SEND FAXES with new ad on jobs/immigration‏

A very interesting post from www.numbersusa.com . For more interesting articles like this, follow this blog here.


SEND FAXES with new ad on jobs/immigration‏
Look at our great new jobs ad -- then fax it with your comments to your Members of Congress

WE'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO OFFER YOU THIS FAXING OPPORTUNITY BEFORE . . . . We and some of our allies are running full-page ads in the three newspapers that are most read by Congress, Administration officials and Washington staffers. The key message is this: HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN TO 15 MILLION JOBLESS AMERICANS TRYING TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE THAT THEIR GOVERNMENT IS STILL ADDING 125,000 FOREIGN WORKERS A MONTH?
STEP 1: Look at this great ad. Maybe you will want to print it to have next to your computer when you write your fax message.
STEP 2: Open up this fax that you are going to send to your 3 Members of Congress.
STEP 3: Choose an opening paragraph from the many we offer you. And then write one or two paragraphs of your own about what you most want your Members of Congress to do or think about the message in the ad.
STEP 4: Click to send the faxes -- as usual, easy and free. Your message on your letterhead will print out on the fax machine of your Members of Congress, and immediately the next page will be a printed copy of the ad. Offices will be flooded with copies of the ad.
This is a chance to force every office on the Hill to confront the ugly facts of our anti-American-worker immigration policy -- many times every hour! When you write your note, think about what you would say to your Congressmen if you could personally hand them a copy of the ad and say a few words about what you most want them to take away from the ad. More than anything, I want them to feel shame about their lack of action -- to feel that they ought to stop importing foreign workers immediately. NOTE: Some of you will find that the fax only goes to your 2 Senators. The reason is that you are among the few who have a U.S. Representative who has co-sponsored Rep. Gingrey's bill to eliminate chain migration (which would mean reducing by a couple hundred thousand a year the number of foreign workers imported). You will find an additional fax on your personalized Action Board that goes to just your Representative, thanking him/her for trying to do something to reduce foreign workers but also urging him/her to become more aggressive in pushing the concept. THANKS FOR SENDING THESE FAXES AND INCREASING THE POWER OF THE ADS A HUNDRED-FOLD,

Immigration: An Evangelical Approach

An interesting take from www.vdare.com about an evangelical view of immigration.

Immigration: An Evangelical Approach
[Peter Brimelow writes: For some reason, it is much easier to get Catholic immigration reformers to write about their faith and their preferred policy, even though it means arguing with their bishops. But recently Jim Antle wrote about Methodists and here Rev. Barnwell offers an Evangelical perspective.]
By Bill Barnwell
The mainstream Christian Right has long been divided on the issue of immigration. Since Evangelical Protestants view the Scriptures as the basis for their worldview, both sides appeal to the Bible to support their position. Christianity Today has run several pieces recently, featuring different angles on the Evangelical response to the immigration crisis. [For example, On Immigration Issue, Big Evangelical Groups Conspicuously Mum, G. Jeffrey Macdonald, January 20, 2006]The debate raises several questions: How do Evangelicals reach their divergent opinions? Is there any hope of a consensus on what the Bible “really” says on this issue for 21st century Americans? Is the Bible even a valid source for evangelical immigration debates?While the Scriptures do not directly address this modern policy debate, there certainly are some overriding Biblical principles that can help a Christian reach a conclusion. I believe that while Christians who support mass immigration may be well-intentioned, they are simply missing the mark by overlooking some key facts both in the Biblical text and in the modern debate.First, it must be pointed out that current political and social conditions are very different than in Biblical times. The nation-state as it exists today does not reflect the ancient kingdoms of Israel or Judah, or the Roman Empire of the New Testament.After the Israelites left Egypt, they settled in the land of Canaan and functioned as a theocracy. There was no king, and most surrounding people groups belonged to what we would basically call “city-states.” Eventually the nations of Israel and Judah became established states with their own kings (the unified kingdom split after Solomon).The book of Deuteronomy makes provisions for the selection of a king (I Deut. 17:14-20). One of the instructions was that the king himself be from the Israelite community. The people were instructed not to put a foreigner over themselves. Likewise, after the Israelites returned to their land from national exile, they were forbidden by their priestly leaders from intermarrying with foreign persons (Ezra 9).The appeal here in the Old Testament is not one of racial purity, but spiritual purity. Foreigners were indeed allowed into the Israelite community. Ruth the Moabite is a prime example of this.These instructions were given when the Israelites were under the Old Testament law and were to be a holy people, set apart. They were not to conform to wicked customs, morals, and religious beliefs of the Canaanites, Hittites, Ammonites, etc. The Israelites were supposed to be a shining city on a hill to which the rest of the world would take notice and ideally worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This was part of the promise to Abraham, the father of Israel, when God told him, “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” ( Gen. 12:3).According to the New Testament, this promise reached its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ. The first chapter in the New Testament spells this out by showing that Christ was the promised descendant of Abraham and David ( Matthew 1). Therefore, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).So if the emphasis is not, in fact, on race and ethnicity, is there anything here that can be applied to the discussion of immigration? In short, yes.As I’ve shown, the Israelites were supposed to welcome foreigners who believed in their spiritual ideals and wanted to freely become a part of the Israelite community. To speak anachronistically, they were not supposed to welcome foreigners who would come in and burn their flags and sing the national anthem of the Canaanites.Christians, therefore, should be advocating an immigration policy that welcomes those who seek to willingly assimilate and become a part of their national culture and heritage.Foreigners who became a part of the Israelite community were obligated to forsake their old ways and assimilate to their new culture. While for the Israelites this transformation was primarily spiritual, it surely carried many secular connotations as well. Christians should not have a racial focus, but a values focus.However, Christians need to recognize that the purpose of immigration policy is not to invite more potential converts into our churches.But what about highly spiritual illegal immigrants who come to America seeking a better life? Surely they should be welcomed into the American community with open arms, even if they break the law, correct?Well, not so fast.In general, the Bible supports the idea of obeying the governing authorities (Romans 13:1-7). However, when the authorities are rebelling against God’s will ( Revelation 13), the Christian has the obligation to “obey God rather than men" ( Acts 5:29). We must ask ourselves then:Is a nation-state protecting its borders and seeking to assimilate its citizens into its culture really engaging in an egregious offense against God?Are these laws so offensive towards God that they permit a Christian to break American laws and thumb their noses at other foreign Christians who are seeking to enter the country legally?Unless it can be proven that the law or authority in question is in direct violation of God’s revealed will, we cannot conclude that illegal immigrants (including Christian ones) are pursuing a righteous cause. Why is it seen as immoral or unfair for America to actually enforce its already lax standards on immigration? Immigration policy certainly does not rise to the level of an offense against God.The biblical verses most commonly used by Christians who support liberal immigration laws appeal to the Israelites to treat fairly the “strangers in the land.” Leviticus 19:33-34 supports this notion: “When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.”[VDARE.COM note: Or in the King James Version: “If a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” This gave John Higham the title of his famous book on nativism, still cited by many who do not realize he subsequently changed his mind.]There are several ways in which these verses are misinterpreted:First of all, these verses were most probably primarily referring to foreigners who sought to become a part of the Israelite community. It certainly cannot be referring to the pagans in the land who sought to lure the Israelites into sin and rebellion against God. Therefore, these passages were certainly not directed towards aliens who were breaking laws and causing mayhem in the community.Second, these passages say nothing about modern democratic nation-states establishing their own guidelines about what is and isn’t the appropriate number of “aliens” living in their lands.Third, is it treating an illegal alien unfairly by punishing him for breaking the law? When our own legal citizens clearly violate the law, are we being unjust as a society by punishing them? No. Rather, it is more unfair to the rest of the society when we ignore the rule of law and turn our heads away from the lawbreakers.It is true that both the Old and New Testaments are very harsh in their assessment of those in God’s supposed community who turn a blind eye to the needy or permit social injustices. However, Christians who support mass immigration usually make two errors of judgment about this:First, they assume that the Christians who want a more controlled immigration policy are the ones who are promoting a more unjust or faulty society.The "injustice" contention has many problems outlined in such books as Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation and Pat Buchanan’s recent State of Emergency. There is plenty of evidence that both illegal immigration and mass legal immigration have created far more problems than benefits in society. This is evidence that some Evangelicals do not want to hear.Secondly, immigration enthusiasts assume that restrictionists do not care about the welfare or well-being of illegal immigrants.That is far from the case. Any person who calls himself a Christian should of course demonstrate love to the less fortunate both in word and deed. But there are other ways to love immigrants than sanctioning their law breaking. It takes more sacrifice for a Christian to do a short-term missions project or to donate financially towards impoverished areas of Mexico than it does for them to cheer on illegal immigration.Rather than just applauding faceless illegals—whom they may never actually meet—Evangelicals would do better to actually meet these people where they are and donate their resources (time, money, etc) to help improve their lots in life. Christians could also support Mexican churches in their efforts to provide relief to their countrymen and women.Whatever route is chosen—and there are plenty of other possibilities—we should not act as if the only way to show love and compassion to immigrants is by promoting or condoning illegal behavior.A grander goal for the global Christian community, and Americans on a whole, is to help impoverished Mexican communities empower themselves to better care for their hurting people. This of course takes more work and sacrifice than just promoting open borders.The Evangelical must ask himself which side in this internal debate ultimately demands more love and sacrifice and is more closely aligned to the Scriptures.It is hard for me to believe the side that promotes law breaking, and ignores the very real social problems and risks this entails, is doing more justice to Scriptural principles. Bill Barnwell [send him mail] is a pastor and writer in Michigan. He holds both a Master of Ministry degree and a Master of Arts in Theological Studies degree from Bethel College in Mishawaka, Indiana. Visit his blog at www.billbarnwell.blogspot.com

Immigration: An Evangelical Approach

An interesting take from www.vdare.com about an evangelical view of immigration.

Immigration: An Evangelical Approach

[Peter Brimelow writes: For some reason, it is much easier to get Catholic immigration reformers to write about their faith and their preferred policy, even though it means arguing with their bishops. But recently Jim Antle wrote about Methodists and here Rev. Barnwell offers an Evangelical perspective.]

By Bill Barnwell

The mainstream Christian Right has long been divided on the issue of immigration. Since Evangelical Protestants view the Scriptures as the basis for their worldview, both sides appeal to the Bible to support their position. Christianity Today has run several pieces recently, featuring different angles on the Evangelical response to the immigration crisis. [For example, On Immigration Issue, Big Evangelical Groups Conspicuously Mum, G. Jeffrey Macdonald, January 20, 2006]
The debate raises several questions: How do Evangelicals reach their divergent opinions? Is there any hope of a consensus on what the Bible “really” says on this issue for 21st century Americans? Is the Bible even a valid source for evangelical immigration debates?
While the Scriptures do not directly address this modern policy debate, there certainly are some overriding Biblical principles that can help a Christian reach a conclusion. I believe that while Christians who support mass immigration may be well-intentioned, they are simply missing the mark by overlooking some key facts both in the Biblical text and in the modern debate.
First, it must be pointed out that current political and social conditions are very different than in Biblical times. The nation-state as it exists today does not reflect the ancient kingdoms of Israel or Judah, or the Roman Empire of the New Testament.
After the Israelites left Egypt, they settled in the land of Canaan and functioned as a theocracy. There was no king, and most surrounding people groups belonged to what we would basically call “city-states.” Eventually the nations of Israel and Judah became established states with their own kings (the unified kingdom split after Solomon).

The book of Deuteronomy makes provisions for the selection of a king (I Deut. 17:14-20). One of the instructions was that the king himself be from the Israelite community. The people were instructed not to put a foreigner over themselves.

Likewise, after the Israelites returned to their land from national exile, they were forbidden by their priestly leaders from intermarrying with foreign persons (Ezra 9).
The appeal here in the Old Testament is not one of racial purity, but spiritual purity. Foreigners were indeed allowed into the Israelite community. Ruth the Moabite is a prime example of this.
These instructions were given when the Israelites were under the Old Testament law and were to be a holy people, set apart. They were not to conform to wicked customs, morals, and religious beliefs of the Canaanites, Hittites, Ammonites, etc. The Israelites were supposed to be a shining city on a hill to which the rest of the world would take notice and ideally worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This was part of the promise to Abraham, the father of Israel, when God told him, “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” ( Gen. 12:3).

According to the New Testament, this promise reached its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ. The first chapter in the New Testament spells this out by showing that Christ was the promised descendant of Abraham and David ( Matthew 1). Therefore, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).
So if the emphasis is not, in fact, on race and ethnicity, is there anything here that can be applied to the discussion of immigration? In short, yes.

As I’ve shown, the Israelites were supposed to welcome foreigners who believed in their spiritual ideals and wanted to freely become a part of the Israelite community. To speak anachronistically, they were not supposed to welcome foreigners who would come in and burn their flags and sing the national anthem of the Canaanites.

Christians, therefore, should be advocating an immigration policy that welcomes those who seek to willingly assimilate and become a part of their national culture and heritage.

Foreigners who became a part of the Israelite community were obligated to forsake their old ways and assimilate to their new culture. While for the Israelites this transformation was primarily spiritual, it surely carried many secular connotations as well. Christians should not have a racial focus, but a values focus.
However, Christians need to recognize that the purpose of immigration policy is not to invite more potential converts into our churches.
But what about highly spiritual illegal immigrants who come to America seeking a better life? Surely they should be welcomed into the American community with open arms, even if they break the law, correct?

Well, not so fast.
In general, the Bible supports the idea of obeying the governing authorities (Romans 13:1-7). However, when the authorities are rebelling against God’s will ( Revelation 13), the Christian has the obligation to “obey God rather than men" ( Acts 5:29). We must ask ourselves then:
Is a nation-state protecting its borders and seeking to assimilate its citizens into its culture really engaging in an egregious offense against God?

Are these laws so offensive towards God that they permit a Christian to break American laws and thumb their noses at other foreign Christians who are seeking to enter the country legally?
Unless it can be proven that the law or authority in question is in direct violation of God’s revealed will, we cannot conclude that illegal immigrants (including Christian ones) are pursuing a righteous cause. Why is it seen as immoral or unfair for America to actually enforce its already lax standards on immigration? Immigration policy certainly does not rise to the level of an offense against God.

The biblical verses most commonly used by Christians who support liberal immigration laws appeal to the Israelites to treat fairly the “strangers in the land.” Leviticus 19:33-34 supports this notion: “When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.”
[VDARE.COM note: Or in the King James Version: “If a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” This gave John Higham the title of his famous book on nativism, still cited by many who do not realize he subsequently changed his mind.]

There are several ways in which these verses are misinterpreted:
First of all, these verses were most probably primarily referring to foreigners who sought to become a part of the Israelite community. It certainly cannot be referring to the pagans in the land who sought to lure the Israelites into sin and rebellion against God. Therefore, these passages were certainly not directed towards aliens who were breaking laws and causing mayhem in the community.
Second, these passages say nothing about modern democratic nation-states establishing their own guidelines about what is and isn’t the appropriate number of “aliens” living in their lands.
Third, is it treating an illegal alien unfairly by punishing him for breaking the law? When our own legal citizens clearly violate the law, are we being unjust as a society by punishing them? No. Rather, it is more unfair to the rest of the society when we ignore the rule of law and turn our heads away from the lawbreakers.
It is true that both the Old and New Testaments are very harsh in their assessment of those in God’s supposed community who turn a blind eye to the needy or permit social injustices. However, Christians who support mass immigration usually make two errors of judgment about this:
First, they assume that the Christians who want a more controlled immigration policy are the ones who are promoting a more unjust or faulty society.

The "injustice" contention has many problems outlined in such books as Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation and Pat Buchanan’s recent State of Emergency. There is plenty of evidence that both illegal immigration and mass legal immigration have created far more problems than benefits in society. This is evidence that some Evangelicals do not want to hear.

Secondly, immigration enthusiasts assume that restrictionists do not care about the welfare or well-being of illegal immigrants.
That is far from the case. Any person who calls himself a Christian should of course demonstrate love to the less fortunate both in word and deed. But there are other ways to love immigrants than sanctioning their law breaking. It takes more sacrifice for a Christian to do a short-term missions project or to donate financially towards impoverished areas of Mexico than it does for them to cheer on illegal immigration.
Rather than just applauding faceless illegals—whom they may never actually meet—Evangelicals would do better to actually meet these people where they are and donate their resources (time, money, etc) to help improve their lots in life. Christians could also support Mexican churches in their efforts to provide relief to their countrymen and women.
Whatever route is chosen—and there are plenty of other possibilities—we should not act as if the only way to show love and compassion to immigrants is by promoting or condoning illegal behavior.
A grander goal for the global Christian community, and Americans on a whole, is to help impoverished Mexican communities empower themselves to better care for their hurting people. This of course takes more work and sacrifice than just promoting open borders.
The Evangelical must ask himself which side in this internal debate ultimately demands more love and sacrifice and is more closely aligned to the Scriptures.
It is hard for me to believe the side that promotes law breaking, and ignores the very real social problems and risks this entails, is doing more justice to Scriptural principles.

Bill Barnwell [send him mail] is a pastor and writer in Michigan. He holds both a Master of Ministry degree and a Master of Arts in Theological Studies degree from Bethel College in Mishawaka, Indiana. Visit his blog at www.billbarnwell.blogspot.com

Action Alert:Tell your Congressman to support Joe Wilson

Here is an Action Alert from www.redstate.com encouraging support for Congressman Joe Wilson!

Call your Congressman right now.

Tell him to stand up for Joe Wilson and oppose any punishment for Joe.
If you Congressman refuses to or won't commit to standing up for Joe Wilson, tell him he needs to be consistent and punish Charlie Rangel and John Murtha.

Get the phone number to call and basic information by clicking here.

Silvestre Reyes, A Profile in Mendacity

A very interesting article about the Representative from the western corner of Texas from www.redstate.com.


Silvestre Reyes, A Profile in Mendacity
Pelosi and Reyes Go To War With The CIA
Posted by Streiff (Profile)
Now we’re entering the second week of the contretemps over whether or not the CIA wrongfully concealed a program from the Congress.
What began as a slanging match between the CIA and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) now has the CIA teetering on the brink of open warfare with its long time allies, Congressional Democrats.
The genesis of this was a baldfaced attempt by Pelosi’s creature, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), to extract Pelosi from her unenviable position as a laughingstock and notorious liar.
This is by no means a new position for Pelosi but the latest manifestation occurred when her rather casual disregard for the truth was revealed by accusing the CIA of not briefing her on the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques used on al-Qaeda prisoners and she was called on her mendacity by numerous colleagues as well as the CIA. Techniques, by the way, which saved lives, prevented attacks, disrupted al-Qaeda networks, and resulted in the capture of some high ranking members of al-Qaeda and affiliated organizations. And as a result of being captured and interrogated the average prisoner has gained 20 pounds.
On July 7, some staffer from Reyes’s office, probably wearing a brown paper bag over his head, slipped a letter from Reyes under the door of ranking member Pete Hoekstra, after work hours, (I am not making this up) claiming the CIA had lied to the committee on some unspecified matter and stating he intended to investigate the CIA’s reporting procedures. Hoekstra has rightfully referred to that incident as “one of the most bizarre episodes in politics that I’ve seen in my time here in Washington.”
The letter, which seems to have hit the press concurrently with its receipt by Mr. Hoekstra, had the intended effect of arousing the media from their preferred position, which resembles nothing so much as remora sharks attached to the posterior of the Democrat party, to full investigatory mode striving to reveal yet another instance of malfeasance by the evil Bush Administration.
It also had the unintentional effect of raising questions about the precise nature of this program Reyes allegedly wasn’t briefed on.
As best we can ascertain the program in question was set up after September 11, 2001 to kill top members of al-Qaeda. Take your time and read that sentence again slowly. Yes. In the aftermath of 9/11 the CIA came up with the idea that hunting down and killing al-Qaeda leaders was something that at least merited consideration. The House Democrats are concerned they weren’t told about a program that was created to kill top members of al-Qaeda. And, of course, CIA Director Leon Panetta went fully supine at the first hint of having to take a stand and announced he had cancelled the program.
Based on reporting today, it seems virtually proven that the program in question was not subject to disclosure to Congress because, unsurprisingly considering that this involves the CIA, the program never advanced much beyond a metaphysical desire to kill al-Qaeda and then only when all conceivable risk had been eliminated. According to the NY Times, the Democrats are incensed not because they weren’t briefed on a program they were entitled to be briefed on, but because they were not briefed on a program the CIA had no obligation to disclose to them in first place.
Still Mr. Reyes, we are reliably informed, sent yet another letter to Mr. Hoekstra yesterday asking for his support in the planned investigation. We hope Mr. Hoekstra goes along.
As Erick pointed out last week, the Democrats are trying desperately to run against President Bush again in 2010. They are also using the CIA story, the Sotomayor nomination, and the possible prosecution of people who protected America from al-Qaeda as a smokescreen to divert attention from the socialization of large swaths of the economy through a takeover of health care, the crippling of American industry by way of cap-and-trade, and the utter failure of the Administration to take any action to mitigate the recession they have aggravated.
If hauling CIA officials before Congressional panels and destroying the minute levels of initiative that exist at Langley is what it takes to protect Pelosi and divert attention from the real game, then Reyes, who has apparently checked his manhood at the door, has demonstrated he is fully capable of doing so.
It is difficult, based on what has been published to date, to see how this ends well for the Democrats for a number of reasons:
There is no way Reyes can hope to hold a hearing on CIA reporting practices and not have the Pelosi matter given new life. Everyone knows Pelosi is lying on that particular count save, perhaps, Pelosi, herself, who in the past has shown a serene indifference to that fragile barrier that separates truth from falsehood.
The CIA is trotting out its own band of anonymous leakers to combat the lies and innuendos being flogged by Mr. Reyes.
The GOP will be asking the question that most Americans will be asking, “why was the program terminated?” (We will all be waiting breathlessly for Mr. Panetta’s answer.)
At some point a lot of Dems will begin realizing that blaming the Bush Administration for not disclosing a secret program to Congress will not be a killer campaign issue in 2010 or 2012. The Administration can’t possibly see any value in an ongoing conflict between CIA and Congress. And at some point both the Administration and Congressional Democrats are going to realize that trashing a program designed to kill al-Qaeda will be counterintuitive to most Americans.
By next week there is a 50-50 chance sanity will have set in and all of this will blow over. But we are talking about the Obama Administration, Reyes, and Pelosi. None of these have a record of much more than a nodding acquaintance with reality so this may yet escalate into full-blown warfare.
Pass the popcorn
Posted by Streiff (Profile)