WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO?

constitution1.pngBUNKERVILLE | God, Guns, and Guts Comades! has an interesting post on Nationwide Protests July 18-19 to Oppose Illegal Immigration‏. Here is how it starts.

The so-called Immigration reform bill swirling around Congress is a dangerous bill according to Mark Levin. It includes amnesty for everyone arriving prior to 2014. Congress wants to hood wink us once more. Precious little is being disclosed. Join the protests Friday and Saturday and let’s send Congress a message. We turned it in 2010, let’s do it again. All of the House is up for reelection this fall.

Rep. Henry Cuellar and Sen. John Cornyn have introduced legislation into the House and Senate, respectively.

The biggest issue with Rep. Cueller and Sen. Cornyn’s bill is that it includes Rep. Michael McCaul’s border security bill almost in its entirety. Rep. McCaul’s original bill, H.R.1417, would actually weaken border security, not strengthen it, in several ways. First, current law requires DHS to take all actions to achieve operational control of the entire border, but McCaul’s bill only requires DHS to submit a plan to achieve operational control of high-traffic areas and along the Southern border, ignoring much of the Northern land border and all maritime borders. Second, the bill contrasts with existing law, which already requires 100% operational control of the entire international land and maritime borders. McCaul’s bill defines “operational control” as apprehending 90% of illegal crossings as determined by DHS. (continued here)

As the post continues, what is the solution? We stage protests. I think protesting illegal immigration is a good idea, but we already know the result. The corporate news media will either ignore the protests or paint the protesters as racist extremists. Therefore, we also need more focused, long range plans.That would involve strategies like the following:

  1. Get our children out of the public school system. Instead of educating children, the public school system is designed to provide jobs to unionized Democrats. Hence we end up with poorly educated adults who don’t understand either their religious or political heritage.
  2. Stop rewarding politicians who promise us other people’s money. We must vote the BUMS OUT! We need leaders who love America and want to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  3. Campaign for a Convention of the States to amend the Constitution. For an example of an organization pushing the idea, check out ConventionOfStates.com and this Forbes article, Mark Levin’s Game Changer: Using The Constitution To Arrest Federal Drift.

To beat the corporate news media, we must go directly to our neighbors. We must show each other what can be done, and we must make America’s government once again small and mostly a local matter.

Want more details? Here is a debate on a Convention of the States, Conservatives pro and con.

Is a Convention of the States a bad idea? Ultimately, that will depend upon us. If we do our homework, and we make our expectations abundantly clear, we can pressure our leaders to enact specific Constitutional amendments. If we do not do our homework and fight for the process, bad men and women will take over the convention, and it will be a disaster.

Unfortunately, bad men and women are already corrupting government. To stop them, we must use EVERY tool we have at our disposal. In a no holds barred fight, we must not tie our hands behind our backs. We must go on the offensive and tie our opponents up in knots.

Posted in 2014 Election, Constitution, Culture War, history, Information Warfare, Laws, news media bias, Philosophy, schools | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 24 Comments

SOWING CONFUSION

confusedTo prevent misunderstanding, I am responding to this comment.

scout says:

July 16, 2014 at 7:03 am

Tom, you should read my comments before your reply to them. Then we could have a conversation.

You didn’t vehemently disagree with one of my beliefs – you asked in your post whether we already had Comprehensive Immigration Reform. I replied no, because we haven’t addressed the issue since 1986, during which time the issues have changed. I don’t see insults there (other than my making fun of my own math-challenged means of doing sums) any more than I see vehement disagreement. Similarly, I don’t see my refusing to state the basis for my opinion. I gave the basis for the opinion.

Although I generally consider you to have an irrationally quick trigger finger on your scriptural use, if I wanted to adopt that fashion myself in response to your latest comment, I would say that I fully conformed to the author of the James admonition to let my “No” be No.

As for your inquiry as to why you cannot stand criticism (you and whomever else you perennial “we” happens to be), my thought is that perhaps it is because you (singular or plural, take your pick) sometimes see it when it isn’t there. Simpson-Mazzoli had its reasons and momentum in its day. But it’s long gone. We are on to new issues on our borders. To say that shouldn’t insult you or make you sensitive to criticism. It’s just an observation. (from here)

First note these pertinent details.

  1. What is carping? If you don’t know, click on the link. Since the term is not widely used, I probably should not have used it, but it fit the occasion.
  2. scout and novascout are one and the same. That is, there is one one “scout,” not two. Why  uses two pseudonyms I don’t know, but he has in the past said he does not know how fix it so the second pseudonym does not show up.
  3. When I said  was carping (here), I was referring his apparent anger as the result of THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MORALITY AND THE LAW — PART 1. Unfortunately, when  responded to my observation — his carping — he made it sound as if I was referring solely to his previous comment (here) in DON’T WE ALREADY HAVE COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM? As a matter of fact (easily observed),   had already started carping as  when he commented upon THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MORALITY AND THE LAW — PART 1.

Seeds Of Confusion

When he first responded (here) to DON’T WE ALREADY HAVE COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM?, was  still carping? I think it blatantly obvious, but I suppose a casual observer of this blog might think otherwise. Hence this post.

Do I have an irrationally quick trigger finger on scriptural use? Since  and  (scout’s second pseudonym) have commented on this blog numerous times, it has become apparent that  and I have very different points-of-view on how scripture should be applied. However, I try not to abuse scripture and bludgeon anyone with it. In the comment (here) that  complained about, I applied scripture to myself, not him. I merely suggested that I could and should find the patience to endure his carping. I did not use scripture demonstrate that he was carping. That observation did not require any reference to scripture.

Why did I quote scripture and apply it to myself? It is that “we” thing that apparently irks . Because “we” are all sinners, I speak of sinners in the plural. Because I too require Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for salvation, I am not any better than anyone else. So it is that when I quote scripture I usually quote it to remind myself (as much as anyone else) of what God’s wisdom dictates I should do.

No one can make another obedient to scripture. We each must willingly make that choice. Is that not why James spoke of the Bible as a mirror (James 1:22-25)? We must each seek to apply what we learn from the Bible to ourselves.

Posted in Culture War, Information Warfare, Philosophy, religion | Tagged , , , , , | 8 Comments

Dear Parents of Russian Federation, Are You Nuts?

Citizen Tom:

This has been out there for almost a month, but it is not stale. Instead, this post is something to think about. Think about how we let our government educate our children. Are the ideas being put into our children’s heads the ideas we want them to believe? Are our children learning the difference between good citizens and good slaves? Are they learning how to be good citizens?

Originally posted on sitting on the edge of the sandbox, biting my tongue:

Echo Moskvy, one of the few opposition media sources (this is not an all-out endorsement, there are some despicable opposition figures in Russia) retells a personal story, corroborated with pictures, that previously made the rounds in Russian social media.  The event took place in late May:

Sick and sunburned, my daughter Ksenia returned from a Saturday celebration staged for Putin on St. Petersburg’s Isaakievsky Square.  5000 people, most of them from children’s’ choirs were appropriated to sing songs for the leader!  It was titled “The Limitless Wonder of the World”.

It was 30 degrees Celsius [~90 F – ed.] in Peter [St. Petersburg -- ed.] that day.  All 40 under the sun!  The children were sent off at 8 am.

Prior to the entrance to the square, the children’s choir was thoroughly searched. Documents were required (my child is 12, so I provided her birth certificate), then bottled water…

View original 491 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

DON’T WE ALREADY HAVE COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM?

customs and immigrationLook up the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Google it. That was suppose to be comprehensive immigration reform, but you will find plenty of excuses explaining why it supposedly fell short. Both Democrats and Republicans will make excuses. Leaders in both parties will explain why we need another amnesty (even if they refuse to call it that). However, the primary reason the law did not work is our political leaders never enforced it. Our leaders usually will not admit it, but only the willfully blind could miss something so obvious. Because they provide cheap labor, leaders in both parties want the illegal immigrants, and Democrats want the cheap votes.

So why do our leaders lie to us? Do they know we will not honor our principles and hold them accountable? That does seem to be the case. Consider the latest, the invasion of children across our southern border. Of course, the big corporate news media is not reporting the full story. Instead, they are trying to blame President George W. Bush, Immigrant Surge Rooted in Law to Curb Child Trafficking (www.nytimes.com).

WASHINGTON — It was one of the final pieces of legislation signed into law by President George W. Bush, a measure that passed without controversy, along with a pension bill and another one calling for national parks to be commemorated on quarters. (continued here)

That bill Bush signed in 2008, was that not immigration reform too? That reform also did not work. Is it not strange how these reforms never work? But to be fair, it is difficult to blame a law that isn’t being enforced. Consider what that same New York Times reported in 2012, Obama to Permit Young Migrants to Remain in U.S.

Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children will be allowed to remain in the country without fear of deportation and able to work, under an executive action the Obama administration announced on Friday. (continued here)

So what has the big corporate news media left unsaid? Doesn’t Mexico control its borders? So how are all those children getting through Mexico?

  • Mexico made deal to send more illegal aliens to the U.S. (www.examiner.com)

    On Monday, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and Guatemalan president Otto Perez Molina held a joint press conference in Playas de Catazaja, Mexico, to officially announce an agreement to make it easier for those making the illegal journey to the United States from Central America, to cross into Mexico. (continued here)

  • Yes, the Mexican Government is Facilitating the Immigrant Influx from Central America (www.rushlimbaugh.com)

    Well, I took it upon myself to find out, and this is what they are doing.  And this is not from some right-wing outlet.  What I have here is it a story from the Examiner.com, but it’s basically a rewrite of a Spanish language report from El Universal.  “On Monday, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and Guatemalan president Otto Perez Molina held a joint press conference in Playas de Catazaja, Mexico, to officially announce an agreement to make it easier for those making the illegal journey to the United States from Central America, to cross into Mexico.” (from here)

  • Mexico, Guatemala fast-track delivery of illegals to U.S. (www.wnd.com)

    Mexico and Guatemala have reached an agreement that is intended to make it easier and safer for Central Americans, including unaccompanied minors, to enter the United States illegally.

    Though largely unreported in the U.S. mainstream media, the two nations agreed on July 7, in a presidential-level meeting in Mexico, to make it legal and safe for Central American immigrants, including unaccompanied minors, to cross Mexico’s border with Guatemala and transit Mexico en route to the U.S. border at the Rio Grande. (continued here)

  • Report: Guatemala-Mexico Border Wide Open (www.breitbart.com)

    CNN National Correspondent Gary Tuchman reported live from the Guatemala-Mexico border, where many of the illegal immigrants entering the United States being their journey, that passage from Guatemala into Mexico is “easy” because the border is unsecured.  (continued here)

We are being played for suckers. Right now we are being ruled by a bunch of liars, and President Barack Obama is our lying king. If we want our government to work, to perform honorably, then we must behave honorably ourselves. Instead of robbing our neighbors and even our own children by voting for government handouts, we must start voting for leaders who just promise they will do their best to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Otherwise, we and our children will soon have nothing, including those precious rights.

Posted in Culture War, immigration, Information Warfare, news media bias, unraveling | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 25 Comments

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MORALITY AND THE LAW — PART 1

freedomconscience

 

What Does I Mean To Live In A Secularized State?

After I posted A CONSEQUENCE OF PERVERTED LEADERSHIP (a post on the legalization of same-sex “marriage”), scout defended the legalization of same-sex “marriage.”  Part of his argument involves the following idea.

I advocate trusting God in things spiritual and living under the Constitution in things temporal in the United States. (from here)

Latter he added further clarification.

I have said (I think this is the third time) that when one considers the current debate over same sex marriage, one has to be aware that we are not talking about religious marriages, we are talking about state marriages. The two institutions are, in my mind, completely different, one belonging to the temporal world, the other to the spiritual. (from here)

Can we isolate the temporal from the spiritual? Not according to Jesus. Jesus came to save us from this world. He explained that although the world would reject them (His disciples), the Holy Spirit would strengthen them. In John 14-17, Jesus reassured His disciples that He had already overcome the world (In John 16:33, Jesus specifically says that.). In the last of these three chapters,  John 17, Jesus gave us what is truly The Lord’s Prayer. Here He prayed for Himself, His disciples, and all believers. Here He prayed for our salvation from this world.

So where did  get this notion that our legal system should handle things that are temporal and religious institutions should handle things that are spiritual? I suppose he thinks this dichotomy is a benefit of the secular state. However, is that what we do in practice?

Of the articles I surveyed on the Internet, Morality Has No Place in the Law By Sarah Braasch advanced opinions most like those offered by . However, Braasch wants a separation of Law and morality. She expressed unhappiness because we incorporate our morals into our Laws. Briefly, here is her motivation.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to have to care about my uneducated and ill-informed next door neighbor’s personal, subjective moral opinion about my life choices, and I don’t think I should have to care. No matter how much evidence he thinks he has in support of his personal, subjective moral viewpoint. (from here)

So how does Braasch propose to create legal system that is not based upon morality?

But, how to create a legal/political system, which balances the needs of the individual and society, without resorting to false notions of morality and communitarianism? I think the answer is to create a legal/political system based upon game theory to maximize individual liberty.

The choice of maximizing individual liberty is not arbitrary. And, it isn’t about creating a moral code, which holds liberty in higher esteem than the values of happiness or well being or goodness or utility. It also isn’t about a classical libertarian’s or an anarchist’s liberty fetish. It is about trying to replicate our current form of government without resorting to a relationship with mob rule. Our current majoritarian / counter-majoritarian push-pull is a crude approximation of a legal/political system based upon game theory to maximize individual liberty. (from here)

Game theory? That’s a mathematical theory nobody knows how to apply to politics. What would further complicate implementation is that Braasch wants more from government than liberty. Later in her article she states that in addition to maximizing individual liberty, she wants government to serve as our nanny.  She still wants to force other people to sacrifice their liberty by guaranteeing everyone will have food, clothing, healthcare, an education, security, and safety.

Consider that Braasch is an Atheist, and she considers Christianity merely a foundational myth. Braasch says we have no societal basis for morality. Nonetheless, she wants a government maximizes individual liberty and gives people things, two objectives that are inherently self-contradictory. She admits she has no objective standards for morality. Without a moral basis, we have two questions we cannot answer.

  • How do we define what it means to maximize individual liberty?
  • Why should we care about maximizing individual liberty?

Should we take Braasch seriously? In Questions for Atheists on Having a Standard of MoralityMatt Slick provides a list of 36 questions. Here is the first one.

OBJECTIVE STANDARD Do you have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong? (continued here)

Could Braasch answer the first question affirmatively? Of course not, and Slick 35 remaining questions make that crystal clear. What could Braasch say? She would most likely insist it does not matter.

Look around the globe. Doesn’t what people believe affect the kind of government they have? In our nation’s past, Americans strove to live as God would have them live. They sought to make choices that Jesus would approve. That’s why we still have a government that seeks maximize individual liberty. Unfortunately, too many of us no longer understand the significance of what Founders accomplished.

So it is that  and Braasch seek a pipe dream. Government has no definition of right or wrong, good or bad. Game theory is not an answer; it is just a tool for finding answers. Because any tool can be abused, even if game theory could be used to design our Law, game theory could not be made to work any better than the people welding it.

Therefore, America’s Law must be a reflection of what we Americans believe. When We The People choose our leaders, through our choice of leaders we must decide what our government considers right or wrong, good or bad. Ultimately, that means that when our government does something wrong (with bad results, of course), we the People have no one to blame except ourselves.

To Be Continued….

Posted in Culture War, Information Warfare, Philosophy, religion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments