Benedict Obama's invasion of America

By Selwyn Duke

If millions of soldiers from south of the border were flooding our nation for the purposes of colonizing our land, we would easily recognize the threat. And if some amongst us were aiding and abetting this invasion – purposely lowering border security to facilitate it – we'd know what to call them. And we'd know how they should be dealt with.

This comes to mind when considering the flood of humanity that does continually pour across our border, a phenomenon whose most recent manifestation is the children's crusade (which includes many teens, some of whom are gang members) currently in the news. Oh, the people trespassing on our land aren't wearing uniforms; they aren't wielding cold steel. But this isn't always necessary. As Muammar Gaddafi once pointed out, some invasions are prosecuted "without sword, without gun, without conquest." "We don't need terrorists; we don't need homicide bombers," he said. "The 50 plus million Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into the Muslim Continent within a few decades." Of course, in the waning West, we call this "diversity" and "demographic change."

And as we're being diversified into a country definitely not Western via demographic warfare, as we euphemize from sunrise to the sunset of our demise, something is exactly the same as in my opening example:

There are those amongst us aiding and abetting this invasion.

We can start with the fact that Barack Obama and his fellow travelers have sparked this most recent human wave with promises of amnesty for young illegals. Obama has also hobbled immigration enforcement, which itself is a euphemistic way of saying that he has, like a fifth column, cleared the way for an invading force. Adding insult to injury, not only is there no effort at deportation, but his administration's first response to the children's crusade was to provide lawyers for the illegals – paid for with your tax money – to help make these reinforcements permanent.

In fact, Obama is so intent on aiding the invasion that he has served notice that if Congress won't be complicit in his scheme, he will use an executive order to help the foreign boots on the ground.

Question: what do you call such a person?

Of course, this is nothing new. We have had seven amnesties in recent decades, and all the way through there were promises to secure the border. It never happened. Fool me once, shame on you. And if they can fool you seven times?

You're a doormat.

There's only one thing foreign boots on the ground do to doormats, mind you – and it isn't to show respect and gratitude.

It's obvious why leftists such as Obama have long facilitated immigration: they are importing voters. Upwards of 80 percent of the new arrivals will vote Democrat upon being naturalized. And is this any surprise? Most all illegals – and a majority of legal immigrants – hail from Hispanic nations, which are notoriously socialist (only the degree varies). And people don't suddenly change ideology just because they change location.

This brings us to Republicans who claim that Hispanics are a "natural conservative constituency" and that all the GOP need do is offer the olive branch of amnesty. Theirs is an imagination that could put Gene Roddenberry to shame.

While Hispanics do generally favor amnesty, the main thing the majority of them want is what they voted for in their socialist homelands: big government. Don't believe me, Karl? Just consider recent Pew research (hat tip: American Thinker's Thomas Lifson) showing that only 19 percent of Hispanics favor a smaller government while a whopping 75 percent prefer a bigger one. Of course, assimilation is the answer, right? Take a gander at the rest of the Pew data:


And what does this equate to once Hispanic majority status is reached (along with the leftward drift of non-Hispanic whites)?

• 19- 75 = government of Venezuela
  
  
• 36-58 = government of Mexico
  

In other words, modern immigration = death of America.

And to reiterate, this doesn't mean just illegal migration. Ever since Ted Kennedy's immigration act of 1965, 85 percent of our legal immigrants have hailed from the Third World and Asia. So in terms of demographic and ideological change, there is no difference between legal and illegal migration.

Yet it isn't just Hispanic immigrants. One reason I favor a moratorium on all immigration is that we face a largely socialist world. Where would we find immigrants amenable to authentic Americanism? Europe? China? Africa? The Middle East? The only exception may be Russia, but I wouldn't want to bet my culture on that, either.

While I've framed this ideologically, it can be defined culturally and racially (gasp!), too. And I won't shrink from this since it is exactly what the left is doing.

There's an old saying, if you can't get the people to change the government, change the people. Here's a simple fact: what we call traditional conservatism is a phenomenon of Christian, European-descent people (modern Europeans no longer qualify because of their secularism). One can debate the reasons for this, but it is plainly true. It's why almost 90 percent of GOP voters are white and almost 90 percent are Christian; it's why church attendance is one of the best predictors of voting patterns. Mind you, this doesn't mean that other groups won't contain some conservatives, but the fact is that no other major group is majority conservative.

Then there is that uncomfortable truth: Obama and many other leftists hate what they see as "white America" – Obama described white culture as "alien" in his book Dreams from My Father – and they want to destroy it as fast as possible. This is why, while giving the 1998 commencement address at Oregon's Portland State University, Bill Clinton spoke glowingly of the day when whites become a minority in America (to the uproarious cheers of the mostly white students).

Of course, this is where Obama, Clinton and the rest of the fifth column will say that if you're not cheering, you're a bigot.

Yawn.

If the Joneses were somehow gaining access to the Smith's home, squatting there and slowly taking over while the police refused to enforce trespassing laws, no one would wonder if the Smiths objected. The fact that Joneses aren't Smiths would be explanation enough. Or let's say that millions of Chinese were flooding the Ivory Coast, were supplanting African culture and threatening to soon outnumber the Africans. Would we be surprised if the Ivorians were up in arms? Would anthropologists call the transformation anything but cultural genocide?

Again, though, we call this diversity. But there's a funny thing about that oh-so necessary quality:

It's only encouraged in Western lands.

If diversity is such an imperative, why don't we push it in Saudi Arabia, Japan, Tunisia or Rwanda? And don't tell me we're just minding our own business, as Obama thought nothing of parading around Africa last year preaching about homosexual rights.

The truth is that when liberals say "Our strength lies in our diversity," they really mean their strength. They're building a solid socialist majority that won't blink at leftist corruption because these new arrivals are inured to it – corruption is status quo in their native lands.

And what else can we say about these migrants? Most are just coming to the US to make money, while some have criminal designs. But what is certain is that even if they were capable of shedding deep-seated socialist instincts, they're not coming here to become American – in spirit. And they're casting votes Americans won't cast.

Back in 2009, a former Labour (Britain's liberal party) speechwriter created a firestorm by revealing that the UK government had encouraged unfettered immigration "to rub the Right's nose in diversity." This prompted The Telegraph's Ed West to call the leftists' plan "borderline treason."

Borderline? I think that's another border that was brazenly crossed. And does this kind of behavior deserve any less damning a characterization on our side of the pond?

© Selwyn Duke