Originally Posted by
Flanders
NOTE: I can only think of two foreign-born men, Henry Kissinger (Germany) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Poland), who had more influence over foreign policy than our naturalized distaff traitors.
I stand corrected. This guy is number three. He emigrated from the Ukraine in the 1979:
I now know why Fiona Hill defended Vindman —— and why Schiff & Company defended Hill with so much fictitious patriotic fervor:
Some things I noticed in all of them and wondered about were their dual citizenships, their fluid ties to foreign governments, and their Soros affiliations ...
Which brings us to the impeachment witnesses seeking to overturn the results of the 2016 election, such as National Security Council functionaries Fiona Hill and Alexander Vindman.
Hill, who testified yesterday, is quite credibly reported to be a dual U.S.-U.K. citizen, and like my former friends, has Soros affiliations, hers through the Eurasia Foundation.
XXXXX
Might that translate into anti-Trump hate? It seems likely.
Vindman emigrated from what was then the Ukraine in the 1979 at a young age with his father and two brothers, who were Jews leaving the persecution of the Soviet Union. Two things would disqualify him right away from Ukrainian citizenship, according to Wikipedia - that he wasn't on Ukrainian soil when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, and that he joined and served in a foreign military. All the same, the laws are pretty fluid in a place like Ukraine and corruption is bigtime common, so anything could be the case. It would have been useful to hear from him under oath that he isn't a dual-citizen, as appears likely.
Hill's case at least, suggests that the dual-citizenship issue might just be why her anti-Trump sentiment is so strong. It's well known that Europeans can't stand Trump, and Hill's ability to just get into the woke Harvard community are probably linked to being leftwing and thus fitting in.
Vindman, and probably others such as Rep. Ilhan Omar, who, based on her foreign travel, seems to maintain strong ties to her native Somali government, seem to be a connected problem even if there isn't dual citizenship. Anyone who hates Trump as intensely as such people do is often found to have government, as opposed to cultural, ties to some other place.
The government-ties thing is an important detail. I also have friends who are immigrants from countries such as Mexico and Argentina who are the biggest, fiercest pro-Trump militants out there. They hold one citizenship, U.S. citizenship, and none other, and they have a special despising for the governments of their birth, refusing to even slap Mexico or Argentina stickers on their vehicles. They fly only American flags. Those people are immigrants, they speak with accents, they have pleasant cultural ties to their homelands, but they couldn't be more different from people like Vindman or Hill because they have no dual citizenship, no foreign government ties and no Soros ties. They are classic "deplorables," the real huddled masses of yore, same as most of our ancestors who came through Ellis Island as legal immigrants and wanted nothing to do with their previous homelands, never so much as returning to them.
As for Soros ties, it matters. Hill yesterday blasted those who criticize Soros, calling it "anti-Semitism" as if to shoo off any criticism of the man as a form of racism. But Soros is an atheist and a socialist, not a practicing Jew. The problem with Soros is that he projects and promotes a certain value system which is quite antithetical to patriotism itself. Soros calls himself the "stateless statesman." People affiliated with him have got to profess some kind of fealty to that idea or they're not in that comfortable circle. Soros isn't about mixed loyalties, or dual loyalties, he's against the idea of loyalty to any nation at all. That certainly would make people with dual citizenships pretty ideal for his grand project. When you've got passport after passpot to multiple nations, being loyal to all of them just can't happen. And why loyalty to the U.S. and a country such as Britain doesn't seem problematic, it's inherently antithetical to the idea of loyalty.
If the impeachment hearings tell us anything, it's that one of the most predictable classes of people trying to overturn the results of the 2016 election are those with dual citizenships, as well as those with foreign government and Soros ties. Most of the onus of this lesson is on the Trump administration itself, which should not have hired these people. But the bigger issue of dual-citizenship continues to loom and ultimately, could lead to greater problems down the line. Maybe that's something that should be addressed by Congress. When people are loyal to one and only one country, they might not try to overturn valid U.S. elections on scurrilous and politicized grounds.
Relying on Democrats to address the danger of dual-citizenship is like prescribing more bed rest for someone on their death bed. I will stick with my suggestion:
Originally Posted by
Flanders
I would go so far as to suggest that only third generation Americans can work for the federal government in any capacity. Let parasites who come here get government jobs in their homelands.
Here Comes Another One!
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks