In light of Pat Robertson's indefensible endorsement of Rudy Giuliani yesterday, I'm posting a column by Pastor Chuck Baldwin regarding the candidacy of Ron Paul. Pastor Baldwin pleads with his fellow ministers not to lend their support to phony conservatives (not to make deals with the devil, so to speak), but to take a long, hard look at supporting Ron Paul.
____________________________
AN APPEAL TO MY FELLOW PASTORS
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
November 6, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
Recently, Iowa pastors gathered to hear my presentation in Des Moines on behalf of Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. After listening to me, they then heard ten-term Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul himself.
Consider how Congressman Paul's message impacted Pastor Jim Hartman of the Assembly of God church in Conrad, Iowa. "I've been supporting Mike Huckabee, but I would say I'm leaning real strong toward Ron Paul." Hartman supported President Bush four years ago and explained, "Up until the last six months I had not allowed myself to imagine that we'd been let down by Bush." As for Iraq, he said, "I don't think we were prepared to understand that culture and to work with that culture." He said he now feels "humble and I feel kind of bad that I haven't done a better job of being faithful to Ron Paul's kind of integrity." [Source: MSNBC, Oct. 30, 2007]
Integrity: that is the issue drawing millions to Ron Paul, including young people. The night before I spoke, nearly 700 students gathered at Iowa State University in Ames to hear Dr. Paul. One of those students wrote me recently. His name is Nathan Rockman. He wrote, "As a columnist for the Iowa State Daily here on campus, I have seen first hand what can be described as Ron Paul fever. Since Dr. Paul visited this past Friday, his message of freedom and liberty has been spreading through campus like wildfire . . ."
Ron Paul doesn't recruit artisan spin writers and bloggers to wear down those who might question his past dealings. He doesn't need to. There are no missing hard-drives, ethics violations, and taxpayer funds used for personal use that need to be spun away. He still refuses to participate in the lucrative Congressional pension fund and returns a portion of his Congressional office budget back to the U.S. Treasury each year.
This kind of integrity moved Pastor Hartman, the students at Iowa State University, and many more like them.
Ron Paul has been fighting for the right to life from the beginning of his public career. Dr. Paul is rock-solid on pro-life. After all, he has helped over 4,000 women deliver their babies into the world in his obstetrics practice in Lake Jackson, Texas. He proposed the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005" (and 2007), which would require that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency." Has he recently discovered these pro-life convictions? Not at all. Congressman Paul introduced the Human Life Amendment in Congress in his very first term of Congress, a couple of years after Roe v. Wade was first handed down.
Is Ron Paul a libertarian, as some use in a throw-away line, often intended to move the listener to discard him without thought? Yes, on areas of fiscal, economic and judicial liberty, he is. But, he is also a social conservative and a Constitutionalist.
Ron Paul's priorities are right with marriage. He and his wife, Carol, have been married for more than fifty years. He believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and defends that principle with his vote, where and when he has the Constitutional authority to do so. For example, Dr. Paul strongly supports the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Candidly, though, Ron Paul does not believe (and neither do I) that the U.S. Government needs to be defining that which God has already defined in His Word.
Where pastors often become confused about Ron Paul is that when he is resisting the unconstitutional centralization of our federal government, he is often perceived as being anti-family. Many in these pro-family movements themselves have been co-opted into believing that the solutions to our family problems come in the form of more unconstitutional federal legislation and programs. And when one does not agree with these unconstitutional remedies, they conclude that he or she is "anti-family." Such people mean well but are confused.
America would be much better off if we Christian pastors taught the need for Christ-honoring resistance--at the local level--to anti-family federal intrusions. We should call on our congregations to vote out of office any judge who passes rulings designed to pervert the Biblical family. That doesn't take a Constitutional amendment. It just takes courageous pastors and people who understand that judges, too, must respect the Constitution and our Christian heritage.
In fact, adherence to the Constitution protects our freedom of speech and assembly; our freedom of worship; our right to keep and bear arms; our right to a trial by jury; the right to be secure in our own homes against police overreach; our right to witness for Christ in public, as a Christian; the right to own property; the right to not be deprived of life or property without due process of law; the right to face our accusers, and the right to keep government local and limited.
Keeping government local and limited is the cornerstone doctrine of American government. Ron Paul understands this more than any other candidate running today.
Most of the problems that we are now dealing with socially, culturally, financially, etc., stem from America abandoning the basic founding principle that "the government that governs least governs best."
Accordingly, America's commitment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has been (and is being) systematically stripped from us--not by State legislatures, but mostly by agencies of the federal government.
Consider how it has been federal courts that have banned prayer in school, and legalized abortion and homosexual marriage. Even in the liberal State of Massachusetts it was the courts (along with a compliant liberal governor, Mitt Romney), that forced acceptance of homosexual marriage upon the people.
The solutions to these problems do not reside in more federal legislation. All that does is strengthen the scope and power of the federal judiciary.
The only ones who have anything to fear from Ron Paul are those who believe in Big Government.
You see, Ron Paul is actually calling on us pastors and Christians to stop seeing the federal government as one "in whom we live and move and have our being." Jesus Christ is our Savior and Lord, not the federal government. Have we not, in a material way, set up the federal government as our functional Lord and Savior? When we look to the federal government to solve our moral and spiritual problems, that is exactly what we are doing.
When it comes to the war in Iraq, I firmly believe that Christian conservatives have been duped by the neocons. Dr. Paul--an Air Force veteran and proponent of a strong national defense--opposed the unprovoked and pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, and rightly so. Time has certainly vindicated Dr. Paul's principled position. There was a much better way to deal with al-Qaeda.
Soon after 9/11, Congressman Paul introduced H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. According to Paul, "A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage war against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation."
This is precisely what President Thomas Jefferson did when America's ships were confronted with Barbary pirates on the high seas.
If the United States government had listened to Ron Paul, we would not have lost nearly 4,000 American soldiers and Marines, spent over $1 trillion, and gotten bogged down in an endless civil war from which there is no equitable extraction. Furthermore, had we listened to Dr. Paul, Osama bin Laden would no doubt be dead, as would most of his al-Qaeda operatives, and we would be less vulnerable to future terrorist attacks, instead of being more vulnerable, which is the case today.
One thing that Pastor Hartman brought up in our meeting in Iowa was the sentiment of many Christians and pastors to defend Israel. Dr. Paul stated that he did not believe that we do Israel any favors and we actually weaken Israel by our constant meddling and intervention. I agree.
Ron Paul is not Israel's enemy. And neither is he the enemy to Christian liberty and constitutional government.
Ron Paul's non-interventionist and constitutional foreign policy approach would help, not hurt, Israel to resolve tensions with their neighbors. Remember, Israel has more nuclear missiles to defend themselves than all of the Middle East nations combined. Believe me, Israel knows how to defend itself. And know this: America's constant meddling curses Israel more than it blesses.
Also consider this: according to published reports such as this one in the Houston Chronicle, Ron Paul is receiving more donations from military personnel than any other Presidential candidate in either party. Think seriously about this. Our active duty and retired military personnel clearly endorse with their own contributions Ron Paul's non-interventionist position above all others.
In the end, if the candidate is a sincere Christian, he will all the more readily obey his or her oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. After all, does not our Lord tell us that our yea is to be yea and our nay is to be nay? In other words, genuine believers are to be true to their word. How, then, could a true Christian make a promise before God and the American people to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution and then turn around and ignore that promise?
Ron Paul lives his Christian faith and takes his oath to the Constitution seriously. What more could we ask for in a Presidential candidate? Every Christian pastor should seriously consider Congressman Ron Paul. Here is his website:
© 2007 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved
Source: NewsWithViews.com
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Robertson Endorses Giuliani
Pat Robertson has announced he will be backing RINO Rudy Giuliani. That's right, the self-anointed mouthpiece of what remains of the once powerful Religious Right has endorsed an pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-gun control, pro-illegal immigration social progressive.
Robertson was willing to overlook the liberal positions of the 3-times divorced lapsed Catholic from New York because of Rudy's "ability" to lead the Nation in the "War on Terror." Again, I must ask the question- exactly what is it in Giuliani's past that makes one think he would be effective in fighting terrorism? His horrible decision to move the Emergency Command Center into the World Trade Center after the first bombing? or was it his refusal to supply emergency personnel with communications gear that actually worked like it was supposed to? or maybe it was his backing of a corrupt womanizing Police Commissioner to head the Department of Homeland Security- whose kids of whom Rudy just happened to be their godfather?
These morons all seem to think that somehow, being mayor of a city during a terrorist attack qualifies Giuliani to lead the "War on Terror" and make America "safe." (Note: I'm not taking a position here as to whether 9/11 was an actual terrorist attack or not- I am simply putting the conventional view out there, since that view is central to Giuliani's campaign)
Robertson invoked the Reagan doctrine- my 80% friend is not my 20% enemy. If Rudy is only Pat's "20%" enemy, then Pat isn't much of a conservative- or a Christian, for that matter. But then again, we already knew this about Pat.
In the grand scheme of things, this endorsement means very little. Robertson's influence has been fading for years, and may give Giuliani a 1 or 2 point bump- but I doubt it will have even that effect.
Robertson was willing to overlook the liberal positions of the 3-times divorced lapsed Catholic from New York because of Rudy's "ability" to lead the Nation in the "War on Terror." Again, I must ask the question- exactly what is it in Giuliani's past that makes one think he would be effective in fighting terrorism? His horrible decision to move the Emergency Command Center into the World Trade Center after the first bombing? or was it his refusal to supply emergency personnel with communications gear that actually worked like it was supposed to? or maybe it was his backing of a corrupt womanizing Police Commissioner to head the Department of Homeland Security- whose kids of whom Rudy just happened to be their godfather?
These morons all seem to think that somehow, being mayor of a city during a terrorist attack qualifies Giuliani to lead the "War on Terror" and make America "safe." (Note: I'm not taking a position here as to whether 9/11 was an actual terrorist attack or not- I am simply putting the conventional view out there, since that view is central to Giuliani's campaign)
Robertson invoked the Reagan doctrine- my 80% friend is not my 20% enemy. If Rudy is only Pat's "20%" enemy, then Pat isn't much of a conservative- or a Christian, for that matter. But then again, we already knew this about Pat.
In the grand scheme of things, this endorsement means very little. Robertson's influence has been fading for years, and may give Giuliani a 1 or 2 point bump- but I doubt it will have even that effect.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Ben Stone knows better than Arthur Branch
For you out there who aren't familiar with the NBC hit show Law and Order, Ben Stone was an ADA long before Arthur Branch appeared on his first episode.
But this post has little to do with the show, save to say that the actor who portrayed ADA Stone- Michael Moriarty- has a lot more political insight than does Arthur Branch, aka the GOP Presidential wannabe Fred Thompson.
Moriarty has authored a very insightful piece concerning the direction of the United States, including indictments of the Bush/Clinton dynasty, George Soros, Putin, and others. It's a great read and quite informative.
To read the article, go to NewsWithViews.com.
But this post has little to do with the show, save to say that the actor who portrayed ADA Stone- Michael Moriarty- has a lot more political insight than does Arthur Branch, aka the GOP Presidential wannabe Fred Thompson.
Moriarty has authored a very insightful piece concerning the direction of the United States, including indictments of the Bush/Clinton dynasty, George Soros, Putin, and others. It's a great read and quite informative.
To read the article, go to NewsWithViews.com.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Firefighters for Giuliani?
Not in New York they're not. Members of the FDNY know firsthand that Rudy is a fraud when it comes to his "leadership" in the aftermath of 9/11. If you are at all thinking of voting for Giuliani, you need to visit rudy-urbanlegend.com and listen to the firefighters and law enforcement officers attest to Rudy's "leadership."
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Some Things I Would Change About Elections
This is by no means either comprehensive or complete, but as I'm sitting here listening to the mainstream media ramble on and on ad nauseum about the upcoming elections, I thought I would pass along a few things I would like to see changed in the way we hold elections in this Country.
I'd do away with electronic voting. Let's go back to punch cards and paper ballots. So what if it takes longer to count- at least it would be instantly apparent to the voter if there was something hanky going on with their ballot. I'm sure the machines could be upgraded to do away with the fearful "pregnant chad."
I'd require a voting test before anyone was allowed to cast a ballot. 15-20 multiple choice questions about exactly what the Constitution says- something along the lines of:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are:
People may not fully understand what some provisions of the Constitution mean, but they should at least know what it says before they're allowed to vote. I'd even be willing to make it an "open Constitution" quiz for first-time voters.
Next, if you don't live in my town, you should have no influence over who wins in my local elections- nor I in yours. Therefore, I would do away with campaign contributions from outside of the specific area covered by the election. If you don't live in my congressional district, you can't give any money to the candidates running in Florida's 13th Congressional District; if you don't live in Bradenton, you can't give money to any of the mayoral candidates.
That goes for businesses as well, although it would have to be done somewhat differently than for individuals. For example, if your main corporate offices are located in Sarasota, then you can contribute to candidates for Sararasota City and County offices (and Statewide offices, of course), but not in any other city, county, or state. If your main production, manufacturing or logistics facility is in a particular area, you can contribute to candidates in that city, county or state, but not outside of it. What it boils down to is this- I live and vote in Bradenton, Manatee County, Florida, so why should I be able to influence an election in Hickory, NC?
That brings us to PACS. Any PAC setup to benefit any foreign corporation, government or country would be barred from giving any money to any candidate for any office in America. Further, no money would be allowed in the political process which did not come from an American citizen- if you're not an American, you can't give to any candidate for any office, or contribute to any ballot initiatives. I'm not sure exactly what else I would do with PACs, but this I am sure of- American elections are for Americans, period.
Next, whatever maximum contribution level was set would apply across the board- if it's $250 for individuals, then it's $250 for businesses. If it's $2,500 for businesses, then it'd be the same for PACs.
All ballots are to be in English. Braille is acceptable, Spanish or any other language is not. If you're going to vote in an American election, you darn sure should have to do it in English. No translators are to be provided at any polling place, although I would have no objection to deaf interpretors being onsite should the need arise.
No "soft money" should go to any political candidate for any office. Soft money groups would not be allowed to circumvent the system- they would be allowed to run "issue ads" on the War, abortion, or whatever else they wanted, but they would not be allowed to either explicitly endorse a candidate or political party.
Last (for now at least), I would repeal the 17th Amendment. I would go back to the State Legislatures appointing the Senators. This would work perfectly with my plan to eliminate out-of-State campaign contirbutions, as well as provide a remedy for situations like that of the disgraced Senator of Idaho. Had this been in place, the Idaho legislature could simply have recalled Craig and appointed a new Senator, instead of having to either wait for the next election or the Senate to boot him out.
There you have it- changes I would make to the election process. There's more I'll get to at a later date, but those are some of the biggies. Please, save your contention that this somehow violates our Freedom of Speech rights- it actually expands them for actual citizens of the United States. It takes foreign influence out of the equation- your voice and vote would mean more than that of a rich Chinese businessman or Middle East lobbying group. These changes would make "one man, one vote" actually mean something.
You are, of course, free to disagree.
I'd do away with electronic voting. Let's go back to punch cards and paper ballots. So what if it takes longer to count- at least it would be instantly apparent to the voter if there was something hanky going on with their ballot. I'm sure the machines could be upgraded to do away with the fearful "pregnant chad."
I'd require a voting test before anyone was allowed to cast a ballot. 15-20 multiple choice questions about exactly what the Constitution says- something along the lines of:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are:
- can be changed by Executive Order of the President of the United States
- can be granted via decision of the United States Supreme Court
- can be given in accorance with opinion polls
- reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
People may not fully understand what some provisions of the Constitution mean, but they should at least know what it says before they're allowed to vote. I'd even be willing to make it an "open Constitution" quiz for first-time voters.
Next, if you don't live in my town, you should have no influence over who wins in my local elections- nor I in yours. Therefore, I would do away with campaign contributions from outside of the specific area covered by the election. If you don't live in my congressional district, you can't give any money to the candidates running in Florida's 13th Congressional District; if you don't live in Bradenton, you can't give money to any of the mayoral candidates.
That goes for businesses as well, although it would have to be done somewhat differently than for individuals. For example, if your main corporate offices are located in Sarasota, then you can contribute to candidates for Sararasota City and County offices (and Statewide offices, of course), but not in any other city, county, or state. If your main production, manufacturing or logistics facility is in a particular area, you can contribute to candidates in that city, county or state, but not outside of it. What it boils down to is this- I live and vote in Bradenton, Manatee County, Florida, so why should I be able to influence an election in Hickory, NC?
That brings us to PACS. Any PAC setup to benefit any foreign corporation, government or country would be barred from giving any money to any candidate for any office in America. Further, no money would be allowed in the political process which did not come from an American citizen- if you're not an American, you can't give to any candidate for any office, or contribute to any ballot initiatives. I'm not sure exactly what else I would do with PACs, but this I am sure of- American elections are for Americans, period.
Next, whatever maximum contribution level was set would apply across the board- if it's $250 for individuals, then it's $250 for businesses. If it's $2,500 for businesses, then it'd be the same for PACs.
All ballots are to be in English. Braille is acceptable, Spanish or any other language is not. If you're going to vote in an American election, you darn sure should have to do it in English. No translators are to be provided at any polling place, although I would have no objection to deaf interpretors being onsite should the need arise.
No "soft money" should go to any political candidate for any office. Soft money groups would not be allowed to circumvent the system- they would be allowed to run "issue ads" on the War, abortion, or whatever else they wanted, but they would not be allowed to either explicitly endorse a candidate or political party.
Last (for now at least), I would repeal the 17th Amendment. I would go back to the State Legislatures appointing the Senators. This would work perfectly with my plan to eliminate out-of-State campaign contirbutions, as well as provide a remedy for situations like that of the disgraced Senator of Idaho. Had this been in place, the Idaho legislature could simply have recalled Craig and appointed a new Senator, instead of having to either wait for the next election or the Senate to boot him out.
There you have it- changes I would make to the election process. There's more I'll get to at a later date, but those are some of the biggies. Please, save your contention that this somehow violates our Freedom of Speech rights- it actually expands them for actual citizens of the United States. It takes foreign influence out of the equation- your voice and vote would mean more than that of a rich Chinese businessman or Middle East lobbying group. These changes would make "one man, one vote" actually mean something.
You are, of course, free to disagree.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Not Our Fathers' America
Pastor Baldwin is spot on with this commentary. A must-read for anyone who loves America and is sickened at Her present condition.
________________________________________________________
Not Our Fathers' America
by Chuck Baldwin
June 8, 2007
Every country goes through changes. However, stable countries are able to maintain their basic culture, identity, language, and heritage throughout the various gradations of societal evolution. Hence, through major wars, minor conflicts, turmoil, depression, and dissension, America, for the most part, has been able to maintain the fundamental underpinnings that made our country unique. But, Ladies and Gentlemen, those underpinnings are very quickly disappearing.
In a very real sense, this is not our fathers' America. And by that, I am not referring to our modern conveniences, our advanced technologies, or our avant-garde styles of dress and forms of entertainment. I am talking about the principles and values that cut to the very core of who and what we are as a nation. We are fast losing the substance of what it means to be American.
For the most part, our fathers' America was a nation that had a firm faith in God and was not ashamed to publicly acknowledge Him. This faith in God was not something worn on the sleeve to parade around every two years during a political campaign; it was something genuine, something that guided practical day-by-day decisions and choices.
Can one imagine people in past generations saying that, while they had a "deep and personal" faith, this faith had no place or bearing in the practical decisions they would make. What lunacy! Yet, this is exactly what we hear so many of today's politicians and businessmen routinely say.
In fact, one common saying for this generation of Christian businessmen is, "He doesn't let his Christianity get in the way of his business." And for what appears to be a majority of today's commercial leaders, this is not just a maxim; it is a fact.
Secondly, our fathers' America enjoyed a strong commitment to the principles of freedom and independence. Through major wars, threats, and terrorist attacks, they never surrendered the principle that our Creator had granted us liberty.
Oh, there were times when our commitment to liberty was seriously challenged. However, the resolve of our forebears regarding the principle of freedom was stronger than any foe, whether it was found across the ocean or across the street. But, this is not our fathers' America.
Today, many, if not most, Americans seem eager to surrender practically any freedom upon the promise of protection and security. We no longer cherish the idea of liberty. Liberty seems to be no more valuable than a poker chip to be gambled away if the pot is sweetened with the promise that the government will take care of us.
For example, political leaders in both parties are allowed to chip away at our Second Amendment freedoms to the point that it is only a matter of time (and maybe a very short time) before the right to keep and bear arms will be forfeited, as has already been done in places such as England, Canada, and Australia (and in many states in the U.S.). This attack on the right to keep and bear arms will certainly intensify if any of the current presidential frontrunners is elected next year.
If Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney is elected President next year, Americans will have the fight of their life on hand to preserve the little freedom to keep and bear arms that currently exists. (Romney's recent attempt to present himself as pro-gun is mere pretense. Remember that, as Governor of Massachusetts, he supported the Brady gun-control ban. And as recently as 2002, Romney publicly reiterated his support for strict gun control.)
Why? Because the elites who control our media, Congress, the White House, and commercial boardrooms are in the process of constructing their New World Order, and a disarmed citizenry is absolutely essential to this end. Make no mistake about it: they want our guns, and they want them badly!
Already, big-game hunting is fast becoming a sport that is not only politically incorrect, it is a sport that only the rich can afford. Through hundreds of laws that restrict land usage and the type of game that can be legally taken, the average, middle-class worker can hardly find a place to hunt, and when he does find it, he can barely afford the price. Plus, the rules regulating his hunt are so restrictive that he becomes a lawbreaker practically every time he walks into the woods.
In addition, many wildlife officers resemble Gestapo troops more than they do peace officers. Nowhere are there more similarities between the old fascist and socialist regimes than can be found in many of our federal and state fish and wildlife officers. (And before you write me a nasty note of rebuttal, I am very much aware of the very fine and honorable wildlife officers out there. I know several such men personally. However, I stand by my assessment that federal and state wildlife officers are more and more being trained in Gestapo-like tactics.)
Can you remember the words of Franklin Roosevelt immediately following the attack on Pearl Harbor? As you listen to his words, remember that FDR was the poster child for the Twentieth Century Big Government liberal. In spite of this, Roosevelt said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
However, this is not our fathers', even our liberal fathers', America.
Today, even so-called conservative politicians constantly instill nothing but fear in the hearts and psyche of the American people. Ditto for the media, and even the Weather Channel! The American people are constantly beaten down with the spirit of fear. Fear of terrorism. Fear of hurricanes. Fear of wildfires. Fear of tornadoes. Fear of disease. Fear of guns.
With no ill will intended toward any of the victims of the recent Virginia Tech shootings, why did not any of the students and teachers charge the shooter? As few as a half-dozen men could have stopped that rampage. Yes, two or three of them might have been killed in the process, but there is no chance that the shooter would have stopped them all. (Of course, the university itself bears the brunt of blame for this carnage for not allowing its faculty and qualified adult students to carry handguns for personal protection on campus.)
However, our entire culture is inundated with fear. The only thing we think about is survival. Running away. Staying safe. The concept of standing up and risking personal safety in order to resist the threat of bodily harm never seems to enter our minds. If there is no one around to protect or take care of us, we seem to be absolutely helpless. (I'm not referring to our military forces, obviously. On the whole, their courage under fire is nothing short of magnificent!) Our fathers' motto "We have nothing to fear but fear itself", has been changed to "We have nothing but fear itself."
Therefore, we enthusiastically embrace the chains of servitude via the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration, complete with hundreds of restrictions and attacks upon our privacy and liberty because we are scared to death and, in a panicked state, are willing to accept the phony promises of protection from the hand of an overbearing and ever-increasingly oppressive Nanny State.
Finally, consider the fact that our current leaders cannot even seem to understand the importance of being a nation of one language and culture.
In our fathers' America, immigrants were expected to enter the country legally. They were expected to learn the English language. They were expected to assimilate into America's public life and culture. They were expected to learn and appreciate our history and heritage. They were expected to be productive in their newfound country. They came to America, not expecting a handout, but only wanting an opportunity. And, for the most part, they were willing to live by our laws for the benefit of having that opportunity.
However, this is not our fathers' America. Today, multiculturalism demands that we tolerate lawbreakers (a.k.a. "undocumented workers"). More than that, it demands that we facilitate and bankroll them. And when we resist the attempts of our leaders to force lawlessness upon us, we are accused of being unpatriotic and un-American.
Of course, there is an agenda at work here, folks. Today's leaders do not share the principles and ideals of our fathers. They envision a new America. An America without national borders. An America that exists for the benefit of the elites and super-rich. An America that holds no loyalty to constitutional government or the Bill of Rights. An America that has no distinctively Christian culture. An America that is merged into a North American Community. An America that has forgotten Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson. An America that never heard of the Declaration of Independence. An America that uses its military to enforce the demands of international business interests. An America where the State controls everything we do, say, and even think. And, believe me, this new America is already here and quickly squeezing out the America our fathers fought to preserve.
The question is, what will people who believe in our fathers' America do? Our pilgrim fathers fled the New World Order in Europe and founded this great nation. Our patriot fathers fought a war of revolution against the New World Order on our soil and won our nation's freedom and independence. So, what will we do?
It seems quite certain that the time will soon come when we will be forced to make the same kind of decisions our fathers were forced to make. But, what exactly will those decisions be?
One thing is sure: this is no longer our fathers' America, and people who long for such a place are facing another crossroads in history.
© Chuck Baldwin
________________________________________________________
Not Our Fathers' America
by Chuck Baldwin
June 8, 2007
Every country goes through changes. However, stable countries are able to maintain their basic culture, identity, language, and heritage throughout the various gradations of societal evolution. Hence, through major wars, minor conflicts, turmoil, depression, and dissension, America, for the most part, has been able to maintain the fundamental underpinnings that made our country unique. But, Ladies and Gentlemen, those underpinnings are very quickly disappearing.
In a very real sense, this is not our fathers' America. And by that, I am not referring to our modern conveniences, our advanced technologies, or our avant-garde styles of dress and forms of entertainment. I am talking about the principles and values that cut to the very core of who and what we are as a nation. We are fast losing the substance of what it means to be American.
For the most part, our fathers' America was a nation that had a firm faith in God and was not ashamed to publicly acknowledge Him. This faith in God was not something worn on the sleeve to parade around every two years during a political campaign; it was something genuine, something that guided practical day-by-day decisions and choices.
Can one imagine people in past generations saying that, while they had a "deep and personal" faith, this faith had no place or bearing in the practical decisions they would make. What lunacy! Yet, this is exactly what we hear so many of today's politicians and businessmen routinely say.
In fact, one common saying for this generation of Christian businessmen is, "He doesn't let his Christianity get in the way of his business." And for what appears to be a majority of today's commercial leaders, this is not just a maxim; it is a fact.
Secondly, our fathers' America enjoyed a strong commitment to the principles of freedom and independence. Through major wars, threats, and terrorist attacks, they never surrendered the principle that our Creator had granted us liberty.
Oh, there were times when our commitment to liberty was seriously challenged. However, the resolve of our forebears regarding the principle of freedom was stronger than any foe, whether it was found across the ocean or across the street. But, this is not our fathers' America.
Today, many, if not most, Americans seem eager to surrender practically any freedom upon the promise of protection and security. We no longer cherish the idea of liberty. Liberty seems to be no more valuable than a poker chip to be gambled away if the pot is sweetened with the promise that the government will take care of us.
For example, political leaders in both parties are allowed to chip away at our Second Amendment freedoms to the point that it is only a matter of time (and maybe a very short time) before the right to keep and bear arms will be forfeited, as has already been done in places such as England, Canada, and Australia (and in many states in the U.S.). This attack on the right to keep and bear arms will certainly intensify if any of the current presidential frontrunners is elected next year.
If Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney is elected President next year, Americans will have the fight of their life on hand to preserve the little freedom to keep and bear arms that currently exists. (Romney's recent attempt to present himself as pro-gun is mere pretense. Remember that, as Governor of Massachusetts, he supported the Brady gun-control ban. And as recently as 2002, Romney publicly reiterated his support for strict gun control.)
Why? Because the elites who control our media, Congress, the White House, and commercial boardrooms are in the process of constructing their New World Order, and a disarmed citizenry is absolutely essential to this end. Make no mistake about it: they want our guns, and they want them badly!
Already, big-game hunting is fast becoming a sport that is not only politically incorrect, it is a sport that only the rich can afford. Through hundreds of laws that restrict land usage and the type of game that can be legally taken, the average, middle-class worker can hardly find a place to hunt, and when he does find it, he can barely afford the price. Plus, the rules regulating his hunt are so restrictive that he becomes a lawbreaker practically every time he walks into the woods.
In addition, many wildlife officers resemble Gestapo troops more than they do peace officers. Nowhere are there more similarities between the old fascist and socialist regimes than can be found in many of our federal and state fish and wildlife officers. (And before you write me a nasty note of rebuttal, I am very much aware of the very fine and honorable wildlife officers out there. I know several such men personally. However, I stand by my assessment that federal and state wildlife officers are more and more being trained in Gestapo-like tactics.)
Can you remember the words of Franklin Roosevelt immediately following the attack on Pearl Harbor? As you listen to his words, remember that FDR was the poster child for the Twentieth Century Big Government liberal. In spite of this, Roosevelt said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
However, this is not our fathers', even our liberal fathers', America.
Today, even so-called conservative politicians constantly instill nothing but fear in the hearts and psyche of the American people. Ditto for the media, and even the Weather Channel! The American people are constantly beaten down with the spirit of fear. Fear of terrorism. Fear of hurricanes. Fear of wildfires. Fear of tornadoes. Fear of disease. Fear of guns.
With no ill will intended toward any of the victims of the recent Virginia Tech shootings, why did not any of the students and teachers charge the shooter? As few as a half-dozen men could have stopped that rampage. Yes, two or three of them might have been killed in the process, but there is no chance that the shooter would have stopped them all. (Of course, the university itself bears the brunt of blame for this carnage for not allowing its faculty and qualified adult students to carry handguns for personal protection on campus.)
However, our entire culture is inundated with fear. The only thing we think about is survival. Running away. Staying safe. The concept of standing up and risking personal safety in order to resist the threat of bodily harm never seems to enter our minds. If there is no one around to protect or take care of us, we seem to be absolutely helpless. (I'm not referring to our military forces, obviously. On the whole, their courage under fire is nothing short of magnificent!) Our fathers' motto "We have nothing to fear but fear itself", has been changed to "We have nothing but fear itself."
Therefore, we enthusiastically embrace the chains of servitude via the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration, complete with hundreds of restrictions and attacks upon our privacy and liberty because we are scared to death and, in a panicked state, are willing to accept the phony promises of protection from the hand of an overbearing and ever-increasingly oppressive Nanny State.
Finally, consider the fact that our current leaders cannot even seem to understand the importance of being a nation of one language and culture.
In our fathers' America, immigrants were expected to enter the country legally. They were expected to learn the English language. They were expected to assimilate into America's public life and culture. They were expected to learn and appreciate our history and heritage. They were expected to be productive in their newfound country. They came to America, not expecting a handout, but only wanting an opportunity. And, for the most part, they were willing to live by our laws for the benefit of having that opportunity.
However, this is not our fathers' America. Today, multiculturalism demands that we tolerate lawbreakers (a.k.a. "undocumented workers"). More than that, it demands that we facilitate and bankroll them. And when we resist the attempts of our leaders to force lawlessness upon us, we are accused of being unpatriotic and un-American.
Of course, there is an agenda at work here, folks. Today's leaders do not share the principles and ideals of our fathers. They envision a new America. An America without national borders. An America that exists for the benefit of the elites and super-rich. An America that holds no loyalty to constitutional government or the Bill of Rights. An America that has no distinctively Christian culture. An America that is merged into a North American Community. An America that has forgotten Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson. An America that never heard of the Declaration of Independence. An America that uses its military to enforce the demands of international business interests. An America where the State controls everything we do, say, and even think. And, believe me, this new America is already here and quickly squeezing out the America our fathers fought to preserve.
The question is, what will people who believe in our fathers' America do? Our pilgrim fathers fled the New World Order in Europe and founded this great nation. Our patriot fathers fought a war of revolution against the New World Order on our soil and won our nation's freedom and independence. So, what will we do?
It seems quite certain that the time will soon come when we will be forced to make the same kind of decisions our fathers were forced to make. But, what exactly will those decisions be?
One thing is sure: this is no longer our fathers' America, and people who long for such a place are facing another crossroads in history.
© Chuck Baldwin
Friday, September 28, 2007
Chuck Baldwin: The "Fix" is in
Exposing once again the Bush/Clinton dynasty, and the Neocon/Progressive cabal....
___________________________________________________
THE "FIX" IS IN
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
September 28, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
"Bush quietly advising Hillary Clinton, top Democrats." This is the title of a much under-reported news story, which appeared in The Examiner on September 24th. The Examiner opens the story by saying, "President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president."
The story stems from an interview with White House Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten, for The Examiner's Senior White House correspondent Bill Sammon's new book, "The Evangelical President."
The Examiner said "Bush wants enough continuity in his Iraq policy that 'even a Democratic president would be in a position to sustain a legitimate presence there.'" Bolten went on to say that "He [Bush] wants to create the conditions where a Democrat not only will have the leeway, but the obligation to see it [the war in Iraq] out."
Bolten made it clear that Bush expects the war in Iraq to continue "[n]o matter who the president is, no matter what party . . ."
The Examiner story also reported, "A senior White House official said the administration did not put much stock in pledges by Democratic presidential candidates to swiftly end the Iraq war if elected."
The White House official said, "They [the Democratic frontrunners] are being advised by smart people. We've got colleagues here on the staff who have good communications with some of the thinkers on that side.
"And there is recognition by most of them that there has to be a long-term presence [in Iraq] by the United States . . ."
The Examiner also quotes Vice President Dick Cheney as saying, "And I think we'll increasingly see a lot of emphasis on deciding who the next occupant of the Oval Office is going to be."
As you read the above, did you not ask the question, "Why is this not a front page story in the mainstream media?" If the media truly wanted to do its job, this story would be page one in every major newspaper and the lead story on every television and radio network news show. But it's not. Why? Because the powers that control the mainstream media are the same ones who control the two major parties and they don't want the American people to know that the "fix" is already in. George W. Bush knows it; Hillary Clinton knows it; Dick Cheney knows it; the CFR knows it; Democrat and Republican insiders know it; and now you know it.
I have attempted to warn my readers that the Bushes and Clintons have been "best buds" for years. My initial source for this report was someone who was among the Clintons' closest friends for much of his life. Whatever acrimony one may perceive to exist between the two families is purely for show. Democrats expect the Clintons to lambaste the Bushes. Republicans expect the Bushes to do the same thing to the Clintons. So they do. It is all political theater.
For that matter, Bill Sammon's new book promoting the idea that Bush is an "Evangelical President" is more political theater. Bush has simply hijacked the evangelical movement in order to push forward a globalist New World Order agenda.
Believe me, the Bushes and Clintons are friends, and have been for decades--at least since George H.W. Bush was President and Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. At least since then--probably longer.
However, the connection between the Bushes and Clintons is much deeper than that. Both families are also part of the inside cabal of New World Order globalists. They share the same clubs, the same parties, and the same agenda. Why else do you think that when G.W. Bush became President he did not undo anything Bill Clinton had done? For the same reason that Hillary Clinton will not undo anything that G.W. Bush has done when she becomes President--and that includes the Iraq war.
Mark it down: Hillary will keep U.S. troops in Iraq. She will also follow through with whatever other military plans Bush has already put in place. She will continue with Bush's push for the North American Union, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the NAFTA Superhighway. She will continue the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance, and even Bush's "enemy combatant" classification for American citizens. She will also do nothing to restore Posse Comitatus.
Those Democrats who really believe they are voting for "change" when they vote for Hillary next year are in for a rude awakening. They will awaken to the same reality that those who thought they were voting for change when they voted for Dubya have come to realize: it does not matter to a tinker's dam whether G.W. or Hillary is elected President. They are both marching to the same drummer. (Neither would it matter should Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, or John Edwards become President.) The "fix" is in. So much so that G.W. Bush is already privately counseling Hillary on what to do after she becomes President.
I tried to warn my readers of this connection as far back as 2002 (see article). I thought the set up would put Hillary in the White House in 2004, but obviously, my timing was off one election. 2008 is the year the global elite--with much help from both the Clinton and Bush machines--will put Hillary in the White House.
It is no accident, my friends, that there is no "top tier" contender in the GOP this year that is able to galvanize grassroots Republicans. Neither is it an accident that Bush's policies are increasingly unpopular, thus further alienating both the Republican and conservative base and the American people in general from the GOP ticket next year. Dubya is merely setting up a Hillary victory in much the same way that Daddy Bush set up a victory for Bill back in 1992.
Make no mistake about it: Hillary Clinton is the "anointed" pick of her fellow elitists to become President of the United States in 2008.
Obviously, a wholesale political revolution could derail the plans of the elitist egomaniacs who control our country right now, but I don't believe the American people, and especially the pastors (who have the most power to accomplish this task), have the stomach for it.
The only way for the American people to thwart the plans of the international cabal currently calling the shots in Washington, D.C., and New York City is by a massive rejection of both major parties' prominent Presidential candidates. This would require wholesale support for independent-minded, non-elitist candidates such as Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, or Alan Keyes. Even better, a grassroots uprising of support for independent constitutionalists such as Jerome Corsi or Judge Roy Moore--on a Constitution Party ticket--would put the elitists in retreat for decades to come. However, I see little hope for such a revolution. (Then again, there was little hope for George Washington and the boys either.)
So, come November 2008, Hillary Clinton will be your President, and she will continue the same basic policies of one George W. Bush, who continued the same basic policies of one Bill Clinton, who continued the same basic policies of one George Herbert Walker Bush. One would think that eventually the American people would begin to catch on. Until they do, however, the "fix" is in.
© 2007 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved
___________________________________________________
THE "FIX" IS IN
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
September 28, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
"Bush quietly advising Hillary Clinton, top Democrats." This is the title of a much under-reported news story, which appeared in The Examiner on September 24th. The Examiner opens the story by saying, "President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president."
The story stems from an interview with White House Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten, for The Examiner's Senior White House correspondent Bill Sammon's new book, "The Evangelical President."
The Examiner said "Bush wants enough continuity in his Iraq policy that 'even a Democratic president would be in a position to sustain a legitimate presence there.'" Bolten went on to say that "He [Bush] wants to create the conditions where a Democrat not only will have the leeway, but the obligation to see it [the war in Iraq] out."
Bolten made it clear that Bush expects the war in Iraq to continue "[n]o matter who the president is, no matter what party . . ."
The Examiner story also reported, "A senior White House official said the administration did not put much stock in pledges by Democratic presidential candidates to swiftly end the Iraq war if elected."
The White House official said, "They [the Democratic frontrunners] are being advised by smart people. We've got colleagues here on the staff who have good communications with some of the thinkers on that side.
"And there is recognition by most of them that there has to be a long-term presence [in Iraq] by the United States . . ."
The Examiner also quotes Vice President Dick Cheney as saying, "And I think we'll increasingly see a lot of emphasis on deciding who the next occupant of the Oval Office is going to be."
As you read the above, did you not ask the question, "Why is this not a front page story in the mainstream media?" If the media truly wanted to do its job, this story would be page one in every major newspaper and the lead story on every television and radio network news show. But it's not. Why? Because the powers that control the mainstream media are the same ones who control the two major parties and they don't want the American people to know that the "fix" is already in. George W. Bush knows it; Hillary Clinton knows it; Dick Cheney knows it; the CFR knows it; Democrat and Republican insiders know it; and now you know it.
I have attempted to warn my readers that the Bushes and Clintons have been "best buds" for years. My initial source for this report was someone who was among the Clintons' closest friends for much of his life. Whatever acrimony one may perceive to exist between the two families is purely for show. Democrats expect the Clintons to lambaste the Bushes. Republicans expect the Bushes to do the same thing to the Clintons. So they do. It is all political theater.
For that matter, Bill Sammon's new book promoting the idea that Bush is an "Evangelical President" is more political theater. Bush has simply hijacked the evangelical movement in order to push forward a globalist New World Order agenda.
Believe me, the Bushes and Clintons are friends, and have been for decades--at least since George H.W. Bush was President and Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. At least since then--probably longer.
However, the connection between the Bushes and Clintons is much deeper than that. Both families are also part of the inside cabal of New World Order globalists. They share the same clubs, the same parties, and the same agenda. Why else do you think that when G.W. Bush became President he did not undo anything Bill Clinton had done? For the same reason that Hillary Clinton will not undo anything that G.W. Bush has done when she becomes President--and that includes the Iraq war.
Mark it down: Hillary will keep U.S. troops in Iraq. She will also follow through with whatever other military plans Bush has already put in place. She will continue with Bush's push for the North American Union, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the NAFTA Superhighway. She will continue the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance, and even Bush's "enemy combatant" classification for American citizens. She will also do nothing to restore Posse Comitatus.
Those Democrats who really believe they are voting for "change" when they vote for Hillary next year are in for a rude awakening. They will awaken to the same reality that those who thought they were voting for change when they voted for Dubya have come to realize: it does not matter to a tinker's dam whether G.W. or Hillary is elected President. They are both marching to the same drummer. (Neither would it matter should Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, or John Edwards become President.) The "fix" is in. So much so that G.W. Bush is already privately counseling Hillary on what to do after she becomes President.
I tried to warn my readers of this connection as far back as 2002 (see article). I thought the set up would put Hillary in the White House in 2004, but obviously, my timing was off one election. 2008 is the year the global elite--with much help from both the Clinton and Bush machines--will put Hillary in the White House.
It is no accident, my friends, that there is no "top tier" contender in the GOP this year that is able to galvanize grassroots Republicans. Neither is it an accident that Bush's policies are increasingly unpopular, thus further alienating both the Republican and conservative base and the American people in general from the GOP ticket next year. Dubya is merely setting up a Hillary victory in much the same way that Daddy Bush set up a victory for Bill back in 1992.
Make no mistake about it: Hillary Clinton is the "anointed" pick of her fellow elitists to become President of the United States in 2008.
Obviously, a wholesale political revolution could derail the plans of the elitist egomaniacs who control our country right now, but I don't believe the American people, and especially the pastors (who have the most power to accomplish this task), have the stomach for it.
The only way for the American people to thwart the plans of the international cabal currently calling the shots in Washington, D.C., and New York City is by a massive rejection of both major parties' prominent Presidential candidates. This would require wholesale support for independent-minded, non-elitist candidates such as Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, or Alan Keyes. Even better, a grassroots uprising of support for independent constitutionalists such as Jerome Corsi or Judge Roy Moore--on a Constitution Party ticket--would put the elitists in retreat for decades to come. However, I see little hope for such a revolution. (Then again, there was little hope for George Washington and the boys either.)
So, come November 2008, Hillary Clinton will be your President, and she will continue the same basic policies of one George W. Bush, who continued the same basic policies of one Bill Clinton, who continued the same basic policies of one George Herbert Walker Bush. One would think that eventually the American people would begin to catch on. Until they do, however, the "fix" is in.
© 2007 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Contact Your Congressman
Tell them to support H. Con. Res. 40, "Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada."
This legislation "Urges: (1) the United States not to engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System; (2) the United States not to allow the Security and Prosperity Partnership to implement regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and (3) the President to oppose these acts or any other proposals that threaten U.S. sovereignty."
Three GOP Presidential candidates are listed as sponsors/cosponsors- Ron Paul (Sponsor), Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo (Cosponsors).
The full text of the Bill (including the quoted portions above) can be read at
GovTracks.com.
This is an important step in beating back yet another attempt by the Neocon/Progressive cabal to strip America of her sovereignty.
This legislation "Urges: (1) the United States not to engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System; (2) the United States not to allow the Security and Prosperity Partnership to implement regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and (3) the President to oppose these acts or any other proposals that threaten U.S. sovereignty."
Three GOP Presidential candidates are listed as sponsors/cosponsors- Ron Paul (Sponsor), Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo (Cosponsors).
The full text of the Bill (including the quoted portions above) can be read at
GovTracks.com.
This is an important step in beating back yet another attempt by the Neocon/Progressive cabal to strip America of her sovereignty.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
The Cost of Illegal Immigration in Florida
2005 estimates placed the number of illegal aliens in Florida at 630,000. No doubt this number is higher in 2007, but the older figures will serve well enough to demonstrate how much educating, treating, and incarcerating costs Florida taxpayers.
-----------------------------------------------
From the Federation for American Immigration Reform website:
Analysis of the latest Census data indicates Florida’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers nearly more than $1.7 billion dollars per year for education, medical care and incarceration. Even if the estimated taxes collected from illegal immigrant workers are subtracted, net outlays still amount to nearly one billion dollars per year. The annual fiscal burden amounts to about $300 per Florida household headed by a native-born resident.
This analysis looks specifically at the costs to the state for education, health care and incarceration resulting from illegal immigration. These three are the largest cost areas, and they are the same three areas analyzed in a 1994 study conducted by the Urban Institute, which provides a useful baseline for comparison a decade later. Other studies have been conducted in the interim, showing trends that support the conclusions of this report.
There are other significant costs associated with illegal immigration, and federal and state officials should take these into account as well. Even without accounting for all of the numerous areas in which costs associated with illegal immigration are being incurred by Florida taxpayers, the program areas analyzed in this study indicate that the burden is substantial and that the costs are rapidly increasing.
The nearly two billion dollars in costs incurred by Florida taxpayers annually result from outlays in the following areas:
Education. Based on estimates of the illegal immigrant population in Florida and documented costs of K-12 schooling, Floridians spend more than $1.5 billion annually on education for illegal immigrant children and for their U.S.-born siblings. About 8.7 percent of the K-12 public school students in Florida are children of illegal aliens.
Health Care. Taxpayer-funded, unreimbursed medical outlays for health care provided to the state’s illegal alien population amount to about $165 million a year.
Incarceration. The uncompensated cost of incarcerating illegal aliens in Florida’s state and county prisons amounts to about $60 million a year (not including local jail detention costs or related law enforcement and judicial expenditures or the monetary costs of the crimes that led to their incarceration).
State and local taxes paid by the unauthorized immigrant population go toward offsetting these costs, but they do not come near to matching the expenses. The total of such payments can generously be estimated at about $910 million per year.
The fiscal costs of illegal immigration do not end with these three major cost areas. The total costs of illegal immigration to the state’s taxpayers would be considerably higher if other cost areas such as special English instruction, welfare programs used by the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal alien workers were also calculated.
-----------------------------------------------
From the Federation for American Immigration Reform website:
Analysis of the latest Census data indicates Florida’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers nearly more than $1.7 billion dollars per year for education, medical care and incarceration. Even if the estimated taxes collected from illegal immigrant workers are subtracted, net outlays still amount to nearly one billion dollars per year. The annual fiscal burden amounts to about $300 per Florida household headed by a native-born resident.
This analysis looks specifically at the costs to the state for education, health care and incarceration resulting from illegal immigration. These three are the largest cost areas, and they are the same three areas analyzed in a 1994 study conducted by the Urban Institute, which provides a useful baseline for comparison a decade later. Other studies have been conducted in the interim, showing trends that support the conclusions of this report.
There are other significant costs associated with illegal immigration, and federal and state officials should take these into account as well. Even without accounting for all of the numerous areas in which costs associated with illegal immigration are being incurred by Florida taxpayers, the program areas analyzed in this study indicate that the burden is substantial and that the costs are rapidly increasing.
The nearly two billion dollars in costs incurred by Florida taxpayers annually result from outlays in the following areas:
Education. Based on estimates of the illegal immigrant population in Florida and documented costs of K-12 schooling, Floridians spend more than $1.5 billion annually on education for illegal immigrant children and for their U.S.-born siblings. About 8.7 percent of the K-12 public school students in Florida are children of illegal aliens.
Health Care. Taxpayer-funded, unreimbursed medical outlays for health care provided to the state’s illegal alien population amount to about $165 million a year.
Incarceration. The uncompensated cost of incarcerating illegal aliens in Florida’s state and county prisons amounts to about $60 million a year (not including local jail detention costs or related law enforcement and judicial expenditures or the monetary costs of the crimes that led to their incarceration).
State and local taxes paid by the unauthorized immigrant population go toward offsetting these costs, but they do not come near to matching the expenses. The total of such payments can generously be estimated at about $910 million per year.
The fiscal costs of illegal immigration do not end with these three major cost areas. The total costs of illegal immigration to the state’s taxpayers would be considerably higher if other cost areas such as special English instruction, welfare programs used by the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal alien workers were also calculated.
Columbia Got Played
Once again, the intellectual elite in America got played like an out-of-tune Stradavarius. In extending an invitation to the Iranian President, Columbia University found itself in the unique position of playing right into the hand of the Neocons in the White House and the radical moslems in Tehran and throughout the world.
Nobody seemed to pay much attention to how little the Bush Administration objected to Ahmadinejad's appearance. Sure, they made enough noise to make it look good, but in the warped world of the Neocons, they couldn't have asked for anything better. Knowing full well that Ahmadinejad was going to make comments sure to enflame, anger, and scare most of the American public, there was no way the White House was going to work to shut down this very public event. Letting Ahmadinejad have his say will make it a lot easier to sell gullible Americans on the coming military action against Iran. Best of all, there's no political fallout for the Neocons on this at all. Columbia is taking the brunt of the criticism for inviting him in the first place.
As far as Ahmadinejad is concerned, he has to be ecstatic. Bollinger did exactly what the Iranian President figured he would do- he went after the devoutly-held religious beliefs of radical moslems all over the planet. Using words like "illiterate and ignorant" to describe those who follow Ahmadinejad, and calling him a "petty and cruel dictator" really wasn't a very bright thing for the President of an Ivy League University to do. Ahmadinejad can now return to Iran and point out how rudely he was treated in the land of free speech, and how intolerant the Americans are to the religious beliefs on moslems- which he began to do as soon as he opened his mouth on the platform, calling Bollinger's remarks "insulting" and unfriendly. Bollinger, in trying to play tough in front of the cameras, played the perfect fool in Ahmadinejad's scheme.
Bush got what he wanted, Ahmadinejad got what he wanted, and Columbia ended up looking ridiculous. One of the most prestigious institutes in the Country- a bastion of the intellectual elite- got played by arguably the worst President in American history and a "cruel and petty dictator."
Nobody seemed to pay much attention to how little the Bush Administration objected to Ahmadinejad's appearance. Sure, they made enough noise to make it look good, but in the warped world of the Neocons, they couldn't have asked for anything better. Knowing full well that Ahmadinejad was going to make comments sure to enflame, anger, and scare most of the American public, there was no way the White House was going to work to shut down this very public event. Letting Ahmadinejad have his say will make it a lot easier to sell gullible Americans on the coming military action against Iran. Best of all, there's no political fallout for the Neocons on this at all. Columbia is taking the brunt of the criticism for inviting him in the first place.
As far as Ahmadinejad is concerned, he has to be ecstatic. Bollinger did exactly what the Iranian President figured he would do- he went after the devoutly-held religious beliefs of radical moslems all over the planet. Using words like "illiterate and ignorant" to describe those who follow Ahmadinejad, and calling him a "petty and cruel dictator" really wasn't a very bright thing for the President of an Ivy League University to do. Ahmadinejad can now return to Iran and point out how rudely he was treated in the land of free speech, and how intolerant the Americans are to the religious beliefs on moslems- which he began to do as soon as he opened his mouth on the platform, calling Bollinger's remarks "insulting" and unfriendly. Bollinger, in trying to play tough in front of the cameras, played the perfect fool in Ahmadinejad's scheme.
Bush got what he wanted, Ahmadinejad got what he wanted, and Columbia ended up looking ridiculous. One of the most prestigious institutes in the Country- a bastion of the intellectual elite- got played by arguably the worst President in American history and a "cruel and petty dictator."
I Changed Parties
It's been a long time coming- I switched my party affiliation to the Constitution Party. The Republicans simply don't represent me, and God knows the Democrats certainly don't. Both parties are globalists, kissing up to multinational conglomerates and selling the American soul for campaign contributions. Though they may loudly proclaim otherwise, they do not share my values, or the values on which this Country was founded. Their only concerns are power and money- either getting it, keeping it, or keeping the other from it.
The Constitution Party reflects my vision of what America once was, and can be again- a Constitutional Republic which emphasizes both individual rights AND individual responsibilities. In upcoming posts, I'll be sharing that vision and the issues which are hindering that vision from being manifest, along with relating the pertinent principles from the Constitution Party Platform. If you don't want to wait that long, you can go to the official Constitution Party Platform page and check it out for yourself.
I switched parties based on principle- maybe you should think about doing the same.
The Constitution Party reflects my vision of what America once was, and can be again- a Constitutional Republic which emphasizes both individual rights AND individual responsibilities. In upcoming posts, I'll be sharing that vision and the issues which are hindering that vision from being manifest, along with relating the pertinent principles from the Constitution Party Platform. If you don't want to wait that long, you can go to the official Constitution Party Platform page and check it out for yourself.
I switched parties based on principle- maybe you should think about doing the same.
It's Midnight in America- Do You Know Where Your Country Is?
Howdy, ya'll, and welcome to Midnight in America.
It took me a while to decide on a name for the blog. I wanted something catchy- something that would at least make you go "hmmmm," piquing your curiosity enough to at least surf over and scope things out. If you're reading this, it must have worked.
So why did I decide on "Midnight in America?" Two reasons- one negative, one positive.
First, the negative. "Midnight" is usually associated with bad things. It's "the witching hour," when the dark forces gather to summon and worship the forces of evil. In America, these forces are gathering, whether it's in the form of Neocons, Progressives, Globalists, Elitists, radical Islamists, or international business cabals. For Americans like me who view events and activities from a "traditional" perspective, things in America don't look so good right now. The Neocons are decimating the Constitution, involving us in wars we have no business fighting, and spending money like they were Democrats. Progressives are trying to push us to accept their godless agenda of gay marriage, unfettered abortion, and political correctness. Globalists and big business want to send our jobs overseas and allow our porous border with Mexico to remain open to illegals for cheap labor. The mainstream media is cozy with the political parties, controlled by big business and other interests (which may not be in our best interest), and is far more concerned with getting us to think a particular way about a story than with reporting it accurately. I could go on and on about NAFTA, CAFTA, the invading hordes of illegal immigrants, Hollywood leftists, political correctness on college campuses, racism is rap music, abuse of power, "hate" crimes, and a host of other ills and evils (which I will do in other postings), but I think I've said enough to get the point across- things aren't so good on our home front.
It's Midnight in America for a lot of us- but there is cause for hope. "Midnight" may be portrayed in most books and movies as a negative and evil thing, but there is one Book in which "midnight" is a good thing- the Bible. It may be the "witching hour" in popular culture, but in the Scripture it is the "hour of deliverance" for God's people. It was at midnight the firstborn of Egypt was killed, leading Pharaoh to free the sons and daughter of Abraham; it was at midnight Paul and Silas were freed from prison at Philippi; and at midnight, "there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him."
So there you have it- the thought process in arriving at the name I eventually chose. It conveys the vast darkness of evil and immorality which surrounds us, but also gives us hope for turning things around. In future postings, I'll share with you news and perspectives (some original, some from other writers) you won't get from the mainstream media, as well as thoughts on how to turn the Country back to where She should be. Hopefully you will be challenged to action in the process, and we can make America a great and godly Country once again.
That's all for now. God bless you, and God bless America.
It took me a while to decide on a name for the blog. I wanted something catchy- something that would at least make you go "hmmmm," piquing your curiosity enough to at least surf over and scope things out. If you're reading this, it must have worked.
So why did I decide on "Midnight in America?" Two reasons- one negative, one positive.
First, the negative. "Midnight" is usually associated with bad things. It's "the witching hour," when the dark forces gather to summon and worship the forces of evil. In America, these forces are gathering, whether it's in the form of Neocons, Progressives, Globalists, Elitists, radical Islamists, or international business cabals. For Americans like me who view events and activities from a "traditional" perspective, things in America don't look so good right now. The Neocons are decimating the Constitution, involving us in wars we have no business fighting, and spending money like they were Democrats. Progressives are trying to push us to accept their godless agenda of gay marriage, unfettered abortion, and political correctness. Globalists and big business want to send our jobs overseas and allow our porous border with Mexico to remain open to illegals for cheap labor. The mainstream media is cozy with the political parties, controlled by big business and other interests (which may not be in our best interest), and is far more concerned with getting us to think a particular way about a story than with reporting it accurately. I could go on and on about NAFTA, CAFTA, the invading hordes of illegal immigrants, Hollywood leftists, political correctness on college campuses, racism is rap music, abuse of power, "hate" crimes, and a host of other ills and evils (which I will do in other postings), but I think I've said enough to get the point across- things aren't so good on our home front.
It's Midnight in America for a lot of us- but there is cause for hope. "Midnight" may be portrayed in most books and movies as a negative and evil thing, but there is one Book in which "midnight" is a good thing- the Bible. It may be the "witching hour" in popular culture, but in the Scripture it is the "hour of deliverance" for God's people. It was at midnight the firstborn of Egypt was killed, leading Pharaoh to free the sons and daughter of Abraham; it was at midnight Paul and Silas were freed from prison at Philippi; and at midnight, "there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him."
So there you have it- the thought process in arriving at the name I eventually chose. It conveys the vast darkness of evil and immorality which surrounds us, but also gives us hope for turning things around. In future postings, I'll share with you news and perspectives (some original, some from other writers) you won't get from the mainstream media, as well as thoughts on how to turn the Country back to where She should be. Hopefully you will be challenged to action in the process, and we can make America a great and godly Country once again.
That's all for now. God bless you, and God bless America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
