What Our National Survival Depends On

Our great founders understood that immigrants bring their culture with them, and that some cultures are toxic to our own.  They understood that there can be no comity without commonality, that immigration without assimilation is a recipe for disaster, and that unity, not diversity, is the source of our strength.

As Alexander Hamilton warned, America’s survival depends on “the preservation of a national spirit and a national character.”

“To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country … would be nothing less, than to admit the Grecian Horse into the Citadel of our Liberty and Sovereignty.”

Thomas Jefferson likewise warned that immigrants “will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth,” and that, as a result, they “will infuse into [our legislation] their spirit, warp and bias its direction.” Jefferson recognized that a careless approach to immigration would eventually reshape America away from her founding character.

If Americans want America to survive, they must reclaim the moral clarity of the Founders and say, without apology, that not every idea deserves a seat at the table and not every person who wants to be in America deserves to be here.

Read more here.

Bare Assertion and Circularity

"There is no evidence because there is no evidence." Thus some shyster defending Hunter Biden against charges of wrongdoing. I am tempted to call this a presuppositional approach to political apologetics. 

A circular argument is an argument, but because the 'diameter' of the circle is zero, it is no better than a bare assertion. It is a bare assertion dressed up as an argument. You could say that it is a bare assertion in argumentative drag. 

You know about bare assertion: quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. How delightful the pithy punch of this Latin tag! Unpacked, and replacing the indicative mood with the permissive, the point is that whatever may be gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied.  Thus, with no breach of logical propriety, I am allowed to meet your bare assertion with a bare counter-assertion. From a logical point of view, there is nothing to choose between the two. Or as Hegel writes in the Introduction to the Phenomenology of Spirit, ein trockenes Versichern gilt gerade so viel als ein anderes. (Felix Meiner Ausgabe, 66)  ". . . one dry assurance counts exactly as much as  any other." 

So why did the shyster give a circular argument in defense of Joe Biden's scumbag son? Was he so embarrassed to make a palpably false bare assertion that he felt the need to smuggle it in  under argumentative cover?  "See? I'm not just asserting; I'm arguing."

By the way,  "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree," as the old folk saying has it.