Replacement Mythology

Tired of the arguments on this subject.

This is where I stand on Replacement Theology and the related arguments. You won't move me because the Word of God backs this up.

There are four main categories of objections and arguments I encounter whenever someone starts bashing Israel and Jews in general. I'm going to tackle all of these because all of them have been lost in propaganda over the years.

1. Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was a fraud. Let's just be upfront and honest about that. Philip Graves wrote in 1920 for the Times of London exposing it as a plagiarized novel written in France in criticism of Napoleon's government in 1864 as a compilation of fictional discussions between Montesquieu and Machiavelli. It was later taken by the Czarist government in Russia and used as a propaganda tool to divert anger from the government onto a convenient scapegoat; the Jews in Russia. The original article by Philip Graves is hard to locate, but the New York Times reprinted his thesis a few months later and that can be found here: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/insider/1920-21-exposing-the-protocols-as-a-fraud.html

You may have to blow the article up to read it, but there is no arguing that this fraud of a document, this insidious lie, has been the very foundation of hatred of Jews. Henry Ford published it in the US, but eventually denounced it. The Protocols came to the attention of Adolph Hitler from Henry Ford's magazine in which the Protocols had appeared and used it to horrific affect. Since that time the Islamic enemies of Israel have used it as a tool of propaganda, teaching their people that it is true despite all evidence to the contrary.

If you think for a second that the Protocols are true, despite all the evidence (The original book they were based on can still be found occasionally and you can see they were lifted from the failed French novel) then you really need to examine your own motivations and biases. When faced with evidence that disproves a theory, an intellectually honest person revisits their conclusions and adjusts accordingly.
2. A Rothschild Under Every Rock.

I hear it all the time. The Central Bankers are all owned by the Rothschild family and central banking has the agenda of tearing down nation-states to create a global fascist government. To that I agree. Yes, the Rothschild family is the richest family on the face of the planet and they've become so through dishonesty, graft, bribery and war profiteering. You won't hear me cheer Mayer Amschel Rothschild for his brilliant work in the area of cheating nations out of their wealth via the fractional reserve system. However, as much as that is true, it is also false to assign blame for the Rothschild dynasty's deeds onto the average Jew. That would be like saying that the average German is somehow a closet Hitler supporter, or more accurately Hitler himself. This would be absurd and no one would look at you the same if you said it out loud, but many people spout off such nonsense about Jews and Israel all the time.

It is horribly wrong to assign blame to people who have no control over the actions that you associate with them. The average Jewish person has nothing to do with the policies of the world's central banks and I daresay they are as much a victim of the banks as all the rest of us are, therefore, if you believe such nonsense, you can quit your lie about Jews being somehow bad because, “Look at Rothschild!” Let me know when the Rothschild family starts nationalizing the central banks under the control of Israel and then we'll have something to talk about. Yet even then you have to contend with the fact that what the Rothschild banking cartel has become since it's days in a french ghetto, is the antithesis of everything the Jewish culture, based on the Torah stands for. Usury is specifically banned in the Torah, but you won't find your average Rothschild hater being that nuanced on the matter. The Rothschild family has not acted in the favor of Jews very often at all, and this can be seen by the propaganda spewed against the Jews by the very institutions (media) that so many claim are under the total dominion of the Rothschild cartel. Seems to me that if they were that powerful and they were that pro-Israel, they'd be a little more effective at public relations. They certainly have done a bang-up job at the UN right?

It is arguable that the Rothschild financial empire controls most major nation's economies around the world, therefore, those in all governments who are beholden to it's practices and who actively work to shield it from public scrutiny or oversight are just as guilty as anyone else, and I know for a fact most of them are not Jewish. The push to blame Israel and the Jews because of financial philanthropy by the Rothschild family towards the Jewish state is to indict every other nation guilty of taking similar investments. This is the test of whether or not you have a bias: Do you hold everyone to the same standard or do you err on the side of blaming one party guilty of the same things others are? Everyone should look at their tendencies here and evaluate whether they have grown myopic in one particular group vs. others.

3. It's the Synagogue of Satan!
Revelation 2:9 is ALWAYS cited and always cited incorrectly in the argument that says that the Jews in Israel aren't actually Jews. The verse doesn't actually say what people say it does. The famous "Synagogue of Satan" verse does not refer to a general group, but rather a specific group and an attitude. The statement was made to the Church of Smyrna by Jesus in His Revelation to John the Apostle. Christ was talking about those in the Jewish religious leaders who were attacking the Christians in Smyrna, not the Jews as a whole. It could be said that there are those within the leadership of Judaism at the time and even today that harbor the same hatred of Christians, but this a small portion of the Jewish people and not indicative of the whole. There is absolutely no context to the verse and no extra-biblical proof that the Jews in Israel are not actually Jewish by heritage, or that God rejected the entire group that called themselves Jews at that point.

The only positive identifier for the people referenced in Revelation 2:9 is that they were persecuting the Church and they were likely members of the Jewish leadership. A friend of mine has added to the original post that these Jews had actually joined with the Pagan worshipers of various Greek gods to persecute the Jews. Because of that we can see what Christ was talking about. These persecutors of the Church of Smyrna were aligning themselves with devils in order to stamp out the true faith of Abraham. That has nothing to do with Jews as a genetic group as a whole.

Besides that, in order to use that as a proof text for a theory about the Jews in general you need more than one verse. The Bible says that the Bible interprets itself. Doctrine is established by more than one verse. Taking verses out of context and assigning meaning to them without looking at the rest of the text for explanation and or reiteration of the point is not a way to establish doctrine. What people do with that verse is completely ignore the first half (the context of who they likely were) and assign it to the entire race, which is completely erroneous. That one verse has nothing to do with the Jews in Israel now, who are removed from the context of that verse by 2000 years.

The New Testament is Rather Jewish
Revelation 2:9 does not explain why they aren't Jews, apart from the obvious association with trials of the believers in the preceding part of the verse. Where is the proof to say that all Jews are categorically being disavowed in that verse? Weren't most of the believers at the time Revelation was written Jews? In fact they were.
All of the Apostles were Jews, most of the believers were Jews, because the Apostles went to the Jews first and then taught the Gentiles after they had presented Christ as the Messiah to the Jews in the Roman Empire. James was written to the Jews who were dispersed. Historians say that there were tens of thousands of Jews in Jerusalem who believed in Christ, after he appeared to the 500 and the Church was growing by leaps and bounds. If the Jews were rejected by God, then you have to also believe that these Christians were actually not redeemed, because why would God extend grace to them, being Jews if God had rejected them? Obviously He did not.

It is astonishing to me that one verse in Revelation is supposed to be the foundation for a complete rejection of the Jewish people that now reside in Israel, because it makes NO sense whatsoever. People 2000 years removed are somehow not actually Jews because Christ rebuked one group in one verse 2000 years ago and the context was about persecution of the Church by leaders of Judaism itself. Of course there are other verses that people point to, such as some verses in Romans 3, but then the same people will refuse to acknowledge the entire chapter 11 of Romans which completely disproves their argument.

The use of Revelation 2:9 is so inconsistent with the Bible itself and with logic, it should be repudiated at every opportunity as a baseless pile of garbage and a relic of replacement theology which is also a slap in the face to Christ himself. Either salvation is by faith alone in Christ, or there is a separate merit based system for the Jews and God is a liar. To believe that verse you have to eliminate the entire chapter 11 from Romans and you have to completely ignore the book of Ezekiel, not to mention dozens of other Old Testament prophecies concerning the restoration of Israel to the land. Its just BAD doctrine. Once again, this fallacy comes down to a lack of intellectual honesty.

Whose Land is it Anyway?
|The Mosaic Covenant was breached, therefore they are disqualified from the Promised Land. Question: When did the land become known as the promised land? Genesis 15. Question, who made the promise and what were the conditions of that promise? Answer: God and None. The Abrahamic Covenant is still in force. Go back and read Genesis 15 if you doubt this, God made the Covenant with himself to Abraham for the land for Abraham's descendants. Israel cannot be disqualified from that covenant because there were no conditions for it's fulfillment and no end to the promise. Therefore, the land's ownership is not debatable. The rest is a subject of the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law vs. The New Covenant in the blood of Christ, but neither of those have anything to say about the Abrahamic Covenant which preceded Moses by 400+ years. The covenant was entered into by God unconditionally. Abraham didn't pledge anything and God put him in a trance so he couldn't move or participate. God swore by himself that God would give the land. Abraham didn't break any requirements and neither did his descendants because there were none.

None of the texts which talk about the breach of the Mosaic Law are relevant to the ownership of the land, they merely speak of the conditions to be in the land as a nation. Yet many prophecies, including Ezekiel and Roman's 11 clearly teach of the restoration of the land to Israel. Clearly God says many times that Israel would be removed from the land for a period, then they would be restored. These things have come to pass, which disproves replacement theology, because they are there.

People who cling to replacement theology actually have a different standard of acceptance for the Jews than they do for themselves. That simply cannot be true, because God never changes and therefore, salvation and favor are only by unmerited grace. Nowhere is there a different standard for salvation for the Jews or the Gentiles, it was always faith in either case. Spiritual Israel is not the subject here. The subject is whether or not genetic Israel received a promise by God to give the land to them without condition, clause or end. Did that happen? Yes. Why? Because the Covenant/gift God was making was with himself; with his Son. Abraham was a witness to a promise from God the Father to God the Son. The land is His, David's throne will be Christ's throne. The Jews are the caretakers of the land and God promised it to no other people. Therefore, If God brings Israel back to his land, then you know the coronation is near. This has nothing to do with their obedience.

The land's is irrevocably given to the Jews. Read Genesis 15 and tell me what God required of Abraham or his descendants as a condition of that promise.

Here's the rub: Either the Abrahamic covenant was unconditional or it wasn't. The only way Replacement Theology could be right, is that those in Israel aren't actually genetically Jewish, and that is a complete lie that has been debunked by genetic testing

4. Pin the Tale on the Khazarian

Decades ago, a fanciful idea was introduced by one Arthur Koestler. For those unfamiliar, Koestler was a British author and Journalist, he was not an archeologist, a scientist by any means, and didn't have any expertise in the subject many anti-semites worship him for. Toward the end of his life, suffering from Parkinsons disease, Koestler published a book called The Thirteenth Tribe, from which comes the baseless and absurd postulation that the Ashkanazi Jews from west Europe aren't actually Jewish at all, but rather the remnants of a nation called Khazaria that once lived on the steps of Russia. From one single account of a noble family converting to Judaism nearly a thousand years ago, Arthur Koestler formulated a theory that the entire nation of Khazaria converted to Judaism and without any evidence whatsover asserted that the entire nation then migrated west to mingle with the Gothic tribes, thus becoming the Ashkenazi Jews over time.

The problem with the theory is, shall we say, expansive. To keep it simple, it is completely unsourced and unsupported BS. There is no archaeological evidence that the Khazars ever migrated at all, let alone migrated to Germany and intermingled with the Germanic tribes. There is only record of one family converting to Judaism, not the entire country and that was a thing the Jews themselves would have kept record of. In fact Koestler's only source for this wild fantasy is Jewish records kept from the time, which only account for one family's conversion and nothing more. This was the sort of thing the Jews keep record of, so the idea that they would not have documented the entire nation's conversion is completely inconsistent with their cultural tradition. 

Here's what is wrong with the theory: There is no language mingling, no traces of money, no pottery, no clothing, no traditions exchanged or merged from the Khazars into the Germanic tribes. None of the hallmarks of a migration have been found to back up this garbage theory of Arthur Koestler written in the 1970s. Again, Koestler was not an archaeologist, not a linguist, and not a scientist, he was merely a Journalist. There is no basis for his theory being considered as a scholarly thesis at all. 

The last 20 years have not been kind to Koestler's devotees. Due to genetic testing, the theory has lost what little credibility it ever had among academics. A multitude of genetic studies have been undertaken around he world to get a clear picture of the migration and spread of the Jews, to prove ancestry and to allow for immigration back to Israel. In that process, samples have been taken and compared which prove that the Ashkenazim Jews share the same unique genetic markers as all other Jews. Here is a video about the subject:

To recap the crap about fake Jews in Israel. Koestler's fantasy has no basis in reality. There was no mass migration from Khazaria to Germany ever. That is substantiated by the lack of anything which historians, archaeologists or linguists would expect to see from such a mixing of cultures. There is no genetic proof tying the Ashkenazi Jews to Khazaria either. In fact there is virtually nothing left of the Khazarian DNA strain by which to even compare. But what was the kicker for me was not only the lack of migratory evidence but the fact that genetic tests have been done on all the branches of the Cohen family, which are directly descended from the Levitcal line and Aaron. They tested the Cohens who stayed in Samaria after the explusion by the Romans in 70 AD, they compared the results tot he tests of the Sephardic Cohens, the Cohens from North Africa and the Cohens among the Ashkenazim. All fo them shared the same genetic markers signifying that they were related. All of them are Cohens, all of them are proven descendants of Aaron, Moses' brother. That pretty much destroys the myth of the Khazarian Jews once and for all. 

5. Israel stole the land.
This topic could be a book in and of itself. There are a lot of players and a lot of obfuscation of the truth. I'm going to use simple logic and point out one outside source, which has a ton of information on the history leading up tot he creation of Israel as an independent state as well as the reaction of the nations surrounding Israel.

First off. Israel didn't steal anything. They were given the land by the same authority that carved out the nations who claimed they were robbed of the land in the first place. They were promised the land at the same time the other nations were established. When England won WWI and dismantled the Ottoman Empire, they carved up the land and at the same time they created Jordan, and all the others in the region including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Egypt, they carved out a plot for Israel as well. So logically, these nations surrounding Israel that claim that Israel does not have a right to exist are making the argument against their own right to exist as well, because they only exist at the authority of the same nation which gave Israel the right to govern themselves.

If you look back and read about the reasons it took so long for Israel to gain independence compared with Jordan for example, it was the fact that the surrounding nations were threatening to attack the Jews and because of this England kept control of the territory to ensure the peace.

The bottom line is that if Israel doesn't have the right to exist, then none of the nations formed out of the territory of the Ottoman Empire have a right to exist either.

Here is the website that covers the history surrounding that controversy: http://www.hirhome.com/israel/guide-israel.htm

Conclusion:
I flatly reject all aspects of replacement theology. The Jews were NOT replaced by the Church. Jesus has never sat on the Throne of David and He was promised that would be the throne of His Kingdom. How do you have a throne of David, if the Jews (genetic not spiritual) never reestablish a kingdom? A Christian Jewish nation would not have any incentive or reason to rebuild the Temple of Solomon.

Is it all just symbolic? My position is that Revelation is not allegory, The only chapter of Revelation that are Historical is the first chapter. Chapters 2-4 were written to the Gentile Churches. The rest was written to Israel, predicting the last days and depicting them as a nation in the land again.

The key to it is this: If the Jews in Israel are actually Jewish genetically, then all arguments to say they don't belong there are are null and void. In fact they are worthless. Why? Because if God had replaced Israel with the Church and Israel was permanently kicked out of the land because they rejected Christ, then the people there should not be Jews, but they are. Because they are, all arguments that say they were rejected by God are demonstrably false, by virtue of the fact that they are there at all.

They were removed from the land based on prophecy, and the same prophecies predicted their return, but replacement theologians conveniently ignore those verses to prove their doctrine, which makes their doctrine FALSE.

Those same prophecies that predicted the diaspora predicted their return to the land BEFORE Christ returns. Not a remnant but all of them. Otherwise there could be no third Temple, there could be no throne of David. It has to be a secular nation, otherwise they would never build a third Temple. You have to realize these Jews are still expecting their Messiah and that fits with Revelation's predictions of a man of sin that will enter the Temple and desecrate it claiming he himself is God (the Anti-Christ who will say he is Messiah). That has never happened. Antiochus Epiphanes was not the fulfillment of that, no matter how the preterists want to twist the circumstances to say that he was. He did not claim to be God, he merely desecrated the second temple with pig's blood by sacrificing a pig on the alter. These differences matter because the standard of a prophet is 100 percent accuracy, so either we reject John as an Apostle or we reject the standard Catholic view that all that happened in the past.

But the other reason for rejection of replacement theology is the simple fact that the Jews returning to the land isn't just a happenstance; it is not a happy accident. They are there Against ALL ODDS. People can make light of that fact, but anyone who objectively looks at the circumstances surrounding the return of the Jews to Israel has to conclude that it was by the hand of God Himself that 1. It happened at all. 2. They survived the war of 1948. 3. They've thrived and prospered despite numerous wars since. 4. That prospering LITERALLY fulfilled prophecies to make the desert bloom.

After 2 millennia they have re-established the nation in the same ancient homeland despite all of the nations around them objecting and attacking them repeatedly with overwhelming military odds. Israel's existence as a nation today is nothing short of miraculous, and it proves that they are the descendants of Abraham, because God said that He would move to bring them back. Not only does it fulfill generic prophecies that they would be returned to the land, it fulfills them specifically, because the time of the diaspora could be predicted based on the number of years that the land did not get their jubilee year of rest. They were scheduled to come back when they did. The Churches that reject this truth are the ones who are heretical.

You have to ask yourself. if God rejected the Jews, how were they stronger than the hand of God and were able to resettle the land in spite of Him?
That is the only thing you can conclude and it is an absurd thing to claim. God is God, there is none that can withstand Him. They would not be able to defy God's rebuke. But even if they had, think about what that implies: Islam, the people who reject the Bible completely, the people who preach hatred and murder towards those who believe the Bible. The people who follow a murderous pedophile prophet who had visions during epileptic fits in a cave of a false angel of light, a man who married a 9 year old girl and also stole his servant's wife (Hadiths outlines his habits and perverted attitude). THOSE people are acting as the righteous hand of God to route them out? Those people, who practice the most heinous evils on the face of the planet are the ones God is choosing to oppose the Jews from going back to their ancient home? How do you reconcile that? Oh, but it gets worse. Those people have been wholly ineffectual in doing that job.

Yes, the Lord has used the enemies of Israel to punish them and remove them from the land, but one thing is certain: When God gave a decree that they should go, there was no delay in that. When God said Assyria would come, they did. When God said Egypt would come, they did. When God said Babylon would come, they did. When God decreed the judgment on Israel and on Judah, it was fulfilled. Why, if the Jews now don't deserve the land they are in, is God impotent to remove them? Because that is what you have to believe is going on. The Rothschild family is supposedly more powerful than God himself, I guess.

Or could it be that the Lord brought them back into the land, using the wealth and power of those who hate Him, unwittingly, to fulfill his purpose and to use Israel to judge the entire world as Revelation says He will?

Ron Paul's Faith in Us is Real

I was thinking about the situation in the Ron Paul campaign this evening; the predicament caused by the GOP establishment going so far as to resort to violence in their effort to exclude Paul’s delegates from the state conventions, combined with the problem of subversive elements within the campaign itself and Rand Paul’s announcement on Hannity of his endorsement of Mitt Romney. Yes, Rand Paul’s announcement as well as Ron Paul’s email about not having the delegates effectively ended the campaign and the supporters are left wondering what the heck just happened. I was sickened by the announcement myself, knowing that Romney doesn’t have the delegates needed to win yet and mad at the thought that it could be possible that Ron Paul wasn’t actually in it to win it because this announcement seemed so premature and unnecessary. I was so disgusted that I resolved just to leave politics alone for a while….. but if you know me at all, that’s easier said than done.

Tonight I watched Ron Paul’s speech to the Texas Convention and really thought about what was going on. While undecided on what to believe, I’ve been trying to help others to take a wait and see approach to the whole thing because we don’t have all the information and Ron Paul’s integrity just kept me back from making the declaration that he was a sell-out or a quitter and that’s when it hit me.

I realized that Rand Paul’s announcement on Hannity’s show gave the Paul campaign three things it could not have had without that move.

First, in order to mollify the GOP establishment and keep the delegates from having to deal with the ever increasing resistance that was putting people in real physical danger, there had to be a concession that would effectively call the attack dogs off and Rand’s “endorsement” of Romney accomplished just that. What has happened in the Texas and Arkansas conventions over the weekend was smooth sailing compared to other recent conventions and rumor has it that the campaign got very good results. This was enabled because the Romney supporters believe that the Ron Paul campaign is a top-down organization just like theirs is, when it is nothing of the sort.

Second, since the announcement, information has begun to filter out that there were indeed subversive elements in the campaign. Justin Raimondo wrote an article on antiwar.com titled, “Can Ron Paul be Tamed?” which outlines the machinations that have been going on to neutralize the Paul campaign and subvert the freedom movement. If Paul had been dogged in his effort to keeping the campaign going publicly and not changed his tone from winning the nomination to one which makes people think he’s just going to try to change the GOP platform, those elements would have continued to confuse and misdirect his supporters causing further damage to the movement as well as causing long-term distrust. The effective ending of the official pursuit of the nomination has allowed those subversive elements to claim victory, but it must not be overlooked that it has also taken them completely out of the process!

Rand Paul’s announcement set the Paul supporters free to work without interference from both inside the campaign from the GOP operatives sent to sterilize it and without stiff resistance from the GOP establishment at the state levels where there are still a lot of delegate slots to be won. 

Third, the “official” end of the campaign signaled by these two announcements has freed up the Paul supporters to be what Ron Paul has always said they were in the first place and do it effectively.

I know there will be some people calling me blind for saying this but bear with me here and let me show you what I’m thinking.

I can’t say how many times I’ve heard Ron Paul say that he’s not the movement, that he’s simply along for the ride and privileged to be a part of it. I thought this was just modesty, but now I think he’s showing us that he really believes that. This is not just some platitude designed to be self-effacing. This move is an act of faith on his part. Ron Paul has just proven his integrity and faith in his supporters once again by taking himself out of the driver’s seat and allowing the true patriots of the movement to take over for him.

Reason with me for a moment. Since people outside the campaign have sniffed out the rats and patsies it only makes sense that Ron would have realized this knowledge as well. However, if he had acted on that knowledge in a manner that told the GOP that he knew what was going on, such as removing those subversive elements of his campaign and continuing the push for delegates in the name of taking the nomination, then the resistance to the freedom movement would have been all out political war. The only way to prevent this from occurring was to feign weakness and allow the subversion to seem as if it was successful.

Normally in politics, what happens when leaders begin to lose control? They fight to the death for that control because power in politics is everything. Those of us who have been involved with the party know the lure of power is so great that many idealists die a slow death inside the ranks because they are seduced by an imaginary sense of importance which short-circuits their judgment and eventually destroy their objectivity. Many libertarians refuse to enter into politics for that very reason, so what happens when a man of integrity who believes in his fellow man starts to lose control? I think we just witnessed it. He freely gives it up because as the man has said many times, he doesn’t want to run your life, he’s not smart enough to run your life and the Constitution doesn’t give him the right to run your life! Therefore, he’s allowing us, the real foundation and real power behind the liberty movement to take over. He has the faith in his supporters that no matter what they’ll know what to do, they realize that the man Ron Paul isn’t as important as the movement and for the sake of their families, friends and fellow citizens, they will push on to the convention in Tampa and do it better than he could have ever directed them to himself.

How? Because now that the campaign is “over”, they are quietly being voted into delegate slots wherever there is room and if they are wise, very few in the mainstream GOP will ever know which one is the Romney supporter and which one is the Paul supporter until the votes get counted in Tampa. In order to weed them out of the ranks, they’d have to start over with their state conventions and that would be an embarrassment to the party that they just will not allow as well as an expense that they simply can’t afford.

This one simple move by Ron and Rand Paul has effectively made each meetup group, the state coordinators and others the new campaign managers. They’ve proven themselves ready for it and Ron Paul has proven to me that he thinks they are too. Now it is up to all of us to respond to that confidence and show the GOP that Ron Paul may be one candidate, but the movement is larger than they ever imagined.

Objections to Ron Paul - Muslims and Sharia Law

I’ve heard many people claim that Ron Paul is pro-Islam and that he’d allow Sharia Law to take over the country. People cite several reasons for this and one of the main issues seems to be the ground zero mosque and his position that the government shouldn’t be involved. The claim that Ron Paul is for Sharia Law because he doesn’t think the government should be in the business of banning mosques doesn’t make sense and here’s why: One, Ron Paul has also criticized the government for giving the Islamic organization seeking to build the mosque forbearance on their property taxes, which is showing political favoritism towards Islam by the New York state government. If he was for Islam he wouldn’t be calling for strict rule of law which would work against them.

Ron Paul disagrees with the state showing favoritism towards the Muslims as much as he disagrees with the state having the ability to say no to the mosque because above all, he believes in the Constitution and it’s supremacy as law that can handle this situation fully if we were to simply enforce it equally across all groups and stop allowing political correctness to introduce favoritism. The first amendment talks specifically about the government’s regulation of religious institutions, and that is that there shouldn’t be any for good or bad, in opposition or in favor of. This would solve the entire issue of creeping Sharia Law because the rest of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution speak plainly against much of the tenets in it. A person’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness cannot coexist in the presence of another law that would deny those rights to half of society (women).

Our Constitution does not allow for religious murder, regardless of it’s guarantees against specific legislation dealing with a religion or religion as a whole. Sharia Law is wholly incompatible with the Constitution and therefore, Ron Paul is against Sharia Law because, as he has said in the past, all we need to do is follow the Constitution and many of these issues would cease to exist as problems.

People are up in arms over the mosque proposal, which I fully understand and fully support their desire and ability to express their opinions on the matter, however asking the government to step in and enforce your opinion instead of simply relying on public opposition to dissuade the organization from building, or even allowing the public animosity to show the Muslims in the community that hateful rhetoric from them will not be tolerated would go a long way to stop the mosque or leave it abandoned in short order. This is a case of individualism vs. collectivism once again. Our society has been brought up to demand our government solve our problems, when in fact the government usually is complicit, at the very least, in the foundations of those very problems we’re demanding they fix. Such is the case with the Ground Zero Mosque and therefore it does not make sense to pursue a resolution through the government, but rather one in which individuals, exercising their rights, put pressure on those who would deny them those rights and clearly demonstrate that Sharia Law will not be tolerated here in America.

Ron Paul’s policy isn’t pro-Muslim, it is pro-individual and pro-Constitutional law, which is in total opposition to Sharia Law’s collectivist mentality and destruction of individual liberties.

Objections to Ron Paul - Foreign Aid & Israel

I'm no expert on the subject matter, but I do feel I have a better grasp of it than the average voter and so I humbly submit this post to all my Ron Paul friends and those who indulge in a love/hate relationship as well. If anyone thinks this information will come in handy for them, please feel free to copy it and use it for themselves in any way. I simply hope that others who read this will see in it quality enough to be shared. 

I have encountered a few major objections by conservatives to Ron Paul as a Presidential candidate, one of the strongest is the oft repeated claim that Paul wants to eliminate foreign aid to Israel, and therefore he is anti-Semitic. This notion is wrong on multiple levels. Besides the assumption that not giving money away in this instance is somehow racist, which is inherently illogical, those who argue racism is Paul’s motivation from the Republican camp alternately bristle at the idea of continuing to give money away to Mexican citizens for the very same reasons that Libertarians want to eliminate all foreign aid and welfare. Giving your money for a cause you believe in is admirable, noble and should be celebrated. Forcing others to give their money for any cause is none of those, but rather is theft, immoral and should land someone in jail. You are always free to give to those causes you deem important, no one is stopping you. 

1. Reality: The US gives much more to Israel’s enemies than it does to Israel in aid.[1] For this reason, eliminating all foreign aid will hurt Israel’s enemies much more than it would harm Israel, but also because Israel’s economy is diversified whereas the economies of the rest of the region are not. When taken in conjunction with Paul’s energy policy a clearer picture of what this will mean for Israel and the region as a whole can be seen, because Paul wants to develop our own energy resources and quit purchasing oil from OPEC.[2] This will take several years before the transition would be completed, however once it has been done the nations surrounding Israel will have a significant decrease in their annual income and the price of oil itself will not be subject to the whims of OPEC if the biggest oil market in the world is able to supply oil for less money per barrel than other nations are willing to sell. This will effectively limit the military capabilities of Israel’s enemies as because of Ron Paul’s policies they will lose both their foreign aid and a very significant customer for their only viable industry, thus leaving Israel in a much better position comparatively speaking because of their diversified economy and their military superiority. 

2. Another reason why Paul’s policy on Israel is the better policy than what we’ve pursued over the last 20 years through Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. is the fact that Paul wants to allow Israel to take care of it’s own internal affairs and it’s own diplomatic policies towards it’s neighbors. Paul has said many times that Israel is more than capable of taking care of itself and that during the last 20 years the United States, in his opinion, has not done a good job of being an ally to Israel. Through the numerous peace negotiations brokered by the US through several administrations, Israel has been directed by our State Department – under leadership by both Republicans and Democrats – to give up land, destroy it’s citizens housing, not retaliate to attacks and to work with terrorist organizations in search of compromise which was never an option in the eyes of its adversaries. No pro-Israel supporter would deny these truths and yet for some unfathomable reason, they still believe that Israel is better off under our guidance than directing her own defenses and making her own decisions on how to deal with the Palestinian demands and relentless hatred even while so many of them believe Israel’s own military is the world’s experts in anti-terrorism tactics and counter-insurgency/urban warfare. This all begs the question, just what is it exactly that Israel “needs” from the United States? [3]

3. To add further fuel on the fire, several prominent Israeli officials and academics have agreed with Paul in calling for an end to foreign aid money from the US to Israel for the very reasons that Paul has outlined, [4] however the calls of racism don’t really stick to them and so they are ignored by the anti-Paul crowd as if they never existed, because no matter how many times I post the following links to prove the point, I have yet to see a single anti-Paul person address them whatsoever. 

4. One of the most prominent arguments made against discontinuing foreign aid to Israel is the religious one which basically says that because the Bible says God will curse any nation that curses Israel and bless any nation that blesses Israel we’d better be a staunch ally otherwise God will not bless America. 

This ideology is flawed at many different points, but to name a few I’ll say that forcing Israel to cede land for peace and then not allowing Israel to defend itself when peace is once again abandoned by those we just pressured Israel to give land to is not blessing them. Giving them money and then holding them under our thumb in many different aspects of their own foreign policy and defense is not blessing them. The United States has been the single biggest factor in Israel’s lasting conflict with the Palestinians because we have not allowed them to take care of the problem in a way that would end the conflict. The United States preferred methods of manipulation and control are a curse to Israel, not a blessing whatsoever. 

Being a blessing or a curse to Israel need not have anything to do with monetary support whatsoever. We can simply back them up in the UN Security council and in international diplomatic gatherings or during disputes. If we are truly to be counted as a blessing to Israel we should by all means stop all foreign aid to those nations that express animosity towards Israel, but as I pointed out above, we actually give more to those nations than we do to Israel.

Most of the people that hold to this doctrine see themselves as Christians, as I do also. Yet they fail to grasp the power and faith of the Biblical doctrines that surround the story of the Israelites. Righteousness was counted to Abraham because of his faith, and thus his descendants were chosen to be a nation of priests. However, as Christians should we rather trust in money, guns, international sanctions and diplomatic pressure rather than God’s immutable purposes that clearly teach the renewal of Israel and its protection by God? How is it that we are so arrogant as believers as to think our ways are higher than God’s ways and that God Himself can do no better job at protecting His people than our direct interventions can?

Being a blessing means that we allow Israel to defend herself without our interference, which has not happened in a very long time and will only happen if we take the power of money and the manipulative strings that go along with it out of the equation as some of Israel’s prominent leaders have already asked us to do. 

 5. Last but not least is the Iran question. Many anti-Paul people can’t grasp the idea that Paul would “allow” Iran to have a nuclear weapon. To those people that are fixated on this as some sort of Achilles heel of Paul’s campaign I would like to ask a few questions:

Since Moscow has publicly stated that Iran is an ally and attacking Tehran through NATO or unilaterally would be seen as an attack on Moscow, [5], [6] what would you do to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon without military action?

Since Moscow has vowed to complete Iran's nuclear reactor, war rhetoric from NATO and the US, what would attacking Iran accomplish in light of the circumstances outlined in question one?

Israel reportedly has 300 nuclear weapons and is capable of launching them and hitting Iran if they feel threatened, what do you think the US can do in this situation that Israel is not itself capable of doing?

Iran does not have a delivery system for the nuclear weapon it does not possess, however North Korea has both, has launched missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons several times and is lead by a mad-man with a God complex. North Korea has the capability to hit almost all of the continental US and yet because China would not allow us to attack North Korea with out starting a war, we have not threatened action against it. Why should we treat North Korea differently than Iran if Iran also is backed by a nation we cannot afford a war with? 

Conclusion: Ron Paul’s foreign policy is grounded in reality. We cannot attack Iran without risking war with Russia and therefore that part of the argument against Paul is a moot point and if someone insists on pressing that point despite the above information, I would sincerely question their ability to be objective at all. We are giving more money in aid to Israel’s enemies than to Israel itself and so continuing that practice is counter-productive and anyone should be able to see it is irrational to believe it is helpful to Israel in the long run. This too is a moot point when it has been examined. In the not so distant past Ronald Reagan was in a heated contest with the USSR in which no open hostilities occurred and which we were seen as the victors in the end when Reagan’s most hostile moment towards the Communist regime is largely seen to be his speech in Berlin urging the dismantling of the wall. Reagan respected our enemies, not because he believed their ideals to be morally on par with ours, but because the best way to preserve the lives of Americans is not to risk them unnecessarily. Yet so many Republicans seem to think that what Reagan did, when applied to Paul is somehow giving respect and validity to tyrants and warmongers. This is wishful thinking on their part, and yes I use that term purposefully. They would rather believe that Paul is friendly towards Israel's and our enemies than admit that their support for continued wars and continuing to support a failed policy towards Israel is actually a problem and founded on false arguments. 

Citations -

1. http://www.americansforisrael.com/archives/28 

2. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul284.html

3. http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm

4. http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/6201-israeli-economists-agree-with-rand-paul-end-foreign-aid

5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8251531.stm

6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-uIaSRiWA4

Tying the Noose for Our Own Neck.

During the last few years there has been a good deal said about the idea of having a Constitutional Convention to add a few "needed" Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Rumors abound that 32 states and their legislative bodies have called for a Constitutional Convention, or "Con-Con", which is just two states shy of the two-thirds majority needed to actually convene a convention. I have also heard a lot about the various reasons that this very radical step is necessary. The arguments play to the heart-strings of the philosophically conservative and the Christian that longs for the days of morality and common-sense to return. However, I do believe that viewing a Constitutional Convention as a logical and reasonable step to assuage the rising tide of political correctness will be the proverbial bell that tolls for you.


Runaway Federal spending, gay marriage, abortion and right to life issues, illegal immigration and "anchor" babies, the repealing of the 16th Amendment and the fine-line ambiguity of the Second Amendment are all problems that I would love to see solved through legislative means, if this were a perfect world. But, as we all know the best of intentions among even the most virtuous of us often go awry. This very truth is why the Constitution was so limited in its scope in the first place. The Founding Fathers designated most rights to be in the hands of the individual states and the citizens of those states, not in the hands of a centralized behemoth like we have in Washington D.C., simply because the less power that is concentrated in a few hands, the less ability those few hands have of abusing that power. Pragmatism was a central tenet of the Founder's world-view. 


Yet troubled and hounded conservatives clamor for some solution to the unintended consequences of the Founding Father's silence on issues largely unforeseen. However, is this method, which has not been employed since 1787, truly the best way to ensure the traditional values of the majority of Americans are respected, or is this the noose with which we will hang ourselves and doom those and other principles of our nation? Could this instead of reclaiming lost ground, result in the loss of what little ground we still have to stand on? Answering the practical questions we must face isn't easy. There are a lot of issues, but in my mind the most logical place to look first is the actual text of the Fifth Article of the Constitution of the United States which outlines the means of holding a Constitutional Convention to see exactly what the guidelines are:

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

What insurance does this give us, the average citizen, that the process will go smoothly? Are there regulations on who can be appointed as a delegate? No. Are there rules to ensure the Bill of Rights can be altered only within certain parameters or under certain conditions? No. Is there anything in the text that can be seen as a means to stop wholesale changes if things get out of hand, or the delegates sent to the convention somehow don't actually represent the will of the people when the Convention is convened? No. The article is silent on every issue save a couple of line items having to do with taxes in the Ninth Section of the First Article. Whatever happens in a Constitutional Convention becomes the absolute authority and governing law of the United States with the only insurance being that it will need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.


Relying on the single rule that gives 75 percent of the population the responsibility of ensuring our rights, when they largely have not been educated adequately on the principles which gave rise to the need for The Constitution as it is presently, doesn't look at all like a promising proposition to me. Then you consider the fact that the largest states have routinely leaned towards collectivist ideals over the past several decades and the prospect for a successful campaign to halt the pervasive immorality and corruption that triggered the Convention looks even worse.


Disheartening is a word not adequate to describe the likely results of a Constitutional Convention convened by politicians who routinely ignore and blatantly thwart the will of the people under the pretenses of following that very will, when they have in the past shown no intention or predisposition of respecting that will. And is it necessary to state that even if things were to be changed to something of a form of what we the people would like to see, it is likely the politicians could easily make fundamental changes in the meaning of our Bill of Rights with just a word or two altered in key places when they enlist the help of the media, lobbyists and lawyers? The dangers are obvious to the cautious observer. In a matter of hours, our rights as citizens that we have believed to be inalienable God-given rights, such as the right to petition the government, our right to own any kind of weapon to defend ourselves and our families from criminals or a tyrannical government, our rights to own property and administer it as we see fit, even our basic right to life and self-determination could be swept away!


The benefit of imposing moral ideals in a few matters upon a belligerent government which consistently seeks to circumvent and change the nature of our society is far out-weighed by the potential wholesale changes to the very nature of our Republic. Yet, there is another  argument as to why holding a Constitutional Convention is unnecessary and possibly even against the spirit of the very principles such a Convention would be trying to protect.


Arguments can, will and probably have been made that the proposed changes to the Constitution are necessary because the Congress, the President and the Courts through various means have twisted the Founder's intentions and granted themselves power they were never meant to have. The Federal Government over the last century has ballooned to a point that it is truly unrecognizable if we hold it up in comparison to the description that is laid out in our nation's founding documents. We could debate how this happened and why it happened until we are blue in the face; I would agree with everyone that the current situation we find ourselves in is not at all how things should be and something should be done about it. However, wouldn't it be more prudent - if there is the political will to actually change the Constitution - to rather harness that sentiment and push for political changes that would simply reassert the authority of the Constitution over the government in the first place? After all, what is to say that even after going through the whole process of getting the necessary states in line to call a Constitutional Convention, ensuring the delegates will make the changes that the people want, taking the time to educate the average citizen why the changes are necessary so that they will be voted in by the three-fourths of the states necessary to ratify the changes, that after all of this the Congress, the President and the Courts won't simply ignore the will of the people as they already have been doing? 


Wouldn't the simpler method be taking the political will we see developing among the average citizens and using that in a synergistic way to educate the average citizen on the ideals of liberty once again? A generation of men and women had to go about it this way 230 years ago, why should we go about things any differently now? What was it about their beliefs which caused them to give of themselves and risk their lives for freedom, where our generation asks the very government who opposes us to ensure that freedom for us?


There is a fundamental difference between the principles which brought about the Constitution of the United States and the underlying attitudes which are the basis for the current efforts to change it. Individualism is defined as a doctrine in which the interests and rights of the individual are foremost of importance. In a society where Individualism is the underlying philosophy, people are seen as having value intrinsically. Individualism teaches self-reliance, self-determination and ensures freedom because the group is secure in their rights when the unit that comprises the group - the individual - is held higher than the government which is there to serve it, and is allowed to work out their own responsibilities and issues without interference from the government except when that individual infringes upon the rights of another. 


The freedoms of worship, association, speech, conscience, property ownership, privacy and the freedom to protect yourself, your family and your property all stem from the philosophy of Individualism. For the Individualist, the solution to a problem within society is for the individuals within it to work towards a solution in a way that does not infringe upon the freedoms of anyone else, because everyone else within that society has value and rights that are equal to their own. This is why the Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal under God. The highest authority is no man, no collection or committee of men/women, but rather each individual as they were created in the same form and for the same purpose. As such, changes within society would be achieved through education, rather than force of law. Since people are equal, they automatically have the right to make their own choices, regardless of whether or not someone else agrees with their choice - again, as long as that choice doesn't infringe upon the rights of another.


Some will contend that this leaves the door open for all sorts of immoral practices and practical dangers, after all there are all sorts of things that society at large does not agree with, but do not necessarily infringe upon the rights of any other individual. Medical Marijuana and the war on drugs as a whole comes to mind as an example. People will argue that drug use leads to crime and because of this drug use should be outlawed as a means of preemptively working against high crime rates. Yet no one is at the same time proposing that non-drug users have free reign to plunder their neighbor's house: The existing laws punishing theft are in affect regardless of the motivation to break them. 
However well-meaning and rational the laws in the war on drugs sound, most would have to admit that they have not worked very well when practically applied. Like prohibition early in the last century, the drug war has only served to push those people underground who have found themselves addicted to chemicals. This move out of society and away from healthy relationships that could help them out of their addictions is counter-productive. Christians in particular should pay close attention to this dilemma as there is a dimension to this which deals very intimately with the foundations of our faith. Jesus told us to proclaim the Gospel to all mankind. How are we fulfilling the responsibility of sharing the love of Christ with the "least of these" whom He came to save, when with our demands for legislation that enforces our morality we publicly judge and divorce ourselves from those who need to see that morality lived up close daily?


This is not how Individualism and personal responsibility - an inherent tenet of Christian faith - should be worked out. Rather it is irresponsibility which demands others enforce a set of rules for us to make us comfortable with a society that only reflects our beliefs because there would be penalties if they did not. Where is faith in this equation? I daresay it is effectively dead.


How do the proposed Amendments fit within this mindset then? Lets take the Marriage Amendment as an example. The proposed Marriage Amendment has been put forward because of the infringement upon the majority by a very vocal minority which lives a lifestyle that many disagree with, yet has found political traction due to very powerful lobbyists and political action groups. If we analyze the movement that gave rise to the perceived necessity of the Marriage Amendment we can see it goes against many of the ideals of freedom as described by Individualism. It seeks to force an idea and belief system upon individuals simply because a group of people believe those individuals ought to see things differently - not unlike the laws enacted by conservatives such as the war on drugs. It does so with the aid of political mechanisms which violate the principles of Individualism and are therefore philosophically incompatible with the system of government they seek to influence. It is in violation because if that system of government was working within the boundaries that was set up for it originally, these groups would have no ability to influence it in the first place. Instead individual conscience and freedom of association would automatically allow for the desires of both groups because those groups would not have the ability to politically or religiously oppress the other. Regardless of how vocal and public their arguments may be, each individual's rights would be inherently equal if the system was within the boundaries set up by the Constitution because lobbying and favoritism within the political system wouldn't be taking place.


The fact is that all of the Amendments that are seen as necessary to ensure conservative's individual rights are upheld would be unnecessary if all individual rights had been upheld to begin with.


So how did we get to this point and what is going on? Collectivism is the opposite of Individualism, and as such it enthrones the group as having authority over the individual. There is a descriptive phrase which is used to the point of exhaustion which comes from this mindset: "For the greater good." Collectivism takes the individual's rights and flips them on their head. Instead of having intrinsic value as a human being, collectivism teaches that all people have value only as far as they contribute to the well-being of the group. The collectivist approach to a problem is to seek to gain authority over the individuals within it or any other perceived group to enforce the perspective of that particular group. This is democracy in it's purest form: Majority rule. This is also why the Founding Fathers regarded democracy as one of the most evil forms of government ever devised. There is a simple and logical explanation as to why this should not be the way political movements or any other movements are allowed to develop: You cannot have a group without the individuals which make up that group. Therefore, the very idea that the group, which doesn't exist except as an idea, can have rights that the parts that make up that group do not is irrational. You cannot give someone else something you do not have.


The history of where it came from, how it infiltrated our society and our system of government is way too long for this already long blog post. Regardless of the details, any objective viewer can see the obvious signs of it's tentacles woven tightly around the carcass of what was a thriving nation. However difficult the task may seem, I believe the correct course of action to restore the nation as it was meant to be and to replace the Constitution to it's former position of authority over the Federal Government and the various states, we as citizens need to take up the mantle of those who sacrificed their comfort and risked their livelihoods for it, and we should do so in a manner which doesn't betray the principles which gave us the rights we are now trying to reclaim, which would just inevitably land us back in the same situation we find ourselves in now, but probably worse.


The Constitutional Convention is not necessary, because the Founders gave us a Constitution that is adequate for a people that take the principles of Individualism seriously and live in freedom responsibly. That is our challenge, and I believe it is the only real road we have back to where things should be. Freedom cannot come at the cost of another individual's ability to live their lives as they see fit, unless we are willing to be intellectually honest with ourselves and admit that we see ourselves as superior to those we disagree with. In that honesty, I believe that we will realize that while we are trying to correct our brother for the twig in their eye, to the detriment of all of us, we are ignoring the log in our own. 

On Immigration

I am a fifth generation American. My family arrived here in the 1890s. We were loggers and farmers for the next three generations. We bought a farm and it is now considered a national landmark out in Scholls Oregon. We've paid our taxes, learned to join this society of many nationalities and have grown to adopt this as our home. We do not speak of the Ukraine as the "old country". We have long been proud to be Americans. Why do I say this? Because it took a huge sacrifice to come here, and it has been worth it.
The issue of immigration is not as complex as some would like to make you think. When most of our families came here we went through the channels that were available to us. My family came through Ellis Island, others came through San Francisco. But the vast majority of immigrants who came to this nation, up until the last 20 to 30 years, arrived here legally. We became citizens and we learned the rules of citizenship. But now there are millions of people here who have no respect for those rules. Have little or no knowledge of our history; no idea about who we are and many don't care to know. They are the ones which come here, work illegally and send the money they make back home. The rationale for letting them stay comes in many forms. Some believe they take the jobs others would refuse to do. Some think that anyone who comes to this country has the constitution to rely upon for rights and guaranty. Some believe that they will become good citizens. I believe they are all wrong. Simply put, Illegal immigrants are here illegally, and therefore are entitled to nothing more than being deported from our nation. Anything less, paying for their children to go to school, giving welfare, social services to help them feel at home, voting rights, drivers licenses, etc. is an assault on the rights and privileges of every legal citizen of our country. I know this sounds harsh to liberals, but basically speaking, millions of people came here legally, why should we allow others to come here without the restrictions and security measures that all the rest of us had to endure on our road to the American dream? It cheats the rest of us out of our rights and cheapens our efforts to become citizens and contribute to this nation's prosperity. I for one cannot believe our politicians would look to those that break the laws of this nation as political capital, and a source of power. It is time for reform, and to take back the authority the legitimate citizenry should have.

The security of the nation and how to achieve it has been a very large and active public debate for years now, especially since the terrorist attacks reached our homeland in September of 2001. We have many thousands of troops stationed all over the world, we are building a system to knock missiles out of the sky, we have in the last decade alone deployed our troops to more conflicts than pretty much the whole rest of the century previous. We are taking steps to pressure foreign governments to cooperate in hunting down terrorists and cut off their financial backing and we are actively opposing and dismantling governments that refuse to cooperate in our efforts to shut down terrorist organizations in their territories. I have no problems with any of this, except for the fact that none of this keeps our borders safe from terrorists. The Canadian border and the Mexican border are not adequately patrolled and haven't been since I can remember, not to mention the coastguard patrolling the Florida coastline for desperate Cubans and Haitians.
To put the sorry state of affairs that is our nation's border policy in perspective I'll give you a couple stories to think about. The Press here in the US for quite a while after September 11th ridiculed Canada's border policy and their loose immigration policy that let just about anybody in their country if they could get there. Many Middle Eastern peoples had flown to Canada and just walked across the border into the US and we were up in arms over it. Canada's reaction to the tragedies in New York and Washington DC was to beef up their restrictions on travel and to be much more vigilant and strict on who traveled both directions over their border. Many Americans traveling north and then coming back home were subject to extensive questioning sessions and car searches. When they got to the customs officers on our side of the border, typically they were waved on with a nod. And understandably Canada got a little miffed at us for saying they weren't doing enough to ensure the border between our countries was patrolled properly. The reality is that there is still a very small number of border patrol officers available to patrol the Canadian border. The last number I heard was that there is only one officer for every 20 miles of open border between Canada and the US. That is about 200 to 300 patrolling the entire border not including the major roads in and out.
There is no secret that the Mexican border is a problem both in terms of illegal immigration and the terrain that is very often quite remote and rough. There are many things that are happening on our southern border which disturb me but a symptom that characterizes the problem are the spontaneous militias that are forming to patrol the border in places like southern Arizona. The small towns that the illegal immigrants have been coming through on their way to the good life up here have been continually trashed. Crops have been destroyed, people are threatened by armed illegal immigrants and sometimes the occasional house or business has actually been burned down by the tens of thousands of illegal aliens who annually plod through these little border towns. As a result the people in them have finally given up on the federal government to provide the security the Constitution mandates and they have taken the very dangerous step of patrolling the borders themselves - armed. Several small militias have formed in the border states in small towns that no matter how vocal they are they cannot get the attention of Washington. This is a very dangerous situation, and it is a very visible symptom of the problems that continue to be ignored regarding the Mexican border. Smugglers bring illegals across the border all the time and they aren't picky about who they bring as long as they have the cash. There have been reports that Islamic terrorists have crossed the border with the help of Mexican smugglers. And yet we ignore the situation. Why is that? The explanation that I keep hearing from the politicians is that for the Republicans the Mexicans are a cheap source of labor for the jobs that many Americans consider beneath them. From the Democrat point of view Mexicans are a burgeoning new voting block that is ripe for the entitlement train. And neither side wants to do anything to offend the Mexican segment of the population for fear they might not be reelected. So we have a huge problem on our hands.
Its not so much the economic impact that millions of people demanding state and federal services when they have never put anything into the treasuries they are taking money out of can have. Rather it is the potential for Political radicals and violent criminals to come into our country and carry with them a dirty bomb, or more terrorists just coming here to await new orders from whoever is plotting against us. And while they are here they'll visit their local government social service office and help themselves to the generosity we supposedly don't have.
What I want to know is why we haven't stationed the National Guard on our borders while we hire and train new officers to patrol that border? Why have we let this problem grow for decades while doing nothing about it? It has gotten to the point now that it might be political suicide for someone to do something meaningful about the problem and I'd like to know why we let it get this far. Armed men from the Mexican army have been caught well north of our border and have been shooting at our border patrol officers. Mexican nationals are suing the federal government for the wrongful death of people who died in the desert trying to get across the border. They had no right to be there, we gave them no permission and they blame us for making them go through the desert. There are student groups and radical groups forming in the southwest that claim the states of California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico as Mexican territory. They plan to make a new country called Aztlan and beyond that the Mexican government and our 'friend' El Presidente Fox is encouraging them to do this. The situation is beyond ridiculous. It is time to confront the Mexican government with the hard cold facts and to make it clear that our borders are sovereign. We need to put the National Guard on our southern border so that we can control the influx of illegal immigrants, thousands of who are violent criminals and dozens of who are terrorists from Middle Eastern nations. I just can't figure out why it hasn't been done by now.

I am increasingly disturbed by the apparent strategies that are being employed by the Bush administration in an attempt to get a more solid majority in Congress. It seems to me that 'Compassionate Conservatism' is nothing more than a rehash of liberalism and the ultimate promotion of the programs conservatives have been against for generations. A good example of this would be the Farm Bill that was passed soon after Bush took office. It was a huge subsidy of large businesses of which few at all resemble the quaint little farm that great grandpa owned out in the country. Most are multinational and multimillion to billion dollar entities which need little in the way of subsidies especially when you consider that the government controls the price of the food they sell anyway so that the farmers won't have to sell at actual market costs. Heaven forbid the farmers be competitive businessmen. And this is happening in many sectors such as education, prescription drug benefits, the new tax bill being considered in the House now, the multi-million dollar give away to the Victims of September 11th, the airline bailout shortly thereafter, etc. (Please note that although the victims of the September 11th attacks are a group of people most deserving of our support as a nation, the Constitution does not allow the government to spend money for the purpose of benevolence. That is our individual responsibility as citizens, and I support giving to them wholeheartedly.)
The Bush administration is trying to gain seats in the Congress by compromising on issues that are core conservative beliefs. The biggest one that comes to mind right now is the push towards universal health care and prescription drug benefits for seniors. Although I don't believe this should be necessary at all. People should be responsible for themselves and their families without expecting everyone else to pay their way through life. Nevertheless if it is to be at all, Bush had it initially right when he proposed that the seniors be allowed to join private companies and get their coverage that way. This would have lessened the size and intrusiveness of government as well as creating jobs in the health industry because of the new clients they would be receiving. The Democrats however, in typical socialist style, are demanding that it stay within the Medicare system and that the government provide these benefits through an inefficient and bloated bureaucracy. The very idea makes conservatives in this Republic of ours cringe. More government spending when the spending has already grown to 24% of the GNP. Instead of creating jobs that will infuse revenue into the treasury we will hire more people to bloat out the government offices even more and take money out of the treasury. This is going to cost Billions.
The strategy seems to be to gain a larger slice of the electoral-pie through compromising on social issues and taking the issues out of the democrat's hands. Democrats whine, Bush gives them what they want and supposedly this will give the Republicans a broader majority in the Congress. My question is this: What good could this possibly do? Isn't this a detrimental exercise from the start? Here is the scenario I see: We as the GOP 'convert' democrats to our cause by adopting many of their core issues and then when we have a big enough majority in the Congress to get the Judicial nominees through without a hitch, and enact the policies that will shrink the government and basically head back towards the conservative end of government philosophy. That is what I see as the Bush strategy as it is being put into practice. Okay, say we've gotten that far, what will these new republican voters think? Will they just automatically be champions of conservatism and cheer the changes on? No, they came to the Party through the ruse of compromise on issues that they hold dear. So the next obvious question is whether or not they will stick with the Republican Party and George Bush when they realize that what Bush and the Congress are doing is exactly the opposite of why they voted for them in the first place? I don't think any reasonable person would conclude that.
Bush is selling them the big government that Clinton campaigned against but instituted anyway. Bush, in his efforts to be compassionate has compromised to the point that many of the things that are passing Congress look as if they were sponsored, developed and passed by democrats - and in many instances they are. He is doing the old Clinton triangulation dance and it is disturbing to me because it cannot possibly work.
Say things do go according to plan and the GOP wins a huge majority in both houses of Congress with Bush in the White House to boot. What then? We just implemented some of the largest social spending increases in the history of the nation. And all of a sudden the country is going to support cutting the size of government? How fast can we possibly do this when we have gotten to the size the government currently is by incremental steps over a period of 90 years? From the point when the Federal Income Tax was enacted - some say by illegal means - to now the size, scope and power of government over our lives has steadily increased from 3% of the GNP to the current level of 24%. Yet we are supposed to significantly change all that in one 4-year period with the help of ‘converted’ democrats who intellectually agree with and support the very institutions we as conservatives would love to see the demise of. It just doesn't make sense.