1. BIBLICAL QUESTIONS (1/20/06)
2. SETTLED LAW (1/26/06)
3. SAINTHOOD FOR SANDRA (2/6/06)
4. CURB CHINA (3/21/06)
5. LATINO INTRUDERS (5/22/06)
6. CUT AND RUN (9/5/06)
7. WACKO PLAN FROM WACO (10/10/06)
8. THE QURAN VS.THE CONSTITUTION (12/28/06) (10/10/06)

Two controversial Biblical challenges long debated and thought settled or least shelved have recently come to the fore again. They are the God-given historical claims by Jews to the so-called ‘’Promised Land’’ and whether Jesus ever existed.

My barber, knowledgeable in all things, said of the latter question, ‘’I thought that was settled long ago.’’ And from my perusal of history, I also thought scholars had long agreed on the question of a historical Jesus.

But a former priest turned atheist in Italy has challenged this in an Italian court where a judge will decide the issue on evidence offered by another priest. And why not? Isn’t all knowledge conceded to be the province of judges?

Didn’t the august members of our Supreme Court tell us when life begins with their silly trimester abortion system? Haven’t they twisted the First Amendment so as to rule religion out of our public lives? And, with their avowed reliance on foreign courts to interpret our Constitution, won’t they be watching this Italian case for information to bolster their anti-religious stance?

So, all we have to do is sit back and wait for the Italian judge to tell us whether Christ existed or not. The trial and the evidence should be worth following.

THE LAND QUESTION

As for the historical claim of Jews to the Holy Land Televangelist Pat Robertson breached the subject when he suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s massive stroke may have resulted as punishment by God for withdrawing from Gaza. A torrent of protests has brought an apology from Robertson, but whether he means it or not is subject to argument in light of his past statements.

Robertson relied on the book of Joel written by one of the prophets in The Old Testament that some scholars classify as minor, at least regarding its length, for interpretation of the Biblical land question. According to Robertson’s web site, this is what the preacher said on his 700 Club broadcast:

‘’In the book of Joel, the prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has ‘enmity against those who divide My land.’ God considers this land to be His. When you read the Bible, He said this is My land. For any Prime Minister of Israel who decides he will carve up and give it away, God said, ‘’No, this is Mine.’’

The first part of the book of Joel is about a plague of locusts that Joel thinks is symbolic of the ‘’approaching day of the Lord.’’ The second part is about the relief God brings after the people pray and repent.

References by God to ‘’My land’’ are found in several verses of the book’s three chapters, and 3:20 states: ‘’But Judah (a region of Israel which includes the city of Jerusalem) shall dwell for ever, and Jerusalem from generation to generation.’’

One other point: Judah became the name of the southern kingdom of Israel when it was split about 3,000 years ago and was divided again in 1948 by the United Nations when it established the present nation of Israel.

Joel 3:2 reads: ‘’I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat (the Lord), and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.’’

In other words, Joel says that nations will be judged by God for having divided the land of Israel and scattered its people.

The Lord’s covenant with Abraham also deals with the claim of Jews to a God-given right to ‘’God’s land.’’ But even if all these Old Testament accounts, which some scholars refer to as ‘’myth,’’ are taken literally and believed to be true as Robertson apparently does, aren’t they nullified by the New Testament?

A HISTORIAN’S ACCOUNT

As an example, Historian Paul Johnson in A History of the Jews (p131) wrote that according to Paul ‘’when Christ became incarnate in Jesus, the basis of the Torah was nullified.’’ Johnson continued:

‘’The covenantal promises to Abraham no longer applied to his present descendants, but to Christians: ‘And if you are Christs’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.’ (Galatins 3:29 & Romas 4:12-25) What Jesus challenged, and Paul specifically denied, was the fundamental salvation-process of Judaism: the election, the covenant, the Law. They were inoperative, superseded, finished.’’

If promises to Abraham are no longer operative, how about Joel, which is not included in the Torah, and the references in Joel made to God’s land? Is this land restricted to Jews alone or to Christians as well as Paul made clear about the covenant referred to above?

Scholars and evangelists such as Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Christian author Hal Lindsey are predicting doom and Armageddon from the messages of Old Testament prophets.

I have heard these predictions of gloom and ‘’the end is near’’ since childhood. Some of them came from idiots thumping their Bibles and shouting inane babble on street corners in small towns and some came from preachers who graduated from top or credible divinity schools. In any event, it was disturbing to hear as a child. But turn on your television or radio today, and you can still see preachers working up a sweat and shouting doom about various passages of the Holy Book they interpret their way to try and scare the hell out their audiences. No pun intended.

That leaves the age-old question as to whether the Great Book can be taken literally. How it should be interpreted has divided Christians, Jews and Catholics for more than two millennia and resulted in wholesale slaughters, tortures and suppression of the advancement of learning in the name of God.

In college I recall a course entitled ‘’The Bible as Literature’’ in which the professor stressed the Bible was written about 300 years after the exile from oral tradition and could not be taken literally. He also pointed out that it contains all of the tools of writing, such as metaphors, similes, poetry, parables and such that are used in other forms of writing.

There is no question of the historical significance of the Bible, a book that should be read for its beauty as well as wisdom and guidance. Whether it can be taken literally or not and how each passage is to be interpreted is still the subject of divisiveness.

This conflict rages today and doesn’t appear to be any closer to being solved than it was hundreds of years ago although there has been some easing of adamancy especially by the Catholic Church which has apologized for some of its past transgressions.

ROBERTSON

Robertson and others have a right to interpret Joel or any other part of the Bible as literally as they wish. But the televangelist came on a little strong in professing to know God’s intent concerning Sharon. He could have put his thinking in the form of a question or some other type of hint such as, ‘’Could the Lord be punishing Sharon for giving up Gaza? ‘’ and giving his reason by citing the book of Joel. Instead he resorted to a strong assertion.

It is regrettable that Robertson -- who, in my opinion, has done the nation a great service in fighting organizations such as the anti-religious ACLU and People for the American Way, the American Humanist Association, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and other far-left groups who are trying to excise religion from the public domain -- has exposed himself to open ridicule.

The criticism came not only from these organizations but also from the White House, other evangelist leaders and even Israel itself, which shunned Robertson’s help in funding the Galilee Christian Heritage Center, a tourist attraction.

Robertson needs to bite his tongue and couch his language if he is to have credibility and the respect he needs to get his messages across. Maybe the apology will help. We’ll see.

His case was made even less convincing by Sharon’s condition. The 77-year-old prime minister was grossly overweight and an obvious candidate for heart, stroke and diabetes problems, especially with the pressure he was enduring. Whether the Lord had a hand in his illness because of his pulling out of Gaza or not is not for any mortal to know.

Robertson’s sincerity may be questioned because of his past positions on the subject, which went largely unchallenged. In November, 2004 during a Christian pilgrimage in the holy Land Robertson hinted of a rebuke to Sharon for his plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip.

‘’God says, ‘I’m going to judge those who carve up the West Bank and Gaza Strip,’’’ Robertson said at the time. So, he has a long-time position on this question.

GAZA AND ISRAEL

As for Gaza, the Jews agreed to the land assigned to them by the United Nations in 1948, although it was not the Promised Land because, as historian Johnson notes, it did not include Judaea, Samaria, the whole of the West Bank and Jerusalem.

As a result of Israeli conquests in 1947-48, Johnson points out, Israel increased its holdings in Palestine from the U.N-granted 50 percent to 80 percent. ‘’The Palestinian Arabs ended with no land at all: just the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank run by Jordon. Israel annexed this land in the six-day 1967 war.

Had the Jews just been interested in a place to live they could have accepted other sites which were proposed for a Jewish state at various times and included Argentina, Uganda and Madagascar. It was clear they wanted what was available to them in Palestine all along.

But planting Israel in Palestine, with Harry Truman’s political support, was a mistake from the start and has caused nothing but trouble since. Some observers at the time doubted that Israel would have come into being had President Roosevelt lived. Johnson writes:

‘’Neither the American State Department nor the British Foreign office wanted a Jewish state. They foresaw disaster for the West in the area if one were created.’’ How right they were. Harry Truman, who needed the Jewish vote in heavily populated northeastern states, is largely responsible for this blunder.

None of the peace plans for the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian question have worked, and the Palestinians appear adamant about not reaching an agreement until Israel is off what they claim is their land.

Iran is threatening a nuclear war if it perfects nuclear weapons on which it is working furiously. Palestinian terror groups have crude rockets they already are firing at Israel. In short, the outlook for Israel is bleak.

HISTORICAL JESUS

As for the court argument over whether Jesus ever existed or not, most historians and scholars agree that he did. In fact, Johnson states emphatically (p.21) in A History of Christianity that ‘’There can…be absolutely no doubt about his (Jesus’) historical existence.’’

Will Durant in The History of Civilization (p.554 Vol. III) also agrees. Both Durant and Johnson, for example, cite references to Jesus in the Antiquities of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliney the younger, and Suetonius.

Durant pointed out (p.555) that no one has questioned the existence of Paul who admitted Peter, James and John had known Christ in the flesh as Paul knew them that way but not Jesus. But the existence of Christ has long been questioned as still is, as the trial in Italy attests.

It will be interesting to see if any new ground will be broken during the trial or if it will be a rehash of old arguments and historical documents already gleaned. It also will be watched to see if the judge sticks to the facts or lets his own convictions, whatever they are, cloud the facts.

Considering historical precedents and the prejudices and growing antagonisms against Christianity it is doubtful that the trial’s outcome either way will settle the age-old matter.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

Now that the dust has settled from the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for two new Supreme Court members, do we know any more about ‘’settled law’’ and how the new members will regard it than we did before?

Probably not. But at least one congressman – Ron Paul (Texas) – sees a disturbing trend from the ‘’purely political’’ hearings.

Paul is troubled that ‘’nominees to the court must accept them (Supreme Court decisions) as ‘settled law’ or be disqualified. He fears that High Court decisions are being given equal weight to the Constitution itself and that ‘’the people have no recourse through Congress to address unpopular decisions.’’

Judge (now Chief Justice) John Roberts Jr. and judge (now Justice) Samuel Alito expressed some differences about settled law during their hearings, but they gave no concrete assurances that they would not buck precedent if they deemed it necessary. Respect for settled law is about as far as they would go, and neither would be pinned down on Roe v. Wade.

Liberal democrats pushed them on this point because they want their left-wing agenda already gained by liberal judges they put on the court to be maintained and not overturned even if the laws are bad.

But what precisely is settled law? Judges and scholars disagree. It stems from the doctrine of ‘’stare decisis’’, a Latin term that means ‘’to stand by that which is decided.’’

The ‘Lectric Law library’s Lexicon on stare decisis states: ‘’The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied on.’’ So while the doctrine must be respected it does not close the door to re-examination of poor or hasty law.

Judge Alito refused under persistent questioning to say whether he considers Roe v. Wade settled law that can’t be re-examined. And Judge Roberts may act differently on the court of original jurisdiction than he did on a lower court that was obligated to follow the High Court’s decisions.

N0 FIRM THEORY

Judge Robert Bork in his book, The Tempting of America, writes ‘’The law currently has no firm theory of when precedent should be followed and when it may be ignored and overruled.’’

The general reference to settled law is now often popularly taken to mean to apply specifically to the right to privacy and abortion, two of the most controversial issues of the day.

As an example, some Washington pundits immediately took Judge Roberts’ position as a hint that he would not overturn Roe v. Wade, the unconstitutional 32-year-old Supreme Court decision that provides abortion on demand. They may be surprised.

Roe and Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a Texas law that made sodomy a crime, both stemmed in part from a Connecticut law (Griswold v. Connecticut) that criminalized the use of contraceptives. That law, which one justice referred to as ‘’silly,’’ was also overturned by the Supreme Court in a decision that established the controversial right to privacy from which we got legalized abortion and sodomy.

Judge Bork for one does not believe any of the right to privacy cases, including Roe v. Wade, is settled law. He goes into the subject in some detail in his book The Tempting of America.

He does believe, however, that there are wrong and unconstitutional laws that should not be overturned because they are so thoroughly embedded in the nation’s national life that it would cause chaos to do so. Here’s what he writes about Roe:

‘’…It will probably never be too late to overrule the right to privacy cases, including Roe v. Wade, because they remain unaccepted and unacceptable to large segments of the body politic, and judicial regulation could at once be replaced by restored legislative regulation of the subject.’’

Most, but not all, constitutional scholars believe the right to privacy on which Roe v. Wade was manufactured by a liberal Supreme Court is not in the Constitution. Some, however, point to the Ninth Amendment -- much as Alexander Hamilton did to the catch-all ‘’necessary and proper’’ clause in the Constitution to defend a federal bank – to support the right to privacy.

RIVERS, TREES AND MOUNTAINS

In the Griswold case, Justice William O. Douglas cited five other amendments including the Ninth that he claimed suggested the right to privacy in the Constitution.

Douglas was a liberal judicial activist who once attempted ‘’to obtain standing-to-sue status for rivers, trees and mountains,’’ according to Henry J. Abraham in his book Justices, Presidents, and Senators.’’
As for the Ninth Amendment, it appears to be another catch-all provision of the founders to cover the water front.

Professor Douglas W. Kmiec of Pepperdine University claims the Ninth Amendment covered ‘’rights not specifically listed which deserved protection,’’ according to the New York Times. He claims that Bork ‘’mistakenly denied’’ this in his own hearings. The Amendment reads:

‘’The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.’’

Didn’t the Supreme Court usurp the rights of the people when it denuded the Tenth Amendment and left states practically at the mercy of the Federal Government with few rights left? Roe v. Wade and its offshoot, Lawrence v. Texas that legalized sodomy, are just two examples of state laws usurped by the court.

The word ‘’others’’ in the Ninth Amendment is vague and a lot more vague than the Tenth Amendment which reads:

‘’The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’’

SCOTUS USURPS POWERS

The Supreme Court has not only usurped the power of the states and the people but also from both the other branches of government almost from the beginning.

That process was begun big time when Chief Justice John Marshall involved the court in a case (Marbury v. Madison) in which it had no jurisdiction to gratuitously establish its right to review the constitutionality of Congressional legislation.

Ingenious justices later extended that right to give the court the power to review all legislation whether it involved constitutionality or not.

The Marshall court also used the catch-all ‘’necessary and proper’’ phrase under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to render constitutional the chartering of the Second Bank of the United States.

That article gives Congress a list of specific regulatory powers, and then it adds:

‘’To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers…’’

That’s how we got the Federal Reserve System despite the express power given to Congress in the Constitution ‘’to coin money and regulate the value thereof.’’ The act has never been challenged in court, but its constitutionality would appear shaky considering the Supreme Court’s decision against the National Recovery Act in the Great Depression years.

The court held the NRA was unconstitutional on grounds that ‘’Congress cannot constitutionally delegate its legislative authority to trade or industrial associations or groups so as to empower them to make laws.’’

It has become ‘’settled law,’’ however, and it is doubtful that any court would now overturn it. Judge Bork thinks it is too late to overrule this decision as well as those validating certain New Deal and Great society programs ‘’pursuant to the congressional powers over commerce, taxation and spending.’’

The question is, what do new members Roberts and Alito think about these cases and others as to how settled they are?

COURT RESTRICTIONS

Another area of interest is whether the court’s power should be curtailed. Thomas Jefferson wanted this done early on and even thought the president and Congress had a right to decide for themselves whether to accept rulings from the Supreme Court.

Jefferson also thought that where there was a difference between the Federal Government and the states, a third neutral party should mediate the dispute. He supported a constitutional amendment to curb the independence of the judiciary.

And he would have limited the terms of justices to six years renewable by the President and Both Houses of Congress. Jefferson, of course, was in France when the Constitution was being written.

Had he been in Washington he may have used his influence through James Madison and others to get enacted some of his ideas about the judiciary. At the time the court was seen as the least powerful of the three governmental branches as stated by Alexander Hamilton.

There seems to be a growing sentiment today that the court should be reined in. Mark R. Levin in his book Men in Black, as an example, proposed a constitutional amendment limiting the court’s judicial review power ‘’by establishing a legislative veto over its decisions – perhaps by a two-thirds vote of both houses.’’

Levin wrote ‘’The Supreme Court is the most radical and aggressive practitioner of unrestricted power’’ of any other branch of government.

Bork suggested ‘’’…a constitutional amendment making any federal or state court decision subject to being overturned by a majority of each house of Congress. He also noted that the United Kingdom ‘’has developed and retained freedom without judicial review.’’

Congressman Paul also thought the Alito hearing may have provided an ‘’…apparent consensus among both Senators and Judge Alito that Congress has no authority to limit federal court jurisdiction by forbidding it to hear certain types of cases.’’

He referred to Article III Section 2 of the Constitution to show that this is a false assumption. ‘’It is perfectly constitutional for Congress to pass court-stripping legislation…against any overreaching Supreme court,’’ Paul wrote in his weekly column.

The best way to curb the court may be debatable, but that it needs to have its powers sheared is a growing concern of states, the people, and even Congress and the White House. Left wing liberals don’t agree because that’s the only way they can get their agenda enacted.

OTHER POWER GRABS

Some other examples of the court’s power grab include.

--Usurping the right of Congress to write immigration laws and the making the rights of illegal immigrants equal to those of citizens.

--Expansion of the 14th Amendment, which was enacted specifically to protect the rights of newly-freed Negroes after the Civil War, to cover all ethnic groups. The court also has used the due process clause in that amendment to give itself wholesale powers not intended by the amendment.

--It has effectively banished religion from public life in misinterpreting the religion clauses of the first Amendment and established secularism as the national creed, according to some critics. The free speech clause also has been twisted to permit pornography and burning of the flag.

--One ‘’gross perversion of the court’’ in the words of Mark Levin is the gift of every captured alien access to U.S. courts. These alien enemy combatants can now bring suit against the Secretary of Defense.

--Another is a ruling that local governments may seize property for private developers so long as there is a pretext of public good. Where does the Constitution give the right to governments to seize property for private development? The Fifth Amendment reads: ‘’nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.’’ You have to wear a robe to read private use into that sentence. Churches across the nation are concerned that their property may be in the sights of private developers.

--Reversed explicit Congressional intent by approving affirmative action in the nation’s colleges and universities.

--Relied on foreign court rulings to interpret our own Constitution.

From silly, to unconstitutional, to whatever the nine men in robes wants the Constitution to mean is where the court stands, and that needs to be reversed.

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

The Senate Judiciary Committee has done some usurping of its own in wrongly interpreting Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the Constitution to mean the President must consult its members before selecting Supreme Court nominees. That section is clear and states the President ‘’shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the Supreme Court.

In addition, the lengthy questioning, tv posturing, demand for writings and prior rulings of nominees is relatively new. In the beginning only character and competence were considerations about the nominees. These new requirements also inhibit those aspiring to serve on the court from leaving a paper trail so that no one will know where they stand on hot button issues.

From the writings and decisions of the two new court members that have been made public so far it appears that they will be likely to vote to reverse the court’s liberal trend. They appear to favor original intent in interpreting the Constitution and to be against judicial activism. Their views look to be conservative and opposed to most of the past flagrant abuses of the court.

There is only one question about Roberts and Alito. They are both Catholic, which may be troubling to some. Will they be influenced by the threats of their church against those who do not abide by its tenets when they conflict with the U.S.Constitution?

Otherwise, it is to be hoped that their apparent conservatism and view of settled law will prove to be unsettling to the elite liberals and their desire to have the court approve their far-out agenda.

The circus is over. Aside from the ramifications of the hearings that Paul referred to and the political process the hearings have become, they do offer amusement for all.

But it’s a sorry way to choose a court.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

Twelve years after his death, the late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall is being touted for sainthood by members of the church where he worshipped. 

Even before her official final retirement, which some thought would never come, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was being deified for her swings so far to the left that she was rubber stamping the main left-wing agenda of ultra-liberal Democrats.

For his efforts in getting racial segregation in public schools overturned as well as his Christian faith, Marshall, the first black justice of the high Court, is being nominated for sainthood by members of St. Augustine’s Church in Washington, D. C.  If approved, he would join other Episcopal saints such as the Rev.Martin Luther King Jr. and Florence Nightingale, according to the Associated Press.

Swinging Sandra, who Democrats gushed about during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito, didn’t actually get a formal nomination for sainthood.  The liberals, including Sens. Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer and Patrick Leahy, wanted Alito to be cast in O’Connor’s image.

They didn’t go so far as to ask for a sex change, but one watching the proceedings couldn’t be sure that wasn’t coming.

In any event, Alito said he was going to be his own man even though he had kind words for O’Connor after constant badgering by liberal Democrats.  That is as far as he would go, and Ted Kennedy went ballistic in opposition to Alito in a last-ditch plea for a filibuster.

O’Connor swung to the left so much on key issues dear to the hearts of ultra liberals that she became the darling of the left as well as the object of their saintly admiration.  O’Connor was doing their bidding by endorsing such unconstitutional rights as abortion, sodomy and school affirmative action with a limit on it, of course.  It isn’t easy to determine when a law is no longer constitutional, or how long it should be constitutional.

Justice O’Connor must have thought she was doing the nation, if not the world and all humankind, a great favor by staying on the court another term to exercise her inimitable judicial skills.  But that’s how it is with indispensable people of which the grave yards are full.

O’Connor still won’t go away.  She’s now preaching about her imagined results if critics continue bashing the court, which some think has become uncontrollable.  It could even lead to a dictatorship, O’Connor said in a speech at George Washington University.

She apparently thinks the Supreme Court should be sacrosanct and aloof from criticism as it sits inviolable in its ivory tower.

It may come as a surprise to her but, O’Connor is not God’s gift to jurisprudence and the Supreme Court should be just as accountable and responsible to the people as the other branches of government.

HOW SHE GOT THERE

O’Connor was the first woman to be appointed to the court, and that was her most important qualification for the appointment by Ronald Reagan, according to Henry J. Abraham in his book, Justices, Presidents and Senators.  Abraham wrote (p284) ‘’Clearly, gender was the primary concern of the Reagan Administration in choosing Judge O’Connor.’’

Reagan had promised in the 1980 campaign to appoint a qualified woman to the court, and he thought O’Connor fit that mold from the endorsements she received from conservatives including the late Barry Goldwater.  Reagan made clear he opposed racial or other quotas as well as strict construction of the Constitution rather than a liberal agenda.

O’Connor had assured the president she was personally opposed to abortions and thought it a legitimate matter for legislative regulation.  She, of course, switched her stance on the abortion issue as well as affirmative action, racial quotas and other liberal causes. 

If she had not been the right person at the right spot at the right time, Abraham thinks she may not have gained a seat on the court.  But she did and became Reagan’s big mistake just as Earl Warren and William J. Brennan Jr. were Eisenhower’s admitted mistakes.  Nixon goofed with the appointment of Harry A. Blackmun; the first Bush did the same with David Souter and Reagan didn’t do very well with Anthony M. Kennedy, his third choice who took the seat that would have been Robert Bork’s, except for the Kennedy-Biden gang.

Justice Kennedy is not predictable and has done some swinging himself and voted with liberals on such issues as abortion, gay rights and the death penalty.  Some critics see him as possibly taking O’Connor’s place in the swinging department on key issues.

What all of these justices had in common was they all came with Republican labels but on occasion backed the activist, liberal agenda.  Republican presidents clearly have not done well in selecting justices for the Supreme Court.

In fact, seven of the present members of the court were appointed by Republican presidents.  That should make the court conservative and constructionist, but that isn’t so with Kennedy and Justice John Paul Stephens, a Ford appointee and another liberal with a Republican label.  It is assumed by most observers that Roberts and Alito will be conservative members.

Their presence on the tribunal and O’Connor’s departure makes the court majority Catholic for the first time in history with five members allegedly giving obedience to Rome, although there is no guarantee they will follow the Pope’s bulls (papal edicts) and encyclicals (circulars and church policy to the Bishops).  (See Roberts and the Pope column on the 2005 menu).

SOME OF O’CONNOR’S DECISIONS

O’Connor’s vote has been the deciding one in some of the court’s most controversial cases during her 25 year tenure including abortion, sodomy, affirmative action and the death penalty.  She has used tortured reasoning and convoluted explanations for some of her positions with the one in Grutter v. Bollinger dealing with affirmative action for Michigan law students probably the prime example.

While the liberals were questioning Alito about his beliefs in settled law and especially Roe v. Wade, no one bothered while extolling O’Connor to note that she could skirt precedent when she felt the need as she did in the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case.  The issue had been settled in Bowers v. Harwick which was overruled by Lawrence v. Texas, which found sodomy like abortion a constitutional right.

A new book ‘’Sex Appealed’’ by Texas Judge Janice Law claims the Lawrence case was even staged by activist homosexuals.

Judge Law pointed out that there had been no trial or stipulations to facts by the state or the defendants and that the police were invited into a house where the door was open on the pretext of a man firing a gun inside the house.  No gun was found.  No case of privacy on which the case was built was apparently involved.  The man who called the police was another homosexual lover who was charged with calling in a false report.  He was later brutally murdered by an unknown assailant.

Yet the case was called up by the Supreme Court from Texas on a writ (certiorari) which is the fastest way to get it there.  The inference is that homosexuals wanted a test case before the court even if they had to deceive to get one there.  The case has triggered the same-sex movement and opened the door for all other forms of illicit sexual practices.  It may be the most culture-altering case in the history of the court.

OTHER CASES

Abortion opponents should feel relieved that O’Connor will not be on the court when the next challenge to ‘’partial birth’’ abortions (where the skull of a half-delivered baby is punctured and the brain is suctioned out) comes before the court.  In the court’s ruling in 2000 O’Conner provided the fifth vote that stuck down a Nebraska ban on such procedures. 

In 2005 O’Connor sided with judicial activists who can’t get the religion clauses in the Constitution right to rule against the display of the Ten Commandments on public property.

But her most glaring arrogance probably has to be reserved for Grutter v. Bollinger in which she wrote the majority opinion that allowed racial quotas in admitting law students to the University of Michigan.

That case was based mostly on a famed (Bakke) opinion of then Justice Lewis Powell a quarter of a century ago.  The court at that time was splintered on race-based admissions to universities, and the decision produced six separate opinions, none of which commanded a majority.

When O’connor needed something to hang the socially-engineered decision on, she chose Justice Powell’s so-called narrowly-tailored opinion that allowed not too little or too much discrimination, but just the right amount for another quarter century.  She claimed there was a compelling interest which the late Chief Justice Rehnquist challenged.

 In other words, a little reverse discrimination is all right to obtain a desired amount of affirmative action even if Congress has specifically outlawed it.

So, thanks to O’Connor and other affirmative action liberals, we are guaranteed another 25 years of reverse discrimination by a court that based its opinion on that of one man who made it a quarter of a century ago as a loner against other court members.

FOREIGN COURT RELIANCE

O’Connor enhanced her judicial circumspection in interpreting the U.S. Constitution by looking abroad to other cultures and courts for answers.  It doesn’t matter that the American Constitution was framed and amended, as Judge Robert Bork has pointed out, ‘’in the light of specific American history, culture and aspirations.’’

O’Connor, along with justices Breyer and Ginsburg is a member of the Council of foreign Relations, which is an offshoot of a British round Table group that one noted American historian claimed almost destroyed Western civilization.  The CFR supports one-world government at the expense of U.S. sovereignty.  (For more on the CFR see Terms and Organizations at the heading of this site.)

Remember that Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in the Texas sodomy case, which O’Connor supported, was written with reference to a 1981 gay rights opinion by the European court of Human Rights.

O’Connor not only spelled out her advocacy for more reliance on foreign court decisions in deciding domestic issues but also for giving a ‘’good impression’’ abroad.  She was well aware that the Constitution gives to the president and not the court power to determine foreign policy and good impressions abroad.

On a television program with Justice Breyer O’Connor suggested that the Constitution was far from the final word in governing America.  ‘’...you always have the power of entering into treaties with other nations which also become part of the law of the land, but I can’t see the day when we won’t have a constitution in our land,’’ she was quoted as saying.

It’s the treaties and membership in world bodies like the World Trade Organizations and World Court in which the U.N. hopes to dismantle individual nation-state sovereignty.  But it was heartening to learn that O’Connor thinks there will always be a constitution even if justices like her reduce it to nothing more than a historical artifact.

Finally and mercifully, O’Connor is at last out to pasture.  The liberals still may find a way to have her honored with sainthood and, if not, at least to continue to deify her as a model jurist for those nominees who must face the purely political process of confirmation. 

One thing more, if O’Connor ever offers her services again because of a court vacancy or incapacitation of one of the justices, Mr. President and Mr. Chief Justice, please just say Thanks, but No Thanks.  A quarter century of Sandra is more than quite enough.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

The bureaucrats in Washington are finally acknowledging that giving communist China preferential trade treatment was not such a good idea.

The rogue communist nation has ignored its trading obligations under the most favored nation trade designation as well as its membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO) as predicted.

Now after five years of WTO membership and record and growing trade deficits, the United States finally sees the light.  The Bush Administration says it plans to get tough with China on trade relations. 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on a visit to Australia also criticized China’s military expansion as well as its economic and human rights policies.  But don’t get too excited about the U.S. getting tough with China because it has a history of appeasing the communist state.

It wasn’t long ago in the Clinton Administration that the former disgraced president was conducting an all-out blitz to gain most favored trade treatment for China.  Clinton is not the only one to blame, however. 

He got the support of former Presidents Ford, Carter and the two Bushes.  And it was on President George W’s. watch that China became a member of the WTO.

So, where has the policy of appeasing China, whose No. 1 enemy is the United States, led us, besides providing a huge trade surplus with which it builds up its military capability to confront us?

The trade deficit with China in 2005 was $202 billion, a record with a single country and a 25 percent increase over the previous year.  China has used blatant unfair trade practices such as theft of intellectual property, currency manipulation, refusal to honor all the commitments to open its markets that it promised when it entered the WTO, and it is also playing an oil-for-arms trade game with Islamic nations.

China is strict about U.S. investments there and one of the requirements for entry into its market is the surrender of patents and trade secrets, especially military or dual purpose items.  One of the biggest insults of all comes from a headline from WorldNetDaily on the internet:  ‘’U.S. finances China nukes.’’

That’s right.  According to the story U.S. taxpayers are lending Westinghouse electric Co. about $5 billion to build nuclear power plants in China and thereby transferring U.S. nuclear-power technology.  The loan is from the Export-Import Bank.

The story also relates that the company is currently owned by British nuclear Fuels Ltd is about to be sold to Japan’s Toshiba Corp.  That doesn’t affect the loan.

The rogue nation also engages in another irritating trade problem by using dumping prices to eliminate its competition and then when it gains the market, raises its prices.

PLANNED ACTION

U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman, after releasing a review of U.S.-Chinese economic relationship, vowed a ‘’rigorous enforcement’’ of laws to curb China’s unfair trade practices.  He said the administration would use all of its options to address the problems.

Portman admitted ‘’Our U.S.-China trade relationship lacks equity, durability and balance’’ and that China should be required to live up to its responsibilities under the trade agreements.  Surprise! Surprise!

He also announced an unprecedented move to create a trade enforcement task force in his office.  This has never been done with one country before which shows how grave the administration thinks the problem has become.

But it was predictable if anyone in Washington had listened to critics at the time.  As an example, Wei Jingsheng, a dissident who spent 18 years in a Chinese prison before becoming an exile in this country, warned:  ‘’The moment Congress says yes to permanent normal trade relations is the moment China stops listening to what the United States says about human rights.’’ In other words the United States lost a bargaining chip on human rights, but that’s not all.

Other critics warned that WTO membership for China would virtually prohibit the United States from taking meaningful action in trade disputes with China, since China would have the right to insist that any dispute be resolved via the WTO’s system of binding arbitration.’’

China has never lived up to any agreement, trade or otherwise, and there was no urgency to the trade deals we gave away hoping somehow trade would lead to peace.  And that’s another fallacious side to the story.

History has proved that trade is not the panacea for eliminating poverty or promoting peace.  Former Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington in his book, Clash of Civilizations, emphasizes this point.

He points out that in 1913, as an example, international trade was at record highs just before nations began slaughtering each other in unprecedented numbers.  ‘’If international commerce at that level could not prevent war, when can it?’’ Huntington questioned.  ‘’The evidence simply does not support the…assumption that commerce supports peace,’’ he added.

China using her huge trade surpluses to support her military buildup is more evidence to corroborate Huntington’s assertion.

OTHER PROBLEMS

In addition to trade, U.S. relations with China are being aggravated in other areas in advance of the April Washington visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao.  They are the independent status of Taiwan, Chinese activity in South and Latin American countries and China’s involvement in U.S. internal affairs by lobbying Congress on Taiwan.

President Bush also has entered into a nuclear agreement with India which is of major concern to China’s sensitivity toward its dominance in Asia.  It may use this agreement as a model to aid the nuclear programs of nation’s it has friendly relations with, such as Brazil, other South American and Latin American countries as well as rogue states in the Middle East.

It is no secret that the United States is China’s main enemy and that the communist-controlled country has nuclear and space weapons that could reach American shores and cause millions of casualties.

China is vying with the United States for dominance in almost every area including oil and other natural resources, military technology, control of Southeast Asian seas and territory, South and Latin America, as stated, and the Middle East Islamic nations where it has supplied arms and technology stolen from the United States or obtained from its ally, Russia.

It also has conducted war games with Russia against a common enemy.  Guess who that is?

President Hu Jintao is expected to try to pin President Bush down on the question of Taiwan independence on his visit to Washington.  The subject is again on the front burner of China’s foreign policy concerns because of recent action by President Chen Shui-Bian of Taiwan to make dormant or ‘’cease to function’’ the National Unification Council (NUC) and guidelines for unification with mainland China.

Chen favors formal independence for Taiwan as does his political constituency, but his popularity has receded as Beijing has wooed the members of opposition parties who favor ultimate unification with the mainland.  This is another example of interference in another nation’s internal affairs

In the meantime, China continues to build up its military forces facing Taiwan and also in the entire Asian region.

Hu Jintao will undoubtedly try to get a new and stronger commitment from Bush on Taiwanese independence.  Don’t bet that he won’t get it and other concessions if the past history of not confronting China on its trade, military and currency policies is any omen.

China has been relative quite lately and why not?  If it gets what it wants without saber-rattling, why rattle?  The Bush administration’s appeasement tactics can be attributed to its belief that if it doesn’t rock the boat it can obtain China’s cooperation with North Korea, Iran and other sensitive problems facing the United States around the globe

LETTER TO CONGRESS

Sidestepping President Bush before Hu Jintao’s visit, the Chinese Ambassador, Zhou Wenzong, sent letters to congressional members seeking support against Chen Shui-Bian.  The letter called Chen’s action ‘’provocative’’ and a threat to peace.

According to the Washington Times, a ‘’non-paper’’ included with Zhou’s letter stated that China will ‘’never put up with Taiwan independence or allow anyone to separate Taiwan from China by whatever means.’’

The Bush administration has vowed to help defend Taiwan from a mainland attack.  At least one historian, the late Constantine C. Menges, wrote that the Chinese are eager to take Taiwan by force before the United States perfects its missile defense system

The late historian also points out that China claims sovereignty over all the islands and all of the South China Sea, which could cause confrontations if China refuses passage of ships of any nation it deems unfriendly.  Menges also wrote that China establishes ‘’fortresses in the sea’’ on islands under disputed ownership by building runways capable of basing Chinese jet fighters and bombers.

In other words, China is taking possession while the ownership with other nations is still not settled.  Ships on the way to China, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines must pass through the South ‘China Sea.

SURROUNDING THE USA

Much ado has been made, and rightly so, of the deal by the Bush administration to allow a Dubia-owned company to operate several U.S. ports.  House Republican leaders challenged the deal so overwhelmingly that it was called off.

 Proposed legislation also would have involved other foreign countries, including China, which are trying to surround the United States with such operations.  Little has been said about this, and its too early to say if the Dubia company flap will die peacefully or provoke more action against foreign operations in U.S. ports..

China already is involved in such operations in long Beach, Ca., and Tacoma, Wash, as well as the Panama Canal, which has become its central base of operations in Latin America, thanks to smiling Jimmy Carter.

But Bill Clinton and even Ronald Reagan and the Bushes can share some of the blame for other concessions to China.

China is planning to expand to the East Coast with operations in Boston next January, according to a story by NewsMax.com.  It said China Ocean Shipping Co. (COSCO), which is partly owned by the People’s Liberation Army (PlA), will operate in Boston.  COSCO has been linked to illegal smuggling and international arms trafficking by U. S. intelligence agencies.

China already is playing an overactive role south of the border by cozying up to Fidel Castro of Cuba and his crony, Hugo Chaves, of Venezuela.  It operates sophisticated eavesdropping stations in Cuba.  In a near third world war threat the United States kicked Russia out of Cuba, and China moved there and also the Panama Canal without firing a shot.

With bases in Cuba, Panama and our west and east coasts, China has quietly gained a strategic foothold if not stranglehold in the United States.

MANGES DETAILS THE THREAT

Manges in his China,the Gathering Threat details the Chinese menace.  Here are some examples:

China can launch nuclear weapons at America that in 30 minutes could kill millions of people; it buys weapon systems from Russia designed to sink U.S. aircraft carriers; it controls more than $200 billion of the U.S. national debt; along with Russia China is the leading supplier of WMD’s to rogue states including Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya and Cuba; it has used espionage to steal the designs of nearly all U. S. nuclear warheads and many other military secrets.

The U.S. State Department’s annual report on human rights conditions cited China for worsened conditions since 2005, including ‘’increased harassment, detention and imprisonment’’ of people viewed as threats to the communist government.

China promptly retorted that U.S. racial discrimination remained pervasive and also cited the American military for abusing prisoners held at detention centers abroad.  This is proof that China keeps a close watch on government critics in the United States as well as rulings of our courts and political debates in Congress.  It turns those statements critical of the U.S. against us.

On his upcoming visit to Washington, Hu will smile in photo-op opportunities and talk of peaceful Chinese interests and co-operation with the United States.  A joint communiqué will be probably be issued as usual, and it probably will talk about frank discussions and a willingness to co-operate on all of the problems by both sides.

Hu will go home and continue to lie, China will proceed with its activities around the world, the trade deficit will continue to grow and so will China, both economically and militarily.  Chinese missiles will still be pointed in our direction and spying and stealing will continue unabated.

Menges has the right answer for solving the China problem.  First, stop the appeasement that doesn’t work.  Second, take a more realistic approach rather than what our diplomats would like the situation to be.

He called for creation of a democratic Chinese parliament in exile that would be the seat for political reform within Communist China.

The ultimate solution is to encourage replacement of the communist regime with a democratic system.  More needs to be done to advance this goal than rewarding the communist regime with trade and other benefits as well as appeasement when it comes to confrontation.

The Bush administration is currently preoccupied with Iran and labels it the main U.S.threat.  In the meantime, China grows stronger thanks in large part to accommodating U.S. policies that need to be changed. 

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

Has President Bush conceded that the United States is no longer a sovereign nation under the historical criteria for sovereignty by saying in effect that it can no longer defend its borders?

And has he refused to uphold his oath of office to enforce the laws of the United States , which state that an illegal entrant to the country is to be deported?

The President has said that deportation of the estimated 12 million illegal aliens in this country is ‘'unrealistic.'' He contended ‘'it's just not going to work.'' He might have added that he has done little to try to bring it about or to enforce the law he swore to uphold.

He did admit in a much-heralded speech on immigration, however, that ‘'For decades, the United States has not been in complete control of its borders.'' That time frame includes his watch, of course.

Considering 9-11 and the millions of immigrants that have entered the country illegally during his tenure that may be his most pronounced understatement.

The late historian Carroll Quigley in his mid-60s opus Tragedy and Hope noted that the criteria for the existence of national sovereignty before the Cold War had been the ability of a nation to defend its boundaries against external aggression and to maintain law and public order among the inhabitants inside its borders.

With Russia and the United States vying for allies during the Cold War the criteria was unrealistically changed when Russia and the United States were frantically trying to lure nations to their side at any cost. In other words nations didn't have to be able to perform any of the previous actions to be recognized as states. All they had to do was join the U.N. and pretend to be sovereign.

But realistically the old system of sovereignty formulated in the 17 th Century presumably still applies. The United States has not defended its borders and, according to the president, cannot by returning the law-breakers already here. Instead, the president and the Senate want them to be rewarded under a convoluted system for gaining citizenship. That's amnesty.

Bush proposed a way for illegal immigrants (IA's) to apply for citizenship by paying taxes, learning English and working here for a number of years. He looked the American people square in the eye and declared that was not amnesty. It brought to mind another recent president who declared ‘'I did not have sex with that woman.'' And ‘'diddle we take it is dee,'' as the poet Swinburne wrote.

Webster's definition of amnesty is: ‘'The act of an authority by which a pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.'' Bush's plan is at least conditional pardon, which may turn out to be more than that in actual practice. The IA's are pretty resourceful when it comes to getting around rules and laws.

His attempt to appease Mexican President Vincente Fox with no militarization of the border; conservative Republicans with band-aid border control, the illegal immigrants with a way toward citizenship plus an endorsement in effect of the mild Senate compromise measure amounts to a master attempt at political deception.

In fact it rates right up there with FDR's promise not to involve mother's sons in a foreign war with the caveat – unless we are attacked. Then FDR proceeded to lure and entice an attack so he could enter the war.

Bush also tried to walk a fine line by appeasing business leaders who contend the economy needs immigrants (cheap labor) and GOP conservatives who want a clampdown on the illegal aliens. But he has a duty to uphold the law, which he admitted he hasn't done that and he is not going to do by sending the IA's home.

He defended businesses by saying they often couldn't verify the legal status of IA's. While he conceded it is unlawful to hire IA's and employers should be held accountable, he has done little to punish them as they even try to lure cheap labor to this country.

The Senate bill protects employers of illegal aliens from penalties, according to the Washington Times. While the IA's may be fined before they gain citizenship, the employers who enticed them here in the first place will not be punished.

The identification problem gave Bush an excuse to push for a more reliable ID card that some critics say may be the forerunner of the national ID card called for in a bill passed in 2005 by Congress. Critics fear this could lead to a national data base on all citizens.

Bush claims the IA's are filling jobs that American won't do. He doesn't say anything about Americans not wanting to work for peon wages and the fact that the IA's are undermining U.S. wage rates.

Advocates of the so-called New World Order, espoused by Bush's father, also apparently want to dismantle nation sovereignty including that of the United States . Most all recent presidents have been members of organizations that undermine U.S. sovereignty. Others who were not members stacked their administrations with people in key positions who were. That includes both Bushes.

(For a list of these see Terms and Organizations at the heading of this web site.)

Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, criticizes Bush and the Republican Party for ‘'a sell out of sovereignty.'' He also takes the party to task for caving in to mob rule instead of rule by law.

MORE ANTI-SOVEREIGNTY ACTS

U.S. sovereignty is being dismantled by the nation's entry into such organizations as the corrupt United Nations under an unconstitutional arrangement; the World Trade Organization (WTO) which already has demanded the way our taxes are to be written in violation of our Constitution, as well as NAFTA and other treaties and international involvements.

Sovereignty is also being jeopardized by the growing national debt which is largely financed by selling U.S. Treasury bonds created by the Federal Reserve Board out of nothing to foreign banks and governments. That's why the United States doesn't have a tougher policy toward China , as an example, according to some critics.

On the heels of Bush's attempt to authorize a Dubai state-owned company to acquire operations at major U.S. ports – which protesters caused to be aborted -- the president has just approved Dubai's takeover of a British engineering company (the Doncasters Group Ltd.) that makes parts for our aircraft and tanks.

Both deals were recommended by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States . Can't we find U.S. companies to operate our ports and supply our military? Or must these vital functions be outsourced as well as our common labor jobs.

The key in Bush's political speech to placate everyone involved was his anemic proposal to secure the border – dispatching 6,000 National Guard troops to provide intelligence and surveillance support to Border Patrol agents. But to assure Mexican President Vincente Fox this is not militarization of the border, Guard troops will not be allowed to catch and detain illegal immigrants.

That would be up to the Border Patrol. Guard troops would be acting like WACS in War II by freeing up men for combat duty. They would apparently be performing clerical and administrative duties on a temporary basis.

And they had better not stray beyond that or Mexico has threatened to file lawsuits in U.S. courts. ‘'If there is a real wave of rights abuses, if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people (IA's)…we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates,‘' one high Mexican official said.

Is that another intrusion in our sovereignty, or what? Mexico sends border invaders to our country and threatens our government not to detain them. Its authorities should be warning its citizens to stay home and that they are subject to detention if they come here instead of encouraging and supporting them to do so.

Bush may be placating some of his opponents in the immigration controversy but for securing the border his program is practically useless.

AMNESTY

Except for a partisan, parliamentary, gridlock performance Senate lawmakers would have handed down an amnesty program for the millions of law-breaking Latinos before they took an Easter Break. They are now at it again and at this writing already they are voting on amendments prohibited by Senate democrats earlier.

The final product will amount to amnesty for the IA's. The Senate voted to rebuff a move to secure the borders before it provided a route to citizenship. It also approved a fence along part of the border and barred IA's convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors from becoming citizens.

Estimates are that this covers about 500,000 IA's. How the figure was arrived at or whether it covers crimes committed on the other side of the border or not is unclear.

As an indication of how serious the migration of Mexicans and Central Americans is the San Francisco Chronicle reported that about 10 percent of the Mexican population is now living in the United States , including 15 percent of its labor force.

The lawmakers were in a quandary about the English language. They voted to make English our ‘'national language'' and then passed another watered down bill to make it our ‘'common unifying language.'' Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid thought the first bill was ‘'racist.''

With 70 senators favoring a compromise amnesty bill that they tried to disguise as something else, it is likely that they will eventually surmount their parliamentary differences and produce an amnesty bill granting rights to the law breakers. There is some evidence House leaders are already caving in on their tougher bill passed last December.

For parliamentary reasons the Senate also failed along party lines to oust a lying, rapist, incompetent president that put personal gain ahead of national security just as Senate members are now doing for themselves on the IA issue. It is the same body that changed the constitutional rules for approving judicial appointments to federal courts.

It is anticipated that the final bill will be a test between House and Senate conferees if it doesn't wind up in a deadlock with no action. Mere citizens will pick up the tab and pay the price for the iniquity for any final amnesty measure or for no bill at all. They also will pick up the tab for the extra border patrol. Politicians and businesses will profit. American citizens can only hope that the House conferees won't give in to the Senate's accommodating position.

The House bill has teeth in it and would make it a felony to be in the country illegally. It also would criminalize the clergy and other do-gooders who help the illegal aliens as well as strengthen border patrol. House Speaker D. Hastret and Senate Majority leader Bill Frist already are saying there will be no bill that makes a felony of illegal border crossers as the House bill does.

The Senate bill, like Bush's plan, is a joke. While it would allegedly tighten border security it would create amnesty based on a silly timetable that can't be verified and would admit 325,000 foreigners in a year plus another 300,000 under a temporary agriculture program.

Don't these senators know the boat is loaded and that federal and most state governments are broke? There is no need for 625,000 new immigrants a year. All Mexican immigration should be halted until the millions already here illegally are sent back across the border. Mexico should be punished with no new entries until the law breakers here are returned.

Business considerations should not be a factor in any legislation that passes. And homeowners should not depend on illegal migrant workers to get their yard work done. Cheap labor for businesses only leads to more taxpayer burdens for hospitals, schools, government aid programs and social security payments to forgers.

And the Immigration laws should be redefined to include quotas from the various foreign countries with zero for Mexico for a specified period of time because it has flagrantly abused the system. The laws also should be enforced and the corrupt Immigration and Naturalization Service (INA) should be overhauled and cleaned up. Realistic and fair quotas from various other countries should be established and enforced.

There should be tough punishment for illegal entrants and the businesses that hire them. There also should be no inducements in the form of welfare programs, citizenship for illegal immigrants born here and no voting rights for ineligibles. As an example, in New York legislation is expected to pass that will give non-citizens the right to vote. How's that for a rewarding law breakers?

But don't rule out California when it comes to inane laws and rules in the name of liberalism. In Los Angeles under a special police department order police officers are prohibited from inquiring about an individual's immigration status and from cooperating with federal immigration officers. Judicial Watch, a public interest group, has filed suit against the police department and calls the order ‘'illegal and dangerous.''

The California Senate endorsed the recent boycott by IA's in an obvious attempt to cater to Latino voters.

And in still another government move to aid the IA's the U.S. Border Patrol is reported to be tipping off Mexican authorities on positions of Minuteman civilian patrols. Whose side is our government on anyway? It won't do anything about the IA's and interferes with civilians who do.

SILLY SENATE COMPROMISE

It looks like the Senate is going to come up with a compromise bill that will be patently ridiculous. Bush's proposal is similar. As stated it is based on the length of an illegal alien's stay in the United States . The longer you have been illegal the more legal you get seems to be the message from the spineless members the august upper chamber.

Those who came here after Jan. 7, 2004 would receive no legal status. They would be required to leave if they wanted to apply for a work visa. Now, can't you just see these people rushing up to claim the exact date they arrived here and standing in line to be sent home? They may be illegal and maybe illiterate, but they are not ignorant. They also are aware of the illegal false identity factories that are doing a thriving business with phony credentials.

Under the Senate bill if the illegal immigrants can prove they've lived here for five years or more, they could apply for legal permanent residence. If they work for another six years, pay fines, and back taxes and learn English and civics they could apply for green cards without leaving the country. That's also similar to Bush's proposal.

Did the senators who came up with this bright idea stop to think where these people working for poverty wages are going to get the money to pay the fines and taxes? And how does anyone propose to identify with a modicum of certainty when these illegal aliens arrived? The moment was not marked by marching bands, legal documents or any other means and probably was not entered in the family Bible.

In short this timetable has to be determined either by trusting law breakers to tell the truth or by some phony documents that can't be verified. How does the song go? ‘'It's a Barnum and Bailey world just as phony as it can be?

Nobody really knows all that is in the Senate compromise bill put together by republican Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Mel Martinez of Florida . Congressmen seldom read all of the bills in detail that they pass. Some estimates claim the bill would allow as many as 190 million new legal immigrants into this country in the next 20 years. That's because the millions of new citizens would be permitted to bring along their extended families.

A Washington Times story by Charles Hurt ( 5/16/06 ) quoted Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) as saying Congress is ‘'blissfully ignorant of the scope and impact'' of the bill.

ILLEGAL SQUATERS

The mass protests by the so-called ‘'Mexican Movement'' presented a new twist to the claim that Mexicans are the rightful owners of California and the Southwest.

This ‘'Movement''claims that it is the ‘'non-indigenous'' whites of European descent who should leave the area and not the illegal aliens. It emphasizes that its goals differ from the Aztlan Movement that seeks to create a Spanish-speaking state that would combine the American Southwest with northern Mexican states with an ultimate goal of merging with Mexico .

Aztlan is the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs and is supposed to include California , Arizona , Nevada , New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas .

There are several things wrong with the arguments about Mexican claims to the Southwest. For one, the area is not indigenous to Mexicans, and they didn't develop it and make it what it is. It would be more accurate to say it is indigenous to aliens who have crossed the U.S. border illegally.

They are marching for squatter's rights with no valid claims based on laws or treaties.

The activists staged boycotts that called on all Latino immigrants, legal or not, to skip work and avoid buying anything on May 1. It apparently didn't do much economic damage but did stir some resentment.

As an example, a number of web sites have been created to identify employers who provide IA's jobs. They also direct consumers to businesses that hire only legal citizens.

While the marches were mostly peaceful their stated goals are ‘' to take over the Southwest. That poses the question, if they were strong enough, would they attempt it now? Hostility in the parades included vulgarity, the burning of the American flag, carrying it upside down and slogans such as ‘'F… the Alamo'' and claims that they were standing on Mexican land in California. They directed Gringos to go back to England or Europe . Maybe they should go back to Spain .

In his book Islam and Terrorism Dr. Mark A. Gabriel notes there are three stages of jihad. The first is the weakened stage where Muslims are an insignificant society; two, the preparation stage when Muslims are a reasonably influential minority; and three, the jihad stage when Muslims are a minority group with strength. This stage calls for all-our war.

The Latinos also have goals. Do they have similar stages? And are they now in the first or second stage? Seems like a fair question in light of their stated objectives.

What the IA's are doing here is comparable to what the Muslims are doing in Sweden . An Islamic leader demanded that the Swedish government enact special laws giving Muslims time off work for Friday prayers and Islamic holidays. They also wanted imams to approve all divorces between Muslim couples. The Swedish government sharply rejected these demands, according to the Jerusalem Post.

The IA's come over here and demand rights they do have and even want our laws and culture changes and everything printed in Spanish to accommodate them even if they are here illegally.

Voters must hold politicians accountable on this issue. Too much is at stake for the future of our culture and our sovereignty to let them get away with politics as usual. In other words, throw the b- - - - - - - out.

--30—

LATINO INTRUDERS PART II ( 5/22/06 )

From President Bush's game plan for dealing with the illegal immigration problem and from Senate action so far we are beginning to learn what the solution to the problem will be if House conferees don't hold their ground – a path to amnesty.

So far we have learned officially that our borders have not been protected for decades and that we can't return the people who have invaded them illegally; that we are not a sovereign nation under the traditional definition of that term, and that disguised amnesty is the only way to deal with the illegal squatters.

But that's not all. From a strong segment of the defiant illegal alien (IA) marching community we have been told that the Southwest belongs to them and not us and they plan to take it back. They also threaten boycotts and bloc voter clout to have their way.

It is time for these militant intruders to learn that two can play their game. We Gringos also have some economic clout. After all whose payroll are they on? And whose facilities are they using even though they are not entitled to do so?

If they don't show up for work they could be fired. Authorities could require employers like Tyson Foods and other meat packers and contractors to cooperate in supplying information. After all they are breaking the law by employing the IA's and should be held accountable.

Patrons also could stop buying Mexican goods and eating at Mexican restaurants. And if there are no jobs how are they going to subsist except for welfare, which we could deny? Maybe then they would go home and we could solve the problem by attrition.

As an example of growing underlying resentment to the IA's antics, Pennsylvania has passed legislation to force government and business groups to repay state grants for money used to employ IA's. Maybe other states will follow. It's a good idea.

In Oregon a sheriff has sent a request to Mexican President Vincente Fox for payment of $318,843 for medical and other expenses spent on Illegal Mexican criminals. Fox has time to write President Bush about possible abuses to the IA's by the Border Patrol, but after three months Sheriff John Trumbo of Umatilla County hasn't gotten a reply.

Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez has followed up to Fox's concern by warning that if National Guard troops become directly involved in detaining migrants ‘'…we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates.'' In other words, keep your hands off of the IA's they need a job and a handout, which Mexico can't provide them.

If President Bush wanted to enforce the law instead of politically grandstanding by invading one company as was recently done, he could direct the INS to go after these big IA employers as well as construction companies and others who are breaking the law. But don't expect it.

While purporting to be getting tough on employers of IA's he apologized for them saying they were having a hard time with ID's and implied they didn't know they were hiring IA's. Yeah, right!

If our politicians make law and policy on the basis of street marchers the way France has done they should be held accountable at the voting booths. So far the polls at least are not favoring the marchers some of whom have carried Mexican flags and desecrated the U.S. flag.

These people with outrageous claims apparently are unaware or choose to ignore the peace treaty signed in 1848 by Mexico at Guadalupe Hidalgo. They also forget that the United States had occupied Mexico City and could have annexed the entire country of Mexico had it wanted to. Did they ever hear about the spoils of war?

In addition, Texas and California had established their independence from Mexico and wanted no part of that unstable government. They joined the United States of their own free will. New Mexico was taken by the United States during the war. The United States also paid $15 million in the Texas deal and assumed the claims of its citizens against Mexico .

There was a final territorial adjustment in 1853 with the addition of land by the United States with the Gadsden Purchase for $10 million. That was the southern region of what is today Arizona and New Mexico .

So, in addition to being soundly beaten in war and losing Texas and California by secession, Mexico also got $25 million in the settlements, which was $10 million more than Thomas Jefferson paid for the Louisiana Purchase . And there was no war involved in the Louisiana Purchase . So, the Mexicans were well compensated considering the circumstances.

Mexican marchers also forget that it was the United States and its Monroe Doctrine that helped overthrow Emperor Maximilian who ruled the country for three years in the 1860s. The United States supported the Republicans who opposed the French and Maximilian. Otherwise, the Mexicans might be speaking French today.

Their claims on the Southwest are as invalid as French claims would be if they laid ownership to the Louisiana Purchase by asserting that Jefferson outfoxed Napoleon at a time when the France was at war and desperate for funds. Britain could also lay claim to Oregon , or Spain to Florida .

These people now want to revise history, ignore facts, treaties and the reality of the spoils of war with claims of no validity more than 150 years after the fact.

SPANISH CATHOLICS

Another point: Is there a country anywhere that was settled by Spanish or Portuguese Catholics which comes even close to prospering the way the United States did? If the Southwest were turned over to Mexicans would it be long before the area became similar to Mexico and other South American countries? It would still probably have to export its cheap, uneducated labor to the rest of the United States .

Imagine what the Southwest and California would be like today if Mexico had not lost the war and retained these terroriries?

Proponents of amnesty claim the illegal border crossers are contributing to our economic welfare and that we could not do without them because of their productivity and hard work. Well, look at the productivity of workers from the country from whence they came. Mexico is bogged down in poverty with no evidence that these so-called high-productivity workers are going to change the situation.

The United States is the only First World country that has a border with a Third World country. That border extends for 2,000 miles, and that is the problem. Mexico acts like a First World country and its citizens want that status as they view progress across the border. But they do little to advance their own country through education and other federal programs and development of their resources. Drugs and crimes are destroying one of their biggest attractions, tourism.

Despite the arguments of George Bush, who spends a great deal of time placating the immigration goals of Mexican President Vincente Fox and catering to Latino voters, Mexican cheap labor is not a necessity in any sense. As one congressman has suggested we have enough prison labor that could do the menial jobs, and there are enough legal Latinos and unskilled American laborers in this country to pick up the slack.

Bush has sworn to ‘'…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States .'' That doesn't mean accommodating hordes of people that cross U.S. borders illegally and ignoring the nation's laws and culture.

It also doesn't mean looking the other way when Mexican Consuls connive in breaking U.S. laws and intervene in our internal affairs by advising illegal immigrants on how to breach the border safely and to evade detection once safely across. Now, as noted, they are threatening suits if the Border Patrol mishandles their exported IA'.

The Catholic Church is one of the beneficiaries of predominantly Catholic Mexicans crossing the border illegally and in droves. And it is responding by giving them aid once they cross the border. It's the same church that played musical chairs with priests who molested thousands of their young parishioners.

The Senate bill would denude the tougher House bill. It struck out a provision to criminalize the clergy and charitable groups who give aid to the illegal aliens. That would give them a further inducement to cross the border as well as to support the Catholic Church.

NAVIGATIONAL ERROR

Recounting the religious history of the Catholic Church and its popes, theologian Peter De Rosa observed in the Vicars of Christ that had it not been for a navigational error, Columbus might have landed on the North American mainland instead of the Bahamas, and the United States might have had a religious history similar to that of Mexico, Brazil and Argentina.

Other writers have pointed that the nation was originally a country of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPS) who established the values that made it great.

A noted orator – Robert G. Ingersoll – observed at the close of the nineteenth century that ‘'Religion has reduced Spain to a guitar, Italy to a hand-organ, and Ireland to exile.'' That hyperbolic witticism may be a stretch, but it drove home the point about the economic influence of the Catholic Church.

With the influx of more Catholic Mexicans the church also can increase its influence in American government, not only by the vote of the intruders but also by their members running for office.

The point is that the Catholic Church and other charitable organizations and religions as well as the Mexican Government and its consuls have no business making the illegal aliens and border security problem worse by giving aid to the enemy and inducing him to come here.

The Senate was wrong to take this punishment proviso out of the House-passed legislation.

One other observation about Catholics is they came here after Protestants did and they assimilated. For the most part they were tolerated and blended into the overall economic and political philosophy on which the country was founded. They have walked more in step with the nation's culture and philosophy than they have with Rome .

KENNEDY, SPECTER, McCAIN AND REID

In December, 2005, the House voted along party lines to make it a felony to be in this country illegally and to criminalize individuals and organizations that helped or abetted the law-breaking aliens.

But along comes those paragons of wisdom and virtue Senators John McCain and Ted Kennedy to sponsor a bill to coddle the alien law-breakers and offer them amnesty. It wasn't called amnesty of course but disguised as ‘'earned citizenship'' or some other misnomer.

No matter how opportunist Senate politicians try to coat their effeminate philosophical tampering with this important matter, anything less than criminalizing an unlawful act and penalizing the law-breakers who remain here is amnesty.

The IA's broke our laws, desecrated our flag, refused to learn English or assimilate as other immigrants have done and even claimed our land to be their own.

The Mexican intruders have not been screened for diseases, criminality, knowledge of English or American laws, and yet they seek free treatment in our hospitals, educational institutions and governmental programs such as Medicare and other welfare benefits that should be available only to eligible U.S. citizens. They act as if the United States owes them special treatment for crossing the border illegally. Some politicians such as Kennedy and McCain seem to agree.

The Senate bill even contained a provision to make hundreds of thousands of illegal residents eligible for in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. Even American students do not have these privileges. That drew a remark from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) that the bill should be called ‘'No Illegal Alien Left Behind.''

For Senator Kennedy to be trying to solve a problem of such magnitude is risible, as the senator is himself. He should be afforded about the same credibility as Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Jesse Jackson or John Kerry. None.

And what does he know about immigration problems in the first place? The State of Massachusetts doesn't have a problem with illegal aliens compared with other states. Pennsylvania , which gave us Sen. Arlen Specter, doesn't either. Specter, who loves center stage, got into the act with his own amnesty bill. He is now working to help craft the Senate bill and denying the measure grants amnesty.

We all know that Specter underwent a brain operation a few years ago and can only hope that it was totally successful. But we can't judge the results by his actions.

As for John McCain, we can also hope that his incarceration in Vietnam didn't alter his mental or nervous system. He has an insatiable yen for the presidency and obviously doesn't underestimate the importance of the Latino vote in trying to fulfill that aspiration.

But when McCain praises and encourages the demonstrators of pro-illegal immigration demonstrations, he has gone too far in putting his own ambitions ahead of those of the United States . He was quoted by The New York Daily News as saying, ‘'The more debate, the more demonstrations, the more likely we will prevail.''

Sen. Kennedy even compared the immigration rallies to the civil rights movement a half century ago. This should be an insult to the forebears of blacks who were brought here as slaves and not of their own free will, who were oppressed, lynched, and denied their freedom.

Most of the demonstrators are here illegally and demonstrating for rights they do not have, do not deserve and they are taking jobs not only from Black Americans but also some whites. They also are driving blacks out of schools in some areas such as Los Angeles , according to the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson.

Kennedy should be ashamed of himself, says Peterson. Amen to that.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid flip flopped on the immigration problem. In 1993 he supported a bill to massively curtail immigration. But he flipped and supported the compromise Senate bill. President Bush claimed Reid used gimmickry to kill the bill by not allowing amendments to it He has now agreed to amendments and that is why the Senate is again working on the problem. In any event Harry with a little legerdemain helped delay the legislation he claimed to support.

Speaking of flip-flopping Bush has done that too. He learned Spanish to appeal to Latinos legal or illegal, then denounced singing of the national Anthem in Spanish. He said the migrants should learn English. So, why is one version of the White House website in Espanol? Bush also favors citizenship for the IA's. But don't dare call it amnesty.

MEXICAN IMMIGRATION DIFFERS

The Hispanic immigration trend since 1965 differs significantly from previous immigration. In fact ‘'it is unprecedented in American history,'' claims Samuel P. Huntington in his book, Who Are We? The Challenge to America 's National Identity.

It differs from past immigration in that the Hispanics fail to assimilate. Huntington notes that ‘'the criteria that can be used to gauge assimilation include language, education, occupation and income, citizenship, intermarriage, and identity.'' On almost all of these indices, Mexican assimilation is lagging.

We can expect more ineffable effluvium and political posturing from the Congress on immigration but don't expect a satisfactory solution of the problem. But if the Senate can't do better than it has shown so far, we would be better off with no bill at all.

A commitment by the administration to shake up the INS and enforce the laws already in place would be better than this appeasing band-aid fix the Senate compromise bill and the president's plan propose. Our leaders should realize this is not a time for sentiment. This is the time to protect the future of this country.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

President Bush and his neo-con (neo-conservatist) or Vulcan advisers may be faulted for invading Iraq and upsetting stability in the Middle East, but the president is right is stating that to cut and run now would be ‘'disastrous.''

Although Iraq may be a central issue in the November congressional elections along with the economy and border control, politicians should seriously consider the consequences of pulling out.

The president said that Iraq is a part of a broader struggle against Islamic extremism that holds serious implications for U.S. security. Experts agree he is right about that. Some have gone so far as to say the West is engaged in a fight to the death against Islam.

All politicians placing ambition ahead of national security should also consider this scenario offered by Yossef Bodansky in The Secret History of the Iraq War that if the U.S. fails in Iraq: Shiites will take over Baghdad, and ‘'for the first time since the 6 th Century, B. C., the Persians will control the Mediterranean coast and the bulk of the Persian Gulf.''

Iran also would dominate virtually all the oil and gas resources of the Middle East . Consider that with its present oil resources it is the main exporter and supporter of terrorism and then add to that the oil resources of Iraq and other nations it could dominate. Some clout!

Remember the goal of radical Islam is to control the world. The radical theocrats in Iran want to become king of the Islamic hill, and they will be if the United States is forced to withdraw ignominiously from Iraq .

Bodansky predicts, however, that if the United States beats the odds and wins in Iraq and establishes a pro-Western regime, Tehran will be stifled and will soon collapse. That's what's at stake. And that's why a strategy for winning and not running is so important.

THE PAST IS PROLOGUE

As stated, it is arguable whether going into Iraq was the prudent thing to do, even if Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which he probably did. But that is history. What needs to be done now is to consider the situation as it is and the threat that Iran and militant Islamism poses to the United States and the West.

The United States is the main enemy of Islam because its radical clerical rulers consider it hedonistic, secular, and with no strong spiritual underpinnings.

There is no question that Hussein deserves a prominent place in the pantheon of human butchers, but so do the militant clerics of Iran and the terrorists they support. At least Hussein kept the Iranians in check as well as the fundamentalist movements in Iraq .

Bodanksy pointed out that the United States by defeating Hussein freed Iraqi fundamentalism, both Shiite and Sunni who, along with Kurds, al-Qaeda and other militant Islamists from throughout the Middle East are now fighting in Iraq .

The United States also crushed another foe of Iran 's Shiite Islamic Republic when it defeated the Sunni fundamentalist Taliban in Afghanistan . That means, of course, a Shiite resurgence even in Sunni-dominated Arab states.

Iran has been exporting revolution throughout the world ever since the revolution that deposed the Shah in 1979. Hussein led the regional defense against the Iranian revolution and the rest of the world, including the United States , supported him.

Bush I invaded Iraq over Kuwait oil in which he had an interest, and Bush II did the same on the basis of faulty intelligence and a fetish about weapons of mass destruction. Some critics even suggest a personal vendetta by Bush II against Hussein because ‘'He tried to kill my dad'' on a visit to Kuwait .

It is highly questionable that Hussein was a direct threat to the United States at the time. We had him in our sights with air surveillance and United Nations backing for what that was worth in the court of public opinion.

The quarrel Iraq had with Kuwait was a historical one about territory and oil, and there may have been some validity to Iraq 's claim. If the United States withdraws from Iraq , Iran would also be a threat to take over oil-rich Kuwait , which was allied with Hussein in the Iraqi-Iranian war of the 1980s.

Hussein was acting as a buffer between Iran 's regional and world aspirations before Bush II and his so-called neo-cons and Vulcan advisers changed policy from one of containment to one of aggression, pre-emption and unmatchable power.

They misjudged the fighting capabilities of the Iraqi military, the hostility toward United States soldiers and the difficulties of establishing a new government in Iraq , Bodansky charges.

WAR PLAN

Even U.S. generals have criticized the war as not being well planned with enough troops or equipment for securing the peace and maintaining stability after the conquest.

The Vulcans, who probably couldn't sell women with prodigal hearts on an aircraft carrier, were confident they could sell democracy to Muslins. The group included Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his former deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice, Vice president Dick Cheney and Richard Perle, a former Pentagon adviser, among others.

Arguably, Iran has always been a greater menace to the United States than Iraq . It has been the chief exporter of revolution and terrorism ever since the Shah's deposition. United States policy actually aided Iran in its goal of trying to take over Iraq . Shiites are now dominant in the country, and Iran , with the aid of Syria and Hezbullah, has its sights on destroying Israel and eventually the United States .

NEW BALL GAME

Despite all this water under the bridge, the challenge now is to devise a plan for securing Iraq and not pulling out. We, and not Hussein, are now the obstacle to Iran 's ambitions. If the world community will not respond to Iran 's atomic threat then the United States and Israel will have to go it alone. The administration appears to be finally recognizing this. Politicians should realize this is not the time for appeasement.

Recent developments that indicate there may be some renewed awareness of the Iranian threat. These include:

--President Bush is no longer referring to Islam as a peaceful religion, which it isn't, and has come up with the term Islamic fascism to the chagrin of Muslims.

Unfortunately, because of protests from Muslim lobbyists, the president seems to have resorted to a rhetorical retreat and now uses phrases like ‘'ideological struggle'' and claims Muslim terrorists are destroying the tenets of the religion.

This is not quite correct because the tenets of Islam is ‘'hatred,'' which is built into the religion, according to Dr. Mark A. Gabriel, former professor of Islamic history at Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.

Dr. Gabriel wrote in his book Islam and Terrorism that ‘'killing is the big difference between Islam and other religions. He points out that Islam, which started as a peaceful religion, changed ‘'from a spiritual religion to a political revolution.'' New revelations override previous ones.

So, the verses in the Quran that speak of jihad override the verses that speak of love and kindness. Dr. Gabriel notes that 60 percent of the Quranic verses talk about jihad, which involves world domination.

President Bush toned down his rhetoric after the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) complained.

American Muslims use the protection and freedoms of the U.S. Constitution to protest against alleged mistreatment of Muslims even in free speech. As an example, the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago recently blamed political leaders and the news media for what it called ‘'Islamophobia.''

But where are the good Muslims and how do you tell a good one from a bad one? Are the good, so-called peaceful ones speaking out against the bad or militant ones who are giving Muslims a worse name than the news media or politicians ever could. The militants are obviously in control of the religion with the blessings of Islamic clerics or there would be no threat. Let's identify those imams who sanction terrorism and preach hate from their mosques.

Why don't the good, peace-loving Muslims protest against the Muslim terrorists and confront them for maligning their religion? Another question: Do Christians and other religions get as good treatment in Muslim countries as Muslims do in ours? They know the answer to that one.

You got it right, Mr. President, ‘'fascists'' and ‘'totalitarians'' are the right words. And you also pinned the right name on Iran 's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, ‘'tyrant.'' Now come up with a similar moniker for the clerics behind him who are in charge.

--The House Subcommittee on Intelligence policy reported that Iran ‘'…poses a serious security threat to the United States .'' There is nothing new about that, but at least we know they now know the enemy. As Bodansky stated all major terrorist attacks are state-sponsored.

And who is the main state sponsor of terrorism? Iran . Bush should warn Iran that if there is any terrorist strike against the United States and it can be ascertained that Iran aided it in any way – with funding, logistics, training or weapons – the United States will use any weapons at its disposal to attack and destroy the present regime in Iran.

The center of the terrorist movement now is Iran . That's where the head of the snake needs to be chopped. It won't get any better. Iran 's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is now purging liberal and secular teachers from its universities and urging students to return to radicalism.

--The committee also stated that Iran provides funding, training, weapons and other support to Hezbollah and other terrorist groups.'' There is nothing new about that either. Bodansky reported it several years ago. But is heartening to know our lawmakers know about it even if they seem unlikely to act.

The Bush administration has shifted its focus from Al Qaeda to a more decentralized network of extremists. It rightly noted that Iran is a potential source of unconventional weapons for these terrorist groups.

The extremist groups may be more fragmented, but their intentions are the same, and if they pull off a major strike, you can bet it will be state-sponsored.

--The subcommittee also criticized the U.S. intelligence community and said it must collect more and better intelligence on Iran . There also is nothing new about this. Experts have ridiculed U.S. intelligence efforts since before the Iraq war, which was begun with faulty data.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

One thing politicians have to do is drop the silly strictures of political correctness and multiculturalism. Like our trade policy this is a one-sided affair. Muslims don't worry about our civil liberties or those of Christians generally. We are inordinately concerned about theirs while they have no moral constraints.

Political correctness has stifled free speech and open discourse and especially satire, which often can help defeat a movement or even a dictator. Hitler was held up for laughs and ridicule with his mustache, boots and stiff arm salute. Don Quixote and Gulliver's Travels are other examples of ridicule of certain institutions.

The adherents of the risible tenet of political correctness have silenced free speech and legitimate ridicule. Writers should ignore political correctness even at the risk of being labeled racist or worse. P.C. advocates don't mind flinging the racist word about at writers who don't toe the line although they cringe when writers call a spade a spade instead of some other phony label.

As an example of how ridiculous political correctness can get the Department of Homeland Security tried to appease a Muslim group recently with a VIP tour of security operations at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago , according to a copyrighted story by WorldNetDaily.

It showed members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group whose relations to the terrorist group, Hamas, is questionable, the inside workings of O'Hare's customs operations. This included, according to WND, ‘'…secondary screening and interview rooms (plus) various features of the high-risk passenger lookout system.''

CAIR said the tour allayed it concerns about profiling, according to the WND account.

PROFILING

Speaking of profiling, why is it that criminologists can profile pedophiles, criminals and other sex offenders, but the roof falls in when law enforcement officers try to profile terrorists or immigrants?

CAIR and the national Council of La Raza, the ACLU and other liberal and racial organizations scream and yell racism when these people are stopped at airports or asked for driver's licenses and identification when stopped for traffic or other violations.

Well, since most all terrorist acts are committed by Muslims it would seem that to profile or suspect a terrorist the first thing one would put down would be Muslim. And since most illegal aliens are Latinos it would appear that word should be the first to profile a person in this country illegally.

We know that Islamic fanatics are out to destroy us. Politicians had better get used to the idea and start doing something about it instead of pandering to them. If it requires some loss of civil liberties to defeat the enemy, so be it. It's a choice that has to be made.

Surely our constitutional systems of checks and balances can prevent an imperial president. The problem is that all three branches of government must perform their duty to protect the American people. They seldom do, however.

But if it comes to temporarily losing some civil liberties or living under a radical group of Islamist clerics, what American wouldn't choose the former? The choice may not be pleasant, but the alternative is unthinkable.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

The war with terrorists, the invasion of our borders, the selling of our infrastructure to foreigners, the outsourcing of our jobs, the threats from an atomic North Korea and Iran, the war in Iraq, and the growing list of nations who hate us are by no means the end of problems facing we the people of the United States.

We have the same old globalist, elite, one-worlders working against us from within. They want to widen the gap between the top and bottom by eliminating the middle class and provide corporate cheap labor.

The elites, who never sleep, are trying to drive another nail in the coffin of U.S. sovereignty. They want to form a North American alliance similar to the European Union between the United States , Mexico and Canada . The plan won presidential approval in a spring of 2005 at Waco , Tex.

By globalists elites I am referring to members of one-world organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission and other groups mentioned on the front of this web site.

The trilateral agreement between the three North American countries would create a regional group and then presumably meld it into a one-world government eventually without nation sovereignty. That always has been the long-range goal of the one-world elites.

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has written about the plan in his weekly column. He said it is a ‘'dialogue'' launched by the heads of state of the three nations involved. Paul doesn't know what a ‘'dialogue'' is, but he knows that Congress doesn't have a role in it. It was launched by the three heads of state in March 2005 in Waco , Tx .

While internet news sites are reporting the story most of the mainline press is largely ignoring it.

The plan also calls for a massive super highway stretching across the United States from Mexico to Canada . It would cost taxpayers billions of dollars, Paul says, although President Bush claims we can't afford a few billion dollars to send illegal aliens home. It also would require eminent domain takings on what Paul calls an ‘'unimaginable scale.'' The highway would be 1,200 feet wide with six lanes for cars and six for trucks.

The Teamsters Union charges the plan would allow ‘'tens of thousands'' of unregulated, unsafe Mexican trucks to flow unchecked through the United States . Long haul Mexican drivers rely on drugs to make these trips, according to a Teamsters spokesman.

The super highway would traverse Texas and be funded by Spain and built by a Spanish firm -- Cintra Concessions de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S. A. – (Cintra). Cintra would pay the state for the right to build the highway, and would profit from tolls over the next 50 years.

TRUCK HAZARDS

The Dallas Morning News in mid-September, 2006, carried a long series of well-researched stories on the hazards of truck companies who hire incompetent drivers and put them in faulty trucks on Texas ' highways.

The stories reported that the irresponsible truck firms often hired drivers who could not speak English, were felons and also drug addicts. It noted that 502 people were killed in accidents involving trucks in 2005 but that the Department of Public Safety (DPS) was spread too thin to adequately police the growing number of trucks on the highways.

Most of the DPS force was concentrated on the border checking Mexican trucks which are allowed a certain distance into the state under the NAFTA trade agreement.

One of the biggest problems, the News stories pointed out, was faulty trucks with cheap, unskilled drivers hauling material to construction sites.

The detailed stories did not mention the proposed gigantic highway that would run through Texas to Canada all way from the Mexican border. The Dallas newspaper is known for its strong stance on multiculturalism and political correctness and is an avid supporter of NAFTA and other trade pacts.

In a related story later the News reported on the Texas portion of the super-highway from a handout of the Texas Department of Transportation (TDT). It included what the TDT wanted known but left many unanswered questions.

ILLEGALS

Maybe the dialogue for integration of the three nations is why the federal government is derelict in upholding the immigration laws already on the books, or to enact new ones to stem the flow of illegal migrants into this country. Cities, counties and states are now taking on that responsibility.

It is ironic that as Congress finally passed legislation to build fences to stop the flow of illegal immigrants across the Mexican border, President Bush and the elite one-worlders who are running foreign policy are secretly trying to open the borders.

In fact, an aide to Mexican President Vicente Fox was reported by the Associated Press to have said Fox was ‘'confident'' the fencing would never be completed.

And in a related development the House and Senate approved separate legislation before recessing that placed so many loopholes in the fence authorization that it ensures it will never be built, according to the Washington Post.

The newspaper reported that ‘'the loopholes leave the Bush administration with authority to decide where, when and how long a fence will be built.'' That appears to be another reason Bush signed the bill with much fanfare before the congressional elections.

The plan for amnesty and a guest worker program are not the answer to the problem. The answer is to send the illegal immigrants back no matter what the cost. The way Washington is throwing money around a few more billion won't make any difference anyhow. The nation is already broke and relying on the Federal Reserve Board to print more phony money to stay in business.

INACTION EMBOLDENS

The federal government's inaction toward illegal immigrants has emboldened them to aggressiveness with impunity. They recently replaced the American flag with a Mexican flag at a post office building during a rally near Los Angeles .

They also threw bottles and rocks at police, and also threatened U.S. citizens who protested, and the police did nothing. They claim to be the rightful owners of California and the Southwest. It's the ‘'non-indigenous'' whites of European descent who should leave the area and not illegal aliens, according to a new so-called ‘'Mexican movement.''

The Mexicans are wrong in claiming the area is indigenous to Mexicans, and they didn't develop it and make it what it is. It would be more accurate to say it is indigenous to aliens who have crossed the U.S. border illegally. And did the Spaniard come from Europe or did I miss something?

Earlier this year activists staged boycotts and paraded with shouts of vulgarity, burning the American flag and carrying it upside down. They shouted slogans such as ‘'F… the Alamo'' and claimed they were standing on Mexican land in California .

The plan for a regional North America including the United States , Canada and Mexico also is real and further along that most realize. Congress and most of the mainline press were asleep as the plan moved quietly forward.

MORE ON THE INTEGRATION PLAN

The Task Force for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) was proposed by CFR president Richard N. Haas. It was the first time CFR had expanded its task force studies to include international members (from Mexico and Canada ).

The project was chaired by Robert A. Pastor, a professor at American University and former (1977-1981) director of Latin American affairs on the National Security Council. He wrote a book that some refer to as a blue print for the plan which would include a common currency (the amero) as well as a common I.D. card called a North American Border Pass for all three countries. This is supposed to lay the ground work for the free flow of people within North America although, as mentioned, Congress approved fences to stem the flow.

Pastor, in a task force recommendation, called for ‘'U.S. Government reorganization…to address this (task force) agenda imaginatively.'' He also recommended that a customs union to be negotiated within five years. He asked ‘'President Bush (to) appoint a special assistant on North American Affairs to chair a Cabinet committee to recommend ways to breathe life into a North American community.''

Haas formerly served in the State Department and was also a former assistant to President Bush I during the Gulf War. He also worked for another one-world think tank, The Brookings Institution, a sister organization of the CFR.

The CFR styles itself as a think tank on foreign policy issues and claims it ‘'…takes no institutional position on the findings or recommendations'' of this or other task force reports. It claims it ‘'has no affiliation with the U.S. Government.''

Yet the CFR has saturated the government with its members for more than 80 years. Its president, Haas, proposed and endorsed the trilateral task force study for an integrated America , and all of the U.S. members belonged to the CFR and have had affiliation with the U.S. Government in top positions. One member, Raul H. Yzaguirre, is a retired president of the national Council of La Raza, a Hispanic-constituency organization.

BUSH INVOLVEMENT

Behind the back of Congress, President Bush in March, 2005, along with the heads of Canada and Mexico , adopted the recommendations of the task force. Apparently, they are to be implemented administratively since Congress has not been consulted or involved.

The ostensible reason for the confederation of the three countries is for security and a common tariff, but if that wasn't enough it goes even further.

Trade and the alleged benefits from it are emphasized throughout. The report places more emphasis on economic recommendations than on security to the point that it drew a complaint from one member – Richard A. Falkenrath.

He noted that the United States ‘'has relatively less to gain from trilateral economic reform, and relatively more to gain from trilateral security reform'' and insisted on parity between the economic and security agendas.

The goal of the task force appears to be trying to lift a third world country, Mexico , to equal status with the United States and Canada . It calls for a North American investment Fund to be established now. But former U.S. Trade Representative Carla A. Hills and four other U.S. members objected.

‘'Any development fund should reinforce efforts that Mexico undertakes to further its own economic development and should not be established in advance of those efforts,'' they stated.

NAFTA'S PLUSSES & MINUSES

The report lauds results of NAFTA and claims ‘'trade among the three countries has more than doubled in value, and intraregional investment had grown even faster.''

But the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a Washington think tank, reports that NAFTA has lowered the standard of living for workers in all three countries. ‘'It is clear,'' the EPI report stated, ‘'…that the costs to workers outweighed the benefits in all three nations.'' It added:

‘'Workers' share of the gains from rising productivity fell and the proportion of income and wealth going to those at the very top of the economic pyramid grew.''

The proposed new North American union apparently is designed to put even more distance between the top elites and workers thereby further downgrading or eliminating the middle class.

BYPASSING CONGRESS & COURTS

To get around Congress and U.S. courts a permanent trade tribunal was recommended to settle disputes. A tri-national commission a continental anti-trust agency to address ‘'harmful'' subsidy practices also would be set up.

North American transportation firms would be given ‘'unlimited'' access to each others territory. In other words, Mexican trucks could travel between two U.S. points such as Los Angeles and Chicago .

Products tested in one country would be acceptable in all three. The regulatory process would be integrated for agriculture and food products.

The recommendations also call for an annual meeting of the presidents from the three nations. In addition a body of ‘eminent advisers'' outside government would be formed along he lines of the Bilderberg conferences.

The Bilderberg membership involves powerful West Europeans and North Americans who meet in secret annually to plan the future foreign policy of the Western capitalist democracies. The so-called ‘'eminent advisers'' (rich elites) apparently would plan the future of the new American Union outside government the same way the Bilderbergs do.

WORKING GROUPS

Officers of the three countries already have formed a series of working groups under designated lead cabinet ministers from each country.

The first meeting was held in September, 2006, in Canada in which U.S. participants included: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of State George Schultz, former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, Pastor, and former Defense Secretaries William Perry and James Schlesinger.

It is no surprise that all of the U.S. participants were members of the CFR, which absolutely, positively, unequivocally has no affiliation with the U.S government. (Italics mine for tongue-in-check emphasis).

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) is working within the Commerce Department.

Jerome R. Corsi wrote for WorldNetDaily in a copyrighted story on the internet that it is ‘'…creating a ‘shadow' trilateral bureaucracy with Mexico and Canada that is aggressively rewriting a wide range of U.S. administrative law, all without congressional oversight or public disclosure.''

But Congress is finally getting into the act to some extent, at least. Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.) has introduced a resolution to have Congress oppose the proposed NAFTA super highway system as well as the North American Union.

The resolution also calls for the president to oppose any other proposal that threatens U.S. sovereignty. The three congressman joining Goode in sponsoring the resolution are Ron Paul , Texas , Thomas Tancredo (R-Colo.) and Walter Jones (R-N. C.).

TURN THEM OUT

It is time for American politicians to put America first and stop catering to corporations and the Latino vote at the expense of losing all are part of the greatest nation on earth.

Remember the best way to do it is turn out your congressmen if they don't vow to stop this integrated America nonsense that denudes U.S. sovereignty and also illegal immigration and send the ones already here back home.

Politicians also need to stop defending the illegal Mexicans by comparing them to immigrants who helped build the nation. Most of those early immigrants came here legally, assimilated, learned the English and became American citizens. The Mexicans on the other hand invaded the country, refused to assimilate and claim rights they don't have as criminals.

Washington needs to act now. Time is running out. We are being overwhelmed, and our sovereignty is being rapidly eroded.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

The intent of Congressman-elect Keith (Hakim-Mohammed) Ellison to take his oath of office on the Quran instead of the Bible poses a major question. Should he, a confessed, devout Muslim, be allowed to do it? Congress, which constitutionally makes its own rules, will have to answer, but concerned constituents could have an input with protests.

The clear answer should be, no, since the Constitution states there should be no establishment of religion, and the Quran, a noted expert writes, calls for the establishment of the Islamic religion with a threat to life for all infidels.

Swearing on the Quran would mean that Ellision believes in the contents and teachings of the Islamic holy book that calls for support of world domination by Islam. He recently made his belief emphatic in a speech to other Muslims in which he advised them to ‘'turn to the Quran for guidance,'' according to the Detroit Free Press ( 12/25/06 )

In his book, Islam and Terrorism , Mark A. Gabriel, Ph.d, and former professor of Islamic history at Al Azhar University, Cario, Egypt, states that Islam, which started out as a peaceful and tolerant religion, changed ‘'…from a spiritual religion to a political revolution.''

Dr. Gabriel also noted that the latest revelations of jihad nullify the earlier ones of peace and toleration.

Another problem is that the Quran permits Ellison and all Muslims to lie to advance the cause of Islam, according to Dr. Gabriel. If that's true then it doesn't matter whether Ellison takes the oath on the Bible, the Quran or just affirms that he will uphold the Constitution. His loyalty would still be in doubt because he is a Muslim and has stated he believes in the teachings of the Quran.

When Ellison swears on the Quran it will be more ceremonial and a photo-op for his Minnesota Muslim constituents back home than anything else. He already will have been officially sworn in or affirmed along with all House members.

The fact that Ellison has unequivocally asserted his belief in the Quran, however, still poses the question of his loyalty to it rather than the Constitution regardless of what he swears. He can't have two masters.

In addition to permitting lies, the difference between Islam and all other religions is that it sanctions killing, according to Dr. Gabriel (p149). So, that clearly conflicts with America 's Judeo-Christian heritage.

Dr. Gabriel, who is using an alias because he converted to Christianity and fears for his life, is a former professor of Islamic history at the most prestigious Islamic university in the world. He points out (p.47) that most Muslims ‘'will lie and say things they do not believe at any moment as long as doing so would help Islam.'' He adds:

‘'Any good Muslim who is living according to Allah's law and the Quran, which Ellison claims to be doing, will never choose loyalty to their citizenship over loyalty to Islam. This is not personal opinion; this is 100 percent Islamic law.'' (emphasis mine).

Judging by the actions of recent Presidents the oath of office appears more ceremonial that meaningful anyway, since all have violated the oath they took to uphold. Perhaps the oaths should be stronger with words included like the Ironclad Test Oath enacted by Congress during the Civil War.

That expanded oath required swearing by members that they had never previously engaged in criminal or disloyal conduct. Ellison's record suggests he might have a tough time complying with that part of the oath which was repealed in 1884.

According to WorldNetDaily (WND) ‘' a lien was placed on Ellison's home for failure to pay his taxes, and his Minnesota driver's license was suspended for failure to pay more than 40 parking and traffic tickets. ‘'He's also racked up hefty fines from campaign finance violations and defended the leader of a cop-killing gang,'' WND reported.

Ellison has been associated with Louis Farrakhan as well as the North American Imams Federation (NAIF). His campaign received backing from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a well known Washington-based lobbying group that promotes Islam.

Incidentally, the founder of CAIR, who critics claim is an extremist organization, has been confronted by some Muslim leaders over a statement he allegedly made to a California newspaper reporter in 1998 that Islam must one day dominate the United States.

Omar Ahmad claims the report was a ‘'total fabrication,'' according to WND, but the reporter, Lisa Gardiner, stuck by her story, WND reported.

In any case, Dr. Gabriel (p.37) states that Islam's ultimate goal is ‘'to establish Islamic authority over the whole world.''

OATHS

Most nations, including Iran , as an example, have oaths for office to uphold their constitutions. According to the encyclopedia Wikipedia, the president of Iran swears ‘'to safeguard the official Faith, the system of the Islamic Republic and the Constitution…'' He also swears to follow ‘'the example of the Prophet of Islam and the sacred Imams.''

In the United States Article VI, clause 3 of the Constitution states:

‘'The Senators and Representatives…and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public trust under the United States.

So, Ellison cannot be barred from taking the oath because of his religion. But some critics, including Dr. Gabriel, as noted, contend Islam is not a religion but a political revolution. Wesley Pruden of the Washington Times wrote in a recent column ( 12/26/06 ) that Islam is ‘'…not actually a religion… but a malignant political ideology.''

One Congressman, Rep. Virgil Goode (R.-Va.) stated in a letter to his constituents that Ellison's election poses a danger to the country. With loose immigration policies, Goode said he feared more Muslims would come here, be elected to Congress, and follow Ellison's example of using the Quran to swear on.

The House sets its own rules and has power to not seat any elected member. It could quote specific Surahs (chapters) from the Quran and ask Ellison if he believed in and followed them as a loyalty test. But it is unlikely to do that either.

As an example, Islam, according to Dr. Gabriel, ‘'teaches that Allah is the only authority;'' therefore, political systems must be based on Allah's teaching and nothing else. This is stated in Surah 5:44, 47, Dr. Gabriel points out. Ellison could be asked about it as a loyalty test. Then there is Surah 5:51 where the Quran says Muslims must not be friends with Christians or Jews.

Religious freedom and tolerance has from the beginning of the United States to the present been a strong underpinning reason for its success. But Islam is not a tolerant religion. And despite what the politicians including President Bush say, it is not a peaceful religion, although it started out as one, according to Dr. Gabriel.

That's why people get confused, according to Dr. Gabriel. Muhammad founded Islam in Mecca as a peaceful religion with a message of repentance, patience and forgiveness but was opposed by tribal leaders who tried to kill him. He moved to what is now Medina and formed an army and changed Islam into a political movement. Then ‘'the major topic of Quranic revelation was jihad and fighting the enemy.''

EXTREMISTS vs. MODERATES

There also is a debate about extremist vs. moderate Muslims and an attempt by some to paint extremists as just a facet of Islam that has hijacked the religion. Not so, says Dr. Gabriel. The fundamentalist Muslims are practicing ‘'true Islam,'' and ‘'their goal is to practice Islam as Muhammad did,'' claims Dr. Gabriel. That means jihad against non-believers.

It is true that the majority of Muslims reject jihad. There are three kinds of Muslims. The other two in addition to the fundamentalists are secular and traditional Muslims.

The first rejects the call to jihad and the second type falls into two categories: One that practices Islam but ‘'has a stumbling block with the concept of jihad'' and, two, people who know that jihad is fighting non-Muslims but don't do anything about it for either fear of their lives or a desire to live a good life.

That suggests that there may be cafeteria Muslims, just as has been suggested about Catholics. Which is Ellison? He professes to be a devout Muslim with total faith in the Quran.

There is only one true way for a Muslim to be assured of Paradise and that is by dying in jihad while fighting the enemy of Islam. This is why Muslims leave their own nations to fight jihad in other countries such as Iraq .

STAGES

Americans also should be aware of the three stages of jihad. Dr. Gabriel lists them as first, the ‘'weakened stage'' when Muslims are a weak minority living in a foreign country. In this stage they submit but work to increase their numbers. The second is the ‘'preparation stage'' where they are an influential minority (like in the district of Rep. John Conyers of Michigan , or Ellison of Minnesota) and make preparations for later direct confrontation. The last stage is jihad. At this stage, ‘'every Muslim's duty is to actively fight the enemy, overturning the system of the non-Muslim country and establishing Islamic authority.''

For Conyers, who introduced a resolution calling for respect for the Quran and Islamic religion along with 21 co-sponsors, Dr. Gabriel's book should be required reading. The resolution, among other things, ‘'condemns bigotry and intolerance by any religious group…'' The First Amendment should take care of that, and there is no reason to signal out one specific group for tolerance, especially one that is intolerant.

As a result of Democrats gaining control of Congress, Conyers has now become chairman of the prestigious House Judiciary Committee where the liberal and controversial congressman will have more clout. Ellison also might find out what kind of Muslim he is and what he is swearing to by reading Dr. Gabriel's book, if he doesn't already know.

He, Conyers, the co-sponsors and all Congressional members should research the history and meaning of Islam before endorsing the Quran unless they are just pandering to their constituents or being mavericks just to challenge historical precedent.

In addition to Dr. Gabriel's book, they may also want to delve into Tom Blankley's The West's Last Chance ,'' Bernard Lewis' What Went Wrong or Paul Sperry's, Infiltration, How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington and Saul Singer's opus on Confronting Jihad: Israel's Struggle and the World After 9/11, plus several other recent books and history on the subject.

I have referred extensively to Dr. Gabriel's book because of his background, scholarship and intimate knowledge of Muslims and his teaching at Al-Azhar University in Cairo , Egypt . As stated, this is one of the oldest and the most prestigious Islamic universities in the world.

LOYALTY

The reason oaths for government office should be extended by adding a phrase on loyalty, I submit, is that, as noted, many congressmen and presidents have given lip service to their oaths. Recent presidents who have sworn to ‘'…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States ,'' have not.

Most have belonged to organizations such as The Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission or the Order of Skull & Bones whose goals, despite disclaimers, are for one-world government and the degrading of U.S. sovereignty. They have supported regional and world trade and other organizations that set up bureaucrats in foreign lands to decide our constitutional rights. We have no input in the decisions or any way to appeal. Contacting our congressmen won't do any good because they have no say in the decisions.

BUSH 43

Bush 43 has been more brazen than his father in dismantling U.S. sovereignty in violation is his oath of office. He made an end run around Congress in March 2005 by signing a CFR recommendation with the heads of Mexico and Canada to form a North American alliance with Mexico and Canada similar to the European Union. The North American Union would ultimately have one currency and the borders would be open.

Bush 43 also has failed to uphold immigration laws and let Mexicans and others stream across our southern border to take American jobs and benefits. Remember, he swore to defend and protect the country.

These examples of politicians not upholding their oaths, however, are different from Ellison's case. Their religions don't permit them to lie as Ellison's does. They just lie to help corporations who have financed their careers and to advance the agenda of the elite globalists.

Remember about a half century ago, John F. Kennedy proclaimed his loyalty to the Constitution over the Catholic Church when he was running for president. Should Ellison do the same in a separate statement?

He probably will be allowed to take his oath on the Quran and become the first Muslim member of Congress with access to U.S. secrets because Congress has no backbone when it comes to exercising its authority in making controversial decisions.

Members who permit this, however, including Conyers and his co-sponsors, should be held accountable by voters.

The Quran, as interpreted by Dr. Gabriel, is simply not compatible with the Constitution or our national heritage.

Top