[** Export to PDF](/wp-admin/tools.php?ghostexport=true&submit=Download+Ghost+File&pdf=126)
Conor Friedersdorf, a staff writer at *The Atlantic*, informed me earlier today that he has a “disdain for white identity politics” and that he knows “multiple illegal immigrants who understand & appreciate America’s founding values better than” I do. My grand crime that so provoked this supposedly conservative journalist’s ire was that I made a joke about Hillary Clinton being crazy, and I defended Trump when Mr. Friedersdorf asserted that Trump was the greater (and crazier) of two evils.

I pointed out that Hillary Clinton would change the face of the Supreme Court for a generation and work to give citizenship to the 10-40 million illegals inside of the United States. In essence, the US would be permanently lost at that point. A progressive Court would redefine the Constitution just as was the case throughout much of the 20th century, and, as history shows us, it is virtually impossible to fix such things once people have come to accept the new status quo. Hillary’s Court would move to say that the Second Amendment is not an expansive right belonging to individuals, and they would certainly confirm that all restrictions proposed by the Democrats are perfectly constitutional. That is in addition to the fact that at least 60% of the new Mexican voters would vote Democrat. Rationally, anyone claiming to care about “America’s founding values” should be able to recognize that Hillary Clinton would be their absolute worst nightmare. America would not survive her presidency.

Mr. Friedersdorf’s rebuttal was that Donald Trump is a “bigot” and that my views were “abhorrent,” although he never actually explained what I had said was that was so disgusting to him. Seemingly, he favors open borders, mass immigration from the Third World, and believes that the United States was always meant to be an entirely secular nation where the Founders would have opposed Trump’s proposed temporary ban on Muslim immigration (in the midst of an Islamic terror campaign). This begs the question—Would the Founding Fathers have actually shared Mr. Friedersdorf’s views?

First, let’s dispense with the notion that the United States was founded by men collectively dedicated to a secular nation equally welcoming to Muslims as it was to Christians. In 1776, the Declaration of Independence marked the beginning of the United States, and, in its first two paragraphs, it spoke of the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The document ended with the signatories stating that they were relying “on the protection of divine Providence.” Of the 56 signatories, 54 belonged to one of a few different Christian denominations, and Jefferson and Franklin were both considered to be Deists. Now, while it is true that the Constitution did not directly reference God and guaranteed freedom of religion with the First Amendment, the signatures on that document do appear under the date, which was rendered in the traditional format: namely, “in the year of our Lord.” That is obviously odd for a supposedly secularist group from a 100% white, Christian background. There was a decidedly Christian—not “Judeo-Christian”—character underpinning the United States. Indeed, for the Founders, “separation of Church and State” was about there not being one Christian denomination that came to dominate, which was so common in Europe at the time and had been common in the British colonies. They certainly were not concerned with protecting hostile, foreign religions.

Second, people who espouse open borders and mass immigration as an “American value” are fond of citing “The New Colossus”—”Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”—which people mistakenly see as intrinsically linked with the Statue of Liberty. There is a small problem, however, as that poem was not added to Lady Liberty until nearly two decades after she was first dedicated in 1886. Open-border proponents also like to cite the phrase “all men are created equal” from the Declaration of Independence. But did the Founders truly mean that they were creating a nation that belonged to the entire world? In short, no. In 1790, the free population of the new nation was 98.15% white, and the Founders nonetheless decided to pass the Naturalization Act of 1790, which limited naturalized citizenship to free whites. It certainly seems odd that humanists building a ‘nation for the world’ would say, “Our 98% white citizenry will only allow other whites to move to our nation and become citizens. Others need not apply.”

Third, now, let’s combine the previous two points—the United States was clearly founded as a white, Christian nation. How then would the Founders have felt about mass Muslim immigration? Some leftists would have you believe that it is impossible to “separate the story of Muslims in America from the story” of our nation itself (Source). As with Mr. Friedersdorf, however, this begs the question—Do isolated cases here and there somehow negate everything else we know? Some slaves were Muslim, but slaves also were not citizens. Two Muslims were soldiers during the Revolution, but what of the countless white Christians who fought and died? Globalists would have us believe that even a single Muslim found at some point in American history means that our entire history was secular with every culture in the world sharing in our successes. Of course, the Founding Fathers had no problem limiting citizenship to free whites, who naturally would have come from Europe, which was almost entirely Christian. How can someone possibly square what the Founders said and did—defining American values in the process—with what globalists claim? They can’t.

Finally, the overarching issue is that globalists think that it is inherently wrong for nations to retain their unique cultures. Why must the United States—a nation founded by white Christians for white Christians—become a multiracial, secular humanist nation? Clearly, the Founders did not intend for the United States to import countless immigrants from the Third World, and, as an extension, they also did not intend for the First Amendment to be used to defend the import of violent savages that were and are entirely foreign from the Christian European identity of the Founders.

People like Mr. Friedersdorf can say that I am a “bigot” with “abhorrent views,” but I reject the notion that sharing beliefs with our grandfathers and the Founders is un-American.