Tag Archives: politics

The Donkey Whisperer

I found this video at Power Line.

Though the presidential race has dominated the slow-but-sure revving up of the  2012 campaign season, there are others who are stepping into the arena now, as well. One is Rick Perry’s fellow Texan Roger Williams who is running for Congress, and if his first campaign ad is any indication, I hope he wins. I think it’s hilarious.  Of course, I love donkeys. They’re funny to me even without the political connection…

My favorite line: “See those big ears? Still can’t hear me.”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6etfJgZQ7A]

Hurricanes, the Media and Politics

Well, apparently Hurricane Irene turned out to be a dud, at least in the media’s eyes (if not in the eyes of the people in its path who are still struggling with the flooding, crop and structure damage, power losses, etc, that it caused.) I had a feeling it wasn’t going to turn out as horrible as they were predicting. Living here in Arizona, known for how hard it is on weather forecasters, I’ve come to the conclusion that the really bad storms seem to come out of nowhere. Usually on a day they predicted no storms.

When they predict and warn and commend themselves for how they are protecting us all (as if we are incapable of looking out the window and judging for ourselves) and we’d better pay attention to them, tune in, twitter in, Facebook in… I tend to yawn. After all the hooplah, the actual storms usually turn out to be anticlimactic. And so it was with Irene, if only because the hooplah was so shrill and over the top this time.

As if happened, though I experienced an interesting confluence of timing over the weekend in reading George Bush’s account of what happened during Katrina in Decision Points, at the same time as everyone was caterwauling about Irene. I thought even back when the events of Katrina were unfolding that Bush was being unfairly accused of “mismanaging” the relief efforts, and his account pretty much reinforced what I’d already concluded. He was fully aware of and concerned about Katrina, and had ordered the federal government’s Emergency Management Agency well in advance to start stockpiling food, water, medical supplies, etc, and to move in troops and helicopters as near the target areas as was safe for the aid of those who might need them after the hurricane hit.

But the feds can’t come in until state and local officials request them to do so. In Florida, Alabama and Mississippi, there was no problem, the integration between state and local authorities and federal responders operating smoothly. But in Louisiana, things were different. Even though the President asked and asked and asked Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco to let him help, she refused to give him an answer, dithering the time away until it was pretty much too late. Then everyone blamed him.

In his book he graciously took responsibility for it, but I’m still struggling to see why he should have. The whole point of state’s rights is that we have the freedom to manage our own affairs. The US is not a kingdom but a federation of states, and if state officials don’t want to accept federal aid, that is their right. They are elected officials, so if they are inept, perhaps the people they supposedly serve will not re-elect them…

With all that in my mind, it was interesting to watch President Obama this time, a man who seems to have an eerie coldness and detachment when it comes to connecting with the “little people” even when he does descend from his chariot, er… airplane… to see the damage and try to lift their spirits. Given what the media had done to Bush, it seemed clear he wanted to make sure no one could accuse him of not caring or of being too slow in providing aid. Unfortunately, for me, he seemed only to be seeking a photo-op to enhance his current campaign. Nothing about him ever seems sincere, but rather condescending.

Others affirmed and elaborated on my observation, and this excerpt from Power Line blogger John Hinderaker in his post How to Politicize a Hurricane is not only amusing but apt:

“I’m sure it’s a relief to everyone on the East Coast to know that Obama is personally directing hurricane response efforts. Never mind that he isn’t competent to organize a Little League baseball team; today’s charade obviously is a corollary of the Hurricane Katrina fiasco, in which America’s mass media committed group malpractice, somehow managing to blame the inevitable consequences of a severe weather event, magnified by incompetent local authorities in New Orleans, on the Bush administration. Obama is setting the stage to receive praise, rather than blame, no matter what actually happens between now and when Hurricane Irene blows itself out.

This is one more step in the degradation of American politics. One hundred years ago, people understood that the president had nothing to do with hurricanes. Now, the president is expected to pretend to have control over more or less everything. This has something to do with the inexorable expansion of federal power, and also something to do with the dumbing-down of the American people.”

Reallocated to Occupy

Today on the Drudge Report, I came across an article posted on Alex Jone’s Info Wars site about a new Rasmussen poll showing that Americans are now “pre-revolutionary.”  The article stated that only 17% of the population believes the U.S. government has the consent of the governed. The rest of us do not.   The article’s author, Paul Joseph Watson, cited Rasmussen pollster Pat Cadell as saying “there is a sea of anger churning” out there among Americans wanting to “take their country back.”

Watson also hearkened back to 2008 when InfoWars warned of coming economic troubles that would precipitate “global rioting,” which clearly we are seeing today with the riots that have gone on in Greece, the Middle East, France and most lately, London. There are signs as well of coming unrest here in America, not only from the aforementioned pre-revolutionary Americans, but in the rising incidences of crime and thefts, especially the flash mob violence that’s been occurring at various cities — most recently at a state fair in Wisconsin…

But the creepiest part of all was when Watson referenced, in conjunction with the warning of global rioting, an 2008  article in the Army Times  about a newly instituted program that “re-allocated”  US troops returning from Iraq to training programs that would teach them how to “occupy America” (Watson’s words), run checkpoints and deal with  “civil unrest and crowd control”.  The Army Times presented the new program as one wherein soldiers would be called on to provide aid and “protection”  during times of disaster like Katrina or a terrorist attack, but admitted the idea of using American soldiers to control Americans is a “first.”  According to Info Wars’ Watson, however, such a deployment is not just a “first”, but totally violates the principle of  Posse Comitatus, a US federal law passed in 1878 prohibiting military personnel from serving in a law enforcement capacity on non-federal property.

So… it sounds good — send in US troops to help restore order, render aid, protect people during a terrorist attack…but with if the unrest comes from within? What if it comes from this rather large group (83%) of Americans who feel their elected officials have run off with their country and are driving it off a cliff?

Mount Pleasant frog, anyone?

Common Courtesy

One of the things I dislike about the Internet is the way it wears away at common courtesy. Some people in their comments  — blogs, product reviews, movie reviews —  just blast away, saying whatever they feel like saying, as rudely and bluntly as it comes out and who cares about the consequences!

One thing that I find especially irritating is when I post something political and people who have never commented before, whom I don’t know, suddenly appear with their negative comments about how wrong I am to have posted such a thing!  Sometimes their remarks do have something to do with what I said. Other times it’s some variant of Bush Derangement Syndrome. I have only to mention the subject in question and here comes the trashing. I wonder how they even found my post and have to conclude they are searching for particular subject matter. So they can go and pounce on some hapless blogger with their negative opinions.

WordPress allows me to moderate comments by first time commenters, and in general I don’t like to censor negative comments out of hand, so unless it’s really obvious they were just trolling for the subject, I approve them. That happened today regarding my Gov Christie post yesterday. Instead of acknowledging the courage and integrity the governor exhibited in the clip I showed, the commenter was on a mission to set me straight on my foolish claim that Christie was conservative. After I thanked him for the comment and noted that I’d not heard about the accusations he’d made, he proceeded to flood my blog with comment after comment on how Not-Conservative Christie supports cap and trade, amnesty and Obamacare, with plenty of links to support his assertions.

Well, fine. I didn’t know Christie supported those things, and a cursory investigation by means of Google indicates that he does indeed, at least to some degree. I don’t support cap and trade, amnesty or Obamacare but does that mean that I cannot applaud courage and common sense when I see it?  Good heavens, Christie’s the governor of Blue Blue Blue state New Jersey. I can hardly believe he’s even there. I doubt he could have been elected there if he were Ronald Reagan. And in any case, he IS a fiscal conservative, and I have watched him stand up to snarky reporters and angry teachers union activists with a backbone I’ve seen few others display. I admire that.

Still, seeing as the commenter was apparently from New Jersey, I can  also sympathize with his frustration. My senator, after all, is John McCain, Mr. I-was-a-Maverick-before-I-wasn’t-a-Maverick, who is also for cap and trade, amnesty, TARP and I can’t recall on Obamacare. I did not vote for him in the primary. I will in the general election, however, (holding my nose)  because his Democratic opponent will not bother to even  pretend  he’s conservative.  The bottom line is very, very few of our elected representatives fulfill all our criteria for Conservatism. And most of them cave immediately when pressured by the media or the unions. And probably by the DC social/political life, as well.

Besides that, Writing From the Edge 2 isn’t meant to be a political blog. I post about politics from time to time, because there are things I find interesting or admirable or exceptional, sometimes ironic, sometimes goofy, sometimes surprising or outrageous or even ominous. But I’m not into political activism and I’m not interested in getting into arguments with people who don’t like what I post, nor sponsoring political discussions in the comments section. There are many other blogs out there who welcome all that, but I just don’t have the time or emotional energy to do so.

In fact, I should be in bed right now. I did 4 hours of writing work today and hoped to get up early to do 4 more hours tomorrow. So I guess I’ll post this thing and stop second-guessing myself. If readers decide that’s it, they can’t read my blog any more because I censor comments I don’t like… so be it.

NJ Governor Chris Christie

I am sooo impressed by this guy, Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey, and have been for some time. Not only is he articulate and conservative, but he has courage and integrity and shows incredible leadership. Every time I hear him, my admiration increases.

In the video below, he responds to a reporter’s question about whether or not he’s going to fire the person responsible for a clerical error that caused the state to forfeit several hundreds of millions of federal education dollars. Some Obama administration bureaucrat denied the request because the wrong sheet of numbers was turned in amongst the mass of application documents. Conservative pundits are already wondering… is this because of “mindless worker-bee syndrome” or is it more insidious — punishment to Christie for being of the wrong party and for balancing the NJ state budget.

It’s not a long video, but the very best part, I think, is at the end, so watch it all the way through!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLSahbjR3k0&feature=player_embedded]

An Issue of Law and Nationalism, not Race

Last Thursday’s post on Judge Bolton’s injunction of AZ SB 1070 stimulated a comment from the opposing viewpoint that in turn provoked such a long answer from me, I thought it would serve better as an actual blog post.

“Aelinor” commented that she was delighted with Bolton’s ruling because she thought SB 1070 had racial overtones and we need something better. She also thought that racism was a problem in AZ, one she’d experienced first hand, and stated that “Unless you are a minority, you cannot say that you understand the racism firsthand.” My first response was to point out that her statement is itself racist since in it she was making an issue of my race in her assessment of my ability to understand something.

I take issue with that because for one thing, “racism” is merely someone having a judgmental, arrogant, implacable, critical, hate-filled, exclusionary and/or irrational attitude toward someone else and expressing it. It is someone making assessments of another’s  understanding, character, ability, talent, based on something as superficial as the color of one’s skin, structure of their bones, shape of their eyes, and assigning relative worth because of it.

Everything about that is stupid, ludicrous and absolutely, disgustingly wrong. And I don’t think I have to experience it as a minority to understand that.  In point of fact, I have experienced it, just not based on skin, bones, shape of eyes. It’s sin, it’s evil human viewpoint, and its source is the sin nature that every single one of us have. A nature we have all operated in from time to time (some of us, all the time) and will continue to operate in until the day we die, and we’ve all been the recipients/victims of other people’s sin natures, as others have been the recipients of ours. And race has absolutely zero to do with it.

No race is better or worse than another, just as no man, before God, is better or worse than another. We’re all depraved. We’re all sinners. Some of us go for the overt expression of it, in immoral degeneracy; some of us for the covert expression in moral degeneracy (think Pharisees of Jesus’s day for your example). Jesus died for all of us and desires for all men to be saved. We have only to believe in His name. Race is irrelevant.

And it’s irrelevant when it comes to SB 1070 as well.  This bill is not a furtherance of racism except in the thoughts, apparently, of those who think in terms of race. We’re not against Hispanics. We’re against people who break the law and think they should be rewarded for it by services paid for out of our paychecks. Or perhaps full citizenship. It doesn’t matter what race they are, what matters is that they come here illegally, they have flouted the laws of our land, circumvented the proper road to citizenship in order to get to the golden eggs.

Worse, because they can’t live in the mainstream, they gather in their own little enclaves, speaking their own language instead of ours, and failing to assimilate as so many other immigrants who have come before us have done. I read an article recently about the impact large numbers of a single, unassimilated ethnic group of this sort would have on the existing population — rather than assimilation, it’s invasion. The host country’s culture would be overwhelmed by the new if allowed unfettered entrance. The host country, in essence would be lost.

And that,  I think, it really what’s at stake here.

SB 1070 and this border issue is not about race but about our responsibility and determination as a nation to preserve our borders. If anyone can come in at any time, then we have no borders. If we have no borders, we have no nation, and if there are no nations, then we’re on the road to one world government, which is against the word of God. Nationalism is a biblical principle instituted for the protection of mankind. Man continually messes up every system he gets involved with, but if there are many nations, there’s always a chance for freedom to flourish somewhere.

There is another issue here as well, and that’s the rule of law, under which this country has always been governed and which is crumbling before our eyes. Judge Bolton’s ruling was not based on consideration of the law, but on her opinion of what is “right.” The Obama administration’s  justice department brought the suit not for fear of racism — having admitted 1070 has nothing to do with that — but in an attempt to consolidate power. They want amnesty. They want open borders. They want a raft of democratic voters, ignorant and beholden, feeding from the government trough, and motivated by that to vote for those who promise to feed and care for them.

They want all that in order to do what they really want, which, I truly believe, is to bring this country down. And so far, they seem to be succeeding.

Judge Rules Injunction against SB 1070

Sigh…

I shouldn’t have been surprised. And yet I was when around lunch time I opened the Drudge Report to discover that Federal Judge Susan Bolton had indeed issued an injunction against AZ’s SB 1070 that essentially guts it of any power…  That is to say, she disallowed the part where officers are required/allowed to determine the status of any whom they arrest in conjunction with another crime, should they have sufficient justification to think they might be here illegally.

Her argument? It would inconvenience some of those legally here if they didn’t have their documentation with them, and had to wait around while officers checked on their status after being arrested. 

Secondly, she claimed federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement  resources would be completely overwhelmed, unable to handle the vast numbers of inquiries that were sure to come their way, and leaving their other responsibilities unattended to because of the diversion of their workers.

 Thirdly, she ruled that while Arizona’s law mirror’s federal law, it nevertheless pre-empts it because Arizona has altered the penalties to be levied on those found guilty.  That’s true. Arizona did alter the penalties — SB 1070 penalties are reduced from what the federal law stipulates. More to the point, though, is the fact that this whole part of her argument is a distortion. It’s not that our law would pre-empt federal law, but that it would pre-empt the federal government’s policy regarding that law.  That is, their policy of not enforcing it.

Heather MacDonald at NRO’s The Corner gives a brief, incisive (some say biting) critique of the ruling HERE (“What Judge Bolton’s Injunction Doesn’t Say”).

Also at NRO, Andy McCarthy gives his take, highlighting Bolton’s misapplication of the ruling in a previous court case, and the fact she’s ignored other case precedents that apply directly. One of which, Plyler v. Doe (1982), went to the Supreme Court, which ruled, “Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation’s borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns. [Emphasis added.]” You can read his entire review HERE.

Meanwhile, the busload of SEIU people who came from LA to protest the law are now celebrating, as are the locals who were already threatening to block government buildings in Phoenix and dare authorities to ask about their immigration status. Then there were the people in Mexico City, about 100 of them hanging out near the US Embassy cheering and chanting,  “Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!”  What in the world is that supposed to mean?

Sigh.

Turtle Excluders Pre-Empt Federal Law

Last week I was reading an article in the New York Times about the effects of oil on marine life, particularly the rise of sea turtle deaths in the gulf off the coast of Mississippi.  When the rate of turtle deaths suddenly spiked this summer, everyone’s first thought was to blame it on the gushing BP oil well. Instead, autopsies soon revealed that the turtles did not die from oil poisoning, but from being caught in shrimpers’ nets and drowned.

This conclusion was supported by the additional observation that the sudden spike in sea turtle deaths occurred three days after the opening of the Mississippi shrimping season. Federal law requires shrimpers to have special “turtle excluder” devices on their nets which provide the turtles with a way of escape so they won’t drown. Those who fish by skimming with nets don’t have the excluders but are limited in how long they can skim, such limitation being less than the length of time it would take a turtle caught in the skimming net to drown. Before the shrimping season began, all the operators’ boats and gear were inspected and found to be in order.

Nevertheless, the number of turtle deaths jumped dramatically almost as soon as the season opened; since then, with the waters having been closed to shrimpers on account of the oil spill, the turtle deaths have  fallen off. Which leads experts to the inevitable conclusion that “fisheries interaction” was the cause of the deaths. With the oil spill diverting most of the Coast Guard and other inspectors, the shrimpers most likely took advantage of their freedom and  just disabled their excluders…

And then in the middle of all this interesting talk of turtles and Mississippi, the author switches venues to note that the excluder devices are quite a contentious subject in Louisiana. So contentious, in fact, “that Louisiana law has long forbidden its wildlife and fisheries agents to enforce federal regulations on the devices.”

And that stopped me in my tracks (figuratively, anyway)

Did I read that right??! Louisiana law has long forbidden its W&F agents to enforce federal regulations…? That’s what it said, going on to add that recently Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal vetoed legislation that would lift that ban in light of the  “challenges and issues currently facing our fishermen.”

So, apparently  Louisiana can have a law forbidding state personnel to enforce a federal law and no one says a thing, but Arizona institutes a law which requires its personnel to enforce a federal law and that’s considered pre-emptive, irresponsible and misguided…. Hmmm.

Having noted that, the author returns to turtles and shrimpers, the latter having violated the bans that had closed various waters to fishing because of the spill. Over 20,000 pounds of shrimp were seized by agents in Louisiana and 350 citatons issued to those who dared fish where they shouldn’t. But suddenly the enforcement of federal laws seems more arbitrary and whimsical than ever to me…

If you want to read the NY Times article Animal Autopsies in Gulf Yield a Mystery, it’s HERE.

SB1070 Trumps Federal Law?

That’s the gist of the lawsuit pressed by the US Department of Justice against Arizona’s new law SB 1070.  Oddly, after all the talk of how the new law was racist and would encourage, even require racism, there is no talk at all of racism in the Federal suit against our state. Instead, the objection is that Arizona’s law, which mirrors the federal law already on the books, somehow attempts to trump that law, or, is “pre-empted” by it.

On Sunday, July 11, Attorney General Eric Holder was on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer and the conversation was quite … telling.

“The solution that the Arizona Legislature came up is inconsistent with our Federal Constitution,” say Holder in that interview. And yet, the law is the same as the law already on the books. Perhaps, but, according to Holder, “It is the responsibility of the federal government to decide immigration policy…”

But… at issue is the fact that there is a federal law that makes it illegal to cross our borders without going through proper channels and the feds simply are not enforcing the law drawn and passed by our Congress. Is that the “policy” then? To not enforce the law of the land?

Holder continues:

“We have a an immigration policy that takes in a whole variety of things. International relations, national security concerns, and it is the responsibility of the federal government as opposed to states on a patchwork basis to decide exactly what it is our policy should be with respect to immigration.”

I am impressed by the convolution of  his answer, little of which has to do with the obvious issue… and yet says much about the way the Constitution and our system of government is under attack today.

Schieffer though, ignores this point and hurries on to the racial issue, saying — erroneously — that SB 1070 allows a policeman to stop someone he thinks might be an illegal. No, the police can’t just stop whomever. The person or persons have to be breaking some other law for the police to stop them and if in the course of dealing with that the officer has reasonable justification in suspecting the person might be here illegally, he has the right to ask them to show their documentation.

To his credit, Schieffer does ask, given his  — and many other people’s (note all the wailing done about how people going out to the ice cream store with their kids are going to get stopped and harassed because of this law) erroneous assumption, why the Department of Justice didn’t file on the basis of racial profiling. Holder’s response was classic. “Well we wanted to go with what we thought was our strongest initial argument.” LOL. Because the racist argument holds no water, they had to go with the pre-emption thing.

“Are you saying states have no responsibility in enforcing immigration,” Schieffer asked, “that that’s solely the responsibility of the Federal government?”

And Holder says that “states and locals can certainly help, but can’t pass laws inconsistent with or do things that contravene federal policy when it comes to the enforcement of our immigration laws.”

In other words, when the federal government’s policy is not to enforce the federal, congress-generated immigration laws, he doesn’t think states should be able to, either. And furthermore, “if you look at the guts of SB 1070, there are a whole variety of things that are inconsistent…” not with federal law but… “with what we have decided to do as a federal government…”

What WE have decided to do as a federal government. Whoa! No rule of law there. Congress? Who are they? We’re in power now and we’ll do what we please.

Which is exactly how the Ruling Class, as mentioned in the article in The American Spectator I linked to last week does it. They think it’s their right. Their duty. They don’t believe in representative government. They believe only they have the intelligence and ability to decide what’s right, not a bunch of yahoos who aren’t rich, aren’t Ivy league educated, don’t have liberalism’s enlightened views and worst of all, actually believe in God and the Bible.

It’s just like having King George again!

… And on that subject, I have now read the American Spectator article American’s Ruling Class — and the Perils of Revolution in entirety. Iit printed out to 22 pages, nevertheless I highly recommend everyone read it. Last week Rush Limbaugh dubbed it an “important” article and he rarely calls anything like that important. But he’s right. It is. A few quotes won’t do it.

As I read it I saw over and over how right the author Angelo Codevilla) was. There IS a ruling class, and they DO disrespect the “country” class. Can’t hardly even understand us. Don’t want, to, either, because to them we’re just a bunch of Yahoos. It’s why they DESPISE Sarah Palin. She’s not part of the elite. It explains the business with SP1070. And the actions not only of our current administration, but also of the Washington DC Republicans. It’s the new aristocracy, our very own lords and ladies, dukes and duchesses, counts and countesses, princes and princesses.  Right here in America, the very thing our founders and forefathers came here to escape, the thing they said would never be again.

I recommend printing the piece up (there’s a little red box in the upper right hand corner of the article, under the picture) and then reading it in parts, until you reach the end. (You can also underline particularly exciting passages that way!)  It’s so crammed full of information and observations it deserves one’s full attention.  Here’s the link again:  “America’s Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution.”

Prepare to be blown away by how so many things fall into place.

Arizona’s SB 1070

In a week Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 will go into effect. That’s the bill that’s come to national attention, requiring police officers to ask people they’ve stopped for some other offense to show proof of US citizenship, given, of course, that said officers have sufficient justification for suspecting they might not be citizens. Another Arizona law forbids officers from ever using profiling, so that’s really not the issue here, even though SB 1070 also guards against profiling being used.

 (I have my own issues with the whole ban on profiling thing because frankly it doesn’t make sense. If you have a flood of illegal Mexican nationals pouring over the border, why would you stop a car full of blue-eyed, blond-haired Scandinavians? If the overwhelming preponderance of terrorist acts have been committed by those of middle eastern descent, why would  you not look first to people of middle eastern descent for your suspects? Why would you deliberately turn aside from those of the same ethnicity, just because you don’t want to “profile”. It’s ludicrous.)

But back to AZ SP 1070, and the ridiculous circus that has erupted around it. Do we need it? I think we do. Everyone I talk to here thinks we do. I have friends who work in the hospitals who can testify to the resources diverted to people who are not here legally (and hence pay no taxes, but do get free services).   Emergency rooms are overwhelmed with people who cannot pay for their treatment but must, by law be treated anyway. Physicians, if they wish to use the hospital to treat their paying patients, must donate a particular amount of their time to working basically for free in order to service people who have entered the state illegally. Many of them leave the state, altogether. One group banded together to build a new, private hospital to avoid the forced free service the other hospitals demand. One trauma unit closed because it could not afford to keep operating, drained by the influx of non-paying, illegal alien patients.

My husband has encountered illegals hiding out in the bushes on his hunting trips. He has friends who tell alarming stories of their own encounters in the wilds. One was in his a tree stand, bow hunting in one of Stu’s favorite areas south of Tucson, when a group of drug runners came by, armed with AK-47s. They walked right under his tree, while he held dead still, All too aware that with only his compound bow to protect him against AK-47’s he had the very short end of the stick.

Thankfully the drug runners appeared to ignore him until the guy who followed up the rear stopped right under his tree to look up at him, deliberately making eye contact. He held gaze with the hunter for a bit, then moved on. As soon as they were completely gone, my husband’s friend lit out as fast as he could back to his vehicle. He won’t hunt down there any more. Neither will my husband.

We have friends who have illegals walking through their property on a regular basis. Recently a rancher was killed by illegals down in Douglas. Across the street in our middle class neighborhood, about ten years ago, the man of the house was murdered by Mexican hit men. He was subsequently found to be involved in the drug trade. Our crime rate is pretty high and much of it involves the same drug trade from south of the border.

A couple of years ago, the local news ran a story about the way illegals were coming up through the San Pedro Riparian Conservation area east and south of Tucson, and trashing it up horribly — plastic milk bottles, soiled diapers, feces, etc. Recently an email went around about it, which I didn’t save, and then when I wanted to find it for this post, though I searched the web… I failed to locate it. I did find some photos from another site, not far south of Tucson.

The caption accompanying the photo at left said it is estimated that over 5,000 discarded backpacks are in this wash, as well as countless water containers, food wrappers, clothing, feces, and “thousands” of soiled baby diapers.

I understand the need these people feel to escape their own desperately dysfunctional country. But resorting to illegal entry just isn’t the answer. We don’t have the resources to provide for all of them (schools, buses, medical, welfare in some cases), they take jobs that US citizens would otherwise have, especially in the difficult economic times we are in, they take money but pay no taxes and send much of it back to Mexico, instead of contributing to our economy. Some would argue that others come up from Mexico to shop, but I’m not sure it evens out, and regardless, it’s still illegal.

It’s also not fair to those who have entered this country legally — paid the fees, jumped through all the hoops, waited patiently, learned English, learned about the government… And many of them are no happier about our porous borders than the rest of us.

If you can’t secure your borders, if you let whoever across who wants to come, even aside from issues of allowing criminals and terrorists in unhindered, the fact is that in practice you have no borders. And without borders, you can’t have a nation. Especially if you are a nation that provides a lot of “free” services for people “in need.”

Jesus said “The poor you will have with you always,” and though He performed miracles of healing, and fed thousands of people with free bread and fish… He didn’t do much of anything to alleviate poverty. And however many He healed, there were many more He didn’t heal. He didn’t come to perform physical healings, those where just a metaphor for what He did come to do: die for the sins of the world. The miracles also got people’s attention and testified that He really was from God.

Sometimes, as with the Prodigal Son, people need to suffer lack, to be brought to the end of themselves to “come to their senses” and realize their need for God. That’s not to say we don’t help when we can and when the situation warrants, but the situation doesn’t always warrant and we are simply not responsible for the rest of the world. If you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, you get no more golden eggs…