The
problem of Muslim immigration through Democrat Party accomplices in
government to the United States exemplifies political reasoning
deficiency in government. For Democrat party leftists viewing
national and global demographic issues through a Stalinist historical
lens moderated a little with Leninism equivocation of all
non-straight white males is natural; all are viewed as allies to
subvert traditional American constitutional and historical values.
Thus Muslims are regarded as peers of value in the destruction of
historical American values, prioritized and defended with Pelosi
rhetoric and the Obama veto.
It
is the case that numbers differ in ordinality as well as cardinality,
yet if numbers may be used representational symbols for the purpose
of drawing an analogy, the Democrat party fails to discern the
different values-demographic values if you will, and regards 2s as
equal to 0s and 5s as equal to fire. While fire may be a fish out of
water in any given number series with a non-zero value, if it is
nothing at all comprising a set then any sort of non-real element is
as good as another. Democrat party pragmatic fiction paradigms
discern no substantive differences between the import of Muslims and
say, for example, Mexicans. Mexican illegal migrants and dual
passport holders graft America into Mexico with inherent corruption
of national democratic self-determination by the electorate. Muslim
migrants comprise a growing internal proletariat with implicit
seditious political values. Theocracy is the destiny of any
actualized Muslim nation and war exploiting any means at all to
arrive there is orthodox policy of the Quran. The left fail to
recognize Muslim immigrants as the humble beginning of their own
political extinction even given historical example such as the left’s
support of the Ayatollah Khomeini in his revolution against the Shah
with the communist party being the first purged after the populist
Muslim Revolution took power.
ObamaClintoncrats
would have the Muslim migration issue of just letting in desparate
women and children while their dead jihadist husbands or live
fighters are battling in Syria. There is more to it than that. The
American left have made interpretation of the constitution a floating
value exercise in unreality comparable to the floating value of the
dollar set into being by the Nixon administration in 1971. Instead of
strict construction and conservative interpretation of the
constitution staying as close to making decisions based on what the
constitution actual contains and letting the congress add anything
else, the Supreme Court has taken to expanding terms and ideas such
as privacy to include abortion (the founders would never have allowed
that) and have made decisions for homosexual marriage that also would
never had been sanctioned by the conservative Christian founders of
the nation.
It
is possible to take language and give words any sort of meaning none
likes. Kripke in ‘Naming and Necessity’ written about 1971found
that words have at least a little implicit meaning or neo-Platonic
non-associationist character. Even if one takes Quines ‘Word and
Object’ criteria as a paradigm for philosophy of language
interpretation of referent meanings with words finding their meaning
from historical context, a functional neo-Platonic value is present;
words to not just become blank tools for containing any sort of
meaning like algebraic literals when used in historical settings. One
cannot take the Bible and say it is a NASCAR guide to the year 2050
and use a computer editor to creating a new lexicon making it say so
and keep any semblance of the actual historical meaning it had when
written. The judiciary need to keep in mind how the founders thought
and what they would have intended themselves when interpreting the
constitution if they want to have any sort of veracity. Congress is
supposed to add new laws or change the constitution via
constitutional convention-not the judiciary as it interpolates
entirely fictitious interpretations of it as it has throughout the
last century.
How
often may one listen to Democrat politicians declare that America is
a nation of immigrants therefore Muslim immigrants must be admitted
in large numbers? It is a syllogism applied far too broadly for
meaning. Ask instead how often in American history before the 20th
century or even the 21st did the United States or even the Western
hemisphere nations import large numbers of Muslims? Did American
founder Christians have any help at all from Muslims?
In
the moral decline of the 41-42-44 years the United States has become
the target of Muslim jihadists. If economics may be viewed as a tool
of colonialism through other means, Muslim agitators have targeted
large colonialist economic symbols such as the WTC for destruction.
Besides being of symbolic power their destruction created a temporary
imbalance in economic competition between rival civilizations.
Logical
politicians might wonder why Muslim refugees ought not be relocated
to Muslim nations where their presence would not support the
development of a dar al harb-zone of war-in a non-Muslim nation. The
left fail entirely to comprehend that Islam, like the Communist party
of the former Soviet Union in a Trotskiite phase, is expansionist and
obligated to subdue the entire world to Islam. It is not wise to
encourage them in expanding by the establishment of a substantive
internal proletariat within the united States or Europe. it is a
paradox that the left in their antipathy to conservative traditional
values morally speaking fail to comprehend that the Muslim migrations
are a virtual direct feedback response loop antigen of correction to
their corruption of moral values. The first time a Muslim suicide
bomber takes out an abortion clinic the left any change their opinion
on the wisdom of admitting Muslim ‘refugees’ to the U.S.A. or
Europe.
No comments:
Post a Comment