Showing posts with label foreign influence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreign influence. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

DANGER Will Robinson!

Is there something wrong with Americans distrusting Muslims and their motives to the extent that they deprive them of holding political office under the United States? According to subversive infiltrator Colin Powell there is. And it is on this basis that Powell recently defected from his party and endorsed Barack Hussein Obama for president of the United States. Has Powell always been a subversive and an infiltrator, an agent of Muslim empowerment in America? I don't know and I don't really care, I mean CAIR. He is now, for all intents and purposes, and that's all that matters to me at this point.

As I said in the post preceding this one, the proof is in the pudding. Powell didn't have to endorse either candidate. That he endorsed Obama, and on the grounds that he endorsed Obama, says all that needs be said concerning his sympathy towards our mortal enemies. According to Mr. Powell the only real Americans are those who are either sympathetic to Muslims and Muslim empowerment in America, i.e., those inclined to dhimmitude, or, Muslim-Americans themselves. No one else need apply.

**********

In the initial entry I wrote:

According to Mr. Powell the only real Americans are those who are either sympathetic to Muslims and Muslim empowerment in America, i.e., those inclined to dhimmitude, or, Muslim-Americans themselves. No one else need apply.

I ask you, is this not precisely what the Muslim holy book teaches its adherents to strive for? What does this make Mr. Powell?

Update: CAIR has a friend in Powell. As I intimated in the initial entry above, CAIR, "America's largest Muslim civil liberties group," whose mission it "is to ... empower American Muslims," has posted an approving response to Colin Powell's public rebuke of non-American Americans, i.e., any person born or naturalized in the United States who is not a Muslim and/or is unsympathetic towards Muslims and opposed to Muslim empowerment in America.

From the CAIR article:

"We applaud Mr. Powell for stating so eloquently and forcefully what should have been said long ago by public officials and candidates for elected office," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. "His statement gives hope to American Muslims who have been disheartened by rising levels of anti-Muslim bigotry in this election cycle."

Eloquently? Forcefully maybe, but eloquently?

Well, that's what happens when Muslims in America become empowered to the extent they are now, these people become emboldened and begin coming out of the woodwork. CAIR, and Muslim residents of America in general, will in turn become more emboldened with such friends and advocates in high places. And we all know what that means.

"Is there something wrong with some seven year old Muslim kid in America believing that he or she could be president," you ask Mr. Powell? Uh, the short answer is yes.

Read More

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Powell turns his back on America

Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, appearing this morning on Meet the Press, formally lent his endorsement to Senator Barack Hussein Obama's leftist campaign for the presidency on the basis, in Powell's words, that Obama "has the ability to inspire." No, I'm not making this up. But it gets worse:

President Bush's first secretary of state criticised his own party for allowing the campaign to turn negative.

"I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the [Republican] Party say... such things as 'Well, you know that Mr Obama is a Muslim'.

"Well the correct answer is, 'He's not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian'. But the really right answer is, "What if he is?' Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is 'No', that's not America."

Mr Powell said he remained a Republican though he thought his party was moving too far to the right.

The Republican party is moving too far to the right? You must be kidding me! If the Republican party isn't moving far enough and fast enough for you to the left, Mr. Powell, then I'd suggest, sir, that you abandon it as you've done your country and officially join that other party where you belong. And take McCain with you while you're at it, eh?

Oh, and let's not neglect the minor issue of Powell's Islam-embracing dogmatism which states that America is not America that prefers Christian leaders over Islamic ones. Thus Americans who prefer Christians over Muslims, according to Mr. Powell, are not true Americans.

Here's the irrefutable evidence for Powell's betrayal of America, he could have refused to endorse either candidate, yet he chose to officially endorse Barack Hussein Obama and all the leftist anti-American baggage he carries with him. Not to mention that he states in no uncertain terms that even if Obama were a Muslim, he would still endorse him for POTUS.

Look for a Powell appointment in an Obama administration. And look out America, the Muslims have their agents and infiltrators everywhere, at all levels of government.

**********


On further reflection I think I get it now. I was initially looking at Powell's statement about the Republican party moving "too far to the right" as separate from his statements about America not being America unless it fully embraces Islam to the extent that it would elect a Muslim president. But the two statements work hand-in-glove. That's really the only way they make any sense considering the obvious fact that the Republican party is increasingly moving to the left, not to the right as Powell asserts. As Powell sees it, however, the Republican party is moving in the opposite direction, and here's why -- he sees that a growing segment of the Republican base is finally opening its eyes to the fact that Islam ain't all that president Bush has cracked it up to be, i.e., a great and peaceful religion hijacked by radicals. Since Republicans constitute the vast majority of folks who are finally beginning to see the light about Islam, and beginning to speak more openly about it, which is a danger to Islamic influence in America, Powell therefore concludes that the Republican party is moving too far to the right. With this covert agent of Islam it's about America's attitude toward Islam. It's all becoming very clear to me now.

Or is it simply Powell's sense of relative motion that causes him to see the Republican party as moving too far to the right? In other words, is Powell himself moving to the left at a faster pace than the bulk of the Republican party thus creating in him the relative sense that the Republican party is moving to the right, when in reality it is Powell that is moving to the left, as I said, at a velocity exceeding that of the Republican party?

Note to Mr. Powell: It was long ago discovered that the earth is not the center of the universe, if you catch my drift.

Read More

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Dual citizenship, or dueling loyalties?

In a new entry titled American Exodus, Vanishing American attempts to broach the subject from at least a couple of different angles. It's a good post, and I heartily recommend that you read it in its entirety.

VA writes:

This is all well and good for those of recent immigrant stock, as apparently many European countries will accept immigrants with ancestry (even grandparents or great-grandparents) from that country. Still, that doesn't help people like me whose ancestors have been in this land for quite a few generations.

The article gives the impression that some of these people who are seeking dual citizenship have rather shallow loyalties to this country, and who are actually 'hyphenated Americans' with one foot in the 'old country.' So in that sense, they may not be bellwethers of 'White flight'. They seem to be opportunists, in many cases, who think their economic chances are better in Europe, and they have somewhat weak ties to this country. (italics added)

Yes; yet despite their weak ties to this country which it seems to me would only tend to get weaker in proportion to their distance and time away, they presumably would retain the strength of their political ties -- their U.S. citizenship -- once having established permanent residency in Europe! Nuts!

My concern here is with this whole issue of "dual citizenship". As to VA's italicized comments above, I personally have always thought that this was a given with "Americans" who are dual citizens of America and of a distinct foreign country with distinctive foreign interests.

I've written about this before and I've consistently maintained that dual citizenship in the United States and the country of one's ancestral origin, Western European or otherwise, does by definition divide one's loyalties between the two. Therefore, I think that dual citizenship should be prohibited by law.

Personally I don't even like the idea of dual citizenship for native Americans, because I think, again, that there's a division of loyalties inherent to the concept of dual citizenship, which is self-destructive. This is the reason, for instance, that someone found to have a conflict of interests is disallowed from serving on a jury. It is commonly understood that such a person cannot be unbiased in his judgment, or, stated differently, he cannot act solely in the interest of justice because he has an interest which conflicts with impartial justice.

But at least in the case of native Americans they are persons whose conflicting loyalties are not between the United States and a foreign state, but between the United States and the given Indian Nation, both confined within the same broad borders. Nonetheless, I believe that native Americans should be forced to make the choice between United States citizenship and all the priveleges and immunities that go with it, and of the tribe to which they belong. There should be no conflicting loyalties, nor any opportunity for those loyalties to conflict.

While I'm not saying that American interests are altogether distinctive from, say, Great Britian's; that the two countries do not at times share the same interests, I am saying that they also have distinctive interests which often conflict with the interests of the other. And it's on this basis that I reject the idea of dual citizenship, not just for cultural incompatibles like Muslims, but for everybody. Where am I going wrong?

Read More