Top Two in Iowa are Best in Border Security
Timothy Birdnow
Roy Beck of Numbers USA, the anti-illegal invasion group, is pleased with the results of the Iowa Caucuses.
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/january-4-2012/top-4-iowa-contenders-2-strongly-anti-amnesty-handily-beat-2-quasi-amn?
From Beck's blog:
"Immigration wasn't the top issue on the minds of Iowa voters today. But it is worth noting that they chose as their clear winners the two top contenders who have taken the most unequivocal stands against amnesty -- Romney and Santorum.
The other two top contenders were Paul and Gingrich who came in third and fourth and each has backed a limited but sizeable legalization for illegal aliens. Paul has proposed giving many illegal aliens "green cards with an asterisk" while Gingrich has proposed giving them "red cards." In both cases potentially millions of illegal aliens would be allowed to permanently hold U.S. jobs but not to gain citizenship.
On other immigration issues, Santorum and Romney differ. But on amnesty -- or legalization -- of the millions of illegal aliens in this country, both have been unafraid to stand firmly opposed, even when challenged vigorously by journalists, high-paid GOP establishment consultants and national religious leaders to show more compassion for unlawfully present foreign citizens."
End excerpt.
Now, illegal invasion is not a front-page story at the moment, largely because a weak U.S. economy has led to some self-deportation of the freeloaders who broke our laws to come here. But it is still a serious problem, one that can well destroy this nation in years to come. Certainly it is changing the body politic in such a way (do to anchor babies and the like) that America is starting to resemble the banana republics of Latin America. Latin America has been poor and weak not because the lands are poor but because of a cultural poverty that stresses communalism over individual responsibility and a willingness to accept powerful dictators to run governments rather than holding the citizen responsible for maintaining good government. Experiments with socialism in Latin America have also yielded a bounty of dust, making Mexico one of the poorer countries on Earth despite huge oil deposits and natural resources that equal those of the United States. America, with her work ethic, her individualism, her system of liberty, stands head and shoulders over Mexico - or Argentina, which experts had long predicted would emerge as a superpower but which has remained marginal due to the embracing of national socialism under Peron and his successors. All that is coming to America, indeed may already be here; consider the resemblence of Barack Hussein Obama to a Peron, or any other Latin American quasi-socialist strongman.
The border issue is one of my big four voting concerns - along with national security (the ill-named war on terror, and china and Russia) and ridding ourselves of the Gang Green and the whole Global Warming scare, and of course the bankrupting spending spree. I believe each of these poses a clear and present threat to the existence of the United States. I further think that cultural rot here is the cause of all four problems; we no longer care to defend our borders because we no longer believe in America and American exceptionalism, we don't really understand the foreign threats for the same reason and because we have become so much like hothouse plants that we can't grasp that elsewhere in the world are really bad people who mean us ill, environmentalism illustrates those points, and gives us a new religion more pleasing to us than the dour Christianity that kept us from doing what we wished, and all the spending naturally resulted from our selfishly wanting to live off the backs of others, a result of the decline of the work ethic and the individualism that made America what it is. All of these issues tie back to the triumph of Progressivism in America - and the death of our Judeo-Christian roots.
We kicked God out of our public life, out of our schools, out of our industries, our culture. The inevitable result of that is we look to find a substitute, and that substitute is generally government, who can do things for us corporally that are tangible and obvious (God does more, but He does it without showing His hand directly, so we think we are the ones who did it). That's why I always argue that the social issues are the most important; the economic, military, and other issues flow from the morality of the culture. "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added unto you" the Bible tells us (all these things being whatever is asked of God). A moral nation is a strong nation,because it holds bedrock beliefs, if nothing else. A nation of moral relativism is a wishy-washy nation, unsure of itself, unwilling to fight to defend itself. Whether one agrees with the concept that God is real is really unnecessary, because human beings still need some sort of a god to worship; it's in human nature. What they will fashion for themselves will never work, because that new God, be he Humanism, Democracy, Socialism, Scientism, Gaia, or any of the myriad other concatenations of pseudo-divinity, are based on human desires executed by human beings for their own benefit. In other words, they are tools to feed the egos and pockets of the ruling classes. How can Science feed the ruling classes? Take a look at Global Warming, see the millions of dollars reaped by Al Gore, and then come back with your question.
When people stop believing in God they stop believing in Natural Law, which means they stop believing in concrete reality, which means they gravitate toward the best deal of the moment, rather than adhering to a permanent standard. This path inevitably leads to doom. Rick Santorum is right to emphasize the moral issues; that is the root of what is wrong with the United States, indeed, with all of Western Civilization right now. We have fashioned our own gods and have no use for the real deal.
And so a myopic view of freedom means we cannot oppose criminals who attack us in public (shoot a guy brandishing a knife and you end up in jail), or who will rob us through taxation, or who invade our country illegally. It means we cannot fight terrorists who kill us, because we don't know for sure who is our friend and who is our enemy, and heaven forbid we offend someone in the process. We cannot secure our borders because we have no right to horde our land and our wealth. Progressivism is truly a doctrine of demons. It is antithetical to the laws of God, yet it sits on the throne as God, and even convinces people that it is the moral path. How many Christians think that government seizing money from individuals to give to those who will not work is somehow the charitable and moral thing? It is still robbery, and done by a power that is irresistable, and at the point of a sword. Charity necessitates choice, and a moral people give willingly. That is why America's private charity far outstrips the rest of the world; America has a smaller welfare state than most. And it's why conservative giving far outstrips liberal; they see that as a function of government, while we see it as a duty we owe to God. Yet the media portrays conservatives as somehow cold and loveless for not empowering the State to steal people's money at gunpoint.
To get back to the Iowa results, it's also interesting to note that the best two candidates on illegal invasion are also the two most religious. Now, both of them are infected with the Progressive disease, and I have grave reservations on both, but it's interesting to note that both at least see the value of maintaining the integrity of the American borders. I'm not thrilled with either of them, but they are better than many of the alternatives.
Roy Beck of Numbers USA, the anti-illegal invasion group, is pleased with the results of the Iowa Caucuses.
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/january-4-2012/top-4-iowa-contenders-2-strongly-anti-amnesty-handily-beat-2-quasi-amn?
From Beck's blog:
"Immigration wasn't the top issue on the minds of Iowa voters today. But it is worth noting that they chose as their clear winners the two top contenders who have taken the most unequivocal stands against amnesty -- Romney and Santorum.
The other two top contenders were Paul and Gingrich who came in third and fourth and each has backed a limited but sizeable legalization for illegal aliens. Paul has proposed giving many illegal aliens "green cards with an asterisk" while Gingrich has proposed giving them "red cards." In both cases potentially millions of illegal aliens would be allowed to permanently hold U.S. jobs but not to gain citizenship.
On other immigration issues, Santorum and Romney differ. But on amnesty -- or legalization -- of the millions of illegal aliens in this country, both have been unafraid to stand firmly opposed, even when challenged vigorously by journalists, high-paid GOP establishment consultants and national religious leaders to show more compassion for unlawfully present foreign citizens."
End excerpt.
Now, illegal invasion is not a front-page story at the moment, largely because a weak U.S. economy has led to some self-deportation of the freeloaders who broke our laws to come here. But it is still a serious problem, one that can well destroy this nation in years to come. Certainly it is changing the body politic in such a way (do to anchor babies and the like) that America is starting to resemble the banana republics of Latin America. Latin America has been poor and weak not because the lands are poor but because of a cultural poverty that stresses communalism over individual responsibility and a willingness to accept powerful dictators to run governments rather than holding the citizen responsible for maintaining good government. Experiments with socialism in Latin America have also yielded a bounty of dust, making Mexico one of the poorer countries on Earth despite huge oil deposits and natural resources that equal those of the United States. America, with her work ethic, her individualism, her system of liberty, stands head and shoulders over Mexico - or Argentina, which experts had long predicted would emerge as a superpower but which has remained marginal due to the embracing of national socialism under Peron and his successors. All that is coming to America, indeed may already be here; consider the resemblence of Barack Hussein Obama to a Peron, or any other Latin American quasi-socialist strongman.
The border issue is one of my big four voting concerns - along with national security (the ill-named war on terror, and china and Russia) and ridding ourselves of the Gang Green and the whole Global Warming scare, and of course the bankrupting spending spree. I believe each of these poses a clear and present threat to the existence of the United States. I further think that cultural rot here is the cause of all four problems; we no longer care to defend our borders because we no longer believe in America and American exceptionalism, we don't really understand the foreign threats for the same reason and because we have become so much like hothouse plants that we can't grasp that elsewhere in the world are really bad people who mean us ill, environmentalism illustrates those points, and gives us a new religion more pleasing to us than the dour Christianity that kept us from doing what we wished, and all the spending naturally resulted from our selfishly wanting to live off the backs of others, a result of the decline of the work ethic and the individualism that made America what it is. All of these issues tie back to the triumph of Progressivism in America - and the death of our Judeo-Christian roots.
We kicked God out of our public life, out of our schools, out of our industries, our culture. The inevitable result of that is we look to find a substitute, and that substitute is generally government, who can do things for us corporally that are tangible and obvious (God does more, but He does it without showing His hand directly, so we think we are the ones who did it). That's why I always argue that the social issues are the most important; the economic, military, and other issues flow from the morality of the culture. "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added unto you" the Bible tells us (all these things being whatever is asked of God). A moral nation is a strong nation,because it holds bedrock beliefs, if nothing else. A nation of moral relativism is a wishy-washy nation, unsure of itself, unwilling to fight to defend itself. Whether one agrees with the concept that God is real is really unnecessary, because human beings still need some sort of a god to worship; it's in human nature. What they will fashion for themselves will never work, because that new God, be he Humanism, Democracy, Socialism, Scientism, Gaia, or any of the myriad other concatenations of pseudo-divinity, are based on human desires executed by human beings for their own benefit. In other words, they are tools to feed the egos and pockets of the ruling classes. How can Science feed the ruling classes? Take a look at Global Warming, see the millions of dollars reaped by Al Gore, and then come back with your question.
When people stop believing in God they stop believing in Natural Law, which means they stop believing in concrete reality, which means they gravitate toward the best deal of the moment, rather than adhering to a permanent standard. This path inevitably leads to doom. Rick Santorum is right to emphasize the moral issues; that is the root of what is wrong with the United States, indeed, with all of Western Civilization right now. We have fashioned our own gods and have no use for the real deal.
And so a myopic view of freedom means we cannot oppose criminals who attack us in public (shoot a guy brandishing a knife and you end up in jail), or who will rob us through taxation, or who invade our country illegally. It means we cannot fight terrorists who kill us, because we don't know for sure who is our friend and who is our enemy, and heaven forbid we offend someone in the process. We cannot secure our borders because we have no right to horde our land and our wealth. Progressivism is truly a doctrine of demons. It is antithetical to the laws of God, yet it sits on the throne as God, and even convinces people that it is the moral path. How many Christians think that government seizing money from individuals to give to those who will not work is somehow the charitable and moral thing? It is still robbery, and done by a power that is irresistable, and at the point of a sword. Charity necessitates choice, and a moral people give willingly. That is why America's private charity far outstrips the rest of the world; America has a smaller welfare state than most. And it's why conservative giving far outstrips liberal; they see that as a function of government, while we see it as a duty we owe to God. Yet the media portrays conservatives as somehow cold and loveless for not empowering the State to steal people's money at gunpoint.
To get back to the Iowa results, it's also interesting to note that the best two candidates on illegal invasion are also the two most religious. Now, both of them are infected with the Progressive disease, and I have grave reservations on both, but it's interesting to note that both at least see the value of maintaining the integrity of the American borders. I'm not thrilled with either of them, but they are better than many of the alternatives.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 6:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home