Monday, May 28, 2007

More on Ron Paul

Dr. Ron Paul continues to draw considerable attention in his bid for the presidency. The always readable, though occasionally wrong, Jim Pinkerton writes that given his libertarian tinge, "it's little wonder, then, that Paul is viewed dimly by top Republicans - the party loyalists, social-issue-regulators and neoconservative militarists who have come to dominate the GOP."

Paul’s libertarianism is also a genuine concern among paleoconservatives and Christians such as my blogging cohort at Backwater Report, Bret McAtee, who is legitimately concerned that Paul is more ideological libertarian than Christian.

I myself am something of a recovering libertarian and have a suspicion that many, perhaps most, libertarians have political convictions grounded in anti-Christian presuppositions about the nature of man and sin. Thus, I too share genuine and real concern regarding zealous libertarians. Do they confess with their mouths and lives that Jesus is Lord, or do they enthrone man?

Nevertheless, libertarianism is not inherently inconsistent with a concern for Christian governance. Many libertarians, including I believe Dr. Paul, argue for smaller and more decentralized government because of a right understanding of original sin, and a fear that the unchecked state will serve as an instrument in the hands of the wicked wielded for the purpose of destroying church and family.

In discussing the meaning of theocracy, R. J. Rushdoony wrote: "Few things are more commonly misunderstood than the nature and meaning of theocracy. It is commonly assumed to be a dictatorial rule by self-appointed men who claim to rule for God. In reality, theocracy in Biblical law is the closest thing to a radical libertarianism that can be had." In short, theocracy is the re-establishment of self-government under God, with the family as the central governing institution rather than the distant imperial regime.

Obviously Ron Paul is not a theocrat in the Greg Bahnsen mould, but his worldview is not at all incompatible with a consistent Christian worldview. He himself is a faithful and practicing Protestant, and has been married to the same woman for fifty years. Paul and his wife have also been faithful to the culture mandate, having been blessed with five children and seventeen grandchildren.

Interestingly, he has also managed to gain the support of dispensational writers such as Chuck Baldwin and Laurence Vance along with the endorsement of theonomists like Gary North and Chris Ortiz. North in fact worked in Paul's congressional office in the 1970's. Vigorous pro-life conservatives such as Pat Buchanan are also springing to Paul's defense.

Not only has Paul garnered the support of many rock-ribbed Christians, he also makes the druggie, grifter, and low-life set of the libertarian movement uncomfortable. In The New Republic, Michael Crowley explains why: "But libertarians are a fractious bunch, and some hardcore activists have mixed feelings about the man now carrying their banner. For instance, libertarian purists generally support a laissez-faire government attitude toward abortion and gay marriage, as well as 'open border' immigration policies and unfettered free trade. Yet Paul opposes gay marriage, believes states should outlaw abortion, decries high immigration rates, and criticizes free trade agreements--though mainly on constitutional grounds."

Dr. Paul is a fierce critic of abortion. As a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, he has delivered more than 4,000 babies. In 2005, he introduced legislation legislation that for federal purposes defined "human exist from conception." The bill, H.R. 776, would also have removed the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over abortion, nullifying the Roe v Wade decision, and pulled the plug on funding for abortion providers.

If you doubt Paul's pro-life bonafides, read his comments from the House floor discussing the partial-birth abortion ban:

Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.

The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.

Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

For example, 14G in the "Findings" section of this bill states, "...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide..." The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community? By stating that we draw a "bright line" between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are "expendable," and which are not.

Given his belief that human life begins at conception, Dr. Paul would surely oppose the gross violation of human dignity inherent in embryonic stem-cell research.

Paul also believes in the necessity of a vibrant and active church that zealously guards its prerogatives against the encroaching state. What GOP bigwig, or for that matter who in the increasingly ridiculous Constitution Party, would make this argument:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

It is true that the application of unconstrained libertarian theory leads to social chaos, rootless individualism and, somewhat paradoxically, statism via the destruction of institutions that mediate between the individual and the state.

Ron Paul is neither an anarchist nor a libertine, but a constitutionalist and Christian, and in God's common grace he grasps by-and-large the necessity of a Biblical social order. Is he perfect? Well, no. But politics is often the art of the possible, and in this election cycle to the extent that we will serve as salt and light to a dying world in the political process, Paul's candidacy is by far the best option.

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Post-Modern Gender Confusion

In ecclesiastical news, the United Methodist Church has installed the Rev. Drew Phoenix as pastor of St. John's United Methodist Church in Charles Village, Maryland. Why is that a problem? Well, until recently the Rev. Phoenix was known as the Rev. Ann Gordon. You see, while Methodists allegedly draw the line with non-celibate gay clergy, they have no rules dealing with transgendered ministers.

"This is about more than me," said Phoenix. "This is about people who come after me, about young people in particular who are struggling with their gender identity. I'm doing this for them."

Phoenix went on to say, "The gender I was assigned at birth has never matched my own true authentic God-given gender identity, how I know myself. Fortunately today God's gift of medical science is enabling me to bring my physical body in alignment with my true gender."

Well, first, it isn't science that determines gender. Historic Christianity links physicality and gender. God creates man and woman and assigns distinctive biological traits and gender roles (see Genesis 1 and 2). It is we who turn this inside-out with our misguided and sinful conceptions of the alleged fluid and subjective nature of sexual identity. Such gender confusion is called an "abomination" in Scripture (Deut. 22:5).

Is there any doubt that we are living in an era of sexual and gender confusion? In our post-modern mind, we ourselves determine what it means to be man and woman, to be human. The Author of creation is cast aside as the goddess science is enthroned and worshipped, even in the "church."

Of course, such a thorough-going rejection of Genesis 1 and 2 begins by tossing aside biblical prescriptions concerning church leadership. That Rev. Ann was shepherding St. John's before becoming the Rev. Drew was simply a necessary first step in undermining biblical authority.

The wholesale rejection of biblical manhood and womanhood within the culture has largely been accepted within the institutional church. Having swallowed the egalitarian presuppositions of the Enlightenment, Christians routinely deny that there are in fact God-ordained sexual roles.

Take as one example the leadership of Willow Creek Community Church, one of America’s largest and most influential evangelical bodies. In January, 1996, John Ortberg, then a teaching pastor at Willow Creek, authored a position paper distributed to staffers at the Illinois mega church. Mr. Ortberg wrote that on the issue of gender equality, the church "has sought to insure an appropriate level of consensus on this issue with new staff members" in order to avoid a divisive environment that "would be destructive to authentic community and effective ministry." Ortberg goes on to say that "when the Bible is interpreted comprehensively, it teaches the full equality of men and women in status, giftedness and opportunity for ministry."

Christians who aren't embarrassed by their Bibles might beg to differ, and can claim the authority of the Apostle Paul:

If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap. Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus (I Tim. 3:1-13).

The elimination and obliteration of distinctions between the sexes is rooted in rebellion against God's order. Indeed, such egalitarianism denies the very principle of order and attempts to arrange creation on its own terms. Equality thus becomes a philosophical and religious faith that demands the fidelity of every individual and institution. And since "conservative" evangelicals have been loath to do battle with the egalitarian ethos in our homes and churches, why are we surprised at the confusion endemic in our culture?

Where are the pastors, teachers and evangelists who will have the courage to proclaim the full counsel of God and call this confusion what the Bible deems it--an "abomination"? Where are the teachers who will call the doctrines of equality and radical individualism what they are—heresy?

A Few Blurbs

Without much fanfare or hoopla from Red State Fascists, President Bush signed a directive authorizing effectively dictatorial powers in the event of a "catastrophic emergency" declared by...the president.

Commenting on the new directive, and other malfeasance, is the good Pastor Chuck Baldwin: "So, the sixty-four million dollar question seems to be, Is George W. Bush an egomaniac, without conscience or regard for his own party, or is he a bumbling, stumbling, simpleton-cowboy who is really as dumb as he talks, or is he deliberately and meticulously (with much help, of course) orchestrating America's entrance into Daddy Bush's "New World Order"? I personally believe the correct answer is found behind curtain number three.

In any case, President Bush has almost single-handedly superintended the destruction of the Republican Party, which by itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. America desperately needs a strong Independent party that respects America's working men and women and submits to constitutional government. Perhaps the demise of the GOP will create a void that such a party can fill in 2008--providing that Bush has not become der Führer by then."

On the war-front, cowardly congressional Democrats caved to Bush on the Iraq funding bill, tossing their anti-war constituency overboard. The 100-billion-dollar legislation will fund the war through September and in no way curbs Mr. Bush's war-making "authority."

Pat Buchanan asks, "Why did the Democrats capitulate?" His answer: "Because they lack the courage of their convictions. Because they fear the consequences if they put their antiwar beliefs into practice. Because they are afraid if they defund the war and force President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops, the calamity he predicts will come to pass and they will be held accountable for losing Iraq and the strategic disaster that might well ensue."

This is an old story, and we've heard variations of it scores of times, but a new report says intelligence analysts warned the White House that the invasion of Iraq "could create instability that would give Iran and al-Qa'ida new opportunities to expand their influence [and] could increase extremist recruiting."

Quick, someone forward the link to Rudy "There's No Such Thing as Blowback, That's Ridiculous" Giuliani.

Speaking of Rudy, Dr. Paul has given him a reading list.

Aaron Wolf on Church Growth

In the June issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, Aaron Wolf offers up part two of his analysis of the church growth movement. His essay primarily focuses on Rick Warren, and the influence of management guru Peter Drucker on Warren's "methods" of church-growth and evangelism. Wolf concludes that the hubris inspiring Warren's approach to ministry is not something new or unique, but is a manifestation of the heresy of "Americanism," defined as the perspective that "we are the terminal generation, that we are special on the stage of world history, that everything must conform to our vision of ourselves."

Anyone having even a passing familiarity with "conservative evangelical Protestantism" is familiar with the malady described by Wolf.

More: “How in the world did Saint Patrick evangelize all those Druid priests and clan chieftains without a mission statement? After all, history and tradition tell us that he walked around preaching and performed an occasional miracle. But how did he know what his mission was? And then, there are purpose and strategy and vision—all three which cannot be left to chance, if today’s business and Church-growth experts are right….

What, exactly, drew the Irish to Patrick? Was it the thrilling promise of a miracle? Did Patrick pass out vellums advertising a Three Night Life-Changing Crusade? “Watch Snakes Vanish, Before Your Very Eyes!” Did he carefully compose relevant, contemporary music (so as not to frighten away the hipster Celts) for singing “The Breastplate”? “Ooh, ooh, ooh, the splendour of fire!/Whoa, oh, oh, the flashing light’ning! [Repeat 6x’s.]” Did he speak to their felt needs, urging them to trade in all of their cares, anxieties, and their depression for a relationship with Christ?

And how did he ensure that those he persuaded to make Life-Changing Decisions to keep coming to church? Did he create special ministries for Celtic youth, for young Irish families, for the mothers of Preschoolers? “Today, after mass, Pastor Pat will be talking with the Nifty fifties about living with osteoporosis.” Or “Irish Youth in Service (IRIS) will be having its annual God-Hain bonfire this Saturday night. (Parents, please: No devil masks.)”

No, Patrick preached. He evangelized (“gospelled”) as he went, wherever he went. He did not have a mission statement: He had the Great Commission. He did not have marketing techniques: He had the Holy Ghost, the word of God, and his ordination. He did have slick music or a “relevant message”: He had the Body and Blood of Christ, the stern rebuke of God’s Law, and the promise of the forgiveness of sins”

Monday, May 21, 2007

Good News on the Immigration Front

There are signs that Senate passage of the Bush-Kennedy-Graham-La Raza-Wall Street Journal immigration bill may be in some trouble. Let's look at a few particulars.

Ungrateful Bidness Leaders Balking at Immigration Legislation

From the article: "Employers, who helped shape a major immigration bill over the last three months, said on Sunday that they were unhappy with the result because it would not cure the severe labor shortages they foresee in the coming decade.

In addition, employers expressed alarm as they learned that the Senate bill would require them to check a government database to verify that all current and former employees — aliens and citizens alike — were eligible to work in the United States."

And there you have it. The interest of business groups is to privatize the benefits and socialize the costs of immigration.

Cheap Labor Proponent Booed

South Carolina Senator, resident McCainiac, and proponent of cheap labor Lindsey Graham was booed at the state GOP convention. Graham was one of the chief negotiators that crafted the Senate's "comprehensiveimmigrationreform" legislation. Graham defended the bill with a ringing defense: "It's the best bill I think we can get to President Bush." Sorry Lindsey, even GOP voters are smarter than that.

Immigration Proposals Split Views in U.S.

Gotta love that headline from Angus Reid. Surely the country must be evenly split over the question of amnesty. Obviously the public is crying out for more than a mere fence! But according to the Rasmussen poll cited in the article 56% of Americans would favor an enforcement-only approach to immigration reform and 62% favor adding 6,000 more border patrol agents.

Few Senators Support the Illegals Bill

From the Washington Times: "Fewer than 20 senators are publicly committed to supporting the immigration deal that hits the Senate floor today while nearly 40 are already opposed or have serious concerns, underscoring how difficult it will be for President Bush and his allies to craft a coalition that can pass the bill."

Let's hope so.

Go Ron, Go

Here is GOP congressman and presidential hopeful Ron Paul addressing American foreign policy, and its connection to 9/11, during the recent debate in South Carolina.

Below is a blurb from the transcript:

MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as — almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?

REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy. Senator Robert Taft didn’t even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy — no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There’s a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.
Just think of the tremendous improvement — relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam.
So there’s a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.
And my argument is that we shouldn’t go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don’t end.

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don’t think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East — I think Reagan was right.
We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, “I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.” They have already now since that time — (bell rings) — have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the
attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.) And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.
They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if we were — if other foreign countries were doing that to us?


Congressman Paul explains succinctly that non-interventionism has historically been a hallmark of the Right. This would all be news to readers of Ann Coulter or perhaps Sean Hannity's radio audience, and apparently was completely confounding to Rudy Giuliani, whose reply should have been satisfactory only to those with IQs below room temperature.

As recently as 1976, a moderate Republican like Bob Dole would grouse about the "Democrat wars" of the 20th Century. Wilson's folly in dragging Americans into WWI set the stage for the stalemate in Europe which produced an unjust peace and led to the rise of the Nazis, Bolsheviks and Fascists.

FDR, in the face of overwhelming public opinion and a powerful America First movement, did everything in his power to maneuver Japan into firing the first shot. Truman and Johnson's foolish engagement of the Commies in Southeast Asia cost more than 100,000 Americans their lives.

In short, the Right has historically been anti-interventionist, even in hey-day of anti-Communism this was largely the case. Reagan was perhaps the most vociferous ideological opponent of the Soviet Union, but the containment strategy of the Reagan era amounted to little more than funding and arming proxies in Nicaragua and Angola, backing movements like Solidarity in the Soviet bloc, and talking about the Space Defense Initiative.

After the debate, Paul was ridiculed by know-nothings and some Republican leaders called for barring him from future debates.

However, he is getting some support as well.

Here is Pat Buchanan:

Of the 10 candidates on stage in South Carolina, Dr. Paul alone opposed the war. He alone voted against the war. Have not the last five years vindicated him, when two-thirds of the nation now agrees with him that the war was a mistake, and journalists and politicians left and right are babbling in confession, "If I had only known then what I know now ..."

Rudy implied that Ron Paul was unpatriotic to suggest the violence against us out of the Middle East may be in reaction to U.S. policy in the Middle East. Was President Hoover unpatriotic when, the day after Pearl Harbor, he wrote to friends, "You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten."

Pearl Harbor came out of the blue, but it also came out of the troubled history of U.S.-Japanese relations going back 40 years. Hitler's attack on Poland was naked aggression. But to understand it, we must understand what was done at Versailles – after the Germans laid down their arms based on Wilson's 14 Points. We do not excuse – but we must understand.

Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war.

By all means, throw out of the debate the only man who was right from the beginning on Iraq.

Right-wing media watchdog Cliff Kincaid defends Paul against the liars at Faux News:

In a desperate attempt to make Rudy Giuliani out to be the hero of Tuesday night's debate, Fox News is continuing to attack Texas Congressman Ron Paul for something he did not say. In the latest installment of this campaign, John Gibson of Fox News says that Paul "suggested that the U.S. actually had a hand in the [9/11] terrorist attacks." No, what he said was that U.S. foreign policy was a reason why Osama bin Laden attacked America. This is a fact.

For more of the good doctor, here he is taking Wolf Blitzer to the mat, and here he takes on FNC business reporter Neil Cavuto.

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Churches and Immigration

Here are churches encouraging lawbreaking: "Churches in five big U.S. cities plan to protect illegal immigrants from deportation, offering their buildings as sanctuary if need be, as they pressure lawmakers to create a path to citizenship for the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants."

The Catholic Church has, of course, been a huge proponent of open-borders policies, but various factions of Protestants are getting in on the act, too. You would expect it from the ELCA, PCUSA, ECUSA, and the United Methodists. But as I've written previously, the spirit of lawlessness is afoot in my denomination (Southern Baptist Convention), too. The guilt-mongers are everywhere, including perhaps standing behind the pulpit of your local church.

The role of American churches in perpetuating the current crisis was examined by James C. Russell in a little book called "Breach of Faith." Russell traces some of the changes in ecclesiastical and liturgical life that have fostered a paradigm shift. Churches are no longer defenders of the Western culture (Christendom) produced by historic Christianity but have become to often exponents of a perverse and unbiblical universalism. Moreover, rather than serving as an agent of personal morality advancing charity and a love of neighbor, the church has increasingly become an instrument of social action.

While the church has a duty to call upon the magistrate to govern by just laws and policies, precisely the opposite has occurred as religious leaders have turned into apologists for law-breaking and charity with the money of others.

How should Christians respond to the immigration challenge? Lou Dobbs reported recently that a John Zogby poll from last year asked churchgoers if they supported the House bill that would make illegal aliens return home and reduce future illegal immigration by securing the border and performing checks on illegal employers. "Seventy-five percent of Protestants responded that was a good or very good idea, 77 percent of born-again Christians also agreed, and 66 percent of Catholics also backed tougher enforcement measures," writes Dobbs. Obviously the leaders are out of touch with their laity.

Russell writes: "No Christian should feel compelled to accept an immigration expansionist agenda in order to conform to a Christian denomination. Any church directive that seriously threatens a congregant’s prospects for individual or group survival should be considered null and void, since it violates the Fifth Commandment, as well as the most fundamental natural law of self-preservation. The advocacy by most American churches of continued high levels of legal immigration, increased numbers of refugees, and amnesty for illegal aliens constitutes a violation of the laws of self-preservation and societal order. Church proscriptions against the expression of normal healthy preservationist beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors may be rejected, if for no other reason than that the acceptance of such prohibitions would leave the individual and his or her group defenseless."

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Importing "Family Values"

"But it would also seem a priori likely that third-world immigrants should have stronger family values than white, middle-class, suburban Americans, while their work ethic and willingness to defer to traditional sources of authority should be greater as well."

Francis "Still Waiting for the End of History" Fukuyama

"My second argument is that the immigrants themselves are like a booster shot of traditional morality injected into the body politic. Immigrants work hard. They build community groups. They have traditional ideas about family structure, and they work heroically to make them a reality."

David Brooks

"As a Texan, I have known many immigrant families, mainly from Mexico, and I have seen what they add to our country. They bring to America the values of faith in God, love of family, hard work and self reliance -- the values that made us a great nation to begin with."

George W. Bush

The sub-species of reptilia known as neoconservatives are among the chief proponents of (altogether now) "comprehensiveimmigrationreform" because they loathe bourgeois, middle-American values and breathlessly await the birth of "The First Universal Nation."

Feel free to quibble, but any rational definition of a nation begins with a homogeneous population sharing a common identity and occupying a contiguous territory; speaking the same language; having a common religion, literature, manners, customs, literature, and mythology; governed by the same principles and traditions; and conscious of common destiny and solidarity. In short, it is an ethno-cultural entity and by definition cannot be universal in nature.

Neocons believe in the concept of a "propositional" nation, where nationhood is defined ideologically, and rather than tied together through ancestry or a shared history, a people is united by a common commitment to a set of ideas and ideals, a creed. As Lawrence Auster has argued, Neocons start with an organizing mythology about nationhood: "America was built on universal principles of human rights, equality, and open borders; therefore America, by definition, must have a virtually infinite capacity for absorbing racially and culturally diverse peoples into its national fabric; and therefore any serious concerns about what immigration is actually doing to the country are un-American and must be automatically dismissed."

Hence the American nation is reduced to a series of bumper-stickers--"The First Universal Nation," "A Melting Pot," or a "Nation of Immigrants" grounded in the principles of "Family Values."

Neocons proceed to evangelize with the fervor of a Pentecostal minister about the virtues of immigrants. Immigrants are "a booster shot of traditional morality injected into the body politic," preaches David Brooks from his pulpit at the NY Times.


Are immigrants less crime proned? While non-citizens constitute 7.2 percent of the total U.S. population, their share of the incarcerated population is 12.9 percent. Approximately 27 percent of all prisoners in Federal custody are criminal aliens, and the incarceration rate of Hispanics is more than twice that of whites.

And what about those famous "family values?" Well, Hispanic women are two and a half times more likely to have abortions than white women, have a far higher rate of teenage pregnancy (94 per 1,000 vs. 32 for whites), and have significantly more children without the benefit of wedlock, spawning future generations likely to have all of the pathologies associated with illegitimacy. On the plus side, if you don't get married the good news is that you never need a divorce.

Friday, May 18, 2007

Borjas on the Immigration "Compromise"

Harvard professor and labor economist George Borjas calls the immigration deal a "travesty of a mockery of a sham." That's putting it nicely.

"Any 'reform' that gives amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants without taking care of the underlying illegal -immigration problem is a lemon," says Borjas. "After all, what guarantees that the current batch of 12 million illegal immigrants will not be replaced by another 12 million in just a few years? What guarantees that guest workers will not stay illegally in the United States after their visa expires? What guarantees that border enforcement will be taken seriously by the Bush administration in the next two years or by the Democratic administration after that?"

The immigration "compromise" contains a provision creating a guest-worker program that will admit 400,000 workers each year. Where exactly will these laborers come from? Unaddressed is the fact that 5 billion people live in countries with a lower per capita income than Mexico. They will likely work for lower wages than your average Mexican.

The likely consequence is therefore the importation of 400,000 Thais, Chinese, Indians, and Pakistanis by means of the guest-worker provision--supplemented by the continuing onslaught from the southern border. (As an aside, is there anything more permanent than "temporary" workers? Will we really deport them when the time comes?)

The economics are relatively simple. Low-skilled immigrants are admitted in huge numbers driving down the wages of blue-collar workers. Certain groups of professionals (doctors, engineers, and computer programmers for example) will also see their wages decrease due to various visa provisions granted to numerous industry interest groups. Meanwhile, the social costs associated with education, health care and welfare expenditures will explode and be largely socialized.

The primary beneficiaries will be social, economic, and political elites who manage to reap the benefits of mass immigration while insulating themselves and their families from the consequences. America’s verbal elite will essentially be importing a servant class at no cost to themselves in terms of increased competition. The lawyers, politicians, business executives, journalists, and editorialists who drive the immigration debate don’t have their livelihoods, not to mention their children’s education, threatened by mass immigration, but they will acquire the cheapest pool cleaners, house-keepers, and roofers in the Western world.

So who are the losers? The rest of us. What a deal.

Please Impeach These Guys

Here are the primary architects who devised the sell out on immigration. On the left are some of the congressional negotiators of this farce. From the left, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Mel Martinez (R-FL, and RNC Chair), Edward Kennedy (Drunk--MA), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Johnny Isakson (R-GA) and Ken Salazar (D-CO). Not pictured is John McCain, who came off the campaign trail to support the legislation, and Lindsey "La Raza" Graham, who said this episode reminded him of what he learned in high-school civics. Can I suggest that teacher be fired immediately?

On the "right," walking away from the camera and public opinion, are the president and Secretaries Chertoff and Gutierrez.

This was the second time in a week that a major bipartisan deal struck by Bush and congressional Dems. Last Friday they came together in the "spirit of bipartisanship" to move ahead with several free-trade pacts.

The moral of the story is that we no longer live in a country governed by its people. What the elites want, they will get. Open borders, "free trade," never ending war and interventionism, the melding of America into globalist political institutions and a "global economy" and the destruction of our laws, culture, and people.

That is what you will get, ladies and gentleman, by continuing to vote for men like McCain, Graham and Bush.

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Would You Send Your Baby to a Madrassa?

"Clearly, believers are to avoid unnecessary exposure to worldview influences that would contradict and/or undermine biblical truth. Again, any educational choice we make must take this biblical principle into account. Imagine a Christian family sending their child to a Muslim school. Unthinkable, you say? But why? They could be "Salt and Light" there. They could influence other students. They may even get a better academic education. They certainly would not be exposed to the same levels of immorality. However, this would be unthinkable because of the contradictory worldview with which our children would be inundated. If we can see this, we can certainly see the problem with a school system mired in Secular Humanism, Social Darwinism and the like."

Dr. Voddie Baucham

Kathy Has a Blog

Well, I've been going through something of a blogging dearth of late for several reasons. First, I can't seem to dredge up any righteous anger. Maybe that's a good thing. Second, I had been doing a lot of blogging during lunch at the local library, which has subsequently moved back to the normal location. Given that I frankly hate to take time away from the wife and boys to rant and rave, I've been on something of a fast. I know I've said it before, but I hope to start posting more in the near future.

On the plus side, Kathy has started blogging. She will provide the softer and more personal side of the Dow family, though she doesn't seem to have much to say about that wonderful husband of hers.