Rumors have abounded for months that our illustrious President, caring more for the welfare of the undocumented Democratic voters than the American people, was looking to bypass congress one more time and create an amnesty plan by executive order and regulation. The formerly mainstream media and the administration itself has continuously told us this is not the case. However, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley has uncovered a draft copy of a memo created by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, a division of the Department of Homeland Security.
Toward the bottom page 2, under the heading Options, the paper states, “The following options – used alone or in combination – have the potential to result in meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action.” Reading further reveals multiple layers of strategy to impose the will of the elite on the unwilling and unaccepting citizens of the land.
Each of these options requires, we are told, “development of specific written guidance and/or regulatory language, implementation protocols…” One can only recall the old adage, “more regulation, less freedom”. Yet this is only the beginning. Read more of this article »
Just looking over the yesterday’s news makes me wonder what country I’m living in. It certainly is not the country I grew up in. Each story shows how, incrementally, we are giving up one freedom after another. I say giving them up, because as each abomination is visited upon us, we fuss a bit, then adjust the line backward that we will not permit our government to cross. While the British monarch was rightfully called a tyrant, his impositions were nothing compared to the governmental intrusions we are tolerating today. Let’s look at a few of the stories: Judge Blocks Key Portions of Arizona Illegal Immigration Law
Talking heads will be ranting about this one for weeks as a Clinton appointed judge followed the Democratic put a hold on some key provisions of the bill, such as the portion that recognized the illegality of an illegal alien applying for a job he is not legally entitled to hold. If employers are supposed to be checking on the eligibility of a job applicant, where is the logic of permitting those who do not qualify to apply in the first place?
Sure employers should be held accountable, but should not the other half of the combination be called into account as well? Considering the fact that these are unregistered Democratic voters, the picture becomes a little more clear. In spite of the wishes of the good people of Arizona and the support of most of the rest of the country, an activist judge ignored the law and backed the Obama regime in holding the door open to those who ignore our laws and national well being, yet hold the key to more progressive control. Read more of this article »
Among the limited duties of the US Government enumerated in the federal Constitution is Article. IV. Section. 4. “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.” However, for several decades now, the federal government in Washington, D.C., has shown great ambition and propensity to engage in activities to which it was never authorized, and to ignore those responsibilities with which it is specifically charged. The responsibility of the federal government to protect each State against invasion is a classic example of the latter.
Can anyone deny that the states on the US southern border (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas) are being invaded by an ongoing onslaught of illegal aliens (many of whom are violent and dangerous criminals)? Somewhere between 12 and 30 million illegals now reside in the US. The entire country is feeling the effects of this invasion, but the Border States are literally under siege. And not only does the federal government do nothing to protect the states against this invasion, it actively wars against states such as Arizona when they attempt to protect themselves. Yes, I am saying it: the Washington, D.C., lawsuit against the State of Arizona’s immigration laws should be regarded as an act of war against the State of Arizona in particular, and against the states general in principle.
Please consider what Arizona and the other Border States are dealing with. According to published reports:
*In Los Angeles, 95% of all outstanding warrants for homicide in the first half of 2004 (which totaled 1,200 to 1,500) targeted illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) were for illegal aliens. Read more of this article »
This morning as I was leaving church I saw a woman wearing a beautiful orange sari. For those not familiar with the term, this colorful garment is the garb of many women in India. I struck up a conversation and found that she had been in the US for about two years. After getting some recommendations for some good Indian restaurants the conversation turned to the fact that she was looking forward to the arrival of her family – parents and sister, if I remember correctly – this summer.
I asked if they were coming to stay, or visiting. She said, “Oh no, it’s too expensive and complicated for them to stay here.” Now, not having met these people, I have no idea if they would even want to remain in our country, but the unfairness of the immigration situation in our country struck me at a personal level that went beyond the theoretical and academic discussions we tend to have about the subject.
Somehow, I was struck by the absurdity of erecting almost prohibitive barriers to people who will respect our laws and our people while many want to welcome with open arms those who disrespect our people, their property and our laws. We hear all sorts of claims of the unfairness of forcing employers to check on the legality of people in their employ or landlords required to do similar checks… or the necessity of proving legal status to receive social services which are nothing more than wealth transfer vehicles. Yet, where is the fairness or justice in confiscating the resources of Americans who obey the laws and giving them to those who don’t. Read more of this article »
The financial regulatory bill recently passed by the house provides for an “Office of Minority and Women Inclusion” for each of the agencies created by the legislation. That is not one office… but one for each agency. Even setting aside for a moment the concern that such a scheme is not a valid approach, can anyone say, “duplicated service and duplicated expense”. It does though, help to maximize the number of new federal employees, probably union employees. However, taking Ronald Reagan’s admonition that, “The closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program”, this policy is even more disastrous to an over-leveraged economy and the tax paying citizens.
We can only hope that we see enough change in Washington to defund such programs in the absence of the possibility of an actual repeal. At a time when our country is more divided than at any time in the recent past, we do not need one more, or multiplied numbers of agencies designed to assign quotas and pit one group of citizens (usually) against another.
The United States has long been known as a “melting pot” where newcomers to our country were integrated into a more or less common culture with common language and aspirations. Immigrants came here, and believed they were coming to the promised land. Most saw an opportunity filled land and they wanted to get their piece of the pie. Our country prospered as more and more legal immigrants joined the pursuit of the American Dream. This is not surprising as our creator knew the value of unity when he said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.” (Genesis 11:1-9 NIV) Read more of this article »
It’s been said that if someone thinks he’s a leader and no one is following, it’s just some guy walking around. Today, we have a whole group of religious “leaders” wandering across the political landscape trying to convince the people under their charge that it is perfectly alright for people with limited skills to illegally sneak into our country and push many Americans out of their jobs by providing lower cost and more compliant labor. They most likely, hopefully at least, would say it was wrong for these same people to break into your home and remove your property or even begin living there… yet they would not object to someone stealing your job and livelihood.
It is not surprising that the usual suspects in the main line denominations that have been loosing members for decades are preaching the gospel of social justice which is no gospel at all… but the rantings godless manipulators seeking to control the masses in the name of redistributionist philosophies. What is surprising is that people in leadership positions of traditionally conservative Bible believing groups like the Assemblies of God and Southern Baptists have fallen for the siren song of being relevant to today’s issues.
They are the denominational elites who have taken the Christian virtue of caring for the poor to the point where concern for one group of people… the ones who have disregarded the laws intended to keep us safe and secure… has caused them to overlook the harm that comes to families where jobs are lost and who fall victim to the violence of the lawless intruders. John 10:10 tells us “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” (NIV) Read more of this article »
The true essence of the 4th Amendment, that is, probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, found by the Framers, as the best, and only, reason for depriving a citizen of his, or her, fundamental God-given right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, was changed, without constitutional amendment by eight justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968) to reasonable suspicion. Terry v. Ohio (1968), the will of the Earl Warren Court, essentially threw out “probable cause” from the 4th Amendment and made it much easier for all police officers to deprive a citizen of a basic constitutional right that the writers of the U.S. Constitution saw as sacrosanct.
From what we know about the almost unanimous 1968 decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren carefully courted the vote of each of the justices, just as he had done in Brown v. the Board of Education (1954), in order to produce a, hopefully, unanimous vote. To change the letter of the U.S. Constitution, without amendment, the Court had to show unanimity, because the decision, in and of itself, was basically illegal, if it had been subsequently challenged by the U.S. Congress. The only vote Warren was unable to acquire in 1968 was that of the Justice William O. Douglas, who vehemently wrote in his dissenting opinion, “To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment.” (392 U.S. 1, at 38). A few days after the decision was rended, Justice Douglas supposedly quipped to a reporter off-the-cuff that “if the Court can arbitrarily change the 4th Amendment, to read as it wants it to read, what is next, changing the word “respecting” to “denying” in the 1st Amendment?” What amazes me is the immediate, or latent, lack of opposition to the decision by the American people, when a section of the Bill of Rights was altered by the collective whim of eight of the Brethren, instead of by decree of the American electorate through the amendment process. Read more of this article »
The two thought-provoking words, racial and profiling, may be used together to convey a very sinister tone, especially to someone who has no real idea what racial profiling comprises and how it is used daily in law enforcement as a valid means of apprehending criminal suspects. The old, “let me see your papers, you don’t look Aryan,” anecdotal scenario, as applied to the fascist-Nazi motif, when the trench-coated Gestapo agent grabs the unwitting bearded suspect by the collar and carts him off to a dungeon where the person is tortured for information, is not the correct application of racial profiling in American law enforcement. Instead, imagine an elderly woman mugged on a street corner in downtown San Diego, California during the late afternoon. A police officer arrives on the scene after the mugger flees with the woman’s purse, and asks the bruised and bleeding woman a series of very important questions.
The Stanley Cup Finals are over and World Cup soccer time is upon us. I suppose we need the break from the drama and excitement of men flashing across the ice and bashing each other into dasher boards to get the little puck in the net. The World Cup time is an ideal time to relax, have a cook out with the family, go to the beach, or even read a good book. According to a recent Zogby poll, only 31% of the American men and 17% of the American women are planning to watch any part of the matches. Observing the hype on TV, one would think this is a major event for the people of the United States.
Numbers for the under 30 crowd are somewhat higher than this average, reflecting the globalist thinking foisted up the students in the public schools and academia. Yet even in this group, there is enough realism the prevent them from believing that soccer will become a major sport, ranked with football, baseball, basketball and hockey, in the US. It is notable that auto racing was not included in the question, even though it outdraws the other sports leaders.
The traditional sports tend to be American generations, including hockey where the primary development came from our neighbor in the frozen north. Our sporting preferences show what our “betters” would describe as a negative North American-centric mind set that blinds us to virtue in other parts of the world. It is the ugly face of American exceptionalism that the left and academia (but I repeat myself) have been fighting for decades. Read more of this article »
People all over America are discussing freedom’s future. In short, they are worried. In fact, many are actually talking about State secession. In coffee shops and cafes, and around dining room tables, millions of people are speaking favorably of states breaking away from the union. Not since the turn of the twentieth century have this many people thought (and spoken) this favorably about the prospect of a State (or group of states) exiting the union. In my mind, this is a good thing.
Even many of those who oppose the prospect of secession understand the increasing tyrannical nature of the current central government in Washington, D.C., and that something must be done about it.
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines tyranny as “1: oppressive power . . . 2: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler . . . 3: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force . . . 4: a tyrannical act.” Read more of this article »
Open borders advocates are livid that the State of Arizona has enacted a new law authorizing State law enforcement personnel to arrest illegal aliens. The Reverend Al Sharpton is threatening to march. The mayor of San Francisco has declared Arizona off limits as a travel destination. The national government of Mexico has issued travel warnings. President Barack Obama is contemplating bringing a federal lawsuit against the State. Some are calling for a boycott of the State.
So, why all the fuss?
The State of Arizona is rightly sick and tired of the federal government’s refusal to protect our nation (and the State of Arizona specifically) from this foreign invasion that is commonly referred to as “illegal immigration.” In other words, the State of Arizona has said, “If the federal government won’t enforce the law, we will.” I say, good for them! Now, the other border states (Texas, New Mexico, and California) should do the same thing. Arizona has it right, and the vast majority of the American people know it.
As an aside, if you are considering a visit to the American Southwest this summer, why not support the brave legislators and governor of Arizona, and make a point to spend your leisure dollars in Arizona? And when you do, write a letter to the State capitol and tell them. Even more importantly, I suggest that everyone contact their own State representatives, senators, and governors, and urge them to enact a similar law–to the one Arizona passed–in your State. Read more of this article »
Democrats, desperate for votes, have taken to promoting the idea of legitimizing illegal immigrants under the guise of adding them to the rolls of taxpayers and getting them to pay their share. This idea appeals to the many hard working Americans who do their jobs and pay their taxes… just happy to get some kind of a refund rather than having to dig deeper into their already depleted pockets to give our “betters” in Washington more money to waste.
While the tax code is somewhat public knowledge – as much as any set of rules that massive can be, most of middle America is blissfully unaware that not only do the bottom 50% pay no income tax, many actually receive appreciably more than they pay into the system. Through the magic of what the IRS calls refundable credits, such as earned income, child and child care credit, it is not unusual for someone in these tax brackets to receive a refund two to three times the amount that was withheld for taxes.
This may seem incredible to the average taxpayer, but it is a truth we are living with and paying for. Some will say we should not begrudge these people the extra cash in their pockets as they don’t have too much. There is an element of truth for those of us who care about those around us and individually we should do all we can for them. However, when done as a matter of national policy, what it amounts to is something near and dear to the hearts of progressives through out the land… and that is the transfer of wealth from those evil folks who earn their pay and have the audacity to want to keep it. This wealth transfer is their time honored technique for using taxpayer money to buy the votes that keep themselves in office. Read more of this article »
There has been a great deal of controversy over the ability to keep existing health insurance policies under the proposed government controlled plan. The president tells us that there we can keep existing insurance if we desire. Others who have looked into the the proposal tell us this is just not the case. So the question is, who is telling the truth? Could it be both are, and it’s just a matter of interpretation and perspective?
Even though the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the bill a week ago, with a hundred fifty pages of amendments, the copy is still not available. We can, however, check out the original version of the bill. This should give us a hint.
Decision Bars Georgia From Continuing Voter Verification Process
Atlanta – “The decision by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to deny preclearance of Georgia’s already implemented citizenship verification process shows a shocking disregard for the integrity of our elections. With this decision, DOJ has now barred Georgia from continuing the citizenship verification program that DOJ lawyers helped to craft. DOJ’s decision also nullifies the orders of two federal courts directing Georgia to implement the procedure for the 2008 general election. The decision comes seven months after Georgia requested an expedited review of the preclearance submission.
“DOJ has thrown open the door for activist organizations such as ACORN to register non-citizens to vote in Georgia’s elections, and the state has no ability to verify an applicant’s citizenship status or whether the individual even exists. DOJ completely disregarded Georgia’s obvious and direct interest in preventing non-citizens from voting, instead siding with the ACLU and MALDEF. Clearly, politics took priority over common sense and good public policy.
“This process is critical to protecting the integrity of our elections. We have evidence that non-citizens have voted in past Georgia elections and that more than 2,100 individuals have attempted to register, yet still have questions regarding their citizenship. Further, the Inspector General’s office is investigating more than 30 cases of non-citizens casting ballots in Georgia elections, including the case of a Henry County non-citizen who registered to vote and cast ballots in 2004 and 2006. Read more of this article »
One of the greatest disappointments expressed by former President George W. Bush was his inability to provide amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens. But as is so often the case, the departure of one Presidential administration and the advent of another Presidential administration seldom means great change, loquacious rhetoric by the current President notwithstanding. The plan to provide amnesty for illegal aliens is a classic case in point.
President Barack Obama is determined to succeed where G.W. Bush failed. According to many published reports, he fully intends to grant amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens. In fact, granting amnesty to illegal aliens is on Obama’s short list of priorities. That short list includes the nationalization of America’s financial systems, the nationalization of America’s healthcare and energy systems, expanding the wars in the Middle East, strengthening and increasing global agreements and associations, gun control (perhaps using international treaties where congressional legislation has failed), and amnesty to illegal aliens.
Watch for Obama to make a full-court press for an amnesty proposal next month. He has already appointed working groups to study strategies. Administration sources have said Obama wants amnesty legislation on his desk by this fall at the latest.
One way Obama is preparing the path for amnesty is contained in the massive stimulus bill already passed by Congress and signed into law. According to USA Today, “Tens of thousands of jobs created by the economic stimulus law could end up filled by illegal immigrants, particularly in big states such as California where undocumented workers are heavily represented in construction, experts on both sides of the issue say.
“Studies by two conservative think tanks estimate immigrants in the United States illegally could take 300,000 construction jobs, or 15% of the 2 million jobs that new taxpayer-financed projects are predicted to create.” Read more of this article »
Can America Survive? is not just a warning. It is a wake-up call and a rallying cry to Christian citizens everywhere to prevent the next unthinkable American disaster. After all, as Hagee points out, “those who do not remember the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them in the future.”
If you like the copyrighted content of Political Christian and would like to repost, republish or email the material, permission is granted for any article attributed to Larry Miller provided 1) there is a link back to this site and 2) there is no subscription fee and no paid advertising.
For other circumstances and other contributors, please contact larry@politicachristian.org or follow links that may be provided.
Be the First to Comment 
Rumors have abounded for months that our illustrious President, caring more for the welfare of the undocumented Democratic voters than the American people, was looking to bypass congress one more time and create an amnesty plan by executive order and regulation. The formerly mainstream media and the administration itself has continuously told us this is not the case. However, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley has uncovered a draft copy of a memo created by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, a division of the Department of Homeland Security.
Among the limited duties of the US Government enumerated in the federal Constitution is Article. IV. Section. 4. “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.” However, for several decades now, the federal government in Washington, D.C., has shown great ambition and propensity to engage in activities to which it was never authorized, and to ignore those responsibilities with which it is specifically charged. The responsibility of the federal government to protect each State against invasion is a classic example of the latter.
This morning as I was leaving church I saw a woman wearing a beautiful orange sari. For those not familiar with the term, this colorful garment is the garb of many women in India. I struck up a conversation and found that she had been in the US for about two years. After getting some recommendations for some good Indian restaurants the conversation turned to the fact that she was looking forward to the arrival of her family – parents and sister, if I remember correctly – this summer.
The financial regulatory bill recently passed by the house provides for an “Office of Minority and Women Inclusion” for each of the agencies created by the legislation. That is not one office… but one for each agency. Even setting aside for a moment the concern that such a scheme is not a valid approach, can anyone say, “duplicated service and duplicated expense”. It does though, help to maximize the number of new federal employees, probably union employees. However, taking Ronald Reagan’s admonition that, “The closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program”, this policy is even more disastrous to an over-leveraged economy and the tax paying citizens.
It’s been said that if someone thinks he’s a leader and no one is following, it’s just some guy walking around. Today, we have a whole group of religious “leaders” wandering across the political landscape trying to convince the people under their charge that it is perfectly alright for people with limited skills to illegally sneak into our country and push many Americans out of their jobs by providing lower cost and more compliant labor. They most likely, hopefully at least, would say it was wrong for these same people to break into your home and remove your property or even begin living there… yet they would not object to someone stealing your job and livelihood.
By Norton R Nowlin
By Norton R Nowlin
People all over America are discussing freedom’s future. In short, they are worried. In fact, many are actually talking about State secession. In coffee shops and cafes, and around dining room tables, millions of people are speaking favorably of states breaking away from the union. Not since the turn of the twentieth century have this many people thought (and spoken) this favorably about the prospect of a State (or group of states) exiting the union. In my mind, this is a good thing.
Open borders advocates are livid that the State of Arizona has enacted a new law authorizing State law enforcement personnel to arrest illegal aliens. The Reverend Al Sharpton is threatening to march. The mayor of San Francisco has declared Arizona off limits as a travel destination. The national government of Mexico has issued travel warnings. President Barack Obama is contemplating bringing a federal lawsuit against the State. Some are calling for a boycott of the State.
Democrats, desperate for votes, have taken to promoting the idea of legitimizing illegal immigrants under the guise of adding them to the rolls of taxpayers and getting them to pay their share. This idea appeals to the many hard working Americans who do their jobs and pay their taxes… just happy to get some kind of a refund rather than having to dig deeper into their already depleted pockets to give our “betters” in Washington more money to waste.
