In his magnum opus Clash of Civilizations the late Samuel Huntington wrote that the repudiation of an American cultural identity, its mythos, and common creed, would ultimately deconstruct and dismantle the American culture itself. The American culture will see its demise in the deconstructionist ideology of diversity and multiculturalism. We are already beginning to experience this degradation in the ascendance of an aggressive ethnocentrism that has less to do with immigration then with the nullification of an American cultural identity. Huntington recalls that,
“On October 16, 1994, in Los Angeles 70,000 people marched beneath “ a sea of Mexican flags” protesting Proposition 187, a referendum measure which would deny many state benefits to illegal immigrants and their children. What are they ‘walking down the street with a Mexican flag and demanding that this country give them a fee education?’ observers asked. ‘They should be waving the American flag.’ Two weeks later more protestors did march down the street carrying American flag—upside down.
Why indeed should Hispanics be waving a Mexican flag on American soil other than to show their contempt of a sovereign, American people? That the Mexican flag was again raised in violent and vitriolic protests surrounding Arizona’s incorporation of a federal law preempting illegal immigration is again symptomatic of an attempt to deconstruct the American culture. To paraphrase the late President Ronald Reagan, a nation that cannot or will not maintain its borders, is not sovereign and is not a nation. Mr. Huntington writes that,
A more immediate and dangerous challenge exists in the United States. Historically American national identity has been defined culturally by the heritage of Western civilization and politically by the principles of the American Creed on which Americans overwhelmingly agree: liberty, democracy, individualism, and equality before the law, constitutionalism, and private property. In the late twentieth century both components of American identity have come under concentrated and sustained onslaught from a small but influential number of intellectuals and publicists. In the name of multiculturalism they have attacked the identification of the United States with Western civilization, denied the existence of a common American culture and promoted racial, ethnic and other sub national cultural identities and groupings.
The citizens of Arizona are good men and women, as indeed are the majority of illegal immigrants. Arizonans work hard, respect the law, and revere their country, as do the Mexicans their country. Like all American citizens, Arizonans love and care for their children and hope for their better future. They want to raise their family in an environment that is safe, secure and prosperous. And like millions of Americans Arizonans have also been devastated by a government-instigated collapse of the real estate market.
Seventy percent of Arizonans approve of a law—identical to the federal law, the terms of which the Arizona law has incorporated. The Arizona law sets out the same mandatory guidelines against the profiling of suspects as are set out in the federal law. The law would prevent people from other countries from entering the United States illegally, in defiance of its borders, its immigration laws, its state and national sovereignty. The law is aimed at people who would defy American law so as to consume the extravagant welfare benefits a rapacious welfare state— created by Democrats and Republicans, alike— has mandated for nearly fifty percent of a population that contributes little or nothing to the payment of taxes.
While those who enter the United State know they are violating American law, state and federal sovereignty—this with the cooperation and encouragement of their country, Mexico— many are motivated by a desire to work, to live in America and thereby to improve the life and well being of their families. These too are good men and women. Others, however, invade the United States to sell drugs, or, in a panorama of criminal conduct, assault and exploit American citizens. They have killed or robbed Americans, of various ethnicities including Hispanics. They have crowded American prisons, particularly in Border States, and have consumed the benefits of a welfare state to which they have contributed nothing.
Specifically, in addition to such benefits they might have acquired before arrest and indictment, they are provided a jail, food, medical care and a free attorney to process their trials and appeals. They have engaged in identity theft, forged social security cards and many have escaped justice. They have imposed an unconscionable financial burden on American federal and state governments and on the American citizen who is finally compelled to pay the bill.
During President Bush’s Administration, for example, the Mexican government sought the release, on technical grounds, of fifty-one illegals, convicted of heinous crimes and who were—as their appeals were being processed through the years, awaiting execution on death row. In 1993, two teenaged girls walking home from school were captured, raped, beaten mercilessly and, even as they plead for their lives, were strangled to death by the illegal alien Jose Ernesto Medellin and his gang. Medellin, engaged at the time in the rites of gang initiation, celebrated their rape, torture and murder with his friends.
When arrested he confessed. Displaying no remorse whatsoever, he admitted to gang raping, both girls, and he described how they pleaded for their lives before he stomped on one girl’s neck and strangled them both with a shoelace and a belt. Medellin was appointed counsel and a jury found him guilty of murder. Four years following his conviction, he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, alleging that as a Mexican citizen he was entitled— pursuant to the Protocols of the Vienna Convention—to confer with a Mexican consulate following his arrest in a foreign country. (The foreign country he referred to was America). He argued that as he was not accorded this right the jury verdict against him must be set aside.
While President Bush supported by Presidential order, the appeal of rapist/ murderer Medellyn, the Supreme Court condemned the President’s Constitutionally aberrant attempt to surrender the sovereign jurisdiction of American Courts—including the U.S. Supreme Court—to the foreign jurisdiction of the United Nations’ International Court of Justice.
In their May 1, 2010 protest of the Arizona law, protesters assaulted police officers, attacked and damaged at least a dozen businesses and painted swastikas on public buildings. They have kicked and beaten those who would protest illegal immigration. An Arizona city mayor libeled his fellow citizens with the accusation that they were no better than the Nazis who would compel Hispanics, as the Nazis compelled Jews, to wear a yellow star on their clothing. Others waved the Mexican flag, under the circumstances a flagrant symbol of cultural arrogance, as the Arizona legislature and people were made the object of vicious personal attack. Indeed, the resort to Nazi metaphors—this again from the Left— was the focal point of their insatiate malice—that and violence and intimidation.
It is probably unprecedented that the O’Bama Administration chose to side—not with the sovereign American people and their sovereign state of Arizona, but with law breakers who for the last quarter century have shown little but contempt for American borders—and with the nation of Mexico who joined President O’Bama in the brow beating of the Arizona legislature and her American citizens.
George Orwell, author of Animal Farm, a satire of Soviet Union communism coined the term Renegade Liberal to describe the political psychotics of England’s liberal intellectual establishment during the Second World War. The liberal intellectual or “Renegade Liberal” as Orwell preferred to call him, passionately admired a vicious Soviet Union and therefore intended to shield it against the truth of its diabolical ambition. To that end, the Renegade Liberal distorted, suppressed or filtered from the written word, the truth and brutal spectacle of Russian atrocities. In his preface to Animal Farm, the publication of which the “Ministry of Truth” would not allow, Orwell criticized the liberal intellectual’s ’demand for, “…an uncritical admiration of Soviet Russia.”
The servility with which the greater part of the English intelligentsia have swallowed and repeated Russian propaganda from 1941 onwards would be quite astounding if it were not that they have behaved similarly on several earlier occasions. On one controversial issue after another the Russian viewpoint has been accepted without examination and then publicized with complete disregard to historical truth or intellectual decency…. Stalin is sacrosanct and certain aspects of his policy must not be seriously discussed.
The English intelligentsia… felt that to cast any doubt on the wisdom of Stalin was a kind of blasphemy…. The endless executions in the purges of 1936-8 were applauded by life-long opponents of capital punishment, and it was considered equally proper to publicize famines when they happened in India and to conceal them when they happened in the Ukraine. [Orwell refers here to Stalin’s planned starvation of 8 to 10 million Russian Kulaks].
In America, the progeny of the Radical Liberal are wedded to open borders, periodic and eternal grants of amnesty, a perpetual expansion of the welfare state, higher education, free criminal and civil representation for the illegal alien charged with a crime or who wishes to challenge his forcible return to the country of his birth. That Americans are losing jobs to uncontrolled illegal immigration, that border hospitals are being driven out of business, that prisons are overburdened with the incarceration of foreign prisoners, that Mexican drug cartels are becoming ever more lethal and that Arizona citizens are seeing the quality and safety of their lives and freedom diminished— even as their taxes increase—these are the morbid ruins rise from the mind of the Nazi aficionado, the liberal intellectual, the Orwellian Renegade Liberal.
The state of Arizona passed a bill into law, which will permit the arrest, and detainment of illegal aliens upon a police officers’ reasonable suspicion that the individual detained is a lawbreaker. Immediately, of course, the same people who warn that outraged middle aged tea partiers are about to cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war, are again flinging the racist epithet at anyone who lives in Arizona, throwing water bottles at police officers, destroying private, business property, painting swastikas on public buildings with refried beans and punching out those opposed to the breaking of the law.
Although it is the federal government’s Constitutional obligation, to maintain America’s borders both Republican and Democrats have defied that obligation. Cities, like San Francisco, have declared themselves “sanctuary cities” and have placed themselves above the law even as its citizens excoriate Arizonans in the smutty language of bigotry. California’s Cardinal Mahoney has joined the fray again mouthing with pedantic ennui the usual Nazi epithets.
While, of course, the crisis must be addressed, we must, as a starting point, acknowledge the obvious: The American Constitution does not invest in anyone a Constitutional right in American citizenship simply because he manages to invade the American border—and neither does any other nation. Citizenship, therefore, for those not born in America, is a privilege not a right.
That said, the crisis runs deeper. America will not insure its survival by the adoption of multiculturalism, theories of mandatory diversity or the rejection of an American creed that made her great. Other nations have tried and failed. Here is Huntington.
The leaders of other countries have… at times attempted to disavow their cultural heritage and shift the identity of their country from one civilization to another. In no case to date have they succeeded and they have instead created schizophrenic torn countries. The American multiculturalists similarly reject their country’s cultural heritage. Instead of attempting to identify the United States with another civilization, however, they wish to create a country of many civilizations, which is to say a country not belonging to any civilization and lacking a cultural core. History shows that no country so constituted can long endure as a coherent society.
Rejection of the Creed and of Western civilization means the end of the United States of America as we have known it. It also means effectively the end of Western civilization… Without the United States the West becomes a minuscule and declining part of the world’s population on a small an inconsequential peninsula at the extremity of the Eurasian land mass. The clash between the multiculturalist and the defenders of Western civilization and the American Creed is, in James Jurth’s phrase, ‘the real clash’ within the American segment of Western civilization. The future of the United States and of the West depends upon Americans reaffirming their commitment to Western civilization. Domestically this means rejecting the divisive siren calls of multiculturalism
Let us all rise with Arizona. It would be a beginning.
 Samuel P Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations, and the Remaking of World Order (Touchtone, 1997).
 Ted Cruz, Defending U..S. Sovereignty, Separation of powers, and Federalism in Medellin v. Texas. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol.33, Number 1, Winter, 2010. “Mr. Cruz served as Solicitor General of Texas from 2003-2008. He has argued eight cases before the United States Supreme Court including Medellin v. Texas.
 George Orwell, THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, (Unpublished, preference to Animal Farm.