Fascism, Islam, and Immigration

On a couple of e-mail lists I'm on, somebody mentioned this rumor :

President George W. Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits deployment of U.S. troops on American streets. This would give him absolute dictatorial power over the government with no checks and balances.

Right now, I'm treating this as just a rumor. If and when Bush does this, I would not be opposed to a military coup. The "American Experiment," which many believed expired a long time ago (such as one of these dates, though you may have your own: 1789, 1861, 1898, 1913, 1933, 1950, 1963, 1987, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004) would really be kaput. After this, all we'd have left are a few more bogus elections, and then finally a cancelled election. At that point it would really, really really be kaput. If this rumor is true, a coup today would stop the charade once and for all. Maybe the engineers of the coup would be patriotic heroes, or maybe they'll just be additional instruments of the globalist conspiracy; either way at least we'd stop living a lie.

Anyway, the rumor prompted some discussion on "fascism," leading one to post a passage from Wikipedia:

In this [superficial] sense, the word "fascist" is generally meant to mean "oppressive," "intolerant," "chauvinist," or "aggressive," all concepts that are at least loosely inspired by the ideology of actual fascism. For example, one might accuse an inconviently placed police road block as being a "fascist tactic" or an overly authoritarian teacher as being a "real fascist."

I use the word "fascist" primarily in the face of oppression and/or aggression. These are so much worse than "intolerant" and "chauvinist" that it baffles my mind why anyone would use the word to disparage real or supposed racists. That is, I use the "fascist" charge against those who would initiate force to achieve their ends. Those who would pass a law banning smoking in restaurants, or deny people the right to keep and bear arms, are much worse than those who belong to males-only clubs or are uncomfortable with inter-racial marriage.

In addition to fascism, immigration, Islam, and the War on Terror are also on my mind. Srdja Trifkovic affirms my own thoughts in his Chronicles article "Can a Pious Muslim Become a Loyal American?" Trifkovic writes,

For a Muslim to declare all of the above [the oath of citizenship] in good faith, and especially that he accepts the Constitution of the United States as the source of his highest loyalty, is an act of brazen apostasy par excellence, and apostasy is punishable by death under the Islamic law. The sharia, to a Muslim, is not an addition to the “secular” legal code with which it coexists with “the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”; it is the only true code, the only basis of obligation. To be legitimate, all political power therefore must rest exclusively with those who enjoy Allah’s authority on the basis of his revealed will. In America that is not the case and its government is therefore illegitimate.

It is equally sacrilegious for a Muslim to swear to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That vow, if it means anything substantial, means that he would be prepared to shoot a fellow Muslim, or denounce him to the authorities, in defense of his adopted homeland. That this is not how many if not most naturalized Muslims see it is a matter of record.

So how can a self-avowedly devout Muslim take the oath of American citizenship, and expect the rest of us to believe that it was done in good faith and not only in order to get that coveted passport? A devout Muslim can do it only if in taking the oath he is practicing taqiyya, the art of dissimulation that was inaugurated by Muhammad to help destabilize and undermine non-Muslim communities almost ripe for a touch of old-fashioned Jihad.

Islam is a political philosophy, an ideology at odds with American institutions, law, and culture. Yet, Political Correctness is the Trojan horse in which many Moslems enter the United States, become citizens, and then, as Trifkovic points out, plot against this country.

Immigration policy should be seen first in terms of defense. When foreigners come here in uniforms and with guns, we assume they're invading and that we have every right to shoot them. When they are no so attired and armed, however, many of us assume they have nothing but the best of intentions and should be let in, no questions asked. To do anything else would be "racist."

This may have made sense when America had empty space to homestead, and the immigrants understood and appreciated American laws. Not so much, however, when immigrants, legal and illegal, drive rents up and wages down, which must be the case when all the land is privately owned or off-limits to settlement. And open borders hardly makes sense when many of these new immigrants have a worldview at odds with the continuance of American law and culture as we presently understand them.

As Thomas Fleming, also of Chronicles, wrote wrote two months ago:

What if, I used to ask, we could import 500 million Martians with an average IQ of 150 and terrific work habits? Would that be good for the country, and, if the answer is “Yes,” then what do you mean by country?

America has an obligation to protect the lives, liberties, and property of her own people, and, for the sake of liberty and peace, to respect the sovereignty of other countries. But it has no more of an obligation to let foreigners into our country, than you have an obligation to open your house to any stranger on the street. Moreover, just as you have every right to "discriminate," letting in people you know and like into your home, and not letting in people you don't know or don't like, so it is true of the country. And we particularly have every right to exclude those we have good reason to believe have contempt for our laws, institutions, and culture. It doesn't mean we should kill them or torture them, or do anything to them. They can do whatever they please; they just can't do it here.

Which brings me back to fascism. These thoughts may indeed be "intolerant" and "chauvinistic." But I don't have any interest in curtailing the liberties of Americans. Beefing up coastal and border security, and reforming immigration laws to prevent immigration from terrorist states, will not infringe on the rights of Americans. And I'm not interested in immigration enforcement, like national ID cards or snooping into employee records, that would infringe on the freedom of Americans. Nor do I have any interest in "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." Instead, I'm for leaving there and not letting them come over here. That's the best way to protect Americans from terrorism while at the same time preserving liberty at home and peace abroad.