I really don't think it's the Jews doing this. It's more the leftist Democrats which obviously does include a great many Jews among them. But the Republicans … the conservative Jew loving ones … want to seal the borders and keep these terrorists out.
(1) The old distinction between Democrats and Republicans continues to be true: the former is the Evil Party, the latter, the Stupid Party.
(2) The Democrats consist entirely
of Jews and their ideological goyim stooges. No Democrat in decades, even Dennis Kucinich, has taken even a nuanced stand against the menace of international Jewry. Even concerning Israel and its egregious crimes, no speeches on the House floor (all of which are designed for reelection purposes) have ever been followed by a vote of censure anent any Israeli conduct. On the contrary, the House and Senate invariably reply with resolutions—with nary a single nay vote—lauding Israel's gloriousness and its preciousness to the world and to the USA especially.
(3) The Republicans do not
want to seal the borders. Look at their votes, for heaven's sake, not their reelection rhetoric! Why do you think Boehner and the Senate Republicans have agreed with Obama's call for a postelection lame duck session? They plan to hand Obama his dictatorial demand for amnesty for millions of illegals, just in case too many hard-core closure types get elected to the House in the November election. The same thing happened in 1994 with NAFTA. Clinton's proposal was opposed by 80 percent of white Americans, and so once Gingrich's campaign strategy successfully turned out the Democrats from their forty-year House rule, he and Clinton collaborated on a lame duck session to prevent the new electees from defeating NAFTA.
On the other hand, the Republicans do not stricto sensu love
the Jews. Rather, they are honorable thieves: having once been bought, they have stayed
bought. Sheldon Adelman, anyone?
And in case any Americanist delusions have you laboring under the erroneous belief that such pathetic acquiesence to Moslems is something new:
"...The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen..."
—Treaty of Tripoli, submitted to Senate by President John Adams, unanimously ratified on June 7, 1797. Signed into law by Adams on June 10, 1797.
[NB: A detail in clarification. Ratification of a treaty submitted to the Senate is final once the Senate approves it. No presidential signature is required for formal enactment. If an administration dislikes changes introduced in a treaty by the Senate, it needs to withdraw the treaty prior to the ratification vote.]
As to the objected-to citation above, in fairness to John Adams and his administration, one needs to read the wording closely and be familiar with the temporal context. The critical words here are "The Government of the United States of America." By this is meant one thing only: the federal government. Since most of the states then in the Union (16) had established religions (Protestant) and since everyone knew this to be so, a broader interpretation of the sentence as a whole is contrary to sense. Nor would Adams—whatever his failings an honorable man and a believing Christian (i.e., not one of the deists)—have signed anything that falsely affirmed such a state of affairs. What is more, Adams (and indeed all or virtually all of the 32 senators) both knew that American society was founded upon the Christian religion (in the form of various Protestant sects and an ever-growing number of Catholics) and approved of that situation.
Most important of all, one must remember that in 1797 "United States" was a plural noun, not a singular one. The spirit of the Articles of Confederation was still the norm and firmly in place throughout the land, and virtually everyone in government and society*
regarded the federal government as an instrument solely to handle affairs (e.g., international treaties and the domestic currency) that had proved to be too intractable for the thirteen separate states (which had been independent and sovereign countries prior to the 1787 ratification of the Constitution) to handle individually.
(Whether institution of the Constitution was a good or bad thing is not strictly germane to the present topic.)
Recall, too, that Adams was regarded as one of the finest lawyers and most profoundly learned legal scholars in the entire confederation (and prior to the Revolution as well) and was admired as such even by his political enemies, of whom there were many. In approving the wording of the quoted matter, he was thus confirming its absolute but highly limited
accuracy: The Constitution created a federal government with (what were then incorrectly thought) powers that were few in number and minor in effect. That Constitution restricted the federal government but only
the federal government from acting on behalf of any given religion; it also restrained the federal government from interfering with any and all religious matters affecting the various states or the people at large.**
Read in light of the foregoing, I cannot consider the wording of this treaty objectionable on its face
. That the wording confirms that the federal government was from the outset intended to be indifferentist by design is not, I trust, in dispute hereabouts, nor is it something that many CI commenters (save the most ill informed) would applaud.
Alexander Hamilton and his followers constituted the only important group of those in the generation of the Founders that actively (but very circumspectly) worked both for a unitary state (the one whose despotic rule we now live under) and for true separation of Christianity from public life and governance. Note in this regard that Washington, whose aide Hamilton had once been and who was familiar with Hamilton's views, took care to confine Hamilton's federal service to financial and fiscal matters, in whose management he was highly esteemed.**
Herein lies the meaning of the opening words of the First Amendment: "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." No such restriction was placed on any locality or state. Any attempt to include such a restriction by its drafter, Madison (not that he would have wished to do so), would have doomed the proposed amendment to the same fate, rejection, as the other two of the twelve proposed amendments meant to constitute the Bill of Rights.