Although the Senate has voted to oppose the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prevent flag burning as a form of political protest, it is possible that another vote could be taken this year before the November election.  If enough voters demand that the vote occur again and put pressure on some the Senators who voted against it, it could happen.  Senators do occasionally respond to the will of the people when the people speak out.   With that in mind, I am publishing a petition to the United States Senate.  If you want the change, let your voice be heard.  After all, you do have freedom of speech.  You do have the freedom to petition the government.


The majority leader of the Senate is:


Senator William Frist
509 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510


The Washington D.C. mailing address for each Senator can also be found at http://www.senate.gov/.  The addresses for the three Republican Senators who opposed the Constitutional Amendment are:


Senator Mitch McConnell
361-A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510


Senator Lincoln Chafee
141-A Russell Senate Office building
Washington D.C. 20510


Senator Robert Bennett
431 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510


Petition to the United States Senate


The First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause does not permit the burning of the United States flag.  An out of control Supreme Court determined that flags could be burned in political protest.  Congress including the Senate has the responsibility to reverse such an obscene decision.  The Constitution provides the correct method to amend the Constitution.  Please use the prescribed process to reverse the error of the Supreme Court.  The will of the majority of the citizens of this country is that the United States flag, as a symbol for our nation, not be trivialized by a power hungry United States Supreme Court.







Name _____________________________________________________________



Street Address ___________________________________________________



City, Sate, zip code _____________________________________________





Signature ________________________________________________________




              

              http://www.christiangunslinger.blogspot.com/

It seems I was wrong.  I wrote on my June 27th blog that flag burning was not protected until the 1960’s and 70’s.  According to an article published in the Peoria Journal Star on June 28, 2006, page A1 the change occurred later.  The Supreme Court ruled “in 1989 and 1990 that burning and other desecrations of the flag are protected as free speech….”  Consequently, in relation to our 200+ years of independence, flag burning has been protected for less than twenty years of that long history.  It is now protected not by Constitutional provision but rather by Supreme Court edict.


As I wrote on that blog of the 27th, the Senate failed to pass the proposed Constitutional Amendment by one vote.  The following information is from http://www.senate.gov/.  If you go to that website, you can get the Senate roll call votes.  It is a handy site to visit to find out how your Senators and other Senators are voting on issues.


However, I was right about another comment I made.  Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama from Illinois voted against the Constitutional Amendment.  Senators Kerry and Kennedy from Massachusetts voted against the Constitutional Amendment.  Not surprisingly, carpetbagging Senator Clinton voted against the Constitutional Amendment.  In all, three Republicans, one Independent, and thirty Democrats voted against the Constitution Amendment.  The thirty-four culprits included:


McConnell, Republican from Kentucky
Chafee, Republican from Rhode Island
Bennett, Republican from Utah

Jeffords, Independent from Vermont

Pryor, Democrat from Arkansas
Boxer, Democrat from California
Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut
Lieberman, Democrat from Connecticut
Biden, Democrat from Delaware
Carper, Democrat from Delaware
Akaka, Democrat from Hawaii
Inouye, Democrat from Hawaii
Durbin, Democrat from Illinois
Obama, Democrat from Illinois
Harkin, Democrat from Iowa
Mikulski, Democrat from Maryland
Sarbanes, Democrat from Maryland
Kennedy, Democrat from Massachusetts
Kerry, Democrat from Massachusetts
Levin, Democrat from Michigan
Lautenberg, Democrat from New Jersey
Bingaman, Democrat from New Mexico
Clinton, Democrat from New York
Schumer, Democrat from New York
Conrad, Democrat from North Dakota
Dorgan, Democrat from North Dakota
Wyden, Democrat from Oregon
Reed, Democrat from Rhode Island
Leahy, Democrat from Vermont
Cantwell, Democrat from Washington
Murray, Democrat from Washington
Byrd, Democrat from West Virginia
Feingold, Democrat from Wisconsin and
Kohl, Democrat from Wisconsin


In the past and possibly even today far away from the prying eyes of the public, we know that individuals murdered and sacrificed young children in the name of religion.  We also know that some acts are so repugnant that they can not be allowed even if done in the name of religious worship.  


The same is true for the deliberate burning of the American flag as a form of political protest.  It is repugnant.  We know that freedom of speech is not unlimited.  Freedom of speech has never been nor should it ever be an absolute freedom.  We also know that effective political protest can be accomplished without burning the American flag.  We further know that such action was not allowed until recent Supreme Court decisions allowed it.  


The original writers of the freedom of speech amendment did not intend that clause to be used to allow illegal acts to be committed in the name of freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech referred to political debate on the issues of the day—not actions.  The Supreme Court redefined speech to cover acts committed.  Now, because of that redefinition, literally thousands of different actions might be defined as free speech—chaining oneself to a tree, nude dancing, burning the flag, burning an empty building, going on a hunger strike, burning oneself alive, bombing a building, laying in front of automobile traffic, human sacrifice of young children, smoking in a no smoking area.  Name an action: to the Supreme Court it might be protected as free speech!!!  I have no doubt that if the writers of the Amendment were alive today, the vast majority of them would look the members of the Supreme Court in the eye and say: “You lawyers!!!  Actions are not speech!  We were talking about political debate; not disobeying the laws of the nation.  By your imposed definition, any thing could be defined as free speech.  How ignorant can you be!!!”      


The Constitution of the United States does not allow flag burning as political protest.  The decisions of the United States Supreme Court allow it.  Congress has every Constitutional right to propose a Constitutional Amendment to reverse a repugnant Supreme Court decision.  


Is it time to remove libertine Democrats from positions of power in this nation?

The following brief news account appeared in the Peoria Journal Star on June 28, 2006, page A2.  Since it is only four paragraphs long I will quote the entire story.


“Scientists give two thumbs up to Gore’s movie


Washington, D.C.—The nation’s top climate scientists are giving ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ Al Gore’s documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.


The former vice president’s movie—replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets—mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion.  Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory.  Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.”


Let’s analyze what this story actually states and some of the problems with the report.  First according to the story, “the nation’s top climate scientists are giving ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ Al Gore’s documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.”  Is that a valid conclusion from the information presented in the story?  Answer: NO!!!


According to the article, the AP selected the scientists to be questioned.  That process alone could slant the answers given.  That is not the only problem though.  They questioned over 100 scientists by e-mail and phone.  That is another instance of using a poor research methodology.  The problems don’t end there—only 19 of the over 100 scientists approached had seen the movie or read the book and answered the questions asked.  By my calculation, that is less than 19% of the total number of scientists contacted.  


So, please explain to me how the author of this story can conclude that the nation’s top climate scientists are declaring the movie accurate.  That is an illogical, incorrect, and absolutely misleading conclusion.  The vast majority of the scientists contacted never said any thing of the kind.  They didn’t say any thing.  Yet, the conclusion is the movie is valid.  What utter nonsense!!!


Here are some key descriptions in the article: “five stars for accuracy,” “mostly got the science right,” “same general impression,” “conveyed the science correctly.”   So, which is it really for these 19 scientists who bothered to answer?  Was it five stars—the highest rating used or “mostly got it right”?  Was it “conveyed the science correctly” or “same general impression?”  Or, doesn’t the author understand that there is a difference between mostly being correct and being correct scientifically.  Does the author realize that “same general impression” is hedging on the correctness of the science?


The author declares “Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory.”  How many vocal skeptics were contacted?

Don’t know.  The article does not give that information.  Was it two vocal skeptics or 50% of the 100+ scientists contacted?  Don’t know.  The article does not give that information.  Were any of the vocal skeptics among the 19 scientists who answered the questions asked?  Don’t know.  The article does not give that information.  Would the number of skeptics asked and the number of skeptics who responded make a different in the conclusions reached?  I would think so but we don’t know the information necessary to draw any conclusions in that area.  I wonder why.


My guess is that very few skeptics were contacted.  My guess is that none of the skeptics answered the questions.


Why would I reach the conclusion that none of the skeptics answered the questions?  My guess is that none of the skeptics read the book or saw the movie.  


Earlier this year, I read the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy by Byron York. He is a reporter for the National Review (or was at the time the book was printed).  In one of the chapters, he discusses Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11.  He tried to determine who actually saw the movie.  His conclusion is that the people who saw the movie were people who already agreed with Michael Moore and the political statement of the movie.  That is, conservative Republicans and those who supported George Bush and the Iraq Conflict did not spend money to watch propaganda from the other side.  Neither did those who were undecided about the Conflict.  Basically, the audiences were composed of “true believers” whose position was reinforced by the movie—not altered.


My guess is that the same is true for Al Gore’s book and movie.  The scientists who bothered to read the book or see the movie already supported the position held by Al Gore.  Those who do not accept the concept did not bother to either read the book or see the movie.  Consequently, they had no basis for answering the questions posed by The Associated Press.  It seems probable those who responded already accepted the position presented by Al Gore.  Therefore, the conclusions of the article are invalid.  The article was a waste and does nothing to clarify the issue.      


Therefore, my questions are: Does the author of this article believe that the reading public has no ability to critically analyze the junk written as scientific analysis?  Does the author of this article believe that if it is reported as truth then it must be the truth?  Do the powers that be at the Peoria Journal Star believe the same?  


This article even though it is only four paragraphs long is so replete with error it is almost criminal that it was printed as a legitimate news story!          

On Monday June 26, 2006 the Peoria Journal Star published an editorial against a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the desecration of the American flag as a form of protest.  The paper also had a small article about the issue on page A2.  It was six paragraphs long and the by-line was AP (the Associated Press).


I don’t know what material if any was edited out of the article.  The article as published had no positive comments in relation to the need for or desirability of the proposed Amendment.  


The first two paragraphs declared “Senate leaders in both parties said Sunday there is no need for a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning, which the Senate plans to debate this week.


Protecting the First Amendment’s right to free speech takes precedent, agreed Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., each their party’s second-ranking Senate leader.  Both said they would oppose the flag-burning amendment.”


Repeating what I said in last night’s blog, the First Amendment does not say that flag burning is a part of our free speech rights.  For most of our history, flag burning was not considered a part of our free speech rights.  Our libertine Supreme Court (The direction of the Court is now changing because of the two appointments by President Bush.) ruled in one of many obscene decisions that flag burning was a form of protected free speech.  Anyone who claims that the First Amendment protects flag burning without clarifying the circumstance is skewing the truth.


The truth is that every Senator who votes against the proposed Amendment is not “protecting the First Amendment’s right to free speech.”  Rather, the Senators are protecting the political decision of a libertine Supreme Court which altered the provisions of the First Amendment as established by historical precedent and the intent of the original writers of the Amendment.  The protection was not recognized until the 1960’s and 70’s.  The Court changed the intent of the First Amendment to suit their desires—the Court ignored the intent of the original writers of the Amendment.


From reading the first four paragraphs of the article, the obvious conclusion would seem to be that the proposed Amendment has no chance of being passed.  The only information given is from those who oppose the Amendment.  The article declares that the Amendment is not needed.  The article implies that the Amendment is not supported by either Democrats or Republicans.  The article quotes Senator McConnell who suggests that the First Amendment has protected flag burning for over 200 years—which, of course, is incorrect and terribly misleading.  One might even wonder why it is being considered at all considering the information given.      


But wait!  The sixth and last paragraph completely changed the importance of the upcoming vote.  “’It is within one vote of passage.  And I think that’s unfortunate,’ Durbin said.”  What!!!  It is possible that the Amendment might pass!  


How is that possible?  It takes a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to pass a Constitutional Amendment.  If all Senators vote on the question, it takes 67 votes to pass the proposal.  There are 66 Senators who might vote for the Amendment?  Reading the first four paragraphs, I don’t know how anyone would arrive at that conclusion.  Do you think the article was just a little bit slanted in opposition to the Amendment?


The above was written earlier today.  According to WGN television news at 9:00 p.m., the Senate has voted on the proposed Amendment.  66 Senators voted in favor of the Amendment.  The Amendment missed approval by one vote.  This, of course, means that a majority of Senators voted for the Amendment and some Democrats voted for the Amendment.  

I don’t know who voted against it.  My guess is the usual libertine Democrat suspects.  My guess is that both Senators Kerry and Kennedy of Massachusetts voted against the Amendment.  Senator Durbin of Illinois was quoted in the article as opposed to the Amendment.  My guess is that Senator Obama of Illinois also voted against the Amendment.  Is it time to start voting libertines out of the Senate and the House of Representatives?  

Again?  Not Again!   Yes, again!  The editorial writers of the Peoria Journal Star continue to demonstrate either their ignorance of the history of this country or their complete and total lack of understanding of what the Constitution of the United States actually means as written by the Founding Fathers of this country.  Or, it might be a combination of both.

The headline for the editorial on June 26, 2006, page A4 is “Fly the flag freely, not because you have to.”  The editorial is their response to a proposed Constitutional Amendment to stop the “desecration of the flag.” (page A4)  Note that the headline itself is even incorrect.  The Amendment is not a requirement that one must fly the flag.  It is intended to rein in one of the many unconstitutional rulings by a libertine Supreme Court that has relied upon their own value system (or lack thereof) to reach decisions rather than the wording and history (precedent is the legal term) of the United States Constitution.  


This is not new.  The Supreme Court invented the supposed “right” to murder an unborn child.  The Supreme Court rewrote the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment dealing with religion changing it to “wall of separation between church and state.”  The Supreme Court declared that the sin of homosexual behavior could not be legislatively prosecuted as a crime.  The Supreme Court has also proclaimed that obscene language, nudity in business establishments, and the burning of the United States flag must be allowed as an expression of free speech.


The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech….”  The Bill of Rights (12 Amendments in all) was passed by Congress in 1789 as the first proposed Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  Ten of the originally proposed Amendments were approved by the required number of States in 1791.  


For most of the history of the United States, no one including the United States Supreme Court considered freedom of speech to include the use of obscenities, nudity, or the burning of the U.S. flag.  That concept was invented with the help of the libertine ACLU by historically recent Supreme Court decisions.  For way too many years, recent Supreme Court members have been rewriting the United States Constitution by judicial fiat.  Yet, nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power to rewrite the Constitution in their judicial decisions!!!


The position of the editorial writers seems to be that if the United States Supreme Court reaches a decision, no matter how outlandish; everyone in the United States must accept that decision as final and irrevocable.  That is like arguing that if an individual takes the initiative and tries to murder a family member; we have the responsibility to allow it to happen.  I don’t think so!!!


Editorial writers of the Peoria Journal Star!  Wake up, open your eyes, and open your mind!  It is not Congress who is rewriting the Constitution!!!  It has been the United States Supreme Court by their libertine decisions that ignored the Constitution!  The United State Supreme Court has been the rogue elephant who has been trampling the United States Constitution—not Congress.  Congress has for far too long allowed the Supreme Court to get away with disregarding the language and intent of the Constitution.  


Congress has finally begun to call the Supreme Court to account for their rogue rulings.  They are also doing it by the constitutionally prescribed method.  It is about time Congress started to stop the Supreme Court from handing down their ridiculous rulings.  Good for Congress!!!  


It should not take a Constitutional Amendment.  The Court decision on flag burning should have never occurred in the first place.  But, it did.  Congress has every right to propose an appropriate Constitutional Amendment!!!  Congress has the responsibility to do so!!!  Congress has the duty to do so!!!

As is way too often the case, the editorial writers are wrong again!!!
                

  

I knew I had it at one time.  I didn’t know if I still did.  As I’ve said, I’ve been clipping out news stories for a long time.  I’ve also begun to go through old boxes to keep and file the ones I still want.  The last two nights, I’ve written two articles about evolution.  If I’d found it earlier, I would have used it either Wednesday or Thursday.  Since I didn’t, I’ll use it tonight.    


I’m referring to an article that I saved either in 2004 or possibly 2005.  It was before I began putting dates and page numbers on items I cut out.  The article could be from the Arizona Daily Star (Tucson), Tucson Citizen, or the Peoria Journal Star.  My guess is, it is from one of the Tucson papers; but I am not certain.  If it is from a Tucson paper, it was probably published in 2004.


It was a short article featuring a ten question quiz given to adults by the National Science Foundation (NSF).  The purpose of the quiz was to understand the basic scientific knowledge of adults in the United States.  The article does not say if the quiz was given to a random sample of adults nor does it say how many adults took the quiz.  It does list the ten questions asked, the perceived correct answers according to the NSF, and the percent of adults who answered each question correctly according to the NSF.  


The first six questions were true or false questions.  The seventh question was an either—or question—A or B.  The eighth question gave a choice of three possible answers.  The last two questions were definitions that had to be given by the person taking the quiz.  

Naturally, the definition questions had the lowest number of adults who correctly answered those two questions.  One had 21% of the adults give the correct answer.  The other had only 9% who gave the correct answer.  Three of the six true or false questions were answered correctly by a majority of the adults.  The either or question was answered correctly by a majority.  The multiple choice question was answered correctly by 47% of the adults.


This is why I am writing about this particular quiz.  Two of the three multiple choice questions were answered correctly by 44% of the respondents while the third one was answered correctly by 48% of the adults.  One of the true or false questions dealt with evolution.  According to the National Science Foundation, only 44% of the adults answered that question correctly.


The question asked: True or False, humans evolved from lower animals.  According to the NSF only 44% of the adults questioned answered True.


There is the problem in a nut shell.  The National Science Foundation doesn’t know the correct answer!!!  The National Science Foundation has accepted nonsensical theory as scientific fact.  Fortunately, after years and years of indoctrination by public schools, a majority of the adults in this country still know the truth!!!


IN THE BEGINNING, GOD CREATED!!!    

Evolution, today's alchemy

At one time, some people believed that common metals such as iron could be turned into silver and/or gold.  The belief was said to have originated in ancient Egypt.  It was continued to be believed by some and was believed by some at least through the Middle Ages.  If true, it would be of great benefit to those who could accomplish the feat.  Gold, since it was rare compared to other commodities, was worth much more than the common metals.  Turning common metal into gold meant the possibility of great wealth.  Today, of course, we know that scientifically no metal can be transformed into gold.

The question then is this: How did all the different chemical elements that we know of today come into existence?  My dictionary lists 106 different chemical elements.  It has been awhile since I had a chemistry class.  However, if I remember correctly, each one is distinct and different.  The correct mixture of hydrogen and oxygen produces water.  But, hydrogen just is.  Oxygen just is.  So, where did they come from?  Did they evolve from something else?

But wait.  The chemical elements can be broken down into atoms.
Atoms can be broken down into_______.  No need for a chemistry lesson that I’m not qualified to teach.  The point is: Something had to exist to lead to something else to lead to something else.  These things are not simple one cell organisms.  In fact, simple one cell organisms are not simple one cell organisms.  

So, where did the first something come from and how did it go from step A to step B to step C?  Evolutionists attempt to explain the many different and varied life forms by evolution over billions of years.  But, no matter how they attempt to explain the theorized process they always have one problem that they can’t explain.  Where did the original matter come from?  

How did we get 106 different chemical elements?  How did we get the first atom?  How did we get the first nucleus?  Where did we get the first proton?  Where did we get the first neutron?  Wait!!!   Not just one.  Rather, so many that you and I couldn’t possibly fathom the number.

I know.  One original something evolved into an uncountable hoard and then they just magically got together in just the right combinations to produce 106 chemical elements.  Do you actually believe such absolute nonsense?  Yet, evolutionary scientists expect you to.        

Evolutionists ridicule the concept of a creator.  They point out that ancient societies had different and sometimes comical explanations of how the universe was created.  However, they ignore the obvious.  Right or wrong in relation to their explanation; one constant was present in each explanation.  The societies were smart enough to come to this conclusion.  The universe was created.  They knew the obvious.  It had to be.  Scientifically, you can’t get something from nothing.  The universe is too complex not to have been created.  These societies knew this basis truth even though they had no concept of how complex the universe really is.

Ask any evolutionist: “Where did the first matter come from?”  The honest ones will tell you that they don’t know.  Some will hedge and say we don’t know yet.  The truth is: They will never know scientifically.  They will only understand and know when they admit the following:

IN THE BEGINNING, GOD CREATED!!!!!

An archeologist is working in an ancient village.  During his work, he finds a small ball shaped object that looks like a golf ball.  Later, he discovers a second object that looks like a tennis ball.  Soon he comes across another ball shaped object that looks like a softball.  Then, he discovers another object shaped like a basketball.  After each discovery, he places the round objects next to each other according to size.  Consequently, he has a golf ball, then a tennis ball, followed by a softball, and finishing with a basketball.    


He continues his work for weeks without finding any other round objects.  Eventually he discovers a round object that looks like a soccer ball.  He places that object between the softball and the basketball according to size.  Just before he was about to finish at the site, he makes one last discovery.  He finds another ball shaped object that looks like a baseball.  He places that object between the tennis ball and the softball.  In a row based upon the size of the objects, he has a golf ball, tennis ball, baseball, softball, soccer ball, and a basketball.


What conclusions can he reach?  Can he conclude that the golf ball evolved (or changed) into the tennis ball which then evolved (or changed) into the baseball, which then evolved (or changed) into the softball, which then evolved (or changed) into the soccer ball, which then evolved (or changed) into the basketball?  The answer is: of course not!  He does not have enough information or enough evident to leap to that conclusion.


What then can he conclude?  Among the possibilities, he can conclude by observation that the shape—round—of the different objects is similar.  He can conclude that the size of the different objects is different.  He can conclude that each of the balls surfaces is different.  The surface of the soccer ball is more like the basketball surface but also different.  The golf ball has dimples that none of the other balls have.  The tennis ball is fuzzy unlike any of the other balls.  The baseball and the softball are very similar except for the size and weight difference.  He might also conclude that each of the different spheres may have been created by the local inhabitants.  He might also conclude that the maker(s) of the spheres used the same round pattern.  (Notice, it is understood that someone, at some time made each of the balls.  None of the balls magically appeared from nothing.  Each had to have a maker of the ball.  Any archeologist who works in an ancient village setting will confirm that objects in that village were made by someone.)  Thus, each ball has at least one similarity but they are all also different.

So, what is the point?  The Peoria Journal Star published a short article (June 16, 2006, page A2) entitled “Scientists revel in missing link of bird evolution.”  Since the article is short, I’m going to print the entire article.


“Washington, D.C.—An international team of scientists has found what is being called the missing link in the evolution of birds, a loon-like creature that lived in northwest China and is the earliest example of modern birds that populate the planet today.


Previously there was a gap between ancient and modern species of birds, and this creature, Gansus yumenensis, ‘fits perfectly into this gap,’ added Jerald D. Harris of Dixie State College in Utah.


It was about the size of a modern pigeon, but similar to loons or diving ducks, the researchers said.  One of the fossils even has skin preserved between the toes, showing that it had webbed feet.”


Can these scientists realistically conclude that this new found fossil is “the missing link in the evolution of birds?”  Of course not!!!  They can not use this fossil or any fossil to prove evolution.  Fossils that are similar but different do not prove evolution occurred any more that the discovery of different balls prove that the balls evolved from each other.  At best, the discovery demonstrates that a different type of bird has been discovered which is similar to but also different from other birds that have previously been discovered.  


That is what this discovery can prove!!!  You would think that scientists would know this!!!  One last observation.  If this discovery really provided the missing link of bird evolution, would it be a three paragraph story on page A2 or a front page lengthy article screaming that Darwin was correct?          

Recently, the editorial writers of the Peoria Journal Star published an editorial declaring that the effort of Illinois citizens to gather petition signatures to place on the ballot an advisory referendum to define marriage as between one man and one woman was redundant.  On June 11, 2006 the Peoria Journal Star published an opinion piece written by a member of the Cato Institute with the headline “Marriage amendment is big government at its worst.”  The Cato Institute is a conservative think tank.  I imagine the article was published to dissuade some conservatives from supporting the marriage amendment that Congress is considering.


If that was the purpose of the article, it didn’t work for me and I hope and pray it didn’t convince others either.  First of all, the Cato Institute is not particularly concerned with values.  They are concerned about big government as they define it.  The arguments presented are based on that premise.  However, they ignore at least two major and important facts that can not, should not be ignored.


The author of the article declares “Social conflicts are minimized when decisions about private lives are made privately.” (page A5)  The author seems to imply that people were sitting around a camp fire one night singing “Kum Ba Yah” (Come By Here—an African-American Spiritual) when they developed an idea to hinder the spread of homosexuality.  The idea, of course, was “wouldn’t it be grand if a Constitutional Amendment was passed to prevent homosexuals from marrying.”  That, of course, is an outrageous misrepresentation of the truth.


There was no demand or desire for a Constitutional Amendment to protect the long held definition of marriage until homosexual activists began to demand and insist upon being allowed to marry contrary to long held practices and contrary to law in some States.  It was homosexual activists who moved the marriage issue from the private arena to the public arena.  Not the other way around.  


Now, the Cato Institute and others are promoting one of many “Big Lies.”  The lie is that there would be no problem if it was not for those trying to amend the Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.  LIES!!!   LIES!!!  LIES!!!  The homosexual activists expect us to just acquiesce to their demands because they demand it—libertine “democracy” in action.


The second major error in the author’s arguments is that this is a State question and should be answered at the State level.  Fine!  I’m all for that if the homosexual activists would also agree to the same.  But, they haven’t and they won’t.  They have demonstrated that they will use any and all avenues to achieve their agenda of promoting homosexuality.  


Every State that has had a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman has passed that amendment—twenty different States at my last count.  Did the homosexual activists say, “The people have spoken?  The people want marriage to be defined as between one man and one woman.  So be it.”  OF COURSE NOT!!!  They went running to the courts to try to get the courts to overturn the will of the people!!!


We already know that the United States Supreme Court has overturned the will of the people by allowing women to murder their unborn child.  We already know that the United States Supreme Court has overturned the will of the people by declaring that States can not have laws that define homosexual acts as illegal acts.


We know from far too many past examples that the United States Supreme Court does not necessarily follow the meaning of the Constitution unless it is something that even the Supreme Court can not misrepresent.  The only way to insure that the United States Supreme Court does not overturn the will of the people in relation to marry is to amend the Constitution of the United States.  Even the Supreme Court has not yet had the gall to rule a Constitutional Amendment to be unconstitutional.  A Constitutional Amendment is the best and perhaps the only way to protect marriage in this nation.  


Time magazine in its December 6, 2004 issue had a one page essay in the back of the issue.  In the essay, the author argued that the moral conservatives in the United States won a battle in the 2004 election but that it is inevitable that the push for homosexuality will win.  She uses as her proof, the saturation of sin throughout our society.  Of course, she did not refer to it as sin but the changing cultural values that have permeated our society in the movies, on television, in songs, and in every area of our lives.  She knows that we reap what we sow.  We need to start sowing true Christianity instead of worldliness!


We have allowed the Court to gain too much power already.  We have allowed the Court to redefine our moral values and character.  Don’t allow the Court to redefine marriage.  It is not too late.  


If the present members of Congress will not support traditional marriage, we must elect members to Congress who will.  We need a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the Court from rewriting another area of our moral values.  Don’t allow marriage to become the next murder of unborn babies ruling!!!                      

Recently, I was at a gathering of people.  Some people close to me were talking about an event that they had attended.  At that event was an individual who they had not seen in awhile.  (I’m going to use “he” for the individual although that should not be taken as an indication that “he is a “he.”  “He might be a “she.”)  The people speaking said that they thought he had never seemed happier.  The speculated reason for his happiness was that he was now living a homosexual lifestyle.  Several said that although they don’t agree with the lifestyle, he was happy and that was what was important.


Really?  Happiness in the flesh is the criterion for determining right and wrong.  Think of the ramifications of such humanistic rationalization.  An individual is living an adulterous life style.  However, he has never been happier and that is what is important.  An individual is raping others.  However, he has never been happier and that is what is important.  An adult has been having intercourse with young children.  However, he has never been happier and that is what is important.  An individual has been committing murder.  However, he has never been happier and that is what is important.  The conclusion:  if something gives an individual happiness, then do it because happiness is what is important.


GOD, the creator of all things, created humans.  God, as the creator, knows what is best for HIS creation.  GOD has told us through the Bible what behavior is righteous and what behavior is sinful.  HE did not do this arbitrarily.  HE did not do this to limit our enjoyment.  HE did this to lead us to righteousness.  HE wants us to be righteous and holy as HE is righteous and holy.

To be with HIM, we must be righteous through JESUS, HIS SON, for GOD does not condone sin.

Some, including some who claim to be Christians, have asserted that JESUS does not condemn homosexuality as a sin.  HE does.  However, for the sake of argument, let us agree that JESUS does not specifically say that homosexuality is a sin.  Does that lack of condemnation give individuals the go ahead to live a homosexual life style?    


If JESUS does not condemn homosexuality specifically, then HE also does not condemn rape specifically.  Nowhere in the New Testament does it specifically declare “thou shall not rape.”  Nowhere does JESUS specifically declare “thou shall not have intercourse with a young child.”  Nowhere does JESUS specifically say that “thou, as an adult, shall not have intercourse with your parent.”  


The same can be said for all kinds of specific sins.  JESUS does not through HIS teachings as given in the Bible give a conclusive list of sins that one should not do.  He does not say “thou shall not rob a bank.”  He does not say “thou shall not rob a grocery store.”  He does not specifically say “thou shall not rob a 7-11.”  Yet, under the specificity argument, if HE does not specifically condemn an action as sin, then it is not a sin.  


Of course, that argument is rubbish and we know it is.  When JESUS condemns stealing, he is condemning all specific types of stealing.  When JESUS condemns sexual immorality, we know that he is condemning all specific types of sexual immorality including homosexuality.

“He (JESUS—my addition) went on: ‘What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’  For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality (my underline), theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.  All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’’” (Mark 7: 20-23)  

It is better to be miserable and righteous, than happy and sinful.  It is better to be financially poor and righteous, than financially rich and sinful.  It is better to be unhealthy and righteous, than healthy and sinful.  It is better to be ugly and righteous, than beautiful and sinful.


Righteousness before GOD leads to eternity with GOD; sinfulness before GOD leads to eternal condemnation from GOD.  Happiness is transitory.  Righteousness is eternal.  What an easy choice!!!        

  

I keep coming back to the immigration issue and for good reason.  The attempt of the Senate to grant citizenship to those who have deliberately and knowingly violated our laws is a continuation of a major change in how we perceive the rule of law in this country.  It rewards people who mocked our laws.  It conveys the message to those who attempt to gain citizenship as required by law that their efforts were of little benefit.  All they really had to do was to enter our nation illegally and they would have received citizenship anyway.  It scoffs at the responsible action and rewards irresponsible and illegal behavior.  


Individuals including libertine Democrats and the editorial staff of the Peoria Journal Star who were so insistent on the rule of law in the Terry Schiavo “death by starvation” case are suddenly silent about the rule of law in this situation.  It seems the rule of law is only relevant when it seems to serve their direct purpose.  It seems to be a continuation of their ever present philosophy of “many truths” and they are allowed to pick and choose the particular “truth” of the moment that suits their agenda.  The rule of law is only relevant when it suits their purpose.  Otherwise, they seem to have no problem rewarding those who deliberately violate our laws.


The other night, I was channel surfing.  I stopped at a C-SPAN2 program.  (It may have been C-SPAN—I’m not certain.)  Former California Governor (1991-1999) Pete Wilson who is a Republican was giving a speech at The Hudson Institute.  The speech was in relation to the present immigrant bill that was just passed by the Senate.


By federal mandate and court decisions, States have been required to educate the children of illegal immigrants, provide free medical care to illegal immigrants, provide free social services to illegal immigrants, and, of course, to cover the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrants when they violate State law.  In 1994, California citizens by a 59% vote passed Proposition 187.  Proposition 187 was intended to reverse the above mandates.  It declared that California should not provide free education, medical care, and social services for illegal immigrants.  


Naturally, the libertines challenged the legality of Proposition 187 in court.  The result was that the Proposition was not enforced and California, as well as other States, continues to shoulder the burden for the increased costs necessitated by the growing illegal immigration population.  Of course, changing the status of illegal immigrants to legal citizens will not suddenly end the problem.  More likely, the costs associated with illegal immigration will continue to increase as the dream of citizenship will actually encourage more illegal immigration not decrease it.    


Pete Wilson also stated that when he was Governor one in every five members of the California prison population were illegal immigrants.  These were individuals who were imprisoned for violating California laws not because they were illegal immigrants.  Being an illegal immigrant is a violation of federal law.  Today, he said that one in four of California’s imprisoned inmates are illegal immigrants.
    
He also pointed out a changing pattern in illegal immigration.  In the past, most illegal immigrants were adult males.  Adult males are still the largest single percentage of illegal immigrants—48%.  However, more illegal immigrants are composed of women and children than in the past.  According to Mr. Wilson, for every illegal woman immigrant who has one child who was born in her native country; once living illegally in the United States, she will have two children here who by Constitutional Amendment automatically become United States Citizens.  (I did not take notes while watching Pete Wilson’s speech.  I believe the information given is essentially and conceptually correct although it may not be specifically correct.  For example, the percentage of male illegal immigrants might actually be 49% instead of 48%.)


It should be apparent that the United States must stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States.  It is just as apparent to me and I believe a majority of our citizens that the government should not, must not reward illegal immigrants who violated our law with American citizenship.  It has been stated before that illegals have come to expect amnesty and expect it to continue in the future.  Granting American citizenship to illegal immigrants will reinforce that view.  More illegals will attempt to enter the country if citizenship is granted as a reward for illegal acts.  Granting citizenship is wrong, wrong, wrong and will be counterproductive in the future.  The Senate needs to wake up to reality and end this nonsensical concept of rewarding illegal behavior!!!


CONGRESS: GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT REWARD ILLEGAL ACTS!  DO NOT PROVIDE A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP TO THOSE WHO DELIBERATELY AND KNOWINGLY VIOLATE OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS!!!!!    

When I was teaching school, I operated under a strict point system grading only on the basis of test scores.  I did not have quizzes, extra credit, homework, or credit for class discussion.  If I had six tests in a grading period with each test worth 100 points, an A was 540 points to 600 points, a B was 480 points to 539 points, a C was 420 points to 479 points, a D was 360 points to 419 points, and an F was anything below 360 points.  I told this to the students at the beginning of the semester in writing and verbally and also said there would be no exceptions.


One semester a student received 479 points and as I said I would, I gave him a C.  He took exception to my grade.  He thought he should have received a B since he was only one point away from a B and thought he participated well in class discussion.  I said a C is a C is a C and his class participation was irrelevant.  When he couldn’t convince me to change his grade, he wrote a complaining letter to the school’s newspaper.  If he went to the administration, I never heard about it.  His C remained a C.


Why do I bring this up?  I thought about this last night in relation to the Senate’s immigration bill.  To refresh our memories:


“Highlights of immigration and border security bills passed by the Senate:

• Allows illegal immigrants who have been in the country five years or more to remain, continue working and eventually become legal permanent residents and citizens after paying at least $3,250 in fines and fees and back taxes and learning English.

• Requires illegal immigrants in the U.S. between two and five years to go to a point of entry at the border and file an application to return.

• Requires those in the country less than two years to leave.” (Peoria Journal Star, May 26, 2006, page A10)

Of course, the above is only a summary of the proposed law.  The actual content of the bill is much more complicated, complex, and complete.  As I have already quoted in an earlier post, some critics believe this proposal is unworkable, allows for opportunities for massive fraud, and will greatly increase bureaucratic influence among other problems with the bill.


What happens when an illegal immigrant doesn’t quite meet the requirements in the bill to become an American citizen?  What if he is just days away from meeting the length of residency requirement?  Does he peaceably accept the requirements of the law or does he challenge those requirements?  We already know that by definition (illegal immigrant) he has violated United States legal requirements.  Why would he not do it again?


Perhaps he will march down to the local ACLU office.  He will complain to the ACLU that the laws are not valid because he does not have an opportunity to benefit from them.  He convinces the ACLU that he is being abused by the system.  


The ACLU files a law suit claiming that the laws are arbitrary, capricious, vague, and discriminatory.  All terms that the ACLU loves to use to convince our libertine judges that Congress has once again passed a law that is unconstitutional under the United States Constitution.            


What happens in the courts is anyone’s guess.  Our courts have already required States to permit the murder of unborn babies, not prosecute individuals who are living a homosexual lifestyle, and remove symbols from public places that were deemed by the courts to be religious (Christian) in nature.  The courts could very well declare the law unconstitutional.  The courts may then decide that the Court should determine the requirements for citizenship for illegal immigrants.  It won’t be the first time that the courts have “written law” while determining the constitutionality of a Congressional law.  

Do we want the courts to determine the basis for citizenship in this country?  I don’t!      


CONGRESS: GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT REWARD ILLEGAL ACTS!  DO NOT PROVIDE A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP TO THOSE WHO DELIBERATELY AND KNOWINGLY VIOLATE OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS!!!!!

I want to apologize to Senator William Frist.  For some reason and I don’t know why I did it that way, my address book had Senator Frist’s name listed as Frisk.  Consequently, I have been typing it incorrectly each time I should have been typing Frist.

Also, the address I have been using is incorrect.  The correct address is: Senator William Frist, 509 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20510.  Again, I apologize.

Now, do you think the libertine Democrats who demanded that Karl Rove resign will also apologize?  Over a year ago, Karl Rove was accused of leaking the name of a CIA agent.  The libertines demanded that he resign.  The libertines labeled him a criminal.  The libertines wanted his “head on a platter.”


The libertines seemed to be following this method of reasoning:


Conservative Republican advisor to the President = accusation of wrong doing.


Accusation of wrong doing = automatic presumption of guilt.


Automatic presumption of guilt = indictment.


Indictment = criminal trial.


Criminal trial = obvious conviction.


Obvious conviction from original accusation = demanded resignation since he was obviously guilty since he was accused of an illegal act.  (Fortunately for other libertine Democrats, libertine Democrats don’t use this same reasoning process when one of their own is accused of a criminal act.)


In the Peoria Journal Star was an article (June 14, 2006, page A2) proclaiming that the special prosecutor has decided that after a year plus of investigation that Karl Rove would not face indictment.  Not only was he never convicted of any criminal offense, he has never been indicted.  Do you think any of those who were demanding his resignation will apologize?      

I WAS WRONG!  In an earlier post this month I said that I thought there were two addresses to send letters to Senators.  There are at less three.  You should be able to find out any official Washington D.C. address for a Congressman by using the Congressman’s name on Google.  


I am sending the following letter to the following Congressmen today:


Senator William Frist—Senate Majority Leader
509 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510


Senator Dick Durbin—Illinois Senator
332 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510


Senator Barack Obama—Illinois Senator
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510


Senator Edward Kennedy—one of the architects for the Senate bill granting citizenship to illegal immigrants
317 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510


Senator John McCain—one of the architects for the Senate bill granting citizenship to illegal immigrants
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510


Senator Arlen Specter—Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
711 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510


All of the above Senators reportedly voted for the original Senate bill granting citizenship to illegal immigrants.


Representative J. Dennis Hastert—Speaker of the House
235 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515


Representative James Sensenbrenner—Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee
2449 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Representative Ray LaHood—my Illinois Representative
1424 Longworth Building
Washington, D.C. 20515    



Dear Congressman:



Enclosed please find:



Copies of two pictures which I don’t believe appeared in many newspapers but which have been making the rounds on the Internet and I imagine you have either seen or heard about.  (both pictures showed the American flag flying upside down and below a Mexican flag—my addition)


Seven signed petitions plus my own requesting that Congress not provide a path for citizenship for illegal immigrants.


Seven articles that were published on my blog


http://www.christiangunslinger.blogspot.com/
  
dealing with immigration and which were posted on:


May 2, 2006
June 2, 2006
June 5, 2006
June 6, 2006
June 9, 2006
June 10, 2006
and June 12, 2006


Thank you.


Sincerely,


CONGRESS: GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT REWARD ILLEGAL ACTS!  DO NOT PROVIDE A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP TO THOSE WHO DELIBERATELY AND KNOWINGLY VIOLATED OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS!!!!

I wasn’t going to write about immigration tonight.  I’ve changed my mind.

I’ve been cutting out newspaper articles for years—ever since I graduated from college.  Usually, I store them in a box or boxes and then eventually get rid of them when the task of going through them seems overwhelming.  I still have newspapers set aside from a year ago May, when I was in Arizona for a couple of weeks, that I haven’t yet cut up.  But, I’ve been going through the articles I’ve cut out and trying to organize them.  I found a couple of interesting statements that are relevant to the present problem of immigration reform.


If I counted correctly (and I may not have) there where 190 recognized nations in 2003.  To be on the safe side, let’s say that there are at least 150 nations in the world today.  If the nations were ranked from richest to poorest according to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) figures, where do you think Mexico would fit?  Did you guess—50th?   How about 100th?  Try another way.  Would Mexico be in the top third, middle third, or lower third?  My hunch is that most of you would not guess correctly.  At least, I was surprised when I saw where they were ranked.


This is the ranking of countries “… based on World Bank Gross Domestic Product figures from 2004.


United States
Japan
Germany
Britain
France
Italy
China
Spain
Canada
India                  
____________top ten (my addition)


South Korea
Mexico (Note that not one Middle East country is in the top 12.)
Australia
Brazil
Russia
Netherlands
Switzerland
Belgium
Sweden
Turkey” (Peoria Journal Star, July 3, 2005, page A9)

____________nations ranked 11 through 20 (my addition)


Are you surprised?  Mexico had the 12th highest GDP of all the nations of the world in 2004.  I thought Mexico would be lower.  


Why should the United States allow this flood of illegal immigration which is primarily from Mexico into our country?  Shouldn’t the Mexican government be providing for their own citizens instead of encouraging their citizens to illegally enter and work in the United States?  Why does the Senate want to aid and abet this illegal activity?


“Congressional researchers have given new ammunition to advocates of criminalizing illegal immigration.


In a study for House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R.-Wis., the Library of Congress says that Brazil, Egypt, Japan, Mexico (my underline), Sweden and Switzerland have laws criminalizing illegal aliens.  Japan and Switzerland are the most effective in using their laws to curb illegal immigration.  


Mexico (my underline) has the toughest penalties for immigration fraud.  Prison sentences for violating that country’s immigration laws range from two years for first offenders to 10 years for repeat offenders.” (Peoria Journal Star, May 7, 2006, page A8)


Mexico will imprison illegal immigrants for two years for the first offense and the Senate wants to grant American citizenship to illegal immigrants!!!  What is terribly wrong with our Senators?  A U.S. citizen illegally immigrates to Mexico and he can go to prison for two years.  A Mexican citizen illegally immigrates to the United States and the Senate wants to give him United States citizenship.  Does the Senate live in a world of the absurd???    


CONGRESS: GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT REWARD ILLEGAL ACTS!  DO NOT PROVIDE A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP TO THOSE WHO DELIBERATELY AND KNOWINGLY VIOLATED OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS!!!!!  


        

On May 12, 2006 I sent the following letter to Illinois Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader William Frisk.  


According to the Peoria Journal Star, my local newspaper, the Senate will once again consider “Immigration Legislation” next week.  I hope that you and the other Senators will not be coerced into allowing a path to citizenship to individuals who have illegally entered our country.


Enclosed is a letter to the editor as published which I wrote.  Also enclosed is the original as posted on my blog site:
    
   http://www.christiangunslinger.blogspot.com/


I have no doubt that a majority of the United States citizens does not want Congress to rewrite our immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to become United States citizens.  Please vote accordingly!  Thank you.


Only Senate Dick Durbin has responded to my letter at this time.  I am posting the body of the letter in its entirety with my comments.  The letter was dated May 25, 2006—the same day that the Senate passed legislation providing a method to allow illegal immigrants to become United States citizens.  Senator Durbin voted for that legislation.


“Thank you for taking the time to contact me to express your views regarding immigration.  I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.


I understand your concerns about illegal immigration.  I support efforts to prevent illegal entry into the United States.  I have voted for legislation that has boosted the number of Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, strengthened the standards for the issuance of visas, and given the federal government more authority to investigate the smuggling of illegal aliens.  I also support efforts to level the playing field for native U.S. workers by bringing the undocumented immigration workforce out of the shadows and requiring employers to comply with immigration, wage, and labor protection laws.


I believe that any immigration reform legislation that emerges from the Senate must provide a comprehensive solution to the complex set of immigration-related problems we face.  We must strengthen the security of our borders through the use of advanced detection technology, increase manpower and resources for our Border Patrol, and the targeting of illegal smuggling networks.  We also must address one of the root causes of illegal immigration: the willingness of American employers to hire undocumented workers.  Comprehensive immigration reform should create an effective electronic verification system for employees, and hold employers accountable when they hire unauthorized immigrants.


While immigration reform must acknowledge that illegal immigrants have violated the law, we cannot ignore the fact that millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States are already part of our communities and our economy.  Comprehensive immigration reform must bring these immigrants out of the shadows so we can distinguish those who are contributing members of our society from those who are a threat.  We must also provide an opportunity for immigrants who work hard, pay taxes, have no criminal records, and learn the English language to advance on the path toward legal permanent residence and citizenship.  In our nation, a path to earned legalization has always been open to immigrants pursuing the American dream.


Finally, our government must protect Americans who provide humanitarian aid and spiritual guidance to their neighbors, including illegal immigrants.  I will not support legislation that turns our priests, doctors, and neighbors into criminals because they have helped those around them in times of need.


On March 27, the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, voted to pass immigration reform legislation drafted by Senator Arlen Specter.  Senator Specter’s legislation combines elements of various immigration reform proposals, including the legislation introduced by Senators McCain and Kennedy and a bill (H.R. 4437) passed by the House of Representatives.  Senator Specter’s legislation advances many of the goals I outlined above, and it would establish an immigration system that is tough but fair.  I voted for the Specter legislation in committee and continued to support its principles on the Senate floor.


There is no doubt that our current immigration system is broken.  We must replace it with one that is tough and effective, but that is also fair and consistent with our values.  I will continue to support legislation that advances us toward these goals.


Thank you again for sharing your views with me.”
  
Note that my letter on May 12, 2006 was very specific and addressed only one issue—“Senators will not be coerced into allowing a path to citizenship to individuals who have illegally entered our country.”  Senator Durbin in his reply to my letter addresses that specific issue in only one paragraph of his response.  In the fourth paragraph he declares “We must also provide an opportunity for immigrants who work hard, pay taxes, have no criminal records, and learn the English language to advance on the path toward legal permanent residence and citizenship.  In our nation, a path to earned legalization has always been open to immigrants pursuing the American dream.”


Note that in neither of these two quoted sentences does the Senator use the term illegal immigrants.  He also does not use the term undocumented immigrants the “politically correct” term used to soften the concept that these immigrants are not in the United States legally.  If he is referring to immigrants who entered the United States legally, I agree.  If he is referring to illegal immigrants, I absolutely disagree.  First, he is incorrect if he is implying that the United States has always provided a method for illegal immigrants to become United States citizens.  Furthermore, although an illegal immigrant may not have a criminal record since the United States has for whatever reason decided not to prosecute him for his illegal acts, by definition; an immigrant in this country illegally has violated our laws.  If we know someone has violated our laws should we ignore it just because the government has chosen not to prosecute him?  That indeed is a strange way to govern!!!    


The Senator declares “We must also provide an opportunity….”  My dictionary in defining the word “must” uses such terms as compelled, required, commanded, and obligated.  I don’t know of any reason and the Senator does not give any reason why we “must” give citizenship to individuals who knowingly and deliberately violated our laws.  In fact, I would argue and do argue the exact opposite.  We must not grant citizenship to those who have violated our laws to enter the United States.  They began the process illegally.  What part of illegal doesn’t the Senator understand?


Let’s take an example the Senator might understand.  During the Senator’s next election, the Republican Party nominates a dynamic, energetic, charismatic, rich candidate to run against him in the election.  The Senator loses the election to the Republican.  It is then determined that the Republican had violated a provision of the United States Constitution because he was only 25 years old at the time of the election and the United States Constitution requires all Senators to be at least 30 years of age.  Would the Senator say that the Republican must be our elected Senator since he won the election even though he was illegally elected because of the age requirement?  What do you think?  


CONGRESS: GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT REWARD ILLEGAL ACTS!  DO NOT PROVIDE A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP TO THOSE WHO DELIBERATELY AND KNOWINGLY VIOLATED OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS!!!!