IT’S OUR FIRST… on IT’S OUR FIRST AMENDMENT… madderthanhell on WHY IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CO… Arch on WHY IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CO… madderthanhell on WHY IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CO… Arch on WHY IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CO…
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- May 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- June 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
The minute this country stops believing our unalienable rights come from God not man, man WILL take them from us.
Pilgrims left their homeland, sailed across the ocean, and faced extreme hardships for religious freedom. They pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to protect their religious freedom. Our founders, even those who were not men of faith, recognized that we needed to maintain our religious morality in order to keep the government they designed for us. The fact that our FIRST amendment protected speech, press and religion indicates it’s place in their priorities.
We are not “free” when we are forced to do things that go against our religious beliefs. This country has always respected religious objections. Although progressives have been eroding our religious freedoms for some time, under the guise of separation of church and state, the election of Obama has ramped up the assault to fever pitch. After Obama was elected, he met with Catholic Cardinals to get their support of Obamacare. When they asked for a promise of religious exemption for areas that went against their beliefs, Obama acted offended that they would even have to ask. Then, as soon as Obamacare passed, the Cardinals were told their religious exemption was “off the table”.
What happened in Arizona this week should concern us all. Governor Brewer didn’t veto their religious liberty bill because the bill discriminated (it didn’t), she vetoed it because she was bullied into it. Not only by Arizona’s Senators and the media, but by people outside Arizona. The NFL threatened to pull the Super Bowl out of Arizona, Delta Airlines threatened not to land their planes at their airports, and who knows what other threats she received. The media labeled the bill “Arizona’s Anti-Gay Bill”. They said it was like “Jim Crow laws” for homosexuals. If the media had been objective, as we used to expect, they would have explained the bill was an amendment to an existing law. It simply clarified that “person” in the existing law included groups of persons; churches, associations and businesses. It was to protect Arizona citizens from the kind of actions brought against businesses in other states. There was nothing about discrimination or homosexuality in it. Except for race, businesses have always been able to deny service to whom ever they found objectionable. Liberals better be careful what they bully people into doing. Should a Black caterer be forced to cater a KKK event? Are Muslim businesses going to have to cover Jewish weddings?
I have to ask, why would anyone want to force someone to provide a service to them that the other person didn’t want to provide? How good would that service be? People resent being forced to do things they don’t want to do.
The Arizona bill has no relationship to “Jim Crow laws”. Jim Crow laws denied ALL Blacks access to ALL white schools, restaurants, businesses, bathrooms, water fountains, etc. This bill denied gays access to nothing. Not all businesses are owned by people of faith and not all people of faith object to gay marriages. If one business declines to support their weddings, there are plenty of others who will be happy to. This bill protected the rights of people of faith, nothing else.
Governor Brewer said they couldn’t find a single example of businesses being force to provide services. She neglected to mention neither have there been any examples of gays being discriminated against by businesses in Arizona. If gays haven’t been discriminated against before, why would anyone expect they would be now? Even in the famous cases, “Sweet Cakes, by Melissa” and florist, Barronelle Stutzman, they had gay customers. Sweet Cakes sold cookies, cupcakes, etc. to everyone and anyone who came into their shop. Barronelle Stutzman sold flowers to anyone who wanted them. They simply didn’t want to be part of a gay wedding. These businesses don’t just sell products to customers, they create an atmosphere for a wedding. They are part of a wedding. In a “free country” they should have the right to decline to be part of a ceremony they have a religious objection to. Tolerance works both ways. As much as gays are insisting we be tolerant of their life styles, they are not being tolerant of people of faith.
As a country we have to stop this sort of knee jerk reaction to things we perceive as being “unfair”. These situations should be discussed objectively and rationally. While Liberals and gays are celebrating a victory, Christians are worried about what comes next. Liberals seize on these emotional situations and don’t let a crisis go to waste. While supposedly protecting the rights of one group they deny the rights of another. The hypocrisy is often stunning. A gay bar in West Hollywood, The Abbey Food & Bar, is posting pictures of every legislator who voted against gay marriage on their walls and saying they will deny service to all of them. Now there is an example of discrimination. Where is the outrage? Media? LA Times? MSNBC? CNN? ABC? CBS? NBC?……….Crickets!
We hear people say the culture is changing. They say people are becoming more accepting of gay marriage. Really? As little as three or four years ago every state that had voted on gay marriage had voted against it. The Soviet Socialist Republic of California voted against it twice. So, we are to believe in that short a time people just changed their minds? In most cases courts overturned the will of the people. With Liberal media on nearly every series, opinion and news show labeling anyone who supports traditional marriage as “haters”, “bigots” and “homophobes”, people are simply giving up. They don’t want the constant confrontation. We all have lives to lead, jobs to work at, children to raise. We are losing ground economically, we are losing jobs, we are losing our health insurance, our children are being indoctrinated instead of taught. People are simply weary of fighting every assault. The Progressive tactic of nudging us into submission has become SHOVE.
Does anyone really think that if the Republicans support amnesty, Latinos will vote Republican? If you do, you’ve been drinking too much Kool-Aid! The left has successfully bought the Latino vote, with social services, free healthcare, Section 8 housing, free pre-school, free after-school care, free phones, utility subsidies, and so forth, ad nauseum. The Republicans can never win this bidding war.
Nevertheless, the Republicans seem determined to pass “immigration reform” before this president leaves office. Why? They admit they can’t trust the president to enforce any part of a reform bill. So, even if they pass a border security only bill, there is no reason to believe any security would be enforced. We did pass a 700-mile border fence bill in 2006….. And less than 100 miles of that fence has been built. And then there is the “virtual fence” they like to tout. They love to tell us that “with today’s technology, we don’t need a real fence”. A “virtual fence” is even better….. And the low-information voters actually believe that. Let me remind those low-information voters that a “virtual fence” can be turned OFF, and how are you going to know whether it’s on or off, unless you are willing to sit on the border 24/7 and check on it. Just as soon as the nefarious forces pushing for amnesty are willing to sit on the border and make sure the “virtual fence” is ON, I’ll consider supporting a “virtual fence”.
Yes, I know the majority of the illegal aliens in the country have overstayed their visas, but they are a mixed group of people from many different countries. The majority of illegal aliens come from south of our border. And for those of you who want to remind me about our northern border, we don’t have between one and three million Canadians crossing that border illegally every year. We wouldn’t have to “push one for English” if that were the case. Keep in mind, one to three million people crossing our border illegally EVERY year is not immigration, it’s invasion, and they haven’t had to fire a shot.
Last night, I spoke on Jamiel Shaw’s radio program about my breakfast with Archbishop Gomez. The Archbishop spoke in support of amnesty. He gave all the typical amnesty arguments. That this is a country of immigrants. That, in fact, he, himself, is an immigrant. That illegal immigrants just came here for a better life for their families. That we shouldn’t punish children who were brought here by their parents. That we shouldn’t break up families. He said there “needs to be a balance between the Rule of Law and compassion”. My head was about to explode.
Let’s take these points one at a time. First of all, we aren’t all immigrants. The ancestors of those who were here before the American Revolution, who fought to become a separate nation, are not immigrants to the nation they founded. Nor are Blacks. They didn’t immigrate. And those who immigrated to America before 1986 came here in measured numbers that we could handle. They came here because they wanted to be Americans. They came through Ellis Island and passed physical exams. They learned about our government and learned English. They had sponsors and promised not to be a burden on our country. Most coming now don’t want to be Americans, and are encouraged not to assimilate. They bring their culture, and, in some cases, their own laws, and want us to accommodate them. We are told we shouldn’t display pride in our country for fear of offending them. I have to ask, if their country and culture was so superior, why did they come here?
Illegal aliens just came here for a better life for their families? Along with the most violent gangs on the planet! Along with diseases not seen in this country in centuries, if ever. Along with drugs and drug cartels. Along with violent criminals. Along with terrorists. I want a better life for my family, but with a constant flow of illegal aliens, that’s not possible. As Milton Friedman warned, you can’t have a welfare state AND open borders. California is ground zero for illegal immigration, and look how that has “improved” our lives. California runs a deficit of about $13 billion a year, coincidently, the same amount illegal aliens cost us. Yes, they pay taxes, but every illegal alien family costs us approximately $24,000 a year more in social services than they pay in taxes. I’m sure there are millions of people around the world that would like a “better life for their families”, so why do those south of our border deserve to be here more than others? How could we possibly accommodate them all? And how can we insult LEGAL immigrants by granting citizenship to people who didn’t play by the rules?
“We shouldn’t punish the children who were brought here by their parents”? Were their parents unaware of the consequences of their actions? Do we have a Rule of Law? Yes, choices have consequences. Yes, we pay to educate your child and then they can’t get a job here. Nothing stops them from going back to their country of birth and using the education we gave them, does it? Don’t be fooled by this “compassionate” argument. If “Dreamers” are given amnesty, they can bring members of their families, so their parents are rewarded after all. I assure you, if I broke as many laws as illegal aliens do (entering illegally, working illegally, forged or stolen ID’s, driving illegally, tax fraud, etc.), I’d be sent to prison and “separated” from my family. And, please, explain to me what prevents illegal alien parents from taking their anchor babies back to their country?
What exactly is a “balance between the Rule of Law and compassion”? If you have a good reason to break the law, you shouldn’t be held responsible? In fact, by leftist standards, you should be rewarded. Don’t drug dealers, burglars, auto thieves, etc. just want a better life for their families? It is possible to find justification for just about anything, just ask a leftist. Job participation lowest since the depression? According to the left, that’s a good thing. You can spend more time with your kids. You can become a poet. You aren’t “job-locked”. We are either a country of laws, or we live under tyranny. If our government isn’t going to enforce our laws, why should we obey those laws? Justice is SUPPOSED to be blind, it is SUPPOSED to apply to all equally. If they broke the law, they should suffer the consequences. They have already demonstrated a disrespect for our laws, our culture, our language, and our flag. The LAST thing they deserve is our most precious gift, citizenship.
Most of us don’t know what is in NAFTA, but a sidebar of NAFTA was an agreement that we would not secure our borders. Why do you think Mexico’s past President Vicente Fox said there were no illegal aliens in America? And remember, NAFTA was a Clinton agreement (that Obama ran on abolishing…but didn’t), but Bush did nothing to amend or abolish NAFTA, did he? Republicans are as much at fault for what is happening as Democrats.
Amnesty is not about “compassion”. It’s not even about “cheap labor”. It’s about changing the demographics of this country, so that it can never be brought back to the successful, powerful country it once was. Every illegal alien came from a big government country. It’s normal for them to have government telling them what to do. But our country gives them more and they are happy to take it.
If amnesty is passed, the America we know will be gone forever.
I can’t tell you why the Republican party is supporting amnesty. They say their plan doesn’t include a “pathway to citizenship”, but they know ANY plan will result in citizenship. They say their plan is border security first, but they know that will never happen. Ask yourself ~ why? Why won’t our country secure its border? Every other country in the world enforces their immigration laws and their borders. Why won’t we? Do you really think we can support all comers? Do you really think this Tower of Babble we are creating will end well? Has it ever in the past? All the European leaders are warning that multiculturalism is destroying Europe and causing more divisiveness, not less.
I always believed power was the last thing people would be willing to give up. But Republicans seem to be willing to accept being a permanent minority. And accept an unnecessary decline in this country’s economy and standard of living. They know Americans are against amnesty. They also know amnesty will not be to their advantage. It will forever change this country. Why are they committing suicide??
I’ve been to dozens of Townhalls in the last few months and none of them were organized by Republicans. So, I was pleased when I saw that the Republicans were having a Townhall.
My understanding of Townhalls is that they provide an opportunity for our Representatives to inform constituents of what is happening and their positions on issues, and for citizens to question, support, or oppose them. Our Constitution provides for citizens to redress their grievances to their Representatives. I’m always amused when people thank the Representatives for coming to the Townhall. It’s their JOB. We elect them to represent us and it is their JOB to come back from Sacramento or Washington and tell us that they are doing to represent us.
“Republican Solutions for California” Townhall, was not a Townhall in that sense. Nor was it what they advertised, a “dialogue, not a lecture”. The flyer said “Ask your questions, Raise your concerns”. However, they didn’t have an open mic for people to ask questions or raise concerns. They required people to write questions on cards. The Left does this all the time because they can pick the questions to ask. I expect better from Republicans. By the time everyone had spoken there was only time for a few questions. This was more of a candidates forum than a Townhall.
Shawn Steel, RNC National Committeeman, spoke first. I like Shawn and for the most part, I liked what he said. He had a power point presentation and showed a picture of highrises planned for San Francisco and explained that One Bay Area Plan was to move everyone into highrises close to public transportation. I was a little disappointed that he didn’t call it what it is, Agenda 21, but, at least, he talked about it and condemned it. He also gave us some good news. The primary season will be cut from nine months to five months. The Convention will be at the beginning of the summer, not the end. This is important because the party can’t spend money until after the Convention which allowed Obama to run anti-Romney ads for months before Republicans could run counter ads. And there will be fewer debates…..although he didn’t say anything about who would moderate them.
Next Robert Huff, State Senate minority leader, spoke. In my opinion, he is a typical establishment RINO. He spoke about how important it was to elect candidates with “R” after their names. He said we have to, at least, end the 2/3 rds majority in Sacramento. While I agree, I have to ask what good it will do if Republicans vote with Democrats. Right now there are 37 Republicans in the California legislature who support amnesty. If amnesty is passed Republicans will never end the 2/3 rds Democrat majority. In fact we will lose more seats. In a few months, Latinos become the majority in California. If amnesty is passed their majority will grow geometrically. Republicans might as well go home. Huff gave some examples of Republicans whose opinions we might not agree with. Who supported drivers licenses for illegals and the Dream Act. He explained that these Republicans had to represent their constituents, and that’s what their constituents wanted. My reply to that would be, yes, they have to represent their constituents if being re-elected is their goal. But if what is best for the state and the country is their goal, they need to support what will accomplish that. Their constituents may be more concerned with abundant social services than the Rule of Law. I think most Conservatives want candidates who care more about saving our state and country than getting re-elected.
There was a lot of talk about “reaching out to minorities”. Several of the speakers talked about what the party was doing to attract minorities. Erroll Valladares, State Chair of the RNHA, spoke about how his group was planning activities in the Latino community. Other speakers spoke of the numerous Asians that had been hired or appointed to various positions in the party and about the various Asian and Latino Republicans running for office. The elephant in the room was that there was not a word mentioned about the Black community or what was being done to include them.
A number of candidates spoke but I won’t go into what they spoke about. They mostly spoke about why they were qualified and why we should vote for them. I’ll let readers determine who they want to vote for during the election season.
The event ran very long and people started leaving well before there were any questions asked. I have to give Gary Amnoff credit, he did chose some pointed questions. In fact, the first one was mine (I didn’t think they’d read any of the several questions I asked). I asked why there were so many Republicans in our state legislature who supported amnesty. Several of the candidates gave replies, but it was a lot of political spin about the reality of them being here. The final question was allowed from the audience. My friend, Keith Hardine, asked if the Republican policies are so similar to Democrat policies, what difference does it make which party we vote for?
Representative Brad Sherman thinks he’s funny. He has a perpetual grin on his face, and he always tries to make jokes during his townhalls. I have worked for managers of comedians such as Robin Williams, Billy Crystal, David Letterman, Dana Carvey, and Martin Short, and I cast half-hour sitcoms for 30 years, so I can say with some authority that he isn’t.
Representative Sherman adopted a new format for this townhall. He said he had prepared a speech, but he knew there were subjects that would come up during the Q&A that were covered in his speech. Therefore, he’d just open the floor to questions and insert parts of his speech as applicable. I was grateful for this, because, normally, he gives an hour-long speech about some subject that doesn’t relate to the concerns of the audience.
Representative Sherman conducts his Q&A sessions by raffle. His staffers hand out tickets, and then draw numbers from a bag, and if your number is called, you get to ask a question. I told the staffers I objected to this method, and they should just allow people to line up to ask questions.
The Q&A started slowly, with questions about what to do with drug dealers and drug rehab programs. There were questions about mass transit, about net neutrality, about teachers accused of misconduct, and so forth. A professor from CSUN asked what the government was going to do about the crushing debt of student loans. Apparently, he thought taxpayers should pay for the students’ bad choices. If people can’t afford college, they should go to less expensive colleges, and work their way through school. No one forces them to take on this “crushing debt”. One man said that if we care about what is happening to our country, we should vote for the Republican who is running against Sherman. The audience applauded this. The questions that got the loudest response from the crowd were the ones about the NSA spying scandal, and obamacare.
A woman asked about TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), which Obama is trying to push through. As much as I don’t like Brad Sherman’s political views, I give him credit for saying he was against TPP. He said it would cause more job losses and lower wages. He said he voted against NAFTA, GATT, and several of the other trade agreements. I applaud him for those votes.
When the subject of obamacare came up, the crowd erupted! A man asked “how dare those in Washington tell us what kind of insurance we must have, and how much we must pay?!” Most of the crowd cheered, but there were a few who shouted “single-payer!” (though they, obviously, have no idea what they are wishing for). Sherman went into his standard answer about people who go to the ER and can’t pay their bills are causing hospitals to incur increased costs. Of course, he never mentioned how competition could help remedy the situation, or that we could buy insurance for the uninsured for a tiny fraction of what obamacare costs. He talked about the website as if it were the only problem with the program. He said the company who designed the site did a terrible job, but Republicans fighting obamacare prevented the website from being fixed. The crowd went crazy. People booed and yelled. One woman in the front row stood up and yelled, “You lie, stop lying!”
Once the crowd calmed down somewhat, an old man with a walker came right up to Sherman, and began talking to him. Sheman tried to tell him to get back in line, and wait his turn, but the old guy was having none of it. He said he was a Veteran, and came there to yell at Sherman. He said Veterans are not being taken care of. He kept talking, even as Sherman tried to get him to leave. A police officer came up, but, fortunately, was gentle with the old guy. The old guy finally walked away, still saying Veterans were not being taken care of.
I’ve been going to Brad Sherman’s townhalls for several years now. At the first ones, years ago, the crowd was mostly in support of his views, but I think the tide has turned. Last year, most of the crowds were decidedly not supportive of him. I don’t know if it’s because some leftists are waking up, or more Conservatives are attending. Regardless of the reason, I certainly hope it continues.
I find it so frustrating that the information from the American Freedom Alliance conferences isn’t getting out to the general public. About 120 people attended the “Globalization of California” conference Sunday. Although I imagine most will tell their friends and family about what they learned, the information looses too much in translation. American Freedom Alliance does video tape the conferences and they are available on their website but still too few have any idea that about 1000 people are deciding the future of the entire world.
Nothing discussed at this conference is a secret, documents are there, books have been written about the people and groups behind the push toward Global Governance, but because the main stream media and our politicians don’t talk about it or explain the basis of so many policies that are being implemented, few people know what is happening or why.
What people need to understand, to start, is that the “Green Agenda” is the mechanism they are using. If they can convince enough of us that man is destroying the environment we won’t resist the oppressive measures they are taking to combat that fictitious claim. AB32 called for us to reduce our CO2 emissions to 1980 levels by 2020. We have already reached that goal so why do they want to reduce it more? After all the world is NOT warming, hasn’t been for the last 15 years or more, and CO2 is a nutrient necessary for life. The more CO2 the more plants grow. CARB (California Air Resources Board) wants to reduce CO2 to 1930′s levels now. Do you want to live as we did in the 1930′s? Do you believe man has run out of innovation? If you recall, Los Angeles used to have a serious smog problem. We don’t anymore because we invented the catalytic converter. We will continue to progress technologically if left alone. But our government is making us move backwards.
The environmentalist argument is that too much wealth brings too much consumerism which pollutes the environment. Actually the opposite is true. The more wealth the cleaner the environment. All you have to do is look at the richer countries compared to the poorer countries. Wealthy countries have the means to be good stewards of the environment. We want clean air and water and we have it.
The environmentalists don’t like humans. They believe humans are equal to slugs. Actually, they believe our opposable thumbs and ability to reason don’t make us superior, they think it makes us more dangerous. The goal of Agenda 21 is to reduce the world population to 1 billion. We are hearing again that our resources can’t support our population. Let’s put that into perspective. If you took the entire population of the world, divided it into four member family units, gave each a quarter acre of land, the entire population of the world would fit into Texas. We have plenty of room and resources to support the population. Therefore, environmentalists are restricting our ability to farm and use our natural resources in the name of “climate change”.
The first speaker of the day was Patrick Wood, co-author of “Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II.” He is an expert on historic and modern Technocracy. I had never heard of Technocracy. It is based on “humanism” which worships earth over God. They believe they can take control of people using science and technology not revolution. A group, including David Rockefeller and Zbi Brzezinski (security advisor under Carter), founded the Trilateral Commission in the 1970′s with a plan for a new international economic order, to promote interdependence between countries and promote free trade. Since then 6 out of 8 heads of the World Bank have been members of the Trilateral Commission. Ten out of seventeen National Security Advisors have been members, seven out of 12 Presidents and Vice-Presidents have been members. It is this group that lead to the UN Agenda 21.
The next speaker was Debbie Bacigalupi, a sixth generation Californian. She and her family have been ranchers and farmers in Siskiyou County for generations and are under heavy attack from environmentalists. She graduated Summa Cum Laude with BS in Business and Maters in Business Management. She speaks about Agenda 21, property rights, water rights and the attack on rural America. Right now dams are being blown up across the country. We all know this administration is shutting down all our coal plants (that provide 48% of our energy) but most of us are not aware that they are also blowing up our dams that provide hydro-electric, CLEAN energy, as well as lakes for boating, fishing and recreation. They say it is to protect the fish but all you’d have to do is to build fish ladders. Where they have blown up dams it has actually killed the fish because of the dirt and silt that is released. It has also overtaken private property and taken water from farmers and cities. The EPA plans to destroy 75,000 dams across America. WHY? Debbie showed the numerous thick volumes of regulations being imposed on us in the name of environmentalism, sustainability and biodiversity. Most four of five inches think. They covered the table. Debbie held up the Bible and the Constitution and said these are the foundation of our country and all we need.
Next was Heather Gaas. Heather is one of the most busy activists for property rights in Northern California (which is ground zero for Agenda 21). She brought us up to speed on what is happening in her area because it WILL come here if they are unable to stop it. She is working to stop One Bay Area Plan. This is a plan to reorganize the Bay area. Most of us aren’t aware that there are regional planning commissions. We elect local City Councils and planning commissions to plan and run our cities but we don’t elect “regional” planning commissions and were never asked if we wanted them. These regional commissions come up with plans that override local plans and have no regard to private property. They designate areas as wildlands or create wildlife corridors that cut through private property. You might not even know about this until you try to build something on your property and find out you can’t. One Bay Area plan makes it nearly impossible to keep single family homes. It moves people into cities and apartments along transportation corridors. If we don’t stop it in the Bay area, it WILL come here.
Next, my friend Mike Munzing spoke. I met Mike at the first American Freedom Alliance Conference i went to in 2011 called, “Big Footprint: Is Green the New Tyranny?” He was inspired by the conference to run for City Council in Aliso Viejo and won. He spoke of how he was able (with a little help from his friends) to stop the “Green Cities” plan for his city. He emailed his friends and asked us to look over the “Green Cities” plan and send him questions he could force them to spend time answering. We came up with more than 200 questions. The city has to answer the questions which would cost thousands and take a good deal of time. So they shelved it. Since then Mike has been appointed to SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments), our version of One Bay Area. This is exactly what we need. One of US on these unelected councils that are planning our futures without our permission.
The last speaker was Michael Shaw. Michael is a lawyer and one of the leading activists against Agenda 21. He is one of the first to discover Agenda 21. Michael is from Santa Cruz, which has been the test city for most of the Agenda 21 plans. Michael has brought many lawsuits to stop the violations of our property rights. He owned property in Santa Cruz that was zoned for 20 homes. He wanted to build one home on the land for himself. When he tried to get a building permit he was denied because a regional plan overrode the city plan. He sued. One judge said he could still use his land, he could walk on it and weed it. He finally won his suit. Michael founded Freedom Advocates to combat Agenda 21. His website http://www.freedomadvocacy.org has a great deal of useful information and recommendations. Michael and Rosa Koire have filed a lawsuit against One Bay Area.
Michael explained that is a violation of the Constitution for any city to enter into any international agreement. There are more than 600 ICLEI cities in America. ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) is an international agreement. California has the most ICLEI cities in the country. More than 100. One of Michaels recommendations is to charge City Council members with “misprisions of treason”. Which means they are failing to perform a public duty to report treason. His website explains how.
We need to look at what has happened in Europe. How many of you are aware that the European Union appointed, what is for all intents and purposed, “dictators” to run Italy and Greece. They appointed, not elected, people to run those countries. Now, there is no question the elected leaders had run their countries into the ground, but do we want leaders appointed by other countries? Italy and Greece are on the verge of collapse because they kept increasing social services, salaries and pensions and decreasing work hours and retirement ages. Just what we are discussing here now.
If people don’t understand what is happening and why, we can’t stop it. We can’t fight an enemy we can’t see.
This morning I had breakfast with Archbishop Jose Gomez, at the Biltmore Hotel in downtown Los Angeles. The Archbishop was there to speak of his support for “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”. I was invited to this breakfast by some of my friends from the Black American Leadership Alliance.
The Archbishop began by saying we area land of immigrants, all of us are immigrants, including himself. He said he was born in Monterrey, Mexico and has been a citizen for the last 20 years. He said we are also a country of laws and that there needs to be a compromise between the two. He spoke of the children of “undocumented citizens” not being held responsible for their parents’ actions. He spoke of how the twelve million here illegally are being denied basic human rights. I wondered what basic human rights he thought they were being denied. We provide them with free healthcare, school for their children, fire and police protection. If they have a child born here, they get section 8 housing, aid to dependent children, WIC, discounts on utilities, instate tuition, etc, etc.
Basically, the Archbishop recited the same old Progressive reasons why we should grant amnesty to “undocumented citizens”. Although he mentioned (several times) that he believed in the rule of law, he had no serious solution to address the numerous laws being broken by illegal aliens living and working in America. I also wondered how his public support of an obviously political issue didn’t violate his tax exempt status. I suspect if any minister started speaking publicly against amnesty or Obamacare or the violations of our Constitution that are endangering our religious freedom, his church’s tax-exempt status would be in jeopardy.
The title of the Archbishop’s talk was “Immigration and the Next America”. He said, “Immigration is about more than immigration. It’s about renewing the soul of America”. Apparently, he believes the “Next America” is a third world Latin American country. I believe the “soul” of America is the Constitution and the rule of law.
When Archbishop Gomez finished his speech and opened the floor to questions, I suspected this room of well dressed people would be in support of his opinion. But I was pleasantly surprised. There were, indeed, some people who voiced their support, but the majority of the questions were respectfully in opposition. One person asked how we’d stop further illegal immigration if we granted amnesty again. Dr. Baker, of our group, asked the Archbishop what he’d do about the Black communities who have such high unemployment due to illegal immigration, and reminded him that Blacks have been pushed out of their neighborhoods by illegal immigrants.
Another person reminded the Archbishop that unemployment was higher than at anytime since the Great Depression. Another asked where the Archbishop got the twelve million figure. He replied that he was quoting a newspaper.
I thanked the Archbishop for coming this morning, and then corrected him. I told him we are not all immigrants. I said Blacks didn’t immigrate here, legally or illegally. They were brought to this country against their will, and are currently being harmed the most by illegal immigration. I thought we owed them jobs, before appeasing the illegal immigrants. I said California runs a $13 billion annual deficit, which is coincidently, the exact amount illegal immigration costs California taxpayers every year. I asked the Archbishop how he justified giving our most precious gift, Citizenship, to people who have demonstrated a disrespect for our laws, our culture, our language and our flag.
He gave me a standard Progressive reply about balancing compassion with the rule of law, but I didn’t really hear much of it, because I couldn’t believe I said all those things to an Archbishop. I have always been intimidated by people in positions of authority. Five years ago I would never have contradicted someone in his position. I’ve come a long way, Baby.
James Spencer, from our group had the last question. He reminded the Archbishop that the 1986 Amnesty bill was passed because we were promised there would never be another. There were only three million illegals then. He told the Archbishop he was a Catholic, raised in Catholic schools, and even attended the seminary for a few years. He said the Catholic Church also had laws. He said he, too, wanted a better life for his family, so maybe he should move into the Vatican. Everyone laughed. James said if he tried, they would stop him, because they have laws too. I thought that was a perfect end to the event.