Arizona Acts on Immigration while Feds Sit

The state of Arizona is on a roll. Last week, they approved a measure that would require US presidential candidates to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president in order to appear on the state’s ballot. Now, due to years of inaction by the feds, they were forced to act on their own by passing an immigration bill. Governor Jan Brewer correctly stated that the new law "represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix". Sister Toldjah has the latest developments.

The usual radicals on the left are predictably up in arms, claiming that illegals are being discriminated against by being forced to follow the law. They further claim that, being asked to show an id if they are acting suspicious is degrading and a violation of their “civil rights”. I guess being in the country illegally is now a guaranteed civil right. We’re hearing accusations of apartheid, Nazism etc, but if I understand the bill correctly, it borrows most of its language from existing federal laws. I find nothing in the Arizona state law that was not already in place before. The net difference appears to be that, state agencies are now forced to do the job the feds refuse to do. Mr Obama and the feds are calling for all this new immigration “reform”, but we could save a lot of taxpayer dollars by just enforcing what is already in the existing laws.

So, it becomes obvious that our federal government doesn’t want the existing immigration laws enforced, and we can’t lay the blame exclusively on the democrats either. Both parties have talked about immigration issues for decades, but neither has produced any action. Perhaps, Cal Thomas best explains the situation:

Let's get something straight. The failure to protect America's southern border has been a bipartisan effort. Democrats want more illegal immigrants in the country because they are a potential source of votes they hope will contribute to a permanent Democratic majority. Republicans and their donors want more illegal immigrants in America because they are a source of cheap labor. Once you understand this, you can ignore much of the talk about "human rights."

If a state, or nation, has laws it will not enforce for political reasons, it mocks both the law and politics, to say nothing of the cultural order… According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, as of 2007, there are about 475,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona straining an already overburdened economy. Taxpaying citizens must underwrite the cost of schooling for their children, as well as visits to emergency rooms. In California, several hospitals have had to close because they could no longer afford to give free care to non-citizens. Gangs in Arizona operate under the command of drug lords in Mexico. This and other criminal activity threaten the peace and security of Arizonans and potentially all American citizens. Is this something that must be endured for the sake of "human rights groups" and "immigration rights groups", or is it long past time to slow the flow?

The Arizona legislature and Governor Brewer have correctly chosen to slow the flow. They realize a state and a nation unwilling to protect their borders cannot hope to preserve qualities that have made this country what it is, but won't be for much longer if we permit this illegal invasion to continue.

While lawmakers in other states, such as Texas and Alabama, have called for similar state laws, the liberal state of California is going all-out to oppose the bill. The mayor of San Francisco has banned city employees from traveling to Arizona, and the city attorney called for a discontinuation of any business transactions. Now, California Senate President Darrell Steinberg is joining the call for the state to take a stand and sent a letter to Gov Schwarzenegger, saying the law amounts to racial profiling and urged the governor to cancel the state's contracts with Arizona. Here's a portion of Steinberg's letter:

The Arizona law is as unconscionable as it is unconstitutional, and the state of California should not be using taxpayer dollars to support such a policy. [Taxpayer dollars should support our own amnesty programs instead.] For that reason, I respectfully request that you provide me with information about all existing and proposed contracts between the state of California and any businesses or governments in Arizona.

Mr Schwarzenegger has not yet replied to Steinberg, but passed the responsibility back to the federal government. "I urge the federal government to get their act together," the governor said in a news conference. His spokesman, Aaron McLear, said Schwarzenegger does not support the Arizona law, but they need to review the impact a boycott would have on California's "budget and job creation-effort”.

There’s also that pesky problem of finding another state to accept their IOUs.

That said, if we survive Mr Obama’s “De-development of America”, we’re planning an Arizona vacation this year. Hope to see you there.

Arizona Seeks to Legalize the US Constitution

Last week, the state of Arizona approved a measure that would require US presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president. The White House predictably ridiculed the vote and the media immediately jumped to his defense, stating that he had already released his “birth certificate”. This, of course, is a typical subtle deception by the media. What Obama has released is a Certificate of Live Birth, a streamlined version which omits lots of information and basically says that the person named was born (somewhere).

I’ve not followed the details of this eligibility issue closely, but certain aspects smell a bit fishy. Opponents claim that this is just a waste of taxpayer dollars, but I wonder if money would be an issue if George W Bush’s birthplace had been in question. Taxpayer dollars don't seem to be an issue when it comes to HealthCare, Climate Change, Globalization or other socialistic goals on Mr Obama’s agenda. If money is the issue, why would Mr Obama spend about a million dollars to suppress the release? If Mr Obama’s worshipers are concerned about taxpayer dollars, I’m sure there are many private citizens who would pony up the $20 or so to pay any state of Hawaii fees required for the release. I would think that Mr Obama would want to put this issue behind him so that he could place his full attention to the matter of nationalizing the remainder of the private sectors of the country

In addition, I would think the state of Hawaii would also want the issue resolved, yet in response to the Arizona legislation, a Hawaii conference committee unanimously voted to advance a bill to the House and Senate that would allow the state to ignore additional requests for President Obama's birth certificate.

Most families possess or have access to their certified birth certificate. It is required in obtaining a driver’s license, passport or in many other transactions, even signing up your child for little league baseball. Why is it not required to hold the highest office in our land?

That all said, my overriding question is “why is this Arizona bill even necessary”? Have we come to the point where states must pass bills in order to legalize the Constitution? Article 2 Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Us Constitution reads:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Is this part of the constitution no longer valid? Does the radical left even recognize the constitution anymore other than to support the killing of babies or the banning of Christianity? Article 2 Section 1 closes with the following:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It’s time for Mr Obama to take his oath seriously.

Ben Stein: Same Old Liberals, Then and Now

Ben Stein, in addition to dispensing financial advice, writes a weekly article for the American Spectator. During the Gerald Ford administration, Mr Stein was working as a consultant for Norman Lear’s show, All’s Fair. Recently, he published a memorandum that he had written to the creators of the show in 1976 regarding the nature of liberals.

As I read the Mr Stein’s memo, I was amazed at the consistency between liberals then and liberals now. Except for a few specifics, such as references to hippies and the Soviet Union (just substitute Islamic terrorism), I would have guessed that it could have been written yesterday instead of over 30 years ago. Here are a few excerpts:

What I don't like is the way rich liberals, who have made their money through the operations of the capitalist system, are nevertheless socialists. I suspect that a large part of their motivation is a style of asceticism which has been fashionable among the rich since the time of the Pharisees. Another motivation for the rich liberals to dislike the capitalist system is that they have already gotten theirs and they don't want to be challenged by other people coming along and getting theirs.

I don't like the way liberals of any income group assume that they have a monopoly on morality and that the only conscionable position on issues is their position… I especially resent the claims of white liberals that they know best about how to solve the problems of the poor and the black. There is hardly any evidence that liberal programs to help the poor and the black have done much good. The ordinary operations of the capitalist system, however, have made enormous gains economically for the poor and the black. Liberals don't seem to understand that if they take a dollar from one person and give it to another, there is rarely any benefit. If the economic system produces new dollars for everyone, everyone benefits.

I resent the influence that liberals have gotten over our educational system. Even in those schools which are other than jungles of fear, students don't learn anything. Liberal parents and teachers who have seized control of the schools teach "Sensitivity" and ''Interpersonal Relations" to children who barely know how to read and write because the basics have been so badly neglected.

I resent the idea that labor unions are the workingman's best friend. Unions too often just represent the organized few and raise their wages so high that the unorganized many cannot find work… Similarly, I get mad especially about the minimum wage. The minimum wage is just a device guaranteeing that those people whose labor is not worth the minimum wage will remain unemployed. It does not raise any one's real wage because if an employee were worth the minimum wage, he would have been paid it already. For example, every time the minimum wage is raised or its coverage broadened, the number of unemployed black teenagers rises dramatically.

I am annoyed at the condescending way liberals look at religion and patriotism. Both of those are forces which make a people work and sacrifice for others and are genuine altruistic forces. Yet liberals scoff at them. Liberals should try to think whether this country could have been built without a sense of mission greater than the love of government money. In fact, liberals ought to think whether or not their own feelings do not constitute a religion of sorts before they make fun of others' religious practices… Other examples of the liberals' double standard are their attitude towards criminals. Their hearts bleed without limit for the poor misguided youth who has just killed or raped or beaten a perfectly innocent person but they don't care a damn about the victims of the crime..

The liberal wants to make a state in which people who have worked hard and abided by the rules are taxed to death to pay for those who do not work at anything except reproducing themselves. The liberal wants a state in which the middle classes bear the brunt of all social change, while the liberals sit back with their union pay, or university pay, or inherited pay, or money they have gotten from the system they hate, and watch the action.

Another instance of the liberals' lack of concern with real compassion is their attitude about environmental issues. No one doubts that there are important environmental problems. But there are also people whose jobs depend on taking a close look at environmental issues and not running off half-cocked whenever a cockroach is threatened.

I resent the liberals' looking the other way whenever there is a threat to decency or peace from the Communist nations and refusing to take seriously threats to our security from countries and movements which openly plan to destroy us… In a similar vein, I resent the way liberals condescend to people in the military as mentally inferior warmongers and brutes… I resent the constant liberal putdown of what is American and praise of what is foreign…

Read the entire memorandum here.

National Day of Prayer Ruled Unconstitutional

The following is an excerpt from the Washington Times this past week:

A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled on Thursday that the country's National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional because it calls on citizens to take part in religious activity. Senior U.S. District Court Judge Barbara B. Crabb said the statute that created the National Day of Prayer violates the Constitution's prohibition against the government establishment of religion. Judge Crabb, a 1979 appointee of President Carter, wrote in her decision that "some forms of 'ceremonial deism,' such as legislative prayer, do not violate the establishment clause." But she said the National Day of Prayer goes too far.

"It goes beyond mere acknowledgment of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context," she said. "In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience." In her ruling, the judge said she understood that many might disagree with her conclusion and some could view it as a criticism of prayer or those who pray.

"That is unfortunate," she said. "A determination that the government may not endorse a religious message is not a determination that the message itself is harmful, unimportant or undeserving of dissemination. Rather, it is part of the effort 'to carry out the Founders' plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possibly in a pluralistic society.'"

So, this activist judge says that she’s attempting to preserve religious liberty by banning the National Day of Prayer. Judge Crabbe is either grossly ignorant of the Founders’ original intent for the Constitution, or is deliberately attempting to continue the eradication of God from our society. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, that she’s merely misguided, let’s briefly examine the “separation of church and state” issue, on which these decisions are based.

Read the entire National Day of Prayer article.

Tax Day 2010 Thoughts

I just finished paying my taxes on time, so I guess that disqualifies me for the next opening in Mr Obama’s administration. I resisted the impulse to enter “two million” under the number of dependents, a very conservative estimate of the number of people receiving entitlements from working people’s tax dollars. This is not a knock on all who are receiving government aid. I realize there are many who would rather be working than caught up in the administration’s "De-industrialization of America" plan.

Speaking of the Obama administration, the Bidens just released their tax return, showing that they gave 1.44% ($4820) out of their $333,000 income to charity last year. By comparison, independent reports place the average family's donations at 3.1%, and according to IRS statistics, those making over $200,000 give an average of $20,500 to charity.

Actually, 2009 was a big increase in the Vice-President’s charitable giving. The previous year, he gave only 0.69% ($1885 out of $269,256), but even this was above his track record. After Mr Obama picked him as a running mate, Mr Biden eventually released his tax returns from the previous decade (1998 – 2007). During this period, the Bidens gave only $120 - $995 per year on incomes ranging from $210,432 - $321,379, which amounts to 0.06% - 0.31% of their income (in 1999, he gave a whopping $120 on an income of almost $211,000). So, on a total income of about $2.5 million, the Bidens contributed less than $3700 to charity. In contrast, Sarah Palin gave more in 2006 alone (on about half the income) than Joe Biden gave in a decade. In case anyone is wondering, John McCain gave an average of about 28% of his income to charity in 2006-7.

The reason I mention Mr Biden’s charitable giving (or lack of) is due to a couple of statements he made in the fall of 2008 in an attempt to justify the raising of taxes on the rest of us. Many of us remember Mr Biden’s claim that those who are not willing to pay higher taxes were being unpatriotic. Later that day, instead of backing off his idiotic statement, he claimed paying higher taxes was not only a patriot duty, but a religious one as well. He told a labor union group, “Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most.” (I find it interesting that he's made no mention of what Catholic social doctrine says about murdering unborn babies, but that’s another story.) I heartily agree that we all have a moral obligation to do what we can to help those who can’t help themselves, but this should be the voluntary role of the Church and individuals, not the government. In the end, Mr Biden appears to support charitable giving, as long as he can pick the pockets of others to do so.

Turning to another tax subject, it was also reported in the past few days that about 47% of US households pay no taxes. At the same, a recent poll reports that about 47% of the respondents approve of the job that the Obama administration is doing. Naah… must be just a coincidence…right?

I’d also like to plug an article over on Big Government, collecting a Top Ten List of Anti-tax Quotations . Finally, I’d like to add one that a hero of mine, the late great Adrian Rogers, offered in 1984 from his message “God’s Way to Health, Wealth and Wisdom”.

“Friend, you cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. And what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can’t give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody. And when half of the people get the idea they don’t have to work because the other half’s going to take care of them, and when the other half get the idea it does no good to work because somebody’s going to get what I work for. That, dear friend, is about the end of any nation.”

Easter 2010 - Behold the Savior

Two years ago, I wrote a story relating to the First Easter, centered on Barabbas. This year, I'm featuring a true story about Sam, who was orphaned as a young child, grew up in poverty, and became a very unpopular Anglican preacher. If you think unpopular preachers have a hard time today, his parishioners maimed his livestock, burned his crops, and finally torched his house. After Sam thought everyone had escaped the fire, he looked back to see his terrified five year old son peering through the glass of an upstairs window.

Read the entire Behold the Savior article, including a Paul Harvey type "Rest of the Story", its place in church history, and a great Easter hymn.