Guest Post by Pat Buchanan
Our Founding Fathers, too, were ever alert to the dangers of dual loyalty.
“We can’t be divided by race, religion, by tribe. We’re defined by those enduring principles in the Constitution, even though we don’t necessarily all know them.”
So Joe Biden told the firefighters union this week.
But does Joe really believe that? Or does that not sound more like a plea, a wistful hope, rather than a deep conviction?
For Biden surely had in mind the debate that exploded last week in the House Democratic caucus on how to punish Somali-American and Muslim Congresswoman Ilhan Omar for raising the specter of dual loyalty.
Rebutting accusations of anti-Semitism lodged against her, Omar had fired back: “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”
Omar was talking about Israel.
Republicans raged that Nancy Pelosi’s caucus must denounce Omar for anti-Semitism. Journalists described the raising of the “dual loyalty” charge as a unique and awful moment, and perhaps a harbinger of things to come.
Yet, allegations of dual loyalty against ethnic groups, even from statesmen, have a long history in American politics.
In 1915, ex-President Theodore Roosevelt, at a convention of the Catholic Knights of Columbus, bellowed: “There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism … German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans, or Italian-Americans.
“There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is a man who is an American and nothing else.”
The New York Times headline the next morning:
“Roosevelt Bars the Hyphenated.”
It continued: “No Room in This Country for Dual Nationality, He Tells Knights of Columbus. Treason to Vote as Such.”
Have something to say about this column?
Visit Pat’s FaceBook page and post your comments….
What would Roosevelt think of the dual citizenship of many Americans today? If someone is a citizen of more than one country, how do we know where his primary allegiance lies?
Does not dual citizenship, de facto, imply dual loyalty?
Nor was the Rough Rider alone in his alarm. As America edged toward intervention in the European war, President Woodrow Wilson, too, tore into “the hyphenates”:
“The passions and intrigues of certain active groups and combinations of men amongst us who were born under foreign flags injected the poison of disloyalty into our most critical affairs. …
“I am the candidate of a party, but I am above all things else, an American citizen. I neither seek the favor nor fear the displeasure of that small alien element amongst us which puts loyalty to any foreign power before loyalty to the United States.”
In another address, Wilson declared:
“There is disloyalty active in the United States, and it must be absolutely crushed. It proceeds from … a very small minority, but a very active and subtle minority. It works underground but it shows its ugly head where we can see it, and there are those at this moment who are trying to levy a species of political blackmail, saying: ‘Do what we wish in the interest of foreign sentiment or we will wreak our vengeance at the polls.’”
What did Ilhan Omar say to compare with that?
Roosevelt and Wilson had in mind some German and Irish citizens whose affection for the lands and peoples whence they came made them adversaries of Wilson’s war, into which we would soon be dragged by a WASP elite with deep ties to Great Britain.
Our Founding Fathers, too, were ever alert to the dangers of dual loyalty. In his Farewell Address, President Washington warned against a “passionate attachment” to any foreign nation that might create the illusion of some “common interest … where no common interest exists.”
Did FDR fear dual loyalty? His internment of 110,000 Japanese, mostly U.S. citizens, for the duration of World War II, suggests that he did.
Did not the prosecution of American Communists under the Smith Act, begun by Truman and continued by Eisenhower, suggest that these first postwar presidents saw peril in a secret party that gave allegiance to a hostile foreign power?
Where Wilson, TR and FDR distrusted ethnic and racial minorities, Truman went after the ideological enemies within — the Communists.
What defines us, said Joe Biden, are the “enduring principles in the Constitution, even though we don’t necessarily all know them.”
But if these principles, of which many Americans are not even aware, says Joe, are what define us and hold us together, then what is it that is tearing us apart?
Is it not our differences? Is it not our diversity?
Is it not the powerful and conflicting claims of a multiplicity of races, religions, tribes, ethnicities, and nationalities, as well as clashing ideologies, irreconcilable moral codes, a culture war, and conflicting visions of America’s past — the one side seeing it as horrible and hateful, the other as great and good?
“Diversity is our greatest strength!” we are ever admonished.
But where is the evidence for what appears to be not only an inherently implausible claim but a transparently foolish and false one?
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
There used to be a time when just about ANY immigrant who set upon the shores of America was not only grateful, but willing to shed his “old world” ways and support his adopted country. He might have not known the language, and found some American customs and practices “strange”, but he fully embraced the idea that he could be an AMERICAN. He not only embraced the American ideal, but made damn sure that his children fully appreciated the land in which they were born.
Contrast that to today’s immigrant, who is only concerned about one thing–American dollars. Today’s immigrants care not about the founding principles of this country, the Constitutional principles in which our rights are endowed by our Creator, that our “rights” are not granted by government, and that the most important thing about being an American is the sense of freedom that he doesn’t want for himself or his offspring.
Today’s immigrant brings his “old-world” customs and squabbles here, demanding that native-born Americans kowtow to him and change THEIR ways to accommodate his “old-world” ways. His children are not encouraged to become Americans and fully assimilate, but are required to maintain their “old-world” customs and ways, even if they run counter to American customs and mores. These old-world customs and ways quite often are criminal in nature, and do nothing to endear him to native-born Americans. He just does not want to assimilate.
Many of today’s immigrants do not deserve to be here and should go back to where they came from.
“There used to be a time when just about ANY immigrant who set upon the shores of America was not only grateful, but willing to shed his “old world” ways and support his adopted country. He might have not known the language, and found some American customs and practices “strange”, but he fully embraced the idea that he could be an AMERICAN.” Oh for Pete’s sake, Anarchyst, you’re making this stuff up. Didn’t you see the TV movie Roots? The guy is practically begging LeVar Burton to become Americanized. “Your name is Toby.” “No, I’m Kunta Kinte.” He was completely hostile to assimilation, and that was 200 years ago.
You bring up an excellent point about blacks (that I overlooked). You are correct in stating that blacks still have not assimilated, despite being here for hundreds of years. Even a luminary like Thomas Jefferson KNEW that blacks would never assimilate, and said so in his writings.
Regards,
Star-
“but he fully embraced the idea that he could be an AMERICAN. Oh for Pete’s sake, Anarchyst, you’re making this stuff up”.
My grandfather-born in that dreary hotbed of German political activism, Munich-came to America ~130 years ago, got established enough that he sent for his bride-to-be in 3 years, taught her the english he knew, and they raised their Catholic family of 6 children without looking back. Others of his and her family immigrated around that time period, just in time to serve for the US in WWI. I don’t know, but would not be surprised if some of them went back to Germany to fight on that side. Virtually every one of the family that enlisted in the US Military was looked upon with suspicion. Yet, they did their part and when the war was over they came home and continued living their lives as Americans.
Just one family’s story. Does that sound like assimilation to you?
PS, another antidote: the son of old family friends was stationed in England and fell in love with an English lassie. They were considering marriage and she had a heart-to-heart talk with her father regarding her taking a husband and moving to the US. The wise old bird-with no hesitation-both told her and gave his blessing to marry and go live in the US forever. She did just that, became employed, and raised a family; votes and pays taxes. Yes, she still has her delightful English accent, loves the queen, and buys nothing but imported English tea. I dare say, though, she is probably more American at this point than any of the recent invaders who have gained entry into our country. Yes, I would give her pretty high marks on “assimilation”.
If your point is whether “just about any” or just “some” or even “only a few” immigrants to America in times past-other than starting with the decades long immigration fiasco engineered by edward kennedy back in the ’60s-I would go with anarchyst per his comment. I think that sentiment is in line with what Buchanan stresses about there should be no hyphenated Americans in America.
Why the hell we should allow those who hate us come to country is beyond me. Likewise for those who allow it to happen: you are undermining our way of life, our country, our future. You are as much the enemy as the illegals and the haters of America.
The America you knew is gone.
The post could have been simplified to say the great immigration of 1880-1917 worked reasonably well because the immigrants were decent people, were willing to work hard, and appreciated the opportunity they received vs the risk they took. Modern immigration is at a boiling point-with no fix in sight-because today’s immigrants and their enablers are nothing at all like earlier times.
So yes, that America is gone. Can we get it back?
Like begets like, no?
Even in the midst of vast and numerous differences, the natural inclination is to gravitate away from conflict, and toward common ground.
Forced integration seems folly, destined to fail.
When seeking inclusiveness, it should be common sense to assimilate into the culture of one’s target destination.
Blend.
If I wish to inhabit a place deemed noble, the quickest way to get rejected and ejected is if I implement forced change upon my hosts and their reluctant acceptance at the start. Particularly when said changes are to a loyalty that is foreign to my hosts. End result: Resentment and contempt. Then, conflict.
It’s coming. Nay, it has arrived.
Thus, better to gravitate towards, and contribute, to those we have the most in common with, and avoid or at least be leery of those with different loyalties.
Oil and water do not mix well.
The hypocrisy, of those screaming about anti semitism. Where do their dual loyalties lie?
Is water wet? Does food go in my mouth? Does poop stink? Does birds fly? Can I haz cheeseburger?
What is the purpose of this never ending circle jerk? The time for trying to figure out why people behave like human beings and oh my gosh what can we do about it is over. Battle lines are already drawn Pat, your ideological opponents aren’t over at HuffPo wringing their hands about this issue, they know the score.
Wake up already.
Speaking of deceitful, duplicitous pricks I see max boot just wrote an article claiming the term neocon should be stricken from public discourse. For once we agree. The term ‘conservative’ is an empty, ridiculous term no one can precisely define. It needs to go. I suggest “NeoRat” replace it.
cc,
it’ll never happen until conservative becomes an epithet,the way liberal has become an anchor around the necks of leftists–
conservative is a perfect term 4 right wing statetists(sp?) because “we”the people define it as reducing the size & scope of govt while the big govt acolytes use it as it’s real meaning,to conserve–
they keep telling us that they are conservatives & we keep believing them–
Exactly. What have “conservatives” actually conserved? Anyone?
“Neo cohen” is the best choice. There, fixed it for you.
“Does not dual citizenship, de facto, imply dual loyalty?”
Yes
Freemason
Islam has been poorly understood by Western civilization since the Renaissance. Were it otherwise, our Founders would have added safeguards to our Constitution to prevent these animals from seizing the levers of power in our own Government.
Even President Jefferson fell prey to this blindness when he addressed the problem of the Barbary Coast “pirates”. They were NOT pirates. They were thieving, murdering Muslims carrying out the sacraments of their cult. “Pirate” was simply the worst epithet of the day…similar to the term “terrorist” today. Instead of whacking their nose with a newspaper like he did, he should have wiped them from the face of the Earth and set a precedent. His lack of vision prevented him.
Maybe his acute vision prevented him ? It’s a deep rabbit hole, i’d be a leadin’ ya down, Mick…..so I won’t go there.
Jefferson continues on “Wishaupt”:
“Wishaupt believes that to promote this perfection of the human character was the object of Jesus Christ. That his intention was simply to reinstate natural religion, & by diffusing the light of his morality, to teach us to govern ourselves. His precepts are the love of god & love of our neighbor. And by teaching innocence of conduct, he expected to place men in their natural state of liberty & equality. He says, no one ever laid a surer foundation for liberty than our grand master, Jesus of Nazareth. He believes the Free Masons were originally possessed of the true principles & objects of Christianity, & have still preserved some of them by tradition, but much disfigured.”
Another snippet from the article (not attributed to Jefferson) :
“This also shows that when Madison, for instance, referred to Christianity as the “best & purest religion,” it by no means pointed towards his belief in orthodox Christianity as such contention perfectly parallels Jefferson’s above quoted heterodox thoughts. This is why James H. Hutson noted about that quotation:
This last assertion, however, sounds very much like the deistical maxim, frequently indulged by Jefferson, that the “pure” religion of Jesus had been unconscionably corrupted by the apostle Paul and the early church fathers.”
americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/07/jefferson-on-freemasons.html
annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum- interesting in relation to GCP’s Pauline Dispensation…?
So Jefferson was blinded by his own interpretation of Scripture. A common flaw…even today. And you do realize Jefferson was a Deist, right? He was as deeply flawed as any of us.
I do so hate mingling religion with politics, but it does seem unavoidable. We are what we do, and what we do is predicated on what we believe. They are inextricably intertwined.
I am aware of him being a deist….. what I am saying is; who’s god? or, what god? I’m just suggesting, for an abundance of evidence, that perhaps the masonic theocracy (with Apollo/Osiris/Gilgamesh…) god has a “but now” change in the direction that guided the founders, one ‘they’ may have been aware of to achieve the plenary goal.
annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum- ‘but now’ it is time to accelerate chaos; to invoke the ‘angel in the whirlwind’ ? I believe I read a comment recently that mentioned how Satan knows his time is short. Recall if that was you? (I don’t)
The goal?- for man to once again co-mingle with gods? To ultimately invoke Lucy Fur incarnate?
I know I’ve never seen a better explanation for current ‘affairs’, as what can be found when studying the ‘illuminated theocracy’.
Thank you for the clarification. What you propose is entirely possible, and I hadn’t considered that. I’ve long wondered about just how involved God actually gets in matters such as you suggest. The only answer I have is “just as much as is necessary”. That leaves a lot of open territory. I’m sure it will become clear as soon as we cross the veil.
“I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress.” That’s got to be one of the most bold and truthful statements that I’ve heard a politician say in a long time. Hats off to Ms. Omar. I spend plenty of time on this board defending Jews, Israel is not my problem. I think Ms. Omar has a great point. Everybody wrung their hands, nobody cared take her point on at all. And to her credit, she did not apologize.
Yes, Omar has bigger balls than almost every other politician. Although her politics sucks, she bravely exposed the jews for what they are…
Omar can “get away with it” as she is a “person of color”. Any white man who attempted to do the same would have been crucified by not only the jews, but by almost every other politician. Speaking the TRUTH has not been possible for a long time. Congrats to Omar for speaking out…
It’s now obvious that Trump’s strategy is to win the Jewish vote and support at all costs, including betraying every campaign promise he made. Very bad miscalculation on his part.
actually not such a bad strategy if that’s really what he’s doing–
we’re gonna be in the mideast so long as we need oil & bases & israel’s interests often align w/ours so it’s not much of a price to pay to separate the dems from their main $ benefactors–
if he could separate jewish $ from the dems & also succeed in reforming the census he could almost destroy the dem party–
I have no problem barring people with dual citizenship from holding public office as long as the muslim trash is taken out at the same time.