Illegal Immigration: The Soft Underbelly

For some who might think it unnecessary to have political fodder on the blog. I am one who believes that a nation answers to God, as well as, individuals. The issue though for the nation is that it will answer in the "here and now", for I don't see how they will answer throughout eternity. Therefore, we must be aware of the issues and give a proper response when electing officials. We must, as believers, chose our representatives based upon righteous leadership rather than "the lesser of two evils", and then pray that somehow God bless that. While I am for praying for our leaders, because the Scripture commands that we do so, we must realize that our government of the United States is a government by the people. Therefore, we must be well informed and willing to do the right thing, not the politically expedient one. With that in mind, you will see that I will be posting various articles from the Constitution party in the future. Some you have already read, I hope.

While I do not believe that government can save men, I do believe that government is given to protect men and to punish evil doers. However, if we fail in electing men who will rule justly, then that which was meant for good will become that which expouses evil. May God guide us as we think on these things.

FROM THE DESK OF JAMES N. CLYMER
CHAIRMAN, CONSTITUTION PARTY NATIONAL COMMITTEE

Immigration reform is a hot topic in Washington these days, with President Bush, Senator John McCain, and Senator Pete Domenici, among others, proposing various pieces of legislation purportedly designed to solve America's illegal immigration crisis. Republicans Domenici and McCain have both introduced immigration reform legislation, while President Bush, in a January 7th speech, proposed sweeping new laws providing for millions of new immigrants to be hired for jobs that "American workers are not willing to take." While the President, unlike Senators McCain, Domenici, and many other Congressmen, claims to oppose amnesty for illegal aliens (or, in the politically correct parlance of Washington, "undocumented workers"), his policies amount to capitulation to a status quo that has allowed and even encouraged millions of illegal immigrants to live and work in the United States.

The Constitution Party has never opposed immigration per se; we recognize that enlightened immigration laws have allowed America to attract talent from all over the world. Most of us are descended from immigrants ourselves. But there is a false premise underlying all current immigration reform proposals that would in some way reward the millions of illegal aliens. This premise is that America's greatness is based ultimately on her ability to maintain a hard-working citizenry. Illegal immigrants, goes the argument, are simply taking jobs that Americans are unwilling to take. As the President put it, "some of the jobs being generated in America's growing economy are jobs American citizens are not filling."

The notion that worker productivity is the ultimate measure of a nation's greatness is an old socialist fallacy, reconditioned and revamped for a twenty-first century world being encouraged to worship without question at the altar of free trade. But in fact, people all over the world work extremely hard, as our own ancestors did in the various countries where they originated. The reason people come to America is not to work harder, but to enjoy more fully the fruits of their labor, in a comparatively open and free society where, in spite of the worsening burden of taxes and regulations, capital formation is still possible and risk coupled with hard work still yields rewards.

But why is it the case that the worker in Mexico, the Philippines, or India can work as hard as or harder than his American counterpart, yet seldom manages to accumulate any savings or acquire any reward except more work? The reason American workers are so much better off is that our laws historically, for all their failings, have generally protected private property and free enterprise, and punished graft, racketeering, extortion, and the like.

The basis of our prosperity, our system of free enterprise, is dependant on our remaining a nation of laws. No legal system can last long if laws are passed that encourage and reward illegal behavior or if laws that punish lawlessness aren't enforced.

But that is precisely what the sort of policies being proposed by Senator McCain, Senator Domenici, and President Bush will do. In the case of amnesty, does anyone seriously believe that granting amnesty to millions of illegals will not encourage millions more to sprint for our borders? It's already happening. The mere prospect of President Bush's "amnesty lite" proposal has resulted in an increase of thousands of illegal immigrants each month since it was first announced.

The President also promised to work with the leaders of other nations (read: Mexico) to encourage them to change policies that have driven their citizens to seek employment in the U.S. in the first place. In other words, we have no choice but to adapt to the consequences of government malfeasance in Mexico and elsewhere, and hope they change their ways eventually.

This is naive and foolish thinking. The more we accommodate illegal aliens, the less incentive we give to governments like Mexico's to change their corrupt ways.

It is not considered politically correct to say so, but the flood of illegal immigrants has brought many evils in its train, including a greater volume of drug smuggling, the trafficking in human beings destined to lives in unspeakable forms of bondage, and an epidemic of violent street gangs. The risk of terrorists infiltrating the United States via our porous southern border is very high. Lawlessness, it seems, encourages more lawlessness.

But what about those jobs that will supposedly go unfilled if illegals are not available to fill them? The primary reason that Americans are less willing to perform those jobs is that many employers prefer to pay much lower wages, and to require longer hours of work under appalling conditions, as long as they have a captive pool of illegal workers to hire. Moreover, the extraordinary levels of taxation and regulation imposed on American industry provide strong incentives to hire workers for whom employers need not assume the heavy costs of health plans, social security "matching contributions," and other crippling economic and bureaucratic burdens. If illegals were no longer available, wages and working conditions would quickly be bid up to reasonable levels, and pressure would mount for tax and regulatory relief, so that American industry could afford to pay American workers what they are worth.

What should be done? First and foremost - enforce the law! This means our borders need to be patrolled by much larger forces. This administration is making no serious effort to impede the tens of thousands crossing the border illegally each month. Rather than spreading our troops around the world, fighting battles that do not directly involve our security or our vital interests, we should be directing our troops to the border which is our soft underbelly for terrorist infiltration. A good deal of our military budget would be better allocated to pay for protecting our own homeland and borders instead of everybody else's.

Secondly, it means finding and deporting illegal aliens. We must send a message to Mexico and other miscreant regimes that exporting their problems to the United States will no longer be rewarded.

Thirdly, instead of revising our immigration laws to encourage more people to immigrate who may threaten our American culture, our stability and our form of government, Congress needs to reform and, in many case, abolish, the regime of taxes and regulations that penalize American industry for hiring legal workers.

While we may never live in a perfect world, we need to demand of our leaders that they stop ignoring the problem of illegal immigration, and that they take genuine corrective measures to remedy it. If we do not, our country and our laws will soon be completely overwhelmed, as law-abiding citizens become a minority in their own land.

LARK Program

I received this from my boss and found it to be extremely funny how some people don't get the true nature behind Islamic terrorists. Enjoy!

THE LARK PROGRAM



A Lady libertarian wrote a lot of letters to the White House complaining about the treatment of a captive insurgent (terrorist) being held in Guantanamo Bay. She received back the following reply:



The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, D.C. 20016



Dear Concerned Citizen,



Thank you for your recent letter roundly criticizing our treatment of the Taliban and Al Quaeda detainees currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.



Our administration takes these matters seriously and your opinion was heard loud and clear here in Washington.
You'll be pleased to learn that, thanks to the concerns of citizens like yourself, we are creating a new division of the Terrorist Retraining Program, to be called the "Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers" program, or LARK for short.



In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to place one terrorist under your personal care. Your personal detainee has been selected and scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence next Monday.



Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of complaint. It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant caretakers.



We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are Com- mensurate with those you so strongly recommended in your letter.



Although Ahmed is a sociopath and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem" will help him overcome these character flaws. Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences. We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home schooling.



Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers. We advise that you do not ask him to demonstrate these skills at your next yoga group. He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.



Ahmed will not wish to interact with you or your daughters (except sexually), since he views females as a subhuman form of property. This is a particularly sensitive subject for him and he has been known to show violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the new dress code that he will recommend as more appropriate attire.
I'm sure you will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the burka -- over time.



Just remember that it is all part of "respecting his culture and his religious beliefs" -- wasn't that how you put it?



Thanks again for your letter. We truly appreciate it when folks like you keep us informed of the proper way to do our job. You take good care of Ahmed - and remember..we'll be watching.



Good luck!



Cordially, your friend,

Don Rumsfeld

Constitution Party Responds to Bush's State of the Union

I received this the other week and wanted to post it for your information. This is the response of the Constitution Party to the State of the Union speech by President Bush.

President Bush's 2006 State of the Union address, while undeniably a superb piece of political gamesmanship, highlighted the fundamental disconnect between most of the President's positions and the principles of constitutionally-limited government. This is hardly a new development, since the leadership of both major parties has treated portions of the Constitution as a dead letter for generations. Nevertheless, as the only national party whose platform is 100% constitutional, we are duty-bound to remind the American public of what is really at stake with issues like terrorism, welfare, social security, and other matters attracting attention in Washington.

We agree with President Bush that our strength as a nation flows from the freedoms that we enjoy, and that we must strive, and, if necessary, make sacrifices, in order to protect those freedoms. But love of freedom and love of country are not necessarily the same thing. While we applaud the outpouring of genuine patriotism in the wake of 9-11 and the heartfelt desire to support the men and women serving in America's Armed Forces, we must point out that our freedoms are guaranteed in the final analysis by a United States Constitution that not only safeguards certain God-given rights but also imposes very clear restrictions on the powers of our own federal government. Love of freedom, therefore, must include a reverence for the Constitution and respect for the limits it places on power.

Unfortunately, many of our leaders in Washington have shown that they are willing to use crises to justify extra-constitutional expansion of government powers. Since 9-11, we have witnessed a significant expansion of executive powers to search without warrants, imprison without a trial, and pursue alleged criminals without accountability to due process. We heard President Bush argue for reauthorizing the Patriot Act, a bill that was rushed through Congress without proper scrutiny by lawmakers, and which embodies the old cliche about the devil being in the details. The Bush Administration is also completely unapologetic about authorizing the CIA and NSA to conduct domestic espionage, another extremely dangerous precedent that could become a pretext for further abuse of executive power by future administrations.

We have also become involved in two major overseas wars, neither of which was authorized by a Constitutionally-mandated Congressional declaration. The fact that we have not fought a declared war since World War II is not an excuse for cavalier disregard of this critical limit on the powers of the Executive branch, which was intended, as Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers, to ensure that the American President would not possess the power of an Old World monarch to start wars at his own discretion. Nor are the various political arguments in favor of military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan justification for ignoring the Constitution. The power to start wars is easily abused, and has been exploited throughout history by unscrupulous despots to solidify their hold on power. If we continue to grant president after president carte blanche to wage war at his personal whim, we should not be surprised to see greater and greater abuses of this power, and more and more frequent resorts to military action all over the world.

Some in Congress have protested that the Bush Administration doctored the evidence to push America into war in Iraq. But few of those Congressmen were willing to hold President Bush accountable in the first place, by insisting that a Declaration of War be debated and voted upon.

President Bush made it clear that his vision, like that of most of his recent predecessors, is for America to continue to be militarily engaged all over the world, overthrowing hostile governments and waging an open-ended war on terrorism. He derided those who oppose such a course of action as "isolationists." America has never been isolationist, but it was once very sensibly non-interventionist. The Founding Fathers themselves were keenly interested in trade and diplomacy, and many of them were well-educated in foreign languages, culture and history. But they did not want America transformed into some kind of global policeman. They understood that America neither possessed the resources nor the moral authority to impose her will on the entire world.

In 1820, for example, when Greece was fighting a valiant battle for freedom against a cruel and oppressive Ottoman regime, America was pressured to lend her support to the cause. President John Quincy Adams, on July 4th of that year, responded to those who would have involved America in an overseas quarrel by reminding his listeners that America "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own... She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty." This wise counsel is just as applicable today. Incidentally, the Greeks won their independence, fighting against one of the most powerful empires of the day, without American aid money and without American troops.

President Bush also took issue with what he and like-minded internationalists call protectionism. They accuse protectionists of building walls around America and trying to shut out world trade. We do not oppose trade as such. What we oppose are international agreements that deliberately hobble American industry. We also oppose unwise policies that not merely permit trade but throw open our borders, attempts to compromise our sovereignty under the guise of so-called "free trade" agreements like NAFTA and the WTO, and domestic laws that impose such steep taxes and regulatory penalties that American companies are given strong incentives to move their operations overseas.

President Bush rightly stated in his address that America still leads the world in talent. If that is the case, then why are so many talented American workers losing their jobs to overseas competitors? Simply put, it is because our own policies are making it prohibitively expensive to hire domestic workers for many functions. President Bush claims he wants to strengthen American workers and continue to encourage investment, research, and development. He stated "With open markets and a level playing field, no one can out-produce or out-compete the American worker." But his administration has done everything it can to give Mexicans, Indians, and Chinese a competitive advantage over American workers. The president simply cannot be given credit for sincerity in this matter.

The huge unpopularity of our government's immigration policy has forced our politicians to mouth pieties they disbelieve. The President said "Our nation needs orderly and secure borders. To meet this goal, we must have stronger immigration enforcement and border protection." The very reason we do not have immigration enforcement and border protection is that there has been a deliberate policy under administrations of both parties not to enforce the laws of the land. The President goes on to reject amnesty which he championed when he thought he could get away with it.

In fact, all our establishment politicians serve corporate interests who would further drive down wages for working Americans and dilute the American national character with Third World immigrants whose tragic national histories too often leave them with no ability to appreciate America's legacy of ordered liberty and the rule of law.

The President correctly pointed out that America has become addicted to foreign oil, especially oil produced in unstable parts of the world. Yet he made no mention of the continual refusal of the federal government to authorize oil and natural gas extraction in places like the Arctic National Wildlife refuge, or of the burdensome regulations that have hamstrung domestic oil extraction for much of the last couple of decades.

President Bush, like almost everyone in Washington these days, believes that there are few problems that cannot be solved by the creative application of government power. In his address he recommended further federal involvement in education, health care, social security, and a host of other concerns. He said, for example, that "Our government has a responsibility to help provide health care for the poor and the elderly." In fact, nowhere is providing health care for the poor and elderly authorized in the U.S. Constitution. That these may be noble ends does not justify using unconstitutional means to attain them. The same may be said for federal government involvement in education, social security, welfare, and so forth.

To many Americans, this may sound cruel and heartless, because we have become so accustomed to demand that government provide for us the things that, in most cases, we can and ought to provide for ourselves. Those of us who champion limited constitutional government will always be at a rhetorical disadvantage to those who, like President Bush, prefer to disregard the Constitution and promise whatever they think will sell to a prime time audience.

But our vision is optimistic. We believe that only by returning to our constitutional roots will we make progress in paying off our colossal national debt, providing for our national security, and stabilizing our economy. We believe that ballooning costs in health care and education are best solved by less government intervention, not more. We expect our elected leaders to adhere strictly to their constitutional oaths of office, and make no apologies for holding them to their obligations. We want a strong America leading the worldwide cause of freedom, but by example, not by military force, unless absolutely necessary. We applaud the growth of marvelous new technologies like the Internet, where the absence of government oversight has allowed unprecedented innovation and wealth creation. We look forward to the day when the blight of abortion is once again illegal. Above all, we hope for a return to the moral values that made America great in the first place, and pray that Almighty God will bless our nation as we move in that direction.

Corruption Scandal in Congress

I received this from the Constituion Party yesterday. Yes, I am a supporter of the party, for their goal is not primarily "how can we get elected", but rather is based upon strict principles of righteous governing. I hope you find the information useful. As has been said before, if we continue to vote for the same people expecting a different result, that is the definition of insanity.

CORRUPTION SCANDAL IN CONGRESS, GILCHRIST CAMPAIGN IN CALIFORNIA, SIGNAL UNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONSTITUTION PARTY

LANCASTER, PA: The burgeoning influence-peddling scandal in Washington has already led to the resignation of one congressman, Randy Cunningham of California, and may implicate many others of both parties. The House Majority Leader, outspoken Texas Republican Tom DeLay, is under indictment for money-laundering charges, and others are under investigation.

Jim Clymer, Chairman of the Constitution Party, believes that a major change is in order. "Both the House and the Senate have been thoroughly corrupted by influence-peddling for decades," Clymer said. "But the solution is not to return the Democrats to power or to elect a more ethical Republican majority. The solution is to jettison the two major parties altogether and to start afresh with principle-based leadership."

The unprecedented levels of graft and influence-peddling in Washington are the predictable result of a legally-protected bipartisan oligarchy more concerned with party loyalty than with upholding their Constitutional oath of office, Clymer said.

"The two major parties," Clymer pointed out, "are not very far apart on a wide range of policy issues, in spite of widespread perceptions. Both Republicans and Democrats show near-total disregard for constitutional limits on their own power. The result is a federal government of almost unlimited clout, whose favors are for sale to the highest bidder."

Clymer believes Americans are ready for a sea change in party politics. Pointing to the recent special election in California's 48th Congressional district, in which Jim Gilchrist, running for the American Independent Party (the Constitution Party's California affiliate), made a very strong showing, Clymer noted that Gilchrist outpolled both major party candidates on election day, losing the overall election only because absentee ballots favored his Republican opponent.

"In the Gilchrist campaign, illegal immigration, a problem that both major parties have been ignoring, was the hot-button issue. If a heavily partisan Republican district like the California 48th can nearly elect a third-party candidate, the opportunity seems ripe for change elsewhere in the country," Clymer said, predicting major gains for third parties in the next elections.

The Constitution Party National Website is http://www.constitutionparty.com. For more information contact Steve Bonta at 814-684-1175, sbontata@constitutionparty.com

Should Christians promote the pledge of allegiance to the flag.......with or without God?

I have debated the issue myself concerning the pledge of allegiance, even when it included the words "under God", as to whether believers should pledge such a thing. In a documentary on the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer that I saw years ago, I remember clearly seeing how much America looked like Germany and how the church seemed to fall into the same type of category choosing to follow the lesser of two evils, and yes, for the record I believe our current president was the lesser of the two evils in the last election. However, I still pray that God might turn his heart truly to Himself. With this said, it was especially enlightening to read the following articles concerning the origin of the pledge to the US flag. I hope others will be able to comment in the forum. Here are the article URLs: With Or Without "Under God," the Pledge Is Still a Bad Idea by Dave Black http://www.daveblackonline.com/with_or_without.htm The Forgotten History of the Pledge of Allegiance by Gary DeMar http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/12-17-04.asp Barmen Declaration http://www.covenantnews.com/daveblack041219.htm

By the way, I am concerned when churches share the worship of God with the symbol of the nation. I really don't think the flag has any business among the ecclesia. Also, let me just remind everyone of something that is related but not the same subject: when we continue to vote for the same people and get the same results, but we are expecting different ones, isn't that the definition of insanity? I am not a political activist, but I did promote a man that I thought would govern righteously in the past election, Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party). I know, I hear it now. Many are saying to themselves, "He didn't even have a chance." Maybe not, but a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. The words of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson ring in my ears, "Duties belong to man; outcomes belong to God".