is mentioned twice in the U.S. Constitution: first, in the preamble and second, it is found in Article 1, Section 8.
The preamble reads: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution refers to the “general welfare” thus: “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .”
The preamble clearly defines the two major functions of government: (1) ensuring justice, personal freedom, and a free society where individuals are protected from domestic lawbreakers and criminals, and; (2) protecting the people of the United States from foreign aggressors.
When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”
James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”
John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States, once observed: “Our Constitution professedly rests upon the good sense and attachment of the people. This basis, weak as it may appear, has not yet been found to fail.” It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)
The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
Quoting the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson 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 specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”
Writing about the “general welfare” clause in 1791, Thomas Jefferson saw the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution. The danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” Unlike public officials during Jefferson’s time, our modern-day legislators have a very loose interpretation of the Constitution. The result is that government has mushroomed into a monolithic bureaucracy.
Once the government opens its arms (and bank accounts), it divides the citizens into two groups: those who receive direct (personal, individual) benefit from the government, and those who do not. That is why the founders designed a FEDERAL system of government that provided only for the “GENERAL” (meaning- non-specific) WELFARE of the people by confining its services to things like “national defense” and “interstate commerce”. It leaves to the states the issues of HOW or WHEN other services are provided to specific sub-groups. HOWEVER (This is critical) the new government must represent the BEST INTERESTS of all the people, which logically means that it MUST be limited in scope, for the MORE a government undertakes, the more oppressive it becomes. Government MUST be ANCHORED in fundamental principles (see lecture notes).
If you advocate for federal spending on social welfare programs, you are describing a redistribution of income (MY income) for the benefit of Specific individual citizens INSTEAD of (for example) a strong national defense. Which of those activities is the government LEGALLY REQUIRED to perform? (hint: Art. I, Sec. 8, U.S. Constitution.)
If the Federal government MUST do certain things, and something is NOT EXPRESSLY STATED in the constitution as a duty of Federal Government, then HOW (or WHOM) should any other services be provided? (Hint: Tenth Amendment)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)