How much longer can America co-exist with the enemies upon its shores?

We ask: Has America ever been for Americans?

DUBLIN, February 1, 2025 — “While Irish restaurants are closing down on a daily basis, a new Somalian restaurant has opened in Dublin. It is an extremely uncomfortable feeling to witness your people, culture and history disappear before your eyes.” –Mick O’Keeffe ( @Mick_O_Keeffe on 𝕏–Twitter)

Reflect. Has Ireland become a safer place after importing vast numbers of Mohammedans from such far-flung outposts as Pakistan and continental Africa?

These newcomers adhere to a culture irreconcilable with fundamental tenets of the Emerald Isle’s native Catholicism and, likewise, have no fealty to Western Civilization.

Can such populations co-exist?

Ample amounts of mental gymnastics must be employed to accept such a claim.

Consider. Either way, Ireland is fast becoming non-Irish.

Now, imagine a government forcing unwanted people from alien lands upon its citizens. Said government also requires the twin sacrifices of blood and treasure to keep these strangers both in place and comfortable.

It sounds crazy, but it’s the age-old story of America.

In response to unrest within the Colonies after the French and Indian Wars and, later, the Boston Tea Party, Parliament passed several laws, eventually known as the Quartering Acts, which required colonial authorities—rather than Parliament—to provide food and shelter for British Army personnel in America.

Colonists would provide, at their own cost, room and board for British regulars posted in their area. Parliament, in turn, saved an enormous amount of money. But at what cost?

A brief history: Each Quartering Act was an annual renewal of the Mutiny Acts. In 1689, the first Mutiny Act bolstered William III’s claim to the English crown, for in 1688, the Dutchman overthrew King James II in the “bloodless revolution.”

Interestingly, the foreign king was both James’s nephew and son-in-law, as he was married to the king’s daughter, the future Mary II.

Post-coup, James went into exile in France. Servicemen remaining loyal to James then became subject to Mutiny Act 1688, “An Act for punishing Officers or Soldiers who shall Mutiny or Desert Their Majestyes Service.”

Those accused of such crimes could be tried by court-martial in peacetime England. The punishment, if convicted: death.

Fallout from James II’s deposition continues to this day. In Northern Ireland, during “marching season,” folks regularly parade in honor of a Dutch king who effectively stole the British crown and save July 12 to honor William’s ultimate victory in the Battle of the Boyne.

Stateside, in Virginia, the second-oldest colonial college, now a university owned by the commonwealth called the College of William & Mary, was named in honor of the usurper king and queen, the selfsame couple who issued the college’s royal charter in 1693.

In the 18th century, as the Mutiny Acts were renewed and amended each year—and as the British Empire grew—the burden for funding British regulars on colonial soil increasingly fell to the colonies themselves.

Long story short, this became a major grievance of the colonists, the thirteenth grievance of twenty-seven in total. The Declaration of Independence specifically notes a flaw in the rule of a later king, George III:

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.

Longer story shorter, the colonists waged war and eventually the Thirteen Colonies each became free and independent states.

The ultimate cost of the Quartering Acts to the British?

The Empire.

Most of continental North America ultimately divested into the hands of former British colonists, rather than to Parliament or the Army.

After independence, those states came together, in 1787, to solidify their bonds and wrote a constitution. On March 4, 1789, the American Constitution became the effective law of the land.

Later that year, Congress proposed a Constitutional amendment, which stated:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Adopted on March 1, 1792, this law became the Third Amendment and has remained uncontroversial. Unlike most of the rest of the Constitution, it has never been the primary basis of any Supreme Court decision.

Yet today, the general government of the United States and the governments of most, if not all, of the constituent states allow and encourage large swaths of humanity from other nations—though perhaps technically not soldiers—to quarter among its people.

Though Americans are constitutionally forbidden from having to personally provide “three hots and a cot” to this visitor class, tax dollars are nonetheless extracted. Funds are then appropriated to feed and shelter our “guests.” A distinction without a difference.

In many cases, the foreigners arrive not only armed, but hostile to the host nation. So much for charitable outreach.

Moreover, bureaucratic appendages of the host government demand these invaders be fed, housed, clothed, and granted all rights only previously understood to be held by native sons and daughters of the land.

In other words, the United States have been under foreign occupation for decades.

Historically, citizens have been unwitting or complicit in the takeover. Today, however, the second Trump Administration combats the invasion—at least partially—with its early rhetoric.

Will the Third Amendment finally have some teeth?

Regardless, Constitutional amendments are of no concern to the wolves in sheep’s clothing out there on the prowl. They condemn America’s supposed closed borders, all in the name of humanitarianism and other such egalitarian twaddle.

The reality? American borders have always been permeable. Notwithstanding, invaders by the thousands are either captured or turned away every year.

For as many that are caught, many more enter—all amounting to a high-stakes game of Whac-A-Mole.

As Pat Buchanan explained in State of Emergency (2006), “Each year, we catch more people breaking in at the border than all the Swedes and Norwegians who came to America in 200 years.”

In nearly two decades since Buchanan wrote, the situation has only become more drastic. Instead of considering such wonton lawbreaking as detrimental to society, modern Americans are trained to dismiss what is happening at the border as a “humanitarian crisis.”

In an odd turn of events, the Biden Administration’s feckless “border czar,” and erstwhile vice president, replaced a manageable têt-à-tête—the Mexican immigration issue—with an ever-present threat of an unwaveringly hostile, non-Mexican, global population, devoted to various foreign governments from both near and far.

Wolves scratch at the door. Huffing and puffing.

As our elites continue their gaslighting about the benefits of immigration, their message is clear: Americans don’t deserve to live in their native land any more than a “migrant” or a “refugee” does.

Comes the refrain: “We’re all immigrants.” We’re told that some of these outsiders may even deserve our homes more than we do. “Privilege” and other such inanities are to blame.

It’s all a disgusting perversion of human existence.

The nouveau célébrité priest James Martin, S.J., who acts more like an apparatchik of the Democratic Party than a shepherd leading souls to Christ, is a prominent figure in this regard. Martin identifies as a Catholic priest in good standing but nonetheless dedicates much of his public ministry to bucking the Church’s social teaching, promoting his own dalliances with heresy, and cheerleading others who do the same.

For instance, the “Good Jesuit” goes out of his way so as not to discourage the sinful behaviors of alphabet people. Since he believes such folks are “marginalized,” Martin offers no public condemnations or admonitions for such purposeful and grave sin.

Same with his latest cause du jour— “migrants.”

In the battle for souls, Martin’s preferred weapon is the cudgel of shame, shrouded in ambiguity. “Judge not,” he’ll often write.

Yet, as he sits in the comfort of his own chambers, the smug cleric judges harshly those who don’t fall in line with his heterodox catechism.

Additionally, Martin and others of his ilk pretend that all migrants are refugees. They contend that the lion’s share of immigrants is wholesome and do not bring along large-scale crime.

The bell curve disagrees.

Martin has succumbed to the “NAXALT”—not all [X] are like that—fallacy. Perhaps willingly.

In his recurrent assertions, Martin suggests that it is the host government’s duty to house, clothe, and feed all migrants, whilst granting them all the benefits and “rights” its host people are imbued with. Lest one disagree, The Cult of Martin shall shame you for not fulfilling—its unique version of—your Christian duty.

Admittedly, Martin’s tactics are brilliant, though devious. The Martinite ideology relies upon rejecting two millennia of Catholic teaching while utilizing the priest’s own cherry-picked canon of Scripture for its justification. Complicating the matter is Martin himself, who is on record blatantly misquoting the Bible.

Yet, there is nary a trace of an apology when proven incorrect.

Members of the Society of Jesus, like Martin, are required to take a vow of poverty—all their earned money and possessions become property of the community. Assuming Martin took the vow with sincere intention, it becomes a bit rich when Martin admonishes others for being uncharitable toward “migrants” when he can simply plead poverty as an excuse for exhibiting such behavior.

Plus, it’s not as if Americans are uncharitable. Many Americans are non-Christian, yes, but generally, Americans tend go out of their way to help others.

Furthermore, since the tea was thrown in Boston Harbor, there have been more than two-hundred fifty years of law and tradition affirming an American’s right not to be prosecuted (or shamed) if they choose not to willingly house and feed a Redcoat, a SEAL, or even a “migrant” —let alone such families.

Though the winds of change rustled for decades, this affirmation flipped during the Obama and Biden years.

Suddenly, one became “racist” or uncharitable if he didn’t cotton to unfettered immigration. Into the void, a second Trump Administration arrived to restore a modicum of normalcy within the culture and to advocate for traditions that slipped away.

DOGE and other policy positions taken within the Trump Administration are creating a groundswell of backlash against previous regimes. No longer is it considered fair for Americans to foot the bills of those politicians and bureaucrats who have frittered away the country’s resources.

They are spendthrifts with taxpayer dollars yet happen to be notorious skinflints in private. Hypocrites. Soon there will be no place for them.

Forever the intention was: America for Americans. It shall be again.

But if one does not like, or even believe, the Trump Administration on these matters, he has plenty of company.

And it appears that The Donald may just be a figurehead to the entire movement.

It matters not.

We’re not going back. Not by the hair of our chinny-chin-chins.

They are.