Pro-Palestinian March on the Texas State Capitol (80 photos)
An Uncomfortable Truth – Children Used As Weapons of War
It seems that no one in the media is willing to honestly satisfy the people’s need to know about the southern border of the USA. Therefore, it is left to people like me without political ambition, but with an over-riding belief in the Constitution to fill that role. So, I am going to tell you the unvarnished truth in words that can not be misunderstood.
In my lifetime in a country far away I first encountered unscrupulous bastards who used children as weapons of war. In other notes I mentioned small children who, at the urging of their parents, came up to US military people, hung a live grenade in their fatigues/flight suit using a strong fishhook, pulled the pin and ran away. In that same arena children would run up to a bus/truck to beg soldiers for candy. After getting the candy, the kids would throw a grenade into the vehicle and run.
Other examples exist, but let me finish with what I considered the very worst exploitation of children as weapons of war. Girl babies (females were not valued highly) were killed and disemboweled. The resulting cavities were immediately filled with explosives and, before the bodies cooled, their mothers carried their dead babies through the guard mounts and on to bases for medical treatment. This method of delivering explosives was discovered after the fact because discarded empty bodies were found. Perhaps that history has made me more aware of the use of children as a unique weapon system. It does allow me to see clearly and warn those more trusting or less experienced than me about what is really going on today.
The latest version of children as weapons methodology capitalizes on the same “failing” in our American nature exploited in that other land far away – empathy, compassion, and goodness of heart particularly for the young. Look at the border today and you see masses of children used as weapons against the very society that is trying to treat them with kindness. It should not be a surprise. It was foretold in 1966 by Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Priven in their Strategy to implement Socialism. Their strategy is often erroneously attributed to Sal Alinsky who’s 12 Rules for Radicals are the tactics used to implement the strategy. Since this strategy is being used against you, I encourage you to read both references. They are not the subject of this paper.
Suffice to say the purpose of Cloward/Priven and Alinsky is to destroy our Republic by overloading the government with impossible demands that will push the society into crisis and eventual collapse. They are succeeding. To halt this rush to oblivion we, collectively, must learn the hard lesson taught to me long ago. Simply stated, I don’t have the capacity to properly discharge my own responsibilities if I try to fulfill obligations fostered by situations not of my making and specifically conditions that result from deliberate choices made by others that are intended to harm me and mine. I decided that my capacity covered my responsibilities to my family, my Country, and to some extent deserving Americans. I tried to pass to my students headed into combat that you must make the hard, personal decisions before circumstances force them upon you in real life situations where the emotions of the moment intrude on reason. For example, the time to decide whether or not you are willing to die (or kill) for your country isn’t at the moment you push over and go down the chute with hot weapons on a real live, well defended target. You assumed that responsibility when you took the oath and others are depending on you to “keep the faith”.
The importance of recognizing both your limits and the areas of concern becomes even more critical if you are the officer (or senior NCO) in command during a life or death situation involving more than just you and the enemy (such as the enemy assaulting your position behind a shield made up of women and children being forced at bayonet point to act as a human shield – think Israel and Hamas). Your obligation to your Nation and your people demands a rapid decision. If you have stayed with me this long, you may be wondering what this has to do with the youngsters flooding the country today. Well, the non-combatants used as weapons then and now are women and children. Being human, you will delay making the hard decisions as long as you can (which is why you must consider this situation in advance). But, like it or not, personally and as a Nation, you must make a decision. Your choices are limited. Do you order your men to fire, shooting through the non-combatants as necessary to save your people and your mission, or do you dawdle and lose some of your own folks before you take the only real option available – which only gets worse as time passes? Today, exactly how many illegal children and their families will you accept, recognizing that doing so takes support from your children and exposes them to diseases not seen in this country for decades, before you take action to stem the tide. Ladies and gentlemen, that is exactly the decision we have had forced upon us by the unimpeded influx of juveniles across our Southern border. Fact — we can not absorb huge numbers of illegal invaders without destroying the infrastructures exactly as outlined in the Previn/Cloward Strategy.
The people facilitating the invasion of children recognize our vulnerability. They intend to destroy the US, as we know it. They are enemies of the Constitution and We the People. They may well be foreign, domestic, or both. They are actively seeking the destruction of the United States as a Constitutional Republic. It is not the children’s fault they are deadly weapons. It is, at least partly, the fault of the parents – who among you would put your pre-kindergarten child aboard a train for a 1700 mile journey in the custody of known, abusive criminals? It is certainly part Mexico’s responsibility – they are allowing, if not encouraging, the phenomena. And, let’s not forget the domestic element that feels there should be an open border with Americans taking care of all who wish to come to our land. Dealing with the problem is critical and any answer must address all elements of the situation, foreign and domestic. That responsibility belongs to all of us. We must look clearly at the situation and then make and implement the hard choices that will save our Republic. The solution is really quite simple.
- Close the borders. At present, our border is a sieve – which means the Federal Government is not discharging its primary responsibility. In this case, both Congress and the Executive Branch are derelict in their duty – and in violation of their oath of office. We must demand that they fortify the border using all necessary resources. Our national security demands that no unauthorized person be allowed entry, regardless of age and physical situation. If they are thirsty, toss them water bottles, but do not let them set foot on US soil. Make it absolutely clear that even an ATTEMPT to cross is considered an attack on this country and met with lethal force. There will be no pre-identified exceptions. And this policy MUST be implemented immediately. Once the borders are, in fact, secure we must deal with the people already here illegally. That is the subject of another paper.
- We must ship the children already here back to the country from which they entered the United States – that means Mexico. The Mexican government allowed these people to cross almost 2,000 miles of Mexican controlled territory unimpeded. The Mexican government can move them back to wherever they came from when they entered Mexico. SENDING THEM HOME ISN’T OUR RESPONSIBILITY and we cannot accept it.
- The domestic side is composed of several elements:
- Genuine humanitarian thinkers who believe we are OBLIGATED to take responsibility for anyone, particularly children, who step on our soil. They deal in theory. If confronted with a REAL requirement to adopt and take full responsibility for that same child the moment it stepped on their lawn is not considered relevant to the discussion. They want to tell you it is your responsibility – and it is not. You and I need to tell these well-meaning folks in no uncertain words that it isn’t our responsibility and we will not accept it.
- Then we have those who are deliberately implementing this policy as a method of furthering their socialist or Social-democratic agenda. Most of those are in government and pay no attention or allegiance to their Constitutional responsibilities. They need to be removed from their elected and appointed positions via the next election and the impeachment process. They must be stopped from further damaging the Republic before they complete their effort to truly change what was and still is the most exceptional nation on earth into something none of us would recognize.
It is just that simple – we need to confront those that demand these invaders be treated like citizens. These invaders (of all ages) are as deadly to this country as if they were guided missiles aimed at our heartland – in fact, that is exactly what they are. They may look like children, but in the wrong hands, they have become just the latest version of a weapon of mass destruction. And it is pointed straight at you, me, and our children. Take care, Robert D. Jones, LTC, USAF (Ret)
A Biblical Perspective on Immigration Policy by James R. Edwards Click here to download a pdf version of this Backgrounder
CIS Fellow James R. Edwards, Jr., PhD, is coauthor of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform. He contributed a chapter related to this topic to Carol M. Swain’s Debating Immigration, and his speech at Malone College’s Worldview Forum was published in Vital Speeches of the Day.
The immigration issue often highlights fissures between faithful parishioners and denominational clerics. Many Catholic bishops have called for amnesty for illegal immigrants, and their conference’s lobbying arm works continually with open-borders special interests.
Catholic and “mainline” Protestant church officials have decried the federal government’s enforcement of immigration laws. Some liberal religious leaders re-initiated a “sanctuary” movement to harbor illegal aliens, including in churches. A Southern Baptist official has sided with amnesty proponents as pragmatism, and the National Association of Evangelicals plans to weigh in, likely on the pro “comprehensive immigration reform” side.1 Yet such self-described “compassion” among religious elites differs from the perspective of most rank-and-file Christians. The laity generally opposes legalization and supports enforcement of immigration laws.2 One may ask: How else could Christians approach immigration policy matters? This Backgrounder examines the immigration issue from the perspective of biblical Christianity. Both policy makers and private citizens who are Christians may wish to consider how Scripture might inform their views on immigration.
This report intends to aid those faithful readers. The faith principles of many Americans inform their politics and public policy. And the United States has a long, historical connection with Christian influence, dating to the country’s earliest days. Today, the vast majority (about four fifths) of Americans belong to the Christian religion. Some of the most prominent recent examples of faith-influenced politics are freedom of religious expression in public life, abortion, and same-sex marriage. On some matters of public policy, the Bible speaks clearly. On other issues, there is less clarity and more room for prudential judgment. The rub comes where there is a lack of scriptural clarity on a particular issue, significant differences between the particular society of Old Testament Israel and the United States, or some other factor.
Christianity teaches that God, His word, and His precepts are unchanging, but believers may struggle to find the most appropriate guidance from Scripture for handling a very specific public policy issue for their day and age in their nation. This conundrum of finding and applying the right, timeless principles to a modern policy issue in a specific nation challenges both the laity and clerics. This report attempts to shed helpful light, in the best tradition of reasoning from the Scriptures (Acts 17:2). First, this Backgrounder examines the biblical role of civil government. This includes its weighing justice and mercy, as well as determining which biblical guidance more appropriately applies to individuals and which to society. Second, migration in Scripture is considered. Third, what is the responsibility of immigrants and would-be immigrants? The Backgrounder concludes with the application of biblical principles to 21st century American immigration.
Civil Government’s Biblical Role
A central question must be answered before a biblically informed immigration policy may be determined: What role does God intend civil government to fulfill? After all, earthly government will be the mechanism through which public policy is formulated. Scripture clearly indicates that God charges civil authorities with preserving order, protecting citizens, and punishing wrongdoers. A prime passage is Romans 13:1-7:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.3
Similar teachings, such as I Peter 2:13-17 and Titus 3:1, urge citizens to obey secular authorities, because they hold godly agency, whether the individuals in charge are personally characterized by godliness or not. This conduct of good citizenship is one means of revering God. Earthly governors “bear the sword” on behalf of those under their authority — for instance, preserving law and order, fighting off invaders, and meting out punishment to those who break the law.
By Heidi Thiess, Broadcast Activist
Telling the Truth about Texas State Budgets Jun 9th 2014 Arlene Wohlgemuth and Talmadge Heflin Most Texans suspect their state government spends too much. They’re right. However, they typically lack information to confirm this belief because of a complex budget process and budget gimmicks that mask actual levels of spending. Ordinary Texans who pay the taxes deserve a transparent and comprehensible state budget. Unfortunately, they don’t get it from the opaque and difficult-to-grasp processes currently in place.
The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) gives Texans and taxpayers an easy-to-understand analysis with our recent report “The Real Texas Budget.” It isn’t what some legislators want Texans to know — and that’s exactly why we should know it. But how do we make sense of Texas state budgets? For starters, you need a measurement that compares the 24-month biennial periods used in Texas state budgeting against each other. Due to variations in the way money is spent and data availability, multiple metrics might be used.
We might, for instance, compare appropriations to appropriations or spending to spending. There’s an important point here, in that appropriations and spending are not the same thing. The former is what a Legislature approves to be spent, and the latter is how much taxpayer money is actually spent. A credible comparison of an adopted budget alone — that is, appropriations — against actual spending from the previous cycle is not made, because the state almost always spends more during a two-year budget cycle than the appropriated amount. Advocates of more spending like to compare different numbers over differing time spans to make their growth rates look artificially smaller.
What are the metrics that are useful to taxpayers in comparing 24-month periods? There are two big ones we set forth in “The Real Texas Budget.” The first is session vs. session: measuring the appropriations from one legislative session to the next. TPPF employed this method in May and June 2013 to expose the 83rd Legislature’s heavy bias toward spending. That Legislature’s problems actually started with its predecessor, 2011’s 82nd Legislature, which by delaying education payments and underfunding Medicaid, gave the impression that legislators spent conservatively. In fact, they merely pushed spending into the 2013 session.
We sounded the alarm on this back in 2011, writing in the Austin American-Statesman that the 82nd Legislature’s “budget writers had to rely heavily on gimmicks and one-time fixes.” We also noted then that legislators passed up key opportunities to make state budgeting more transparent and understandable to the ordinary Texan. In 2013’s 83rd Legislature, legislators passed supplemental bills to backfill spending into the previous budget period, and undo the accounting gimmicks of 2011. As we published last June and republished this week, the appropriations approved by the 83rd Legislature in 2013, including the backfill money, were significantly higher than the appropriations approved back in 2011; 24 percent higher in state general revenue and almost 26 percent higher in all funds, using the Legislative Budget Board’s (LBB) latest numbers. That’s a tremendous increase by any standard.
The second metric taxpayers may find useful is comparing spending on a biennium vs. biennium basis. This is the method legislators generally use to evaluate the growth of state budgets — not least because it often yields smaller numbers that may be less shocking to taxpayers. TPPF’s “Real Texas Budget” report includes this metric. Our report shows all-funds spending will likely increase by 9 percent during the current two-year period — not the 5.1 percent figure published by LBB just before the March primaries. There’s a reason for the discrepancy, and it brings us to our final principle for honest assessment of state budgets: make sure to measure the same things. For example, the LBB did not measure spending to spending. Instead, it measured spending to appropriation.
In our report, we estimate that there will be at least an additional $1.6 billion in spending this biennium to pay for increased Medicaid costs. Even with this money added in, the LBB’s numbers wouldn’t measure spending to spending because the Legislature made $6.1 billion of “patient income” spending this biennium simply disappear from the budget. Appropriately accounting for this and other budget gimmicks is essential to accurate examination of state spending. Here’s the bottom line for Texas taxpayers. In 2013, the Texas Legislature spent almost every penny it could while providing less than half of the ongoing tax relief Governor Rick Perry sought. Taxpayers deserve to know how much of their money is being spent, and that’s what TPPF’s “Real Texas Budget” report provides. Our report confirms our statements last year about the excessive hike in appropriations from 2011 to 2013. It also debunks the government’s official budget figures that give taxpayers a false impression of the increase in biennial spending.
The “Real Texas Budget” report provides truth in budgeting that Texans deserve. There are those in the corridors of power and the Austin establishment who think you don’t deserve the truth, and attack those who speak it. And that’s exactly why we do.
Arlene Wohlgemuth is the Executive Director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. She served on the Texas House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing healthcare spending in 2003. Talmadge Heflin is the Director of the Center for Fiscal Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and served on the Texas House Appropriations Committee for twelve years, including as its chairman in 2003. Together, they have a collective 32 years of experience, covering 11 state budgets, as State Representatives in the Texas Legislature.
_____________________________For previously posted articles, click here.