Time for a little humor.

It seems the pro-illegal alien activist groups are not happy with the “immigration reform” bill.  They are demanding a law with the following provisions:

1. Upon signing of the bill into law, all Mexican citizens visiting the U.S. under any circumstances will be awarded U.S. citizenship with all of the privileges therein.  As such, the legal term “illegal alien” and related issues will only apply to people entering or staying in the U.S. illegally from countries other than Mexico.  After all, Mexico has strong provision against illegal aliens.

2. Mexican citizens living in the U.S. will be paid $5,000 and given a formal apology for being exploited by Americans.

3. All Mexican citizens living in the U.S. will be forgiven of any crimes committed prior to the signing of this bill into law.

4. Border agents will transition to assisting Mexicans seeking to enter the U.S.

5. Spanish will be adopted as an official language of the U.S. government.  As such when you call a government phone number, you will have to indicate you want English, otherwise the service with will be in Spanish.  Same for the websites.

6. Formal apologies will be issued to the Spanish and Mexican governments over the lands formerly part of their empires that are now part of the U.S.  Those states will be allowed to refer to themselves as being part of "Aztlan."

7. All gringos will be required to learn the definitions of and the differences between the terms “Chicano”, “Latino”, “Hispanic”, “Mexican-American” and the difference between Mexico and other Latin American countries.

Remember the good old days when former Presidents kept their mouths shut when it came to knocking the current President?

Jimmy Carter, desperately hoping that people have forgotten what life was like during his administration and that people don't notice the connections between his decisions and some of the problems we face today, is speaking out against President Bush.

Somehow, I doubt former President Bush could have said anything about Clinton without the Democrats claiming it was the end of civility in politics.

Dear Jimmy: Go build houses.

Some libertarians point out what a great thing illegal aliens are because they contribute to our economy. The problem is, that in a perfectly libertarian world, health care providers take on patients on a strictly voluntary basis. Schools are not funded by tax dollars and take on students on a purely voluntary basis. Housing would not be funded by tax dollars and landlords would be able to rent or not rent to someone for any or no reason. Utilities/public works would not be funded from tax dollars. Payroll taxes would not exist. Private property owners would be responsible for things like borders and keeping criminals, terrorists, contraband, and disease from using their patch of land to harm others.

We don’t live in that world.

Until we do, libertarians should prioritize to move us towards that system and THEN come out in favor of “open borders”.

Business owners (Wall Street Journal Republicans) like having access to cheap labor without having to move operations to other countries. That’s all well and good, but the rest of us are stuck supporting the poor illegal aliens and legal immigrants. I’d be willing to pay slightly higher prices for goods and services in exchange for reduced taxes.

Libertarians and WSJ Republicans, if they really do care about the U.S., should support border control until we have a more libertarian society.

Imagine if someone burglarizes a home, and is able to make off with a substantial amount of cash and valuables.  Using that loot, the person builds a life for themselves – opens bank accounts, buys a car, gets a job, has kids, buys a home.

Finally, he goes to the law enforcement authorities and says that he wants immunity from being prosecuted for that burglary.  Furthermore, he doesn’t want to have to make full restitution.  After all, he’s built a life for himself and become part of society.  And since so many others followed in his footsteps, there should be some sort of law that benefits all of them!

This is exactly what is going on with illegal aliens.  Even if they don’t commit any other crime, such as identity fraud or tax evasion, these people are taking what isn’t theirs – the legal right to reside in the U.S. - and building lives for themselves.  Meanwhile, people wait and wait and wait to come here legally.

Illegal aliens chose to build their foundation on fraud and a disrespect for our laws.  Can I understand why so many come here?  Yes.  We’re a (sometimes wrongly) generous nation with a high standard of living.  This doesn’t justify illegal entry or stays in the U.S., however.  I can understand why burglars steal, too.

Stop the stupid “compassion” for illegal aliens, which is really a lack of compassion for legal immigrants, naturalized citizens, and all who play by the rules and pay taxes.

Today in Los Angeles, Mayor Antonio "La Raza" Villaraigosa will march in protest with a parade of illegal aliens against his own police force.

Welcome to the future of America, if we don't stop the flow of illegal aliens and start encouraging them to go home.

If the deal you work out with Democrats on "immigration reform" in any way...

--makes it easier for illegal aliens to become legal immigrants or citizens than for those who are doing everything the legal way while trying to become legal immigrants or citizens;

--dismisses any owed fines, fees, taxes debts, or tax forms that illegal aliens should owe and legal immigrants and citizens have been required to pay/file;

--forgives any identity theft,  or other fraud or other crime that illegal aliens have commited;

--provides legal status or citizenship to any illegal alien who subsequently participates in organized crime, gangs, murders, or terrorism;

...then you will lose the 2008 Presidential Election and Congress will remain in the hands of Democrats and Democrats will likely make gains there and in the states, because your voters will stay home, and "centrists" will side with Democrats.

You might be underestimating just how fed up American citizens - especially the ones who immigrated the legal way – are with the constant flow of illegal aliens into this country and the subsequent balkanization of our cities.

You might be underestimating just how concerned most people are with the state of border security, and any legislation that in any way rewards illegal aliens will cause continued influx, and any delay in securing the border will be unacceptable.

The Democrats are trying to shore up their base for generations, because so many of their would-be voters have been dismembered in abortion clinics.  They need a new source of voters.  They are looking at illegal aliens as their source.

As long as we have tax money paying for schools, paying for public works, paying for medical care, paying for housing, and paying for social welfare programs, we simply cannot afford to invite more "needy" people to pour across the border and bring or start families here.

We need the border secured yesterday.  The other aspects of "immigration" reform can be dealt with later.

As I’ve said already, I didn’t agree with everything Jerry Falwell said or did, but I do think he did a lot of good in a lot of ways.  He opposed the efforts to tear down morality, marriage, the family, and Christian participation in politics and public discourse.

Notice how the (mostly anonymous) Leftist commenters have been shrilly and cruelly bashing Falwell and classlessly celebrating his death, accusing him of being in a Hell in which they, ironically, don’t believe.  Many of these same people want to “understand” and sympathize with the jihadists, and don’t want us saying anything mean about terrorists.  Yes, these paragons of “tolerance” condemn Falwell, and cite his occasional sensationalistic statements and some of his left-field positions as why.

But we know the real reason the hate him.  Most of all, they hated him because he was a leader in waking up the normal, average American to the radical extremism being insidiously, incrementally forced upon them by a tiny minority of influential fringe activists.  He *gasp* reminded the faithful that political participation was also their right, just like any other citizen’s, and that if they were going to protect their rights, our heritage, our countries, and our families, they needed to stop letting the extreme Leftist activists advance their agenda without facing a challenge.  The fringe Leftists demanded that Falwell sit down and shut up, and when he didn’t, they were even more enraged that someone dared to defy their dictatorial commands.

These are malignant narcissistic hedonists who want “someone else” to be forced to take care of their every need, want, whim, and desire and solve even the problems they brought upon themselves from their ongoing immorality, and don’t like to be asked to voluntarily show some discipline, restraint, or sacrifice.  They want to stick their head in the sand…for two reasons.  One I can’t write without being obscene, and the other reason is because they think that will stop the Islamofascists from attacking us.  Falwell recognized the threat of Islamofascism, thereby harshing their buzz.  They make vicious personal attacks against someone because that person expressed his disagreement that some voluntary behavior of theirs is healthy or right and pointed out that Scriptures advise not to engage in them - as if Falwell kidnapped them and preached to them while they were chained to his wall.

They hate anyone declaring that sex is for marriage and that killing babies is wrong.

I heard/read the comments from three people who interacted with Falwell - an openly gay man, a pornographer, and a practicing Jew (all people who have reason to hate Falwell, according to the bashers) as they talked about the positive impacts he had and declared that they found him to be the real deal, sincere, and kind.  Yet people who didn’t know him want us to believe he was a fraud and a hypocrite.

Falwell wasn’t perfect.  He had flaws.  He committed sins.  One of the essentials of being a true Christian is admitting that.  Falwell apparently did, and strove to follow God.  I find that superior to trying to deny that sin is wrong and making personal attacks against anyone who doesn’t go along with such equivocation.

The only way these bashers think they can feel better about themselves is to tear everyone else down, tear down our institutions in favor of giving more power to the state, and try to erase our heritage.  The only way they can get that done is if everyone stands by and lets them.  Falwell opposed them, and that continues to drive them up the wall.

There are also a few people who are decisively bashing and pronouncing judgment on Falwell based on their churchianity.  These are the kind of unforgiving, prejudging people who obsess over minor teachings and practices and think every other person in the world aside from themselves is going to Hell.  No influential, successful church leader is acceptable to them, except perhaps the one obscure preacher/author from whom they are getting their ideas.

There are plenty of people who disagreed with some or much of what Falwell said or did, but they aren't so damaged as to obsess over him and celebrate his death.

Move on.  The man is dead.  If he was truly a follower of Christ, then he’s safe with Him now.

Lenders are supposed to just eat it when people fail to live up to their obligations, and allow people to keep using something for which they aren’t paying.


Who forced these people to take out loans they couldn’t afford?  If I can afford it, why shouldn’t I have the opportunity to upgrade into a bigger home vacated by someone who needs to downsize to deal with financial reality?

What world are people living in when they expect to get something for nothing?


That was the borrower's choice.  These people act like it is perfectly moral to buy things you can’t afford and then have other people bail them out.

Jerry Falwell passed away today, which you probably knew already.  I just happen to be posting my last installment of my series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

Jerry Falwell was considered my most, especially the news media, to be one of the main leaders of the Religious Right.  However, many in the RR did not agree with all of his positions, his well-known controversial quotes, or how he presented the RR’s messages.  I am in that latter category.  I do believe that he did some good work in opposing the efforts to tear down morality, marriage, the family, and Christian participation in politics and public discourse.  As such, hypersensitive and highly networked and organized activist groups whose agenda was hampered by Falwell were all too eager to seize on his mistakes and portray him as hateful and ignorant.  I also believe that if he was truly a follower of Christ (only God knows for sure), then his sins were forgiven and he is safely with Him now.

Below, I wrap by covering some of the smaller issues the RR has been involved with and then with a general conclusion.

Wrapping Up on the Religious Right

The Religious Right and Public Funding of the Arts
While I haven’t seen the RR object to art in general being purchased/commissioned for public property (sculptures, mosaics, murals, painting, etc. in parks, government buildings, government-owned galleries/museums, etc.), the RR does object to public funds or properties being used to commission or display works that are “obscene”, “indecent”, pornographic, or offensive, particularly towards American patriotism or the Judeo-Christian traditions on which the RR maintains the nation was founded and built.

Where the line should be drawn appears to be related to public opinion - i.e., if a majority of the (local) public finds it offensive or can understand that it could be offensive, public resources shouldn’t be supporting it.

This another area where libertarians can find some common ground with the RR, in that libertarians tend to be against public resources supporting art in general.  Members of the RR question why their tax money should pay for works that they find personally offensive and disrespectful to America as a whole.

Family-Friendly Policies
The RR maintains that if business/employment, tax, law, and government policies and programs in general are going to favor any group, they should favor marriage and parenting, encouraging child rearing in marriage.  For example, as long as there is an income tax with deductions, the deductions should favor those who are raising children, especially in marriage.  Many in the RR believe that the state has an interest to favor childrearing by a husband and wife, as the children are the future soldiers, voters, taxpayers, investors, employees, etc.

Also, the RR believes that unless children are actually being abused or neglected, parenting is a family issue, not something in which the state or even “the village” should interfere.  The state and the village should assist, by maintaining a society where parental authority and family sovereignty is respected and the culture protects the innocence of children, but should in no way attempt to usurp, subvert, or replace parental authority, or side with children in disputes between children and parents.

Boy Scouts of America
The RR tends to support the Boy Scouts of America regarding their freedom of association, including excluding females and professing/practicing homosexuals and atheists.  

Among the reasons:

Boy and girls are different, and each sex should have some of their own groups for experiencing bonding and character-building without the other sex interfering.

Part of the BSA culture is a belief in God, which informs some of the morals, motivations, perspectives, respect for authority and order, and other aspects of the BSA.

Homosexual male scout leaders are not seen as a good idea because leaders take groups of boys camping or into home meetings.  For the same reason heterosexual adult males are not encouraged to do the same with a group of girls, homosexual males are not seen as the ideal people for such activities.

There are alternative scouting groups, and joining the BSA is voluntary.

The RR sees the BSA as having a positive impact on individuals and society.

The RR and Environmentalism
As the RR maintains that God is the Creator and that we are made in God’s image, the individuals in the RR may see the importance of sound environmental conservation policies in order to respect God’s creation and provide for any future generations.  What the RR does not support is nature worship or pagan or New Age beliefs, practices, or rituals being injected into public celebrations or public school curricula under the guise of environmentalism.  The RR certainly does not believe in viewing human life as a threat that needs to be managed or reduced, or favoring the “rights” of plants and animals over human needs.

In Conclusion: Wrapping Up on the Religious Right

Perhaps you are a Republican, even a conservative, who has been wary of RR.  I hope my postings have given you a better understanding of the RR, if they haven’t eased your concerns.

If you believe...
In God and practice a traditional religion such as some form of Judaism or Christianity
That sex is best reserved for marriage
That marriage is between a man and a woman
That it is best for children be born and raised in marriage
That abortion is wrong
That Christians, like anyone else, should be allowed to vote and to express their faith in public even if they are government officials
That the U.S. and our Constitution are worth defending
...then you have a lot in common with the Religious Right.

The RR tends to see political involvement as a right and obligation as citizens, and as a religiously valid expression of their faith and a legitimate way to protect their interests and influence society.  Due to the RR’s valuation of the natural family, traditional morality, and each individual human being’s life, it is best known for its organized opposition to the political agendas and social trends that have resulted in increased abortions, euthanasia, children being born or raised out of wedlock, an equating of sexual relations outside of wedlock to marital lovemaking, and the equating of unions missing one of the sexes or a marriage commitment (via license and public declaration) to marriage.

While the highest priorities of the RR may be different from other factions of the Republican Party or conservative movement, it can find enough common ground with libertarian Republicans and “Wall Street Journal” Republicans to continue to band together in a political alliance to oppose the empowerment of Leftists who seek to grow international government and the state in ways that weaken families and businesses, and forcibly diminish Western culture.

The RR doesn’t want big government interfering with their religious expression or families.  The WSJ Republicans don’t want big government interfering in business.  The libertarians don’t want big government at all.  This is why they must work together to prevent the Democrat party, which puts Leftists in power, from gaining the Presidency and retaining Congress.  This is why they must work together at the state level, too.  This is also why they must work to keep elected Republicans from drifting leftward.

I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

I discussed the RR's positions on Defense here.

The Religious Right on Foreign Policy

The Religious Right is mostly concerned with domestic issues and does not, as a group, tend to embrace an integrated umbrella philosophy on foreign policy (such as isolationism, or the Bush Doctrine, etc.).  In this post, I’ll address some individual foreign policy subjects with which the RR tends to get involved.

Israel - Some in the RR link present-day Israel to Biblical Israel, and many of these people see Israel as special and its return as a political nation as something foretold in Biblical prophecy.  These people believe there is a supernatural protection for Israel, and that countries support or attack Israel to their own blessing or peril, respectively.  This was expressed in the wildly popular Left Behind fiction series.  However, there are conservative Christians who believe that all followers of Christ are the “true Israel” today, and that modern-day Israel has no connection to the Biblical Israel, other than geography, and maybe some ethnicity.  This is an internal split in orthodox (lower case “o”) Christianity.  (There are a minority of Jews who think modern-day Israel is a fake Israel - some of them showed up at Iran’s Holocaust denial event).  However, even many Christians who do not believe modern-day Israel should be regarded as Biblical Israel may still support Israel on purely political grounds.  Most in the RR see the country as the best U.S. ally in the region, and even the world.

Religious Freedom & Other Human Rights, Sharia Law, and China - The RR opposes any government that prevents religious freedom and persecutes Christians, and violates human rights such as in Muslim countries with Sharia law and in China.  China is seen as violating many human rights and promoting abortion.  Consequently, the RR has opposed some diplomatic relations with China, and often accuses China of aiding terrorism and governments hostile to U.S. interests.

Global Government – The RR sees the United Nations and related agencies as mostly being enemies of the U.S. and Americans, and Israel, and as corruption-riddled.  Since the RR holds the U.S. Constitution, representative government, national sovereignty, property rights, and family sovereignty dear, it opposes global governments and international agreements that in any way appear to infringe on those things, or transfer tax money to be used on projects and programs not directly controlled by the U.S.  They do not want U.S. judges citing the decisions of foreign judges, or U.S. citizens to face prosecution in other countries or by the laws of other countries for actions undertaken in the U.S. or on behalf of the U.S.

Those in the RR that expect the Antichrist to show up any day now see such agreements and agencies as likely facilitating his consolidation of power.

A minority within the RR goes further, into territory that others in the RR and society in general think is misguided or paranoid.  The extremists assert that there is a conspiracy by the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, directed by the legendary Illuminati from their black helicopter-facilitated visits to things like the Bohemian Grove, to bring about a nefarious “New World Order” as a means to enslave Americans and all others who aren’t part of the extreme elite.  They see this as manifesting in a lack of border enforcement, an attack on the middle class, NATO, the European Union and a similarly structured North American Union, and agreements such as NAFTA and GATT.

Even without all of that, however, the RR in general isn’t fond of the U.N. or the U.S. being subjected to any international government.  Plus, there are plenty of people outside of the RR who also buy into the “illuminati-conspiracy-to-destroy-America” thinking, and most of the RR might see very open, public trends towards world government or diminished U.S. strength, but not an actual conspiracy.

The bottom line on the RR and foreign policy is that the RR wants to protect the U.S., protect families, and spread religious freedom.  There isn’t unity on how to do these things.

Leslie Bennetts, contributing editor to Vanity Fair and an author of a book urging women not to raise their own children, had an opinion piece published on Mother’s Day in the Los Angeles Times.


Have to seen low little attention Father’s Day gets in comparison?


I’d be angry too if magazines had told me I could “have it all” without any sacrifices, and I believed them, and then I found out that reality was different.


Some are angry because they expected someone else to take care of their every need and want, they expected their kids would be like pets, and they expected they would have the freedom to pursue – or not – the career of their choice, and when those expectations are not fulfilled, anger is the result.


I don’t think raising children insonly the mother’s responsibility.  But the burden is on women to choose a man who will be there for their children.  They can not simply have sex with any man they choose and will him into being a good father.  It isn’t going to happen.  Now, most women who marry do so to a man who earns more, and they expect him to provide her with a certain lifestyle.  He needs to work in order to do that, and that often means long hours away.  Money doesn’t grow on trees.


Employers hire people to do jobs.  They don’t hire them to give them a place to hang out while their kids are in school.  Raising children is a choice.  I recall that “feminists” are big on children being a choice.  If you choose to have children, raising them should be your concern – your employer should not be mandated to “care”.  If you are valuable enough as an employee, perhaps you can find an employer who will value your parenting of your children.  Such employers are often religious, though – which can be a problem for some people who call themselves “feminists”.


Again, women tend to marry men who earn more than they do, and those men often work more than full-time hours.  I tend to think a division of labor is a good idea, but if both the man and the woman are working full-time outside of the home, they should try to evenly split the housework.  However, I don’t think they should have children if they are both working so much.  And any woman who shacked up with the guy before they got married should know about his domestic habits and what he is likely to do.  It is stupid of her to marry him if she isn’t happy with the arrangements.


Then you’d support lowering taxes so that one income would be enough for most families?  When you consider the extra taxes, the costs of commuting, wardrobe, daycare, etc., how much does the second income really help?


Yes, men, who often work until they die and die younger than women and often lose access to their kids and half of everything they’ve worked for… they have no reason for resentment.


Uh, that’s what alimony, child support, and insurance are for.  Prenuptial agreements can help, too.  Women who stay home are more likely to avoid divorce if they have chosen their husband carefully, treat him well, and stay faithful.


I’d be angry, too, if my head was filled with the junk found in so many magazines, daytime television, and romance novels.


You write as though fathers don’t have to make choices.  Do you think most men are working in their dream jobs?  Some men a stuck in their jobs because they have a wife and kids to support and supply benefits to.  Even if the wife is in a career, how long is she likely to put up with a husband is leaves a steady job to chase a dream?  Some men have a dream job that means long hours, lots of travel, and/or networking in social environments – often things he has to give up for the sake of his marriage and fatherhood.  Too often men succumb to the pressure to get married before they’re ready, and end up stuck on what was supposed to be a stepping-stone.  There are other sacrifices men make to be fathers.


You are delusional if you think such women would a) not be prone to erupting into full-blown rage; and b) not attack each other - if this issue didn’t exist.  There's always something - even if it is really nothing.


That’s rich, coming from a woman who ambushed a prominent stay-at-home-mommy advocate  - Dr. Laura - with a hatchet piece.


Do you know why?  Because the earning gap is a lie, at least a lie when attributed to gender discrimination.  These stats usually take these groups as a whole, instead of matching them job to job, hour to hour, at the same employer.  For example, men are more likely to work risky jobs.  A woman working as a secretary is not going to earn the same amount as her boss.  A woman who comes into work late, leaves early, or doesn’t come in at all  - to take care of her kids is taking time away from work – notice that single mothers seem to earn the least.  If a job involves commission or pay raises can be negotiated, the person with more testosterone is likely to earn more.  Overall, a woman will make the same amount as a man in the same job, working the same hours, doing the same quality and amount of work.  If your statistics told the whole story, employers would only hire only single mothers because they could get the same work done for less money.  Should a single mother secretary who comes in late, and leaves early get the same paycheck as the manager who is in early and leaves late and works the occasional weekend?


I don’t know where you get that statistic, but let’s assume it is true.  Do you think it might have something to do with child custody?  I find this figure dubious, though.


Why can’t you work that out with your employer?  Why does someone else have to do it for you?


So you won’t accept gifts or cards?  You know, some husbands bust their butts to make Mother’s Day a special day, agonizing over arrangements and gifts when he’d rather spend the money on his car.  And what does he get?  Angry ranting from a woman who seems upset that women have a uterus and men don’t.

Kids need to be raised by their parents.  If you are so concerned about women and employment, then encourage women to let their husbands stay home and raise the kids.  Most women, though, find such an arrangement intolerable.  They prefer to be with their children, and they prefer to be married to a man who earns more than they do and can take care of them, and lose respect for him if he doesn’t, especially if he doesn’t work at all.

I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

The Religious Right on Defense, Law Enforcement, Capital Punishment, & Gun Ownership

The RR believes that we are obligated to defend ourselves from attack, with force if necessary.  A husband is obligated to defend his wife and kids (and to defend himself so that he can continue to protect them).  Collectively, we are obligated to protect ourselves through law enforcement and militarily force.  Therefore, the RR tends to respect and support a strong military (including most military actions/war efforts) and law enforcement personnel.

Some in the RR have expressed disagreements with some approved actions by Federal law enforcement agencies, however.  Examples of this include the “Waco” and “Ruby Ridge” incidents.  The RR is not united in these opinions.

Indeed, many in the RR are wary of the Federal government having too much power and becoming oppressive, and so promote gun ownership, perceiving that an armed populace is less likely to be oppressed.

Mostly, however, the RR support for gun ownership has to do with the Second Amendment, self-defense, and family defense from criminals.  Most people in the RR do not have a moral problem with hunting, either, even if they do not do it themselves.

Perhaps one of the areas where the RR is least unified is capital punishment.  Churches such as the Roman Catholic Church are officially against it, others join in on “pro-life” grounds, and others in the RR may agree with capital punishment in principle, but think our government may be too flawed or corrupted to be trusted with properly implementing capital punishment.  Capital punishment supporters in the RR do not see it as being in conflict with their pro-life convictions, because they maintain the criminal’s actions warrant the punishment and that executing those criminals protects innocents from further threat from those criminals.

The underlying principles the RR employs in this area is that it is okay to use force to defend your life, the lives of other innocents, your country, and law & order.

There is a great example in the Los Angeles Times today about how the socialists in California think businesses should be forced to stay in California and be micromanaged by an elected politician - Insurance Commissioner.

I especially like this statement from another elected official that is akin to a schoolyard taunt like "Chicken!"  It's like when you finally dump an abusive lover and he or she says, "Do you really think you're going to find something better?"

"Nobody objects to an insurance company making a reasonable profit, but in this case it really puts into question whether we're really in 'good hands' with Allstate," said state Sen. Michael Machado (D-Linden), chairman of the Banking, Finance and Insurance Committee.


[Ed note: When working from a certain machine, I can't indent the quotes without making everything else below it, or often everything else in the post indent.  That's why some posts look different from others.  Also, I did a much longer treatment of this article, but it was lost when I went to publish.  I usually copy the post before I publish to get around that rare problem, but I neglected to do that this last time.]

Gloria Schrock of West Convina writes to the Pasadena Star-News that some Americans of Mexican descent strongly oppose what illegal aliens are doing to America.  It may come as a shock to anyone who thinks that all Latinos and Hispanics strongly support the socialist illegal alien political agenda.

First, Save Our State, Minutemen and other anti-illegal immigration groups are not racist. I know because I am a member of such a group called ALI-PAC (Americans for Legal Immigration), and I am Hispanic. I can understand why he would think we are racists. While I drove by the demonstration in Baldwin Park, I had a flyer thrown into my car spewing un-true racist propaganda against these groups.

The truth is, we don't like seeing what illegal immigration is doing to our communities, our schools, our health system, our judicial system and our state. We don't like paying for the living expenses of illegal immigrants.

You're probably saying they work hard and contribute to our society, but the truth is they don't pay enough into the system compared to what they take out. Our hospitals are crowded with the uninsured. Our schools have special, expensive programs to help non-English speaking children. Our jails are filled with drug dealers, gang members, rapists and murderers that are illegal immigrants. I can almost guarantee that if all these illegal immigrants paid their fair share of taxes, purchased their own car and health insurance, paid for their children to learn English and respected our laws, we wouldn't be having this problem.

What I don't understand is why they think we should pay their way for a better life? Why do they think they can come here demanding citizenship or anything else for that matter? Why do they think our laws should change to accommodate them?

It may come as a shock to people who don't live in the southwest, but illegal aliens really do have a huge impact on life here, and there are "leaders", politicians, and college professors who openly call for the southwestern states to be "reclaimed" by "La Raza", waving Mexican flags and even removing the U.S. flag.

            As my grandfather used to say: "Viva Mexico? What did Mexico ever do for me?" Wise words from a legal immigrant.

 I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

The RR on the Church/State Divide and Patriotism

From the Traditional Values Coalition website:

We are advocates of religious freedom. We believe the First Amendment to our Constitution gives all of us the right to freely exercise our religious faith and that religious faith is the cornerstone of freedom in this nation. Our Founding Fathers supported religion, purchased Bibles, established congressional chaplains, and sent missionaries to witness to the Indians. They enacted the First Amendment to protect religious freedom, not to stifle it. We are opposed to any movement in this country that will strip away our constitutional rights to freedom of religion, speech, and association.

You’ve probably heard the RR referred to as “theocrats” and “theocons” akin to the Taliban, and that the RR is pushing dominionism and/or reconstructionism, seeking to forcibly institute a conservative form of Christianity as the official state religion and to pass all sorts of laws turning those outside of their inner circle into second class citizens and criminals.

I have not seen this to be typical of the RR.  I have not seen any significant RR organization advocate such ideas.  There are no doubt small, unorganized smatterings of those sorts mixed in with the RR crowd, but they are not normative.  They are considered the fringe by most of the RR and not taken very seriously.  There is a very simple test to see if someone could possibly believe in coercive dominionism or reconstructionism.  Do they talk about being on the lookout for “the Antichrist” and a “rapture” of Christians being imminent?  If so, those people are expecting the world to get worse and the government to fall under the control of their opponent any day now, and that certainly doesn’t line up with a belief that the whole country will be truly Christianized through their efforts.  There are other Christians that believe the whole world will be Christianized - voluntarily.

Either way, the RR is not seeking to eliminate the government/church divide.  Even dominionists foresee a voluntary adoption of active Christianity by the masses - thereby ushering in paradise on Earth.

Ironically, it is liberals who seek to force “Christian charity” and “social justice” via the government – social programs, welfare, living wage laws, taxation policies, outlawing “hate”, etc.

When the RR refers to the U.S. as a “Christian nation”, they are referencing the founding of then nation, the principles behind that founding, the traditions of the country, and the overwhelming professed religious designations with which the citizens self-identify.

The RR maintains that Christopher Columbus and later the original European colonists in the colonies that became the U.S. were Christians seeking to further Christendom, spread the Gospel, and live by Christian principles without being persecuted.  They point to the colonial governments, founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence, and things like the Northwest Ordinance to put the U.S. Constitution in such a context.

The U.S. Constitution, including most Amendments and especially the first ten, are wholeheartedly supported by the RR.  They support freedom of religion with the caveat that religious expression must fall within certain laws of our “Christian” nation.  For example, you can’t legally practice human sacrifice or prostitution (in most places), even if it is part of your religion.

The “Establishment Clause” in the Constitution is seen by the RR as a way to prevent the Federal government from making any particular denomination the official national religion or to interfere in churches (except to prosecute crime), with a mind to the situation in England with the Anglican Church. Based largely on history and earlier precedents, they do not agree that it mandates the removal of prayer, chaplains, or religious or theistic monuments, imagery, symbols, mottos, books, meetings, or language from government buildings, currency, the Pledge of Allegiance as recited in government proceedings, speeches, press conferences, or public discourse or events.

As such, the RR is against the removal of Ten Commandments monuments and crosses from public land and seals, and other ways of "secularizing" society.

Nor does the Establishment Clause, according to the RR, prevent tax money from being distributed to religious charities and social programs as long as tax money is going to any charities or social programs.  However, many RR organizations do not want to accept such funding, believing it will come with strings they do not want to accept.

The RR also tends to be very patriotic, with many of the people believing the U.S. is the greatest nation on earth and one with an exceptional responsibility.  Part of that manifests in wanting to “protect the flag”, and hence past support for an Amendment to ban flag burning.  Personally, I love this country and there have been some wonderful things done for humanity under our flag.  I think people who burn the flag are lowering themselves to the level of slime.  But I just can’t get all that passionate about spending resources on an attempt to pass an Amendment banning flag burning.  On the other hand, I can’t commit to thinking it should be protected free speech.  However, that is the current default.

You should note that Jehovah’s Witnesses and certain other morally conservative religious groups that might be perceived as part of the RR see the government, and all governments in the world, as part of a system that is inherently contrary to the will of God and believe that God (note - God, not them) will overthrow them all to establish His direct rule on Earth in the future, and because of this and related religious reasons, they will not serve in the military or pledge allegiance to the flag.  Mormons, on the contrary, obviously have nothing against voting, holding elected office, or serving in the military.  (Just for the record - I consider both of those groups to be pseudo-Christian cults that have a leadership that is misleading them.)

Speaking of the military, I will touch on the RR’s view of military defense as well as law enforcement, capital punishment, and gun ownership in my next post on the RR.

In conclusion for this post, I want to point out that the RR does not want to take away your freedom of religion, or force their religion on you.  The RR loves the U.S. and believes that the Constitution is largely inspired by - and thus compatible with – Biblical principles, so they do not want to do away with the Constitution.

I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

The Religious Right & Vice Laws

I covered the RR’s policies on prostitution and porn in earlier posts.  Much of the same thinking applies to their opposition to gambling, recreational drug use (including marijuana), and to a lesser extent, tobacco and alcohol.

Judging from their emphases and apparent priorities, the RR doesn’t care much about tobacco.  Tax money is already being spent in campaigns to discourage smoking, especially amount the youth.  The RR does put effort into opposing the legalization of recreational drug use and drug abuse, including marijuana, fearing that legalization will encourage the use of mind-altering substances and make it more difficult to encourage or force people to get help to stop using them.  Not only does the RR consider the drugs as destructive physically, but it also cites their mind/mood-altering properties as a danger, especially to adolescents and children, and as something that will encourage fornication and other risky/immoral behaviors.  The RR is against tolerance of underage drinking for the same reasons.

But then there’s gambling.

Hey, what problems has gambling ever caused?  Neighborhoods are always improved by gambling establishments, right?

Being a resident of Alta California, I remember when gambling propositions were on the ballot, and the “No” ads tried to scare the voters by saying that the propositions would turn California’s nice suburban neighborhoods into clones of miserable Las Vegas.  Oddly enough, the those ads were sponsored by the folks in Vegas, who apparently wanted to hog the “misery” all for themselves.  The “Yes” crowd – mainly recognized tribal groups who portrayed themselves as poverty-stricken folks who would lead all tribal people into a glorious self-sufficient future if there was a “Yes” vote, vehemently denied the comparison to Vegas.  Now, those same tribes have billboards that tout their casinos as “the shortcut to Vegas”.  And other tribes are saying they are being left out.

Oh, and the lottery in California was going to solve all of our education problems.  Only, it hasn’t.  Schools are still holding fundraisers, parents and teachers are still spending their own money directly on supplies, in addition to the many thousands of dollars per student that are being filtered through the state and Federal governments.

Anyway, the RR tries to prevent the spread of gambling because it is addictive and people will spend money on gambling they should be spending on other things, and with gambling often comes a host of other less desirable things.

I tend to feel that, even though I do not gamble, people should be free to gamble if they so choose, but then again I think those same people (and anybody else for that matter) shouldn’t expect taxpayers to support them when they’re destitute because they weren’t prudent and disciplined in their finances.

Getting back to the drugs…

Hey, everyone knows that marijuana, hallucinogens, heroin, cocaine, etc. expand your mind and never, ever have bad side effects or consequences, right?  None of us know anyone whose life has been diminished by the recreational use of these substances, right?  Teens have never done anything stupid while drunk, right?

The RR also opposes needle give-aways/exchanges, citing such programs as an encouragement to continue drug use, believing that such encouragement is a negative that outweighs the possible prevention of disease infection from consistently using clean needles.

I’m personally tempted to accept the libertarian position on drug laws.  My biggest reservations, though, are linked to the fact that we’re not living in a libertarian society, and so I could picture drugged-out people having a “right” to stay on the job even though they are a danger to others, and all sort of other complications, courtesy of folks like the ACLU.

Again, the RR cites laws as discouraging behavior - that even if the behavior remains widespread, it isn’t as prevalent as it would be if it were legal.  We invade privacy all of the time with restrictions and regulations, including laws governing how you raise children, doctor prescriptions, etc.  So, the RR maintains that laws restricting drug use are good and useful.

From the Traditional Values Coalition website:

We are opposed to the spread of legalized gambling in our society because this behavior frequently leads to addictions, the destruction of families, and the abuse of children. We oppose the legalization of addictive drugs and support strong law enforcement efforts against this societal scourge. We believe it is self-destructive and destructive of our culture, for individuals to become addicted to such behaviors as gambling, alcohol, smoking, pornography, or the use of drugs.

One thing I noticed about this statement - there are plenty of addictive drugs that are already legal, including alcohol.  But I think I get that the TVC was trying to say.  Speaking of alcohol - there are teetotalers and drinkers in the RR.  A disapproval of drunk driving, public drunkeness, and underage drinking are what unifies the RR in this area.

Anyway, the RR genuinely believes we'd all be better off if these vices were (remained) illegal or restricted.  It isn't that they don't want you to have fun - it is that the RR sees these bevaviors as destructive.  It is one of the main things that distinguishes conservative-leaning libertarians from the RR.  Those libertarians may agree that the vices are harmful, but they see the vice laws as doing more harm than good.