Rainbow Sash Protesters Set to Disrupt Churches across U.S. on Pentecost Sunday

An interesting story from http://www.lifesitenews.com/ about attempts to disrupt churches on Pentecost Sunday. This follows this post about American's pro-life position. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Rainbow Sash Protesters Set to Disrupt Churches across U.S. on Pentecost Sunday


CHICAGO, May 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Homosexualist activists belonging to the Rainbow Sash Movement (RSM) are planning to demonstrate at Catholic Cathedrals and parishes across the United States this Sunday. They have targeted particularly Cardinal Francis George of the Chicago Archdiocese, since he is the head of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has publically engaged in promoting and preserving the natural definition of marriage and family in civil law.
The RSM is an organization of activists that link together and coordinate through the internet. Ordinarily they wear a 2-inch wide ribbon of rainbow colors across their shoulders, and on Pentecost Sunday they present themselves to receive Holy Communion in Cathedrals and parishes across the nation while wearing the sash.
The protest challenges the Church's teaching that engaging in homosexual behavior is harmful and constitutes a “mortal sin.” Under Church teaching, a Catholic cannot receive Holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin, and must first repent of the sin and confess it to a priest before he can be re-admitted to the sacrament.
“[W]e will directly challenge Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, current president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in Holy Name Cathedral at the 11 AM Mass on Pentecost Sunday, May 23, 2010, along with other Bishops nationally and internationally to highlight their homophobia,” said a release from the organization.
The release accused the Church of “institutionalized homophobia,” went after the Church’s opposition to condoms as a legitimate means to stop the spread of AIDS and accused the pope of making “attacks on gay and lesbian families.” The latter is likely a veiled reference to the pope’s statements at Fatima in Portugal recently, in which he characterized same-sex “marriage” alongside abortion as amongst “today’s most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good.”
Joe Murray, executive director of RSM, said, “Our purpose is to try to put out the dialogue in a very respectful way. Our presence – you wouldn’t know if we were there if we weren’t wearing the rainbow sash. It’s kind of like going into a Catholic Church on St. Paddy’s Day. You wouldn’t know the Irish were there if they weren’t wearing green.”
However, the wearing of the sash has proved divisive, and on many occasions has been a source of tension, spectacle, and distraction in Catholic churches on Pentecost Sunday.
A number of reported incidents have involved sash-wearers attempting to steal consecrated hosts, and turning their backs on the altar for the rest of Mass once they are denied communion.
Murray said that his activists do not see themselves as being “radicals.” He said that they are “calling for dialogue with the Catholic Church around the issue of sexuality.”
But Jeff Field, Director of Communications for the Catholic League, said that RSM is “just grandstanding” and not engaging in true dialogue.
“They know that the Church is not going to budge on its stance on gay marriage and what have you,” he told LSN.
“This event that they’re going to be demonstrating inside a church – it’s just grandstanding,” said Field. “We don’t have any objections to holding a protest outside a house of worship or venue of that sort. But once you take it inside and cause a disruption and cause a distraction, it’s not for dialogue.”
Cardinal George has defended the U.S. bishops’ policy, which was later reaffirmed by the Vatican, to deny communion to RSM protesters. He wrote in 2004: “The policy of the U.S. Bishops’ conference, a policy I did not invent, was to refuse Communion to anyone who used its reception as an occasion to protest against the Church’s teaching.”
In the past, the Rainbow Sash movement has received welcome in a handful of U.S. dioceses. Archbishop Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, Archbishop Harry Flynn of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit, and Bishop Matthew Clark of Rochester have all at one time or another welcomed members of the RSM to receive communion.
But times have changed, and two of the four are already retired, and Mahony is sharing responsibility of the archdiocese with his successor, who will take full control when Mahony retires next year.
Joe Murray told LSN that while he would be reluctant to say if any diocese had invited members of the RSM, he said no diocese had extended them a welcome this year.

In The Future, Everyone Will Be A Nazi For Fifteen Minutes

An interesting post from www.VDare.com about the "NAZI" label thrown at 1070 supporters. This follows this post about the latest news of a March in FAVOR of Arizona's 1070, this post about the MURDER of ROBERT KRENTZ, who the protestors and boycotters won't give a solution for, but will call Americans racist for trying to prevent another MURDER, and this post which shows that there are 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso across from the recent Juarez shooting. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

In The Future, Everyone Will Be A Nazi For Fifteen Minutes
By Joe Guzzardi
I support Arizona’s S. B. 1070. Therefore, I am a Nazi.
Despite my 25-year Lodi resume that includes teaching English to immigrants of all colors and faiths, sitting on the American Cancer Society’s local board, instructing senior citizens about computer literacy and advising People Assisting the Lodi Shelter, I am the equal of Adolf Hitler's followers.
According to those who oppose the Arizona legislation and the journalists who agree with them, my Nazi sympathies are obvious.
No less an authority on morals than Los Angeles Archbishop Roger Cardinal Mahony repeatedly confirms it: SB 1070 reminds him of Nazi Germany. How Mahony can pretend to take the high road is beyond me. In 2007, Mahony’s archdiocese paid out $660 million to settle pedophilia sex abuse charges against its priests.
Mainstream media reporting on SB 1070 represents the profession’s lowest moment. And that is saying a mouthful.
To compare, even indirectly, Americans who believe that federal immigration law should be enforced to Nazis is an outrage. Not even a remote comparison can be made between what happened in Germany and what’s going on in Arizona.
As you know by now, SB 1070 requires no more than the federal statute already on the books that instructs lawful immigrants to carry a U.S. government-issued green card as proof of authorization to live and work in America.
If they're not permanent residents, they need "temporary visas" that allow them to visit as tourists, students or seasonal workers.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said, to an apparently deaf media audience:
"The legislation mirrors federal laws regarding immigration enforcement. Despite erroneous and misleading statements suggesting otherwise, the new state misdemeanor crime of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document is adopted, verbatim, from the same offense founding federal statute."
The truth is that native-born American citizens regularly have to show identification. Try to buy groceries without a driver’s license. See if you can get on Southwest Airlines with proof of who you are. Not even the public library will issue you a card to borrow books published fifty years ago without confirmation of your name and current address.
Despite suggestions to the contrary, SB 1070 does not authorize or require random roundups or stop-checks.
The bill’s key phrase is "reasonable suspicion" which like "probable cause" is a well-established legal concept requiring that a law enforcement officer must possess sufficiently trustworthy facts to believe a crime has been committed.
For example, an Arizona driver who has been stopped for running a red light who cannot produce a valid driver’s license might be the object of reasonable suspicion.
On the other hand, an Arizona resident who “looks Mexican” and is walking peacefully down to street to buy ice cream for his children could not be asked for identification.
Over the past ten days, I have challenged reporters from major California dailies who have written about public figures like Mahony that link patriotic citizens to Nazis.
In telephone conversations, I ask them if they know friends, have relatives or co-workers who are sympathetic to the intent of SB 1070.
Since this is California where illegal immigration is as much a problem as it is in Arizona, the reporters of course know several from the pro-enforcement crowd.
When I then ask the reporters if they consider their friends and family as Nazis, they answer no.
Here’s how I close my conversations.
Just because someone like Mahony says that SB 1070 advocates remind him of Nazis, reporters do not have to include his statement in their stories since his charge is baseless and incendiary.
But if unsubstantiated, outrageous lies slip into a story, the editors could strike them. Newspapers should not print hurtful allegations, especially when the unnamed targets of them like me are not given a chance to respond.
Surprisingly, President Barack Obama and the Anti-Defamation League agree.
At his University of Michigan commencement speech, Obama called for “civil discourse” about political differences.
Abraham H. Foxman, Director of the ADL, added:
“It also is incumbent upon our political leaders on both sides of the aisle, and on both sides of the immigration debate or whatever the hot-button issue of the day, to be responsible for their words, to consider their criticism carefully and to refrain from bringing Nazis or the Holocaust into the discussion.” (Take the “Nazi” Out of Arizona Criticism, by Abraham H. Foxman, JTA.com. May 2, 2010
Obama and Foxman have the right idea. Although Obama is posturing, Foxman is not. Nevertheless, here’s hoping that not only politicians but also journalists follow their advice.

Joe Guzzardi [email him] is a California native who recently fled the state because of over-immigration, over-population and a rapidly deteriorating quality of life. He has moved to Pittsburgh, PA where the air is clean and the growth rate stable. A long-time instructor in English at the Lodi Adult School, Guzzardi has been writing a weekly column since 1988. It currently appears in the Lodi News-Sentinel.

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

Enemies on the Religious Left?

This is an interesting article about the current state of religion in America, and to a lesser extent, the rest of the world. This shows why even when people try and join a Christian church, they might not be furthering the Christian worldview. (h/t www.vdare.com)

Know Thine Enemy: The “Collaborators” Of The Religious Left
By Peter Gadiel
My parents were German—my father Jewish, my mother Protestant. Their families were strong supporters of the democratic Weimar Republic established after the First World War and were strongly anti-Communist and anti-Nazi.
In 1931, two years before Hitler came to power, my father, foreseeing the collapse of civilized government in Germany, persuaded his parents to emigrate with him. But his sister Lotte, a naïve woman who incapable of believing anyone could be so evil as to want to harm her, refused to join them in France until 1934.
My mother, a Protestant as yet unmarried, was not in danger and remained in Germany. But she refused to obey the ban on Protestants shopping at Jewish-owned stores until that became too dangerous. Then she slipped across the border to France in 1936. The very next day the Gestapo came to arrest her for her resistance to the "New Order." (Her mother was once saved from arrest for her anti-Hitler remarks only because neighbors lied on her behalf.)
In 1939, violating Nazi race laws carried the death penalty. Nevertheless, my parents married in France. When the Germans conquered France in 1940 they escaped again. They and many like them survived the War only because they could recognize evil, fought it as long as they could, and escaped when that became necessary.
But naïve Aunt Lotte refused to leave her village in what was now Nazi-occupied France, believing that as a law abiding German, no fellow German would bother her. She duly registered her domicile with Nazi officials and lived peacefully in the town of Bains Les Bains. According to neighbors interviewed after the War, she was very happy being able to speak German to Occupation troops, and they were very nice to her.
Then one morning before dawn in November 1942 the Krauts rousted her out of bed, sent her to the infamous transit camp at Drancy and, according to the Germans’ own precise records, on November 11, 1942 put her on Transport # 42 and shipped her to Auschwitz.
Nothing further of her is known, but from what we know of her it is likely she remained innocent and docile right to the moment she was herded into the gas chambers.
Aunt Lotte was a collaborator in her own death. Not actively of course, but—like millions of others—her refusal to wake up and resist allowed Hitler to commit the mass murder of which she became a victim.
In America today we’ve got a lot of Aunt Lottes, and the modern threat they refuse to recognize is the massive invasion of illegal aliens. But there’s an important difference between my Aunt Lotte and many of her modern counterparts: the latter aren’t just passive, they are militant activists in the promotion of this evil. They “collaborate” with this invasion, just as quislings all over Occupied Europe collaborated with the Nazis. Their collaboration has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans at the hands of criminal aliens—including my own son, who died on 9/11—and the permanent physical, emotional and financial ruin of hundreds of thousands of others.
You’ll find these collaborators in control of the religious groups which form an essential part of the Illegal Alien Lobby. They include the United Church of Christ (Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s outfit); United Methodists; Quakers; Unitarians; Presbyterian Church; and, influenced by the radicals who have infiltrated its bureaucracy, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Catholic Church.
Sadly, among the collaborators are Jews, especially members of the liberal Reform Jewish organizations such as the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. Typical of these is the so-called "Anti-Defamation League" which mocks its own name by defaming as "racist" anyone who dares oppose illegal immigration. Considering the vicious anti-Semitism of the Moslems and many of the Hispanics taking advantage of our open borders it appears that these American Jews are just as eager as Aunt Lotte to conspire in their own disappearance.
These religious types are distinct from the cynical crowd in Congress, La Raza, US Chamber of Commerce, ACLU, or the Communist Party who support illegal immigration for reasons of financial or political profit. The people in these churches are Believers.
They, like Aunt Lotte, know only what they want to know. They do not care that illegal immigration results in suffering and death for innocent Americans as the result of violent crimes. They are fanatics who, having convinced themselves they are doing God’s work, feel entitled to ignore or justify the violence and death that results from following what they see as The Holy Word.
It used to be said that the Episcopal Church was the Republican Party at prayer. But study the website of the Episcopal Church and you’ll see that this should be updated: "The Episcopal Church is the Far Left at prayer."
Except for the God talk, these religious denominations are near clones of the ACLU, Center for American Progress, or MoveOn.org. Name the political issue and these politicized churches have a position on it and a lobbying effort nearly always identical to that of the Far Left. They have a fanatical adherence to this radical political agenda and the zeal to spread the Revealed Word through political activism.
Don’t take my word for it; look at their websites: United Church of Christ, www.ucc.org; www.episcopalchurh.org; Quakers, www.afsc.org; United Methodists, www.umc.org; www.uua.org; Union of Reform Judaism, www.urj.org; Presbyterian church USA, www.pcusa.org.
About that last URL: for if you type in "www.CPUSA" instead of "www.PCUSA" you’ll get the Communist Party USA instead of the Presbyterian Church USA. However, not to worry; the mistake isn’t serious, since on most issues there isn’t much difference.
On those websites under the letter "I" you’ll see "Immigration," or "Immigrants’ (sic) Rights." There you’ll see the Religious Left does acknowledge that the United States has a right to have borders, but for these people the full extent of that "right" is to put a line on a map; there appears to be not a single concrete step they support that would in any other sense create a border between the US and Mexico.
Increased enforcement? Nope, God’s against it. More Border Patrol officers? No; that’s against the will of God. A fence? No, God is opposed to walls. Denying to any illegal alien benefits such as access to jobs, housing etc.? No; the word from God is that this is wrong.
And they have it on good authority that God favors amnesty for all.
It’s a curious thing. According to the ACLU, a kid can’t say his prayers in school, because that breaches the wall between church and state. However, the ACLU seems to have no concerns whatsoever about that "wall" when it comes to liberal churches lobbying.
We could dismiss these people as easily as Aunt Lotte ignored the forces of darkness that gathered around her. But to do so is just as dangerous for us as it was for her.
I can tell you from personal experience that these people lobby. They are lobbying Congress, the legislatures, the city councils, county commissions. They probably have their lobbyists at meetings of sewer commissions. And always for more benefits and "rights" for illegals.
Speak to the Religious Left of the victims of violent crimes committed by illegal aliens or "legal" aliens improperly allowed to enter the US due to the failure to enforce our laws (for example the 9/11 terrorists) and you cannot pierce the wall of denial, the faith that Open Borders are more important than the murder victims, the rape victims, the gang victims, drug distribution.
It matters not to them that real people are the victims of real violence by people from other countries. These Church people speak of "human rights" and "social justice," but by their actions they demonstrate their belief that these concepts do not apply to innocent Americans.
Until a few decades ago such a large percentage of Americans were members of these "mainline" denominations that their numbers made these churches an influential part of American life.
But those days are long gone. As radicals such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ assumed leadership positions and pushed the churches far to the left, membership fell drastically.
Still, though their membership in large part abandoned them for more conservative denominations the radical leadership inherited control of vast untaxed wealth provided by earlier members who would be appalled by the causes their money supports today. That money will remain the source of great power in the hands of the Jeremiah Wright as these churches recruit new members from among the illegal alien population they have helped to import.
Americans have a choice. They can either resist like, my parents. Or they can ignore reality like my Aunt Lotte.
We know what path Reform Jews and liberal Protestant sects are following.
Time will tell what the rest of America will do.
Peter Gadiel (email him) is president of 9/11 Families for a Secure America. His son, 9/11 World Trade Center victim James Gadiel (North Tower, 103rd floor), was 23 at the time of his murder.

Texas to ban Sanctuary Cities?

A very interesting story about immigration enforcement in Texas. Sanctuary cities are those that discourage local law enforcement from helping the short-handed federal authorities to enforce immigration laws. H/t http://elpasotimes.typepad.com/capitol/2009/03/ag-state-can-ban-sanctuary-cities.html, Vaqueros & Wonkeros.

Texas AG: State can ban sanctuary cities
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued an opinion today giving lawmakers the go-ahead to prohibit cities from becoming so-called "sanctuary cities."
State Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio, had asked Abbott whether legislators could prohibit cities from adopting policies that prevent local authorities from cooperating with federal authorities on immigration enforcement.
Some Republican lawmakers want to require cities to enforce immigration laws or risk losing state funding for certain programs.
In his opinion, Abbott wrote that since federal law preempts city policies, any sanctuary policy a municipality adopts would be moot anyway.
"The Texas Legislature is not prohibited from adopting some form of legislation designed to compel local governments to comply with any duties they may have under federal immigration laws, so long as such legislation is not inconsistent with federal law," Abbott concluded.

Posted by Brandi Grissom http://elpasotimes.typepad.com/capitol

Proposition 8

As you know, Proposition 8 defined marriage in California as being between a man and a woman. I wanted to send you this article to show how the opponents of this have accepted this becoming law. You can click on the links in the story for further information.


LAT's Rutten: 'Both Sides' in Calif. Marriage Debate 'Need to Cool Down'
By Dave Pierre (Bio Archive)
Let's see if I got this straight: Hundreds of supporters of gay marriage, opponents of California Proposition 8, have picketed a Mexican restaurant in L.A. and shouted vulgarities at innocent customers just because one employee - a daughter of the owner - gave a modest $100 donation in support of the measure protecting traditional marriage. Opponents of Proposition 8 have threatened and harassed several other businesses - including a radio station, a theatre, and a chain of health food stores - because employees gave money in support of Prop 8. Opponents of Prop 8 have knocked a cross from the hands of an elderly woman and stomped on it during a demonstration in Palm Springs. Suspicious white powder has been sent in an envelope to a Mormon temple in Westwood. (Mormons were big supporters of Prop 8.)And the supporters of Proposition 8? Well, their measure - which sought to restore the definition of marriage between only a man and a woman - won in a statewide referendum by a 52 to 48 margin. They simply want judges to respect the vote and uphold its result. So what does the Los Angeles Times' Tim Rutten have to say about all of this? He says in his November 15 column that "both sides" "are going too far" and "need to cool down.""Both sides" "need to cool down"? "Both sides"? Wait a minute. It seems one side is a tad bit hotter than the other! A number of the episodes I've cited above are from Rutten's own paper. Has he checked it out lately?
+_+_+_+_+_+
Rutten's column also bemoans the "unprecedented intervention" and "distasteful business" of the Catholic and Mormon churches voicing their support of traditional marriage and Proposition 8. He's upset that they have "leap[t] into the political process" as religious organizations. "[I]t raises hackles, and rightly so," Rutten asserts.Gee, Tim. Your paper didn't seem too upset about any "distasteful business" or "unprecedented intervention" a few years back when your paper published a favorable editorial about Cardinal Mahony "saying the right things about illegal immigrants" and "reinforcing the right of religious leaders to speak out on the moral ramifications of political issues." Hey, Tim. What about that same right now? Ohhh, wait. This time the Church has the opposite view of your own, and that is "raising your cackles."All together now: "Double ... standard."
+_+_+_+_+_+
*** UPDATE: Mon. 11/17/08 AM: Check out this letter to the editor in today's (Mon. 11/17/08) paper:
I have read the articles about how gay couples are distraught at the passage of Proposition 8. How about an article about how devastating it is for faithful Mormons to see their temple property trampled? Why not publish pictures showing signs reportedly held by demonstrators that read "Mormon scum"? It has been reported that donors to Proposition 8 are being blacklisted, rocks have been thrown through church windows, businesses are being boycotted and a book sacred to Mormons was found ablaze on a front porch. Hmmm ... scapegoats, temples attacked, books burning. Does this sound vaguely familiar?Many who share my views -- the majority of Nov. 4's electorate -- are hiding their yellow signs and bumper stickers for fear of being "outed" and attacked, verbally and physically. The vocal minority is on the rampage.
Janet Gutierrez
Rancho Cucamonga
So, Tim. "Both sides" need to cool down, eh? Get a clue, bro'.