The U.S. had better decide what it wants to be 50 years from now.

When I took Mike Sandel’s “Justice” course at Harvard, he was quite young and not yet the professorial rock star that he is today. We learned about Kant’s categorical imperative: an unconditional moral command that dictates how we must act through reason, regardless of our personal desires or the outcomes. We learned of such things as children through Star Trek. Kirk and friends often found themselves with two competing imperatives. The “Prime Directive” stated that the Enterprise crew could not interfere with the culture or natural development of the lifeforms on planets they visited. But they also had an imperative not to die. What happens when such obligations cannot both be fulfilled?

The U.S. actually faced such a situation after the Second Gulf War. In areas under U.S. administration, courts were created. The U.S. had two major imperatives that ended up being totally incompatible:

So, the U.S. set up courts, and some of the judges were women — trained as lawyers in Saddam’s more permissive Muslim Iraqi society. Well, some men brought before the courts absolutely refused to listen to a word that the female judges said. Islamic courts do not have lady jurists, and the locals were not going to have some woman tell them to pay a fine or go to jail. So they openly stated that they would not respect the courts and even at times threatened the new judges. What should the U.S. have done: continue its Western women-equal-men policy or bow to Islamic local tradition and make judges men only? There was a similar event during Desert Storm when a Saudi pilot refused to receive instructions from a female American air traffic controller.

I bring up these TV and real-world examples because the U.S. is facing a similar collision between two pillars of American society:

Recommended
Lisa Murkowski Was Not Amused by James O'Keefe's Latest Video Matt Vespa Let Me Introduce You to Angie Nixon Matt Sharpsteen
  1. Welcome everyone and respect other cultures; and,
  2. Keep the U.S. a pluralistic democratic Republic.

We are soon approaching a situation where we can no longer do both of the above. It’s one thing to welcome South African families fleeing anti-white persecution. They are grateful to move to the U.S., and they seem motivated to fit in with their new, welcoming home. But what of the numerous Muslims who come to the U.S. and western Europe? Many of the newcomers and even their offspring have stated that their ultimate goal and purpose is to make their new homes Sharia states, with Islamic laws superseding all previous laws and customs. If Sharia law allows a man to have multiple wives and also perform an honor killing of a flirtatious daughter, when Sharia becomes the law of the fruited plains, then there would be no legal basis for disallowing polygamy or throwing a guy into jail for killing his daughter over her date with a Christian classmate. So which way will the U.S. go? I know which way I want, and I know which way it will probably go through inertia. You can go back and read my article “Buy Guns and Lots of Ammo” for a hint on the subject.

If the U.S. wants to remain a free republic where the laws are made by the representatives of We the People, based heavily on America’s Christian founding, then some things are going to have to change. Some examples:

  1. An end to immigration from Muslim countries (as self-defined or by population profiles).
  2. An ejection of immigrants from Muslim countries. It doesn’t only have to be criminals or visa overstayers; if we want to preserve the flavor of the U.S., then Muslims who are not U.S. citizens simply need to be ejected.
  3. Monitor all U.S. Muslims and Muslim institutions. I doubt that the U.S. could institute some type of fealty oath. For a while, there was a push for such a thing here in Israel for the 20 percent Arab population. One may be a practicing American Muslim, but he cannot undertake any activity or spread any material suggesting or encouraging replacing federal, state, or local law with Sharia law or Islamic customs. It’s a draconian ask, but again there are only two outcomes: the U.S. remains the U.S. or the U.S. becomes the Islamic Republic of America.

People can warble on about “Islamophobia,” but that is simply a term to shut people up from pointing out the obvious. No other religious group in the U.S. or world makes it a point of religious significance to convert a new home into a theocratic country. Whether it be Egypt of yore or Lebanon from a few decades past, countries that were Christian became Islamic by virtue of war, conquest, immigration, high birth rates, or a combination thereof. There are those folks who like to show swinging Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq from around the 1960s. The pictures are real, and the folks seem happy and quite Western in their dress and behavior. Obviously, a religious Muslim would see the past and call it decadent and would say that those countries are far better today since they are ruled according to Sharia principles. Muslims in the U.S. would say the same thing. In a second, they would end the gay and trans arguments by throwing the proponents off tall buildings. The Ayatollah’s folks killed the businessmen and communists who made his rise to power possible after the Shah's fall.

This report may sound like a person warning of a flash flood when only three drops of rain have fallen. But as I wrote in the previously mentioned article, the U.S. does not have the mechanism to stop entry and expedite egress. The Muslim Brotherhood and Qatari thugs know this and take advantage of immigration and other laws that simply grease the wheels for their arrival, growth, and eventual control. Look at Dearborn, Michigan, and expect the same in Chicago, LA, and New York, with its new pro-Hamas mayor. It seems un-American to throw people out and monitor others. But the U.S. understood during World War II that, yes, however unpleasant, immigrants from Axis countries needed to be monitored and at times put in camps. We like to beat our breasts about our doing these things, but there are those who do the same over the atomic bombs over Japan. The latter saved both American and Japanese lives by ending the war before a planned massive invasion of the Japanese home islands. It would not be pleasant denying immigration or throwing out students and workers. I agree. But I will say it again: if you don’t take drastic action today against a rising tide of Islamic growth, then you can write off the U.S. as the country we know — in 50 or 100 years.

My mother wanted me to be a doctor, though I am happy with my Ph.D. in biochemistry. I do feel here like the doctor who comes in to tell the patient that we can either amputate his leg and save his life or do nothing, and he will die. The U.S. is precious. We just take it for granted, but there is nothing like it anywhere in the world. Europe is apathetic and is approaching its destruction with typical ennui and apathy. The U.S. has given millions upon millions hope and better futures. It can continue to be a beacon of hope or one more country covered from head to toe. There is no way it can be both. Either the U.S. stops Sharia growth and lets Muslims practice their faith without aspirations of conquest, or the U.S. invites its own destruction and an end of “One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”