Paradoxic Muslim Migration

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.