Are all Politics Local?

The saying “All politics are local” is typically attributed to Tip O’Neill, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives in the 1970s and 1980s. This saying is still partially true, even with the vast amount of donations that pour in nationally for some state races, but the locals still do the voting (if you don’t count those who are bused in from out of state to vote multiple times). The out-of-state funding of local candidates has become the norm over the past few decades, but this strategy is now being extended to many local races

In the last few years, we’ve even seen George Soros backed funds buy many prosecutor races in targeted cities and counties. In just one example, a liberal prosecutor in North Carolina running on the platform of abolishing bail and refusing to prosecute most crimes received about $1.5 million dollars. In previous years by comparison, each candidate typically received only about $15 thousand. This strategy has led to an epidemic of increased crime and unrest across the country due to the Soros-backed prosecuters refusing to prosecute even serious crimes.

Power of the Majority Party

With the upcoming 2020 elections just around the bend and many voters have already begun to cast their ballots, we like to offer some brief thoughts about the importance of your vote, because you are voting for more than just a candidate. One of the single most misunderstood facts about voting is that when a person casts his or her vote, it is not just for a candidate, but for an entire party, and in the bigger picture, for an entire worldview.

Perhaps the easiest way to explain is to look at the 2108 mid-term elections. Prior to the election, the Republicans held a majority in the House and Senate. We should note that this fact doesn’t necessarily mean the Republicans had a solid majority, since as most people know, all Democrats are solid Democrats, but many Republicans are Republicans in Name Only (RINOs). A prime example was during the Republican’s attempt to repeal the expensive, one-size-fits-all Obamacare disaster and replace it with an individualized, more economical plan, RINO John McCain single-handly dealt one final blow to conservatism with his last vote in the Senate.

Be that as it may, the Democrats won the majority by running candidates proclaiming themselves to be “moderates” in over 30 precincts that had been carried by President Trump in 2016. Videos surfaced of aides to some of these candidates telling prospective voters that, “Our candidate is very liberal, but has to pretend otherwise due to the number of moderate voters in the district”. The “mainstream” media spiked the stories, and the candidates won by promising not to support Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House, and to be an independent voice for their constituents.

Regarding the first of these promises, Ms Pelosi was able to win over enough of these new members by cutting individual special deals to be re-elected as Speaker of the House, and place herself third in line for the Presidency. Regarding the new candidate’s promise of being an independent voice, all but one voted the impeach the President over non-criminal, policy disagreements between Trump and the unelected deep-state bureaucrats.

We’ll come back to these “moderates”, but we first must understand the power of the majority party, or more accurately, the power of their leader(s). The leader of the majority party has enormous power, even if that party has only a one-member majority. First, he or she appoints the chairman for each committee and sub-committees. The majority party also holds a majority of members on each committee. Since any legislation must pass several procedural obstacles in the committees to even get to the legislative body, these committee heads also have tremendous authority. The minority party can’t even bring a bill to the floor without getting an agreement with a sufficient number of members from the other party. It’s not surprising that most legislation never makes it to the body for a vote.

So, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that many of the new “moderates” were sincere in their promises to vote independently, they would still have no control over which legislation the committees and Speaker will bring to a vote. Even if a bill makes it out of committee and they decide to break with the leaders on a vote, they will typically be threatened to either vote the party line, or have the party back an opponent against them in the next primary election. Thus, once they compromised on their “No to Pelosi” pledge, they were basically powerless to keep their promise to their local voters, even if that had been their intention.

So, before you cast a ballot, please consider the entire ramification of your vote. We mentioned that when we cast our ballot, we’re also electing a worldview. Although specifics can vary somewhat by candidates, one party generally believes in natural law (from God), freedom of religion, state and local rights, free-market economics, the right to life, security, free speech and other liberties guaranteed by the constitution; while the other typically believes in federal government autonomous control (socially, economically and otherwise), judicial activism, the right to kill babies, and globalism.

Worldly and Godly Leaders

In 1998, pastor and teacher John MacArthur preached a sermon entitled Characteristics of an Effective Leader in which he painted a picture of an effective leader according to the two prevailing worldviews. The secular world typically prefers a leader with the following qualities. “Visionary – that is looking to the future and, in some degree or another, being able to forecast the future and plan ahead for the future. Action oriented – that is more than just someone who muses about things, more than someone who comes up with ideas and schemes, somebody who can make things happen… So, you have this typical picture of a leader: visionary, action oriented, courageous, energetic, objective oriented, paternalistic, egocentric, intolerant of incompetence in others, and indispensible.” Meanwhile, from a Christian worldview, he states, “What makes an effective leader? He’s respected/trusted, takes initiative, uses good judgment, speaks with authority, strengthens others, is enthusiastic and optimistic about triumph, never compromises absolutes, focuses on objectives not obstacles, and leads by example.” We need more candidates fitting Pastor MacArthur’s description of a leader in all levels of government today.

If I could add a personal observance, worldly leaders tend to be life-long politicians, while Godly leaders often serve for a few years, then return to the private sector. There are many exceptions of course, but as a rule, I believe this is often because worldly leaders often attempt to raise government to the level of diety. Witness Barack Obama’s infamous “You didn’t build that” statement implying that private citizens or corporations are basically powerless without government. One other example is the recent mandates closing houses of worship, mostly in the blue states. While liquor stores and marijuana selers are considered “essential” businesses, churches are considered as “non-essential”. In Pastor MacArthur’s state of California, churches are facing tens of thousands dollars in fines hold holding services.

Loud Dogma

This coming Monday, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to begin confirmation hearings. In her previous hearing, in which she was confirmed to the US Seventh Court of Appeals, Diane Feinstein, the top Democrat on the committee, attached her for her faith with the now infamous statement, “The dogma lives loudly within you”. Of course, what went, and continues to go unsaid, is that the dogma also lives loudly within Sen Feinstein, albeit a completely different dogma. Still, a secular faith is just as much a dogma as is a religious one, even though it is not recognized as such by most people. Article VI, Section 2 of the US Constitution states “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or Public Trust under the United States”. The Constitution, as Obama once noted, can be a real inconvenience.

Finally, as the percentage of authentic Christians continues to drop in our country, we encourage all remaining believers to exercise their right and privilege to vote.

Forty Years of Lies

Each January is National Sanctity of Life Month, a month set aside each year to raise our awareness of the value of life. It is a great opportunity for Christians and pro-life supporters to focus on the dignity of human beings from the moment of conception (Jer 1:5, Ps 139:13-14). Babies are not “an inconvenience”, but a gift from God (Ps 127:3-5) and must be celebrated and protected (Ex 20:13), especially since they cannot protect themselves.

This year’s NSLM is even more noteworthy in that it marks the 40th anniversary of Roe vs Wade, the infamous court case in which the unborn child was ruled to be a non-person, thus giving women the “constitution right” to kill their unborn babies on demand for any, or even no reason whatsoever. Since that day, over 50 million babies have been "legally" killed.

Many people are not aware however, that the abortion industry was initially built on lies, and continues to operate on lies today. We hope to produce several articles on the subject this year, beginning with the court case itself.

To give a brief summary, Norma McCorvey (“Jane Roe” in Roe v Wade) never wanted to be part of a court case; she only wanted an abortion. Her feminist attorneys assured her that they would get her an abortion, but didn’t. They also used the lie that she was gang-raped when she wasn’t raped at all. She was simply a tool in their hands. She never even had an abortion, and was discarded after she served their purpose. Later, when the Clintons threw a huge festivity at the White House celebrating the 1993 twentieth anniversary of Roe v Wade with many of the participants, Norma was not even invited.

Incidentally, an independent but similar case (Doe vs Bolton) that permitted second and third trimester abortions, even outside of a hospital and thus leading to the opening of abortion clinics all over the country, had many similarities. Sandra Cano never wanted (or had) an abortion. She was offered legal help in her divorce and custody fight over her two children if she would sign the affidavit as “Mary Doe”.

Both Ms McCorvey and Ms Cano are now pro-life proponents. They are extremely disappointed with those who took advantage of them, and at what has been perpetrated in their names. They have even challenged the court decisions without success. Due to the lies of the attorneys, the killing goes on to this day.

In 2008, the courageous Norma McCorvey recorded a television commercial pleading with voters to support a president that would protect the unborn. From the script:

“I’m Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of the Roe vs. Wade decision that brought ‘legal child’ killing to America. I was persuaded by feminist attorneys to lie; to say that I was raped, and needed an abortion. It was all a lie.

Since then, over 50 million babies have been murdered. I will take this burden to my grave.”

She ends the ad by saying “Please, don’t follow in my mistakes. DO NOT vote for Obama. Obama murders babies.” Yet, the problem is much bigger than Mr Obama. While he is one of the biggest promoters of abortion, even taking it to new levels by using executive orders, government subsidies and political influence, he is also a product of our expanding culture of death.

Therefore, we urge our readers to pray and get involved, whenever and wherever we can to stop this holocaust. It is after all, literally a matter of life and death.

Bloodmoney – The Business of Abortion

For those who haven’t yet heard, a new film came out last fall that offers a critical, honest and very disturbing examination of the abortion industry. The film is called Bloodmoney – The Business of Abortion and is narrated by Dr Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King. It features a formidable cast of insiders and experts, including Carol Everett, a former clinic owner, Bernard Nathanson, a former clinic owner and co-founder of NARAL, Norma McCorvey, better known as Jane Roe, and many more. From the press release issued by director and producer David Kyle on Dr King’s blog:

Bloodmoney is a documentary (now available on DVD) that exposes the greed-driven politics of the abortion industry. Despite claims that the pro-abortion movement exists to help women, in reality it is little more than a vast money-making enterprise.

Narrated by Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, this film exposes the truth behind an industry that has harmed untold numbers of people and taken the lives of 50 million innocent children. In the film Dr. King speaks not only from the perspective of a post abortive woman, but as a civil rights leader about the injustice of abortion.

“Bloodmoney brings startling revelation to the forefront of the pro-life battle and exposes the true agenda behind the abortion industry. This film is truly part of the plan to set the captives free,” – Dr. Alveda King, director of African American Outreach, Priests for Life.

The film also features interviews from Carol Everett a former abortion clinic owner, as well as from pro-life leaders such as Frank Pavone, Joe Scheidler and others. This documentary film examines abortion in America, from the inception of Planned Parenthood to Roe v. Wade and the denial of when life begins. The makers also look at the profitability of the abortion clinics that keep this barbaric practice going. Finally, it shows the devastating effects abortion can have on the women that have them, and the continuing fight to save the lives of innocent babies.

The film also reveals many other closely guarded abortion industry secrets such as the racist agenda of Planned Parenthood, clinics performing abortions on non-pregnant women so they can still make money, first hand evidence of multiple doctors conspiring to cover up botched abortions to avoid law suits, and much more.

The following is an excellent video of Carol Everett, former abortion provider and clinic operator, speaking about abortion in the film.

We must be familiar with these facts and spread the news in order to help young women be able to make an informed decision in their time of crisis.

Are You Smarter than an Elected Official?

Remember the uproar a week or so ago from the liberal Dems and their friends in the media when the Republicans opened the 112th Congress by (gasps and horrors!) actually reading the US Constitution. Most condemned the idea as a publicity stunt and a waste of time. After all, what does the Constitution have to do with governing? As Nancy Pelosi said during the healthcare debate, “we need to stop worrying about rules and procedures and get this thing done”.

This is actually a defining difference between liberals and conservatives. Some of my liberal friends (yes, I have several good friends that are politically liberal) charge that the term “liberal” is a meaningless label that is constantly overused. Ignoring the fact that the media rarely uses it as opposed to constantly overdosing on the “C-word” (conservative), we know that the word liberal comes from a Latin word that means "to not be bound by". Thus a liberal politician believes that we are not bound by the Constitution, just as a liberal theologian believes that we are not bound by the Bible. Therefore, to a liberal, why read something that is perceived to possess no authority. The Constitution is merely a "living document" to be interpreted however it suits them at the time.

Many conservatives even joked that the opening of the congressional session might be the first time that many Dems had actually been exposed to the Constitution. Now, our good friend Dee alerted us to an article that appears to confirm that it may not be a joke.

Richard Brake, co-chairman of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute's National Civic Literacy Board writes in AOL News, Elected Officials Flunk Constitution Quiz:

When the Republican House leadership decided to start the 112th Congress with a reading of the U.S. Constitution, the decision raised complaints in some quarters that it was little more than a political stunt. The New York Times even called it a "presumptuous and self-righteous act."

That might be true, if you could be sure that elected officials actually know something about the Constitution. But it turns out that many don't. In fact, elected officials tend to know even less about key provisions of the Constitution than the general public.

For five years now, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute has been conducting a national survey to gauge the quality of civic education in the country. We've surveyed more than 30,000 Americans… Included in the adult sample was a small subset of Americans (165 in all) who, when asked, identified themselves as having been "successfully elected to government office at least once in their life" which can include federal, state or local offices.

The survey asks 33 basic civics questions, many taken from other nationally recognized instruments like the U.S. Citizenship Exam. It also asks 10 questions related to the U.S. Constitution. So what did we find? Well, to put it simply, the results are not pretty.

Elected officials at many levels of government, not just the federal government, swear an oath to "uphold and protect" the U.S. Constitution. But those elected officials who took the test scored an average 5 percentage points lower than the national average (49 percent vs. 54 percent), with ordinary citizens outscoring these elected officials on each constitutional question.

Examples:

• Only 49 percent of elected officials could name all three branches of government, compared with 50 percent of the general public.
• Only 46 percent knew that Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war -- 54 percent of the general public knows that.
• Just 15 percent answered correctly that the phrase "wall of separation" appears in Thomas Jefferson's letters -- not in the U.S. Constitution -- compared with 19 percent of the general public.
• And only 57 percent of those who've held elective office know what the Electoral College does, while 66 percent of the public got that answer right. (Of elected officials, 20 percent thought the Electoral College was a school for "training those aspiring for higher political office.")
• Overall, our sample of elected officials averaged a failing 44 percent on the entire 33-question test, 5 percentage points lower than the national average of 49 percent.

The fact that our elected representatives know even less about America's history and institutions than the typical citizen (who doesn't know much either) is troubling indeed, but perhaps helps explain the lack of constitutional discipline often displayed by our political class at every level of our system. Given this dismal performance, it would seem that last week's House reading of the Constitution shouldn't be described "presumptuous and self-righteous," but as a necessary national tutorial for all elected officials.

In fact, we can only hope that this trend of Constitution reading will continue to sweep the nation and states. After all, there are 50 state constitutions as well. When elected officials take an oath "to protect and defend the Constitution," shouldn't they know what they are swearing to?

You may follow the article link above to take the test for yourself.

Christians and Culture - Part 463

As those who have followed our ministry from the beginning are aware, one of the most difficult issues we’ve faced is in balancing our emphasis on religious and cultural topics, that is, to what extent should Christians be involved in political and cultural matters? The more we explore this question, the more convinced I become that, while ultimate change in behavior is only brought about by changing the heart, we also have an obligation to engage the culture.

In Israel during Biblical times, there was no separation made between the sacred and secular. A person was to honor God with all one’s thoughts and actions. I believe Christians make a great mistake by treating religion, the arts, science, politics, etc as parallel streams to be studied and engaged separately with no intersections. If the Christian world view is true, it must be true for all the “spheres”. A person’s life view will determine not only how he or she views God, but everything else as well.

The prevailing liberal view is that, a Christian must put his religious views aside when discussing other topics, or must avoid becoming involved altogether, although the same restraint is not placed on the secular humanist. The only time this view is temporarily set aside is during an emergency. For example, after a flood, tornado or other disaster, very few complain that Christians are usually the first on the scene with food and shelter for the victims. After Katrina however, I do remember Diane Sawyer and other media talking heads distressing over the thought that Christian shelters might be forcing refugees to go to church or subjecting them to religious indoctrination as a condition for their food and shelter. While the media fears were unfounded, in their eyes, this would be a much more inhumane treatment than allowing the refugees to starve in the streets.

I hear people say that we should not legislate morality, but someone’s morality (or immorality) will ultimately become law. We have laws preventing immoral acts such murder and theft, while other laws allow the immoral murder of babies. Others confuse legality with morality. This is the guiding force behind such movements as the attempt to legalize gay marriage. Most homosexuals don’t really desire to get married (relatively few have done so in locations where it has been legalized), but equate legality with morality and acceptance. Many believe that if something is legal, it must also be moral. Does this mean that slavery was moral while it was legal and immoral only after it was outlawed? This belief also elevates humans rather than God as the ultimate authority over what is moral and ethical.

The Bible does not offer a lot of specific commands in the area of engaging the culture. Instead it gives us general commands such as the Cultural Mandate of “subdue the earth” (Gen 1:28) and to be “salt and light” (Mt 5:13-15). We are left therefore, to apply general Biblical principles to each situation. I’ve met many Christians with the attitude that, “the world is basically doomed so we should concentrate solely on evangelism in order to save as many people as possible”. Does this mean that we as Christians should turn our heads and ignore challenges to our laws, morals and ethics?

As Christians, we are to hate the things that God hates (see Prov 6:16-19 for one list among many). So, when crooked politicians steal money from the public, drug dealers sell dope to our children, or a new abortion clinic opens near our neighborhood, we don’t ignore the issue in the name of “tolerance” or to avoid forcing our moral views on others. As Christians, we are to transform the culture, not ignore it, and certainly not to assimilate into it.

Injunction Against Obama's Stem Cell Policy

Today, we have some good news for the smallest and most defensive of human beings. As Mr Obama continues to explore every avenue to provide not only national, but worldwide funding for abortion, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Obama administration Monday from using federal dollars to fund expanded human embryonic stem cell research. Despite the scientific evidence that adult stem cells have produced far superior results than embryonic stem cells, the Obama administration continues to target embryonic stem cells because this method is consistent with his radical population control agenda. As reported by Fox News, the suit was was brought by adult stem cell researchers and names Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius as a defendant.

A federal judge temporarily blocked the Obama administration Monday from using federal dollars to fund expanded human embryonic stem cell research, saying the research involves the destruction of embryos.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that despite attempts to separate the derivation of human embryonic stem cells from the research process, "the two cannot be separated" because culling those stem cells destroys an embryo. "The guidelines violate that prohibition by allowing federal funding of ESC research because ESC research depends upon the destruction of a human embryo," he wrote.

We expect the Obama administration to either appeal this ruling, or massage the research guidelines in an attempt to continue killing embryos. Private research has no such restrictions, but the vast majority of research is conducted with federal funding. This has been one of Mr Obama's top priorities, so we must be diligent in our efforts to protect those who can't protect themselves.

Iraq Soldier's Home Ownership Returned

We have an update on Capt Michael Clauer, the Frisco soldier that lost his house while deployed in Iraq. His HOA foreclosed and sold the $300k plus house to collect less than $1000 in dues. This was a somewhat complicated case and we’re happy to report that a deal has been reached to return the house to the Clauers. Details of the agreement have been sealed.

This case has renewed the debate over how much power a home owners association should wield. Perhaps a HOA should be limited to obtaining a lien on the property rather than forcing a sale without going to court. I’m not personally familiar with the Clauers or the HOA involved, so I’ll just offer a few brief independent observations on this particular case (see our previous story for additional background info). First, Ms Clauer must accept some responsibility. She didn’t open the certified letters from the HOA due to depression. Having a son in the Marines in Afghanistan, I can identify and sympathize; however, Ms Clauer must have opened and paid some bills such as the utilities.

That said, I believe this could also have been avoided if the HOA used a bit of common sense. While they were within the letter of the law, the morals and ethics of selling someone’s home to collect this small amount is certainly questionable, particularly in light of the fact that the officers, presumably the Clauer’s neighbors, didn’t even bother to pay them a visit. As a former officer of a HOA, I found that very few homeowners responded to notices that were mailed, but when we dropped by to respectfully talk over the situation, they almost always were more than willing to comply. In some cases, it was simply a misunderstanding. In others, the homeowner had simply neglected the issue or had a temporary setback such as a lost job, some medical etc, in which case we would work with them or give them more time. We also acknowledge that all HOA's do not operate in the same manner. Many are run by a select few individuals who attempt to impose their agenda on everyone else.

In this case, it appears that each side probably shares at least some portion of the blame for not resolving the issue in the earlier stages, but we don't have enough info to speculate on the extent with any accuracy. We can say that we are very happy that the home’s ownership was returned to Capt Clauer's family. We would also like to extend our appreciation for his service to our country.

HOA Sells Iraq Soldier’s Home To Collect $900 Debt

Here’s a story from just a few miles up the road. Capt Michael Clauer of Frisco, Texas had been serving his country on dangerous missions in Iraq, and was responsible for the lives of over 100 soldiers. Yet, Capt Clauer returned home to find that the Heritage Lakes Homeowners Association had foreclosed and sold his $300,00 home over a debt of $977.55. Michael and his wife May had owned the house free and clear, but his HOA sold it at auction for $3,201 to Mark DiSanti of Dallas and Steeplechase Productions, who flipped the house to Jad Aboul-Jibin of Plano for $135,000.

The HOA had sent notices by certified mail demanding payment, but May was suffering from depression over her husband's absence, and she let mail pile up and didn't open any of the certified letters. She only found about the sale when the new owner demanded rent. The Clauers are now in a lawsuit to get their house back. Their attorney argues that her clients are protected from foreclosure by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The federal law protects those on active duty from certain financial and legal obligations, including foreclosure, without a court proceeding. The attorney notes "This is so outrageous. There's a strong opposition to the power that HOAs are granted in Texas that goes beyond Capt. Clauer and his military status."

Indeed, this case, which has renewed a somewhat heated debate over the power of HOAs in Texas, could have a far-reaching effect. The HOA claims that the military erroneously told them that Capt Clauer was not in the military. At the same time, no one from the HOA bothered to knock on the door and personally contact May, as had been done in the past with other homeowners. From the Dallas Morning News update:

The Clauers have been allowed to continue living in the house under a judge's order. And this week, a federal district judge ordered all the parties involved to get together to try to reach a settlement on the question of ownership.

Trey Branham of Goldfarb Branham LLP in Dallas said if the suit's allegations are true, the HOA may have a significant legal problem. "There's some law in Texas that says property is unique and if you take it wrongfully, you're obligated to get it back," said Branham, who has represented both HOAs and homeowners on various legal matters. Other options, he said, could include buying the couple another house or paying them what the house was worth. "But none of them is inexpensive," he said.

WFAA-TV originally broke the story on May 14, and the DMN has an update this morning.

UPDATE (Aug 4, 2010): Ownership of Home Returned to the Clauers.

Immigration Question of the Day

Cousin Donna from Austin alerted us to this Ray Stevens video. We got to wondering, who is more likely to be the next person after Mexican President Calderon to be invited to speak before Nancy Pelosi and the US Congress, Raúl Castro or Ray Stevens?

While Mr Castro would be welcomed with open arms (and a likely standing ovation), in the extreme unlikelihood that Ray Stevens could be invited, Ms Pelosi and her fellow Dems would likely walk out in protest.

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.

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.