Thursday, June 28, 2007


This couldn't be better news!

Jim DeMint:

“When the U.S. Senate brought the Amnesty bill back up this week, they declared war on the American people. This act created a crisis of confidence in their government. Thankfully, the American people won today,” said Senator DeMint. “This is remarkable because it shows that Americans are engaged and they care deeply about their country. They care enough for their country to get mad and to fight for it, and that’s the most important thing of all. Americans made phone calls and sent letters, and convinced the Senate to stop this bill.”

“The Senate rejected this bill and the heavy-handed tactics used to ram it through. Americans do not want more of the same – amnesty and broken promises on the border. Americans want legislation to be written in public – not in secret – and they want Congress to engage in an open and fair debate.”

“There is a better way forward without this bill. The President has said that the border security measures can be implemented over the next 18 months, and they can be done under current law. Now the Administration needs to prove it and stop holding border security hostage for amnesty.”

“Once we have secured the border and restored trust with the American people, we can begin to take additional steps.”

He's absolutely right. And, now it's about time to turn on leeches like Harry Reid and Bennett R-UT, and eliminate their treasonous carcasses from government. Maybe we can't eliminate them from the Church but we sure as heck can boot them from office. Never, ever forget what they tried to do to our county.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

O.K., here's a question for all you LDS amnesty supporters

Gordon B. Hinckley stated, “I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter. If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church.”

This is true, thankfully. But I ask you, how are illegals any different? They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course has no jurisdiction whatever in the matter.

Why doesn't it also follow then that if members are found to be in this country illegally that they are disciplined by the Church? I'm not saying they must be excommunicated but clearly they cannot be found to be in good standing because they are in direct violation of the civil law and they are without question in violation of the law of this Church unless committing crimes, demonstrating disdain for the 12th Article of Faith, lying, stealing and defrauding are considered somehow in compliance with the law of the Church.

We should not be baptizing unrepentant such people any more than we should baptize an unrepentant polygamist.

Monday, June 18, 2007

On Another Issue

Have you ever noticed that sometimes Aaronic priesthood shows up at Church improperly dressed or groomed for administration of the sacrament? Still, they wind up doing it anyway and when a correction is attempted all you ever hear are lame excuses accompanied by references to worthiness as if worthiness is the sole limiting factor. Try to imagine a worthy high priest dressed as Bozo the Clown administering the sacrament. Hard to imagine isn't it? That's because a worthy High Priest has more respect for the institution than to ever make such an attempt. I note also that inside the pamphlets for Duty to God every picture of a Young Man performing his priesthood duties shows a Young Man properly dressed white shirt, tie and dress slacks with shoes. I note also that in our foyer ther eis a large pictorial book titled: "The Mission" which shows missionary work and members throughout the world. In every instance when it comes to pictures of priesthood administering in their duties, it's well groomed young men in white shirts, ties, shoes and dress slacks, even with members living in poverty in huts and dirt floors. So why leadership here in the USA permits sloppily dressed, long haired, sneaker and cargo pants wearing young men to administer the sacrament is a question without any acceptable answer.

Isn't it ironic that the same young men who show up at a Stake dance here in the USA improperly attired are not admitted until they change their clothes so they meet the dress standard for the dance but when they show up improperly attired or groomed for sacrament administration they are allowed to proceed. Something seriously amiss here.

Now, lest you think I am arguing for some sort of uniform, I'm not. But at a minimum the standards in For the Strength of Youth ought to be adhered to which means conservative dress and appearance avoiding extremes as the word "extremes" applies in the LDS community not in the world. There is no reason why for instance they should not all wear white shirts ( or possibly a pastel dress shirt) and ties with shoes (not sneakers) and dress slacks not jeans or cargo pants.
So the question for the day is: Which should require the greater attention to dress standards, a dance or administration of the sacrament? If you get this wrong you need help.

Illegals Lack Integrity

Spencer W. Kimball said:

"Integrity in individuals and corporate bodies is not to ask, “What will others think of me, and my practices?” but, "Is it proper? Is it right? Would the Master approve?" … Integrity in man should bring inner peace, sureness of purpose, and security in action. Lack of it brings the reverse: disunity, fear, sorrow, unsureness."

This is precisely what we see with illegals in our nation and why we should not be baptizing criminals or permitting their attendance at the temple before they repent for what they have done, they utterly lack integrity. Because they have done wrong, intentionally and do not seek to repent for it they suffer fear, sorrow and unsureness, and rightly so.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

General Handbook of Instructions and Illegals

Under the Discipline provisions of the General Handbook of Instructions the following is called "serious transgression":

"serious transgression is defined as a deliberate and major offense against morality. It includes (but is not limited to) attempted murder, rape, forcible sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, sale of illegal drugs, fraud, perjury, and false swearing. "

It also says: "A disciplinary council must be held for a member who demonstrates a pattern of serious transgressions, especially if prior transgressions have resulted in Church discipline. "


"A disciplinary council must be held for a member who commits a serious transgression that is widely known. "

Hmm... since all illegals are here under a pattern of behavior which includes: false swearing and fraud -any documents that are false such as fake IDs and fake SSNs or other false documentation necessary to obtain a job, and since they are not legally entitled to work here and receive the benefits of this country, they are defrauding employers and stealing governmental services and benefits, it is pretty clear that to the extent any such are members of the Church they should be disciplined by the Church. As the status of many of these folks is in fact widely known in the Church this constitutes yet another reason for Church discipline.

Clearly this is behavior which is not consistent with membership in the Church. It occurs to me that the scriptures state that for the purposes of salvation all men are required to enter in at the strait gate and that repentance precedes baptism. We are all to show by our walk and talk that we are worthy of it ...unless of course we happen not to be citizens of the U.S. in which case, fraud, perjury, false swearing, theft are no longer matters implicating worthiness.

Mr. Bush and all you shamnesty types need to listen up:

The American People Demand Enforcement of Existing Law! The Status Quo Is Indeed unacceptable, we demand enforcement! As for LDS bleeding hearts get real. People who violate criminal statutes intentionally and strive to cover it up and continue the violations are no more likely to obey the laws of God than they are to obey the laws of man and as such are unworthy of membership in the Church. Let them first accept the first four principles of the Gospel the second of which is repentance, after that they can be baptized and then accept the 12th Article of Faith and show it by their lawful compliance with the moral and constitutional laws of the land.

Monday, June 11, 2007

Lunatic Fringe

This is a song dedicated to Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and every amnesty loving anti-American loon out there. Of course you liberals are the limp wristed types winding up on the bottom where you belong.

New York State Gets It!!!

In an excellent move reflecting the fraudulent nature of illegals the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that illegals can't have driver licenses in part on security and identity issues.

Thursday, June 7, 2007

Need to Re-Write the 12th Article of Faith to Reflect Current Attitudes

I have some Proposed language with more closely resembles what is actually happening with illegals in the Church:

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law unless we are not citizens of the United States in which case we believe in becoming a law unto ourselves and in committing multiple state and federal crimes including fraud and theft in order to gain money, services and benefits to which we consider ourselves entitled. We also believe that our lying, deceit and theft of services and benefits is not a matter of unworthiness and that repentance before baptism does not apply to us."

of course a slight re-write of the 13th Article of Faith is also necessary:

13 We believe in being honest (unless you ask us about our real identity and status), true (to ourselves and our personal interests above all else), chaste, benevolent, virtuous (except for lying, deceiving and stealing services and benefits we aren't entitled to), and in doing good to all men ("all men" meaning to ourselves first and foremost we have no plans to abide by the laws of the land that could result in us not getting what we want); indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things (such as believing that we are above the law and entitled to special front of the line treatment not given to people from other countries who are trying to immigrate lawfully), we hope all things (like hoping not to get caught in our crimes or asked in a temple recommend interview a question such as "are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men?), we have endured many things (much of which we brought on ourselves by coming here illegally, lying and seeking to maintain false identities), and hope to be able to endure all things (otherwise we'll get deported). If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things (But not in our own country, we seek them only in the U.S.).

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

Why the LDS Church should not aid or baptize illegals

Being Loyal Citizens," Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith, 122
We should obey the laws of God and men, honoring our membership in the Church and our citizenship in the nation in which we live.

(Presumably then, disobeying the laws of men is dishonorable. And participating in helping someone else to violate the law is equally dishonorable)

President Smith, who had witnessed the mob violence of Nauvoo, often spoke of the importance of the rule of law in a civilized society. He and his Counselors in the First Presidency urged the Saints to be law-abiding and loyal citizens wherever they lived and to be faithful in their allegiance to their governments. On one occasion when a government official expressed contempt for the United States Constitution, President Smith countered: "Latter-day Saints cannot tolerate such a spirit as this. It is anarchy. It means destruction. It is the spirit of mobocracy, and the Lord knows we have suffered enough from mobocracy, and we do not want any more of it. … We cannot afford to yield to that spirit or contribute to it in the least degree. We should stand with a front like flint against every spirit or species of contempt or disrespect for the constitution of our country and the constitutional laws of our land."

(Wow. He gets it! We are seeing a lot of mobocracy these days on the border. The reconquistas and illegals overrunning the border, getting jobs with false documentation, protesting and threatening citizens who oppose their illegal entry and status is a perfect example of mobocracy)

Let us do right, keep the laws of God, and the laws of man, honor our membership in the kingdom of God, our citizenship in the nation of which we are a part, and then God will sustain and preserve us, and we will continue to grow as we have done from the beginning, only our future growth will be accelerated and be far greater than it has been in the past.

Teach your children to honor the law of God and the law of the state, and the law of our country. Teach them to respect and hold in honor those who are chosen by the people to stand at their head and execute justice and administer the law. Teach them to be loyal to their country, loyal to righteousness and uprightness and honor, and thereby they will grow up to be men and women choice above all the men and women of the world.

(A little better teaching by Mexican parents and we wouldn't be having this problem. These outlaws coming here are neither loyal to Mexican law or U.S. law. They are loyal only to themselves.)

To be a Latter-day Saint in very deed is to be one of the best of God’s people or children in the world. … A good Latter-day Saint will be a good citizen, no matter whether he be a subject of Great Britain, the United States, Holland, Germany or any other country in the world. If he be a good Latter-day Saint he is bound to be a good citizen of the land which gave him birth or which he has adopted as his home. … A citizen of God’s kingdom should stand foremost among the best of God’s people throughout all the world.

How can we be good citizens if we actively support, sympathize with or aid outlaws?

If patriotism and loyalty are qualities manifested in times of peace, by just, temperate, benevolent, industrious and virtuous living; in times of trial, by patience, resistance only by lawful means to real or fancied wrongs, and by final submission to the laws of the land, though involving distress and sorrow; and in time of war, by willingness to fight the battle of the nation,—then, unquestionably, are the "Mormon" people patriotic and loyal.

Well then illegals aren't "Mormon," people are they? They certainly don't submit to the laws of the land nor is their resistance through legal means. Instead they commit crimes and compound them through further crimes and deceit. Hardly LDS behavior.

"Mormonism" is in the world for the world’s good. Teaching truth, inculcating morality, guarding the purity of the home, honoring authority and government, fostering education, and exalting man and woman, our religion denounces crime, and is a foe to tyranny in every form. "Mormonism" seeks to uplift, not to destroy society.

(lawlessness is a form of imposed tyranny incidentally and the result of their illegal immigration threatens the stability of America and its society.)

Church members are commanded by Divine revelation … : "Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that obeys the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land." [D&C 58:21.]

Yup. And there is this:

N. Eldon Tanner, "The Laws of God," Ensign, Nov 1975, 82

I wish to join wholeheartedly with the millions of people who appreciate this country in which we live and are determined to do what they can to maintain and strengthen the principles of democracy established by our Founding Fathers. To do this, it is most important that we be loyal and law-abiding citizens.

Some time ago a young man said to me, "Why do we have so many laws and rules and regulations? Why can’t we just be free to do what we want to do? The Church teaches that man is that he might have joy, and that the greatest gift of God to man is free agency."

I tried to explain to him that everything in the universe, and the universe itself as organized by a divine Creator, is governed by laws, known as the laws of nature; and that we must have laws of the land, or of man, so that we might have order and protect the rights of mankind and punish those who infringe on the rights of others. I gave him several examples of what I was referring to. Then we talked at some length about the laws of God and how important it is that we keep his commandments.

Without going further into the details of our conversation, I should like today to deal with the majesty of law as it affects mankind. For the sake of this discussion let us divide it into three subheadings: First, the laws of nature; second, the laws of man, or the laws of the land; third, the laws of God as they pertain to our salvation and exaltation.


Now, regarding the laws of the land, or the laws of man, it is necessary that we be governed by laws, which are made not alone to curb the evildoer, but to protect the rights of all. Let me quote from the Doctrine and Covenants:

"We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

"We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

"We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign." (D&C 134:1–3.)

Our Twelfth Article of Faith [A of F 1:12] states: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

It is most important that all citizens be informed in matters of government; that they know and understand the laws of the land; and that they take an active part wherever possible in choosing and electing honest and wise men to administer the affairs of government.

There are many who question the constitutionality of certain acts passed by their respective governments, even though such laws have been established by the highest courts in the land as being constitutional, and they feel to defy and disobey the law.

Abraham Lincoln once observed: "Bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible; still, while they continue in force, they should be religiously observed." This is the attitude of the Church in regard to law observance. We agree with the author of the following statement:
"In reality the man who defies or flouts the law is like the proverbial fool who saws away the plank on which he sits, and a disrespect or disregard for law is always the first sign of a disintegrating society. Respect for law is the most fundamental of all social virtues, for the alternative to the rule of law is that of violence and anarchy." (Case and Comment, March/April issue, 1965, p. 20.)

There is no reason or justification for men to disregard or break the law or try to take it into their own hands. Christ gave us the great example of a law-abiding citizen when the Pharisees, trying to entangle him, as the scriptures say, asked him if it were lawful to give tribute money unto Caesar. After asking whose inscription was on the tribute money, and their acknowledgment that it was Caesar’s, he said: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s." (Matt. 22:21.)

It is the duty of citizens of any country to remember that they have individual responsibilities, and that they must operate within the law of the country in which they have chosen to live. I quote further from the Doctrine and Covenants:

"We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience." (D&C 134:5.)

How on earth can we be justified in baptizing people who so obviously don't respect the laws of man ordained by God and who lie, steal and deceive continually?

Utah Legislature Opposes Amnesty

Utah Legislatures Oppose Immigration Act

Key Utah Legislators oppose The Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of 2007
As Legislators in the Utah House of Representatives we stand together to call upon our Senate and Congressional delegation to oppose the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act which the senate will be hearing this week.

This so-called “Immigration Reform” highlights the failure of our federal government, to protect our sovereign rights as a country. Instead of enforcing the current laws passed by Congress and signed in 1996, the current Congress seems determined to vote on new laws that will most likely not be enforced. It is truly government at its worst.

(Yup it's a true kakistocracy)

The Border Security and Immigration Reform Act is nothing more than an all out blanket amnesty bill. The law is aimed at giving a complete, quick and lawful status to those who have broken our country’s laws, does the rule of law mean nothing anymore?

(Uh yeah, good question to all you LDS out there who think that illegals should be baptized and all you leaders of the Church who answer the question: Should illegals be baptized with: "their illegal immigrant status is not a matter for the Church, it's a matter for civil authority," which is of course a complete crock. It's not like you're unaware of their status. Civil authority in this case means police and federal border partol agents because these are criminals. Would you Church leaders answer the same question regarding a citizen of this country who wants to be baptized but who you are aware has committed theft and is planning to do so repeatedly? This is a fit baptismal candidate? Is that also a matter for civil authority? If so, distinguish it. It seems to me that people who come here illegally are guilty of federal crimes compounded by dishonesty in a host of ways and take benefits and jobs they are not entitled to. It is lying, theft and general dishonesty. For the Church to wink at illegals as though it is not a matter of worthiness is for the Church to act as a respecter of persons where some people are not required to be law abiding but others are. This is reminiscent of Animal Farm: "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others." No. I grew up in the Church. I read scripture and I understand the 12th Article of Faith. With regard to the "civil authority" answer and speaking as a former LDS Chruch leader that is a pile of horse puckey.)

We reject such amnesty, as a reward for those who have lied, cheated and broken the rules to get into our country. Such a plan gives preference to those who have violated the law over those who have followed the law and patiently await legal entrance into the United States. The message we are sending is that if you break the law you will be rewarded.

(I reject it too and note that unlike those who take the steps to come here legally, the illegals demonstrate a complete disrespect for our country, its laws and people.)

As Utah legislators, we must continually deal with the complete and utter failure of the federal government to secure our borders and enforce our current laws. It is incomprehensible that Congress would propose another amnesty plan after the dismal failure of the 1986 amnesty that has helped lead us to this point.

(Well here you guys have yourselves to blame, at least in part. If you felt this way then why accord these outlaws driving privileges? Instead, just deport them which is what ought to happen anyway.)

A recent estimation in regards to the cost of amnesty and earned citizenship for just 7.9 million amnesty recipients would be $2.4 trillion, a cost that must be born by the American taxpayer. It is unconscionable that any legislator could vote for a measure of this magnitude without knowing and debating all the costs involved.

(Massive entitlements given their Gadianton Robber like attitudes, isn't it? )

The Border Security and Immigration Reform Act has a few quality ideas which may help alleviate the current immigration problem, unfortunately most of the bill is corrupted with ideas such as amnesty and rewarding those who blatantly broke our laws. If this bill passes, we will never again be able to say to our children and grand-children that cheaters never win. It is our belief that no responsible elected official would consider voting for this fraud which is being offered as “comprehensive reform” in the U.S Senate.

Build a fence, keep them out. Deport all you can find over a 20 year period.

Friday, June 1, 2007

When the GOP Comes Asking for Money

I have to admit to a good deal of annoyance with the GOP fund raisers over the past several years. For years it had control of the Presidency, the House and the Senate. Still I would get these calls at home asking me for contributions to ensure passage of this or that.

It seemes to me that they had control of the entire executive and legislative branches. It didn't need money to ensure passage, it needed a backbone.

Today in the paper I read that donations to the GOP are down 40% because of its position on illegal immigration. In my lifetime I have never witnessed such a massive disconnect between the ruling elite -senators, congressmen, the president and WE the People. The will of the people is eminently clear: WE WANT ENFORCEMENT FIRST. WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN ANY SORT OF AMNESTY, EVER. WE WANT ILLEGALS EXPELLED AND IMMIGRANTS COMING HERE TO HAVE TO LEARN ENGLISH. WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT 100 MILLION OF THEM COMING HERE.

So since politicians only ever listen to money $$$$$ here is what I urge you to do. When the GOP solicitor calls looking for a donation print out and send in the bill on this page. It can only help.

Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Illegal Aliens as Terror Tools

Excerpt From:

Terrorist plot in Cherry Hill, NJ; illegal aliens among alleged plotters; a John Doe turned them in;

By Michelle Malkin · May 08, 2007 08:26 AM

Soldiers at Fort Dix: Targeted by jihadists

Update: The names of the suspects via one of the filed complaints: Dritan Duka (illegal alien); Eliver Duka (illegal alien); Shain Duka (illegal alien) Serdar Tatar (the pizza deliverer...his family owns a pizzeria near Ft. Dix) Mohamad Shnewer; Agron Abdullahu. According to CBS News, Shnewer is from Jordan and is the lone (naturalized) U.S. citizen of the six; Tatar, from Turkey, and Abdallahu, from the former Yugoslavia, are legal permanent residents. The illegal alien Duka brothers are also from the former Yugoslavia.

The plotters watched videos of armed attacks on US soldiers, studied the last will and testament of at least two of the 9/11 hijackers, and watched bin Laden exhortations to jihad. They plotted with an FBI informant. They trained, stocked up on weapons, and plotted for the next six months. At one point, they contemplated joining the military to wage jihad from the inside:

Update: Fort Dix responds:
"Security at Fort Dix remains stringent in the wake of arrests Monday of six men who were allegedly plotting a terrorist attack on the post. This alleged attack is a reminder that we are a nation at war, and that each of us must be vigilant and aware of our surroundings.

"On a positive note, the Fort Dix and McGuire AFB law enforcement community has partnered with the FBI and local communities during this lengthy investigation to ensure the safety of our joint installations. "Mobilization and training continue as scheduled at Fort Dix, which has mobilized and demobilized more than 95,000 Soldiers since September 11. "Those passing through checkpoints onto Fort Dix will notice more frequent vehicle searches and strict adherence to a 100 percent ID check, which may slow traffic. "


The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the FBI arrested five people in Cherry Hill and one in Pennsylvania last night for an alleged plot to kill soldiers at Fort Dix, a federal official said. Some of the six men, who are Algerian [Albanian] citizens, tried to purchase automatic weapons from a local gun dealer, the source said. Carolee Nisbet, a public information officer at Fort Dix, said: "I understand that they weren’t just targeting Fort Dix, that it was a multiple-base plan to attack several bases in the Northeast.” She declined to elaborate. At the base this morning, Nisbet said: “They are going to make the security procedures more stringent, but we’re not going to increase the threat level. We are just going to make people more aware of their surroundings. WNBC-TV in New York reports that three of the men are brothers and followers of Islam, and have lived in the United States for several years. Five of the men are expected to be arraigned in federal court in Camden today.

In a statement released this morning to confirm a report on The Star-Ledger's Web site, the U.S. Attorney's Office said the men planned to "kill as many soldiers as possible."
Officials would not comment beyond the brief statement. But two law enforcement sources said the men had conducted surveillance of the Army base and were caught allegedly attempting to purchase AK-47s to carry out their plan.

The bust came after several of them were lured to a meeting with an arms-seller who turned out to be a secret FBI informant, said both sources, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the arrests.

Some of the would-be attackers have been illegally in the United States, while others are illegal immigrants, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. Four are ethnic Albanians, one was born in Turkey, and a sixth was born in Jordan, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. "

Yeah Bennett's legislation is a truly wonderful idea. :p Isn't it great that religious organizations can aid and abet illegal aliens (who their supporters say are just here doing jobs that most American's simply won't do plotting terror activities, robbing, raping and murdering) ? I bet that every LDS person reading this must feel so proud that Bennett has exposed us all to increased terroristic danger and in the process linked the Church to it; all because he felt bad for all those outlaws overrunning the border down South. It all makes me wonder whether there isn't some reasonably enforceable law that could have prevented some of these plotters from being here? Come to think of it there is, it's called: Federal Immigration Law. Why would LDS people want to associate or be linked in any way with encouraging outlaws or terrorism?

I'll say it again, people whose first act upon entering our country is commission of a felony and who then continue and compound it with chronic lies, false identities and general deceit aren't here because they love either truth or this country. They shouldn't be baptized or given temple recommends. The Church should absolutely disavow any connection to or use of, Bennett's foolish legislation and get back to urging compliance with and obedience to the law of the land which serves to protect us all.

Now as to why the outlaws are really here:

A Sad Parallel... I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food. But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue. Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table...everywhere. Then some of the birds turned mean: They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket. And others birds were boisterous and loud: They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food. After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore. I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio. Soon, the back yard was like it used to be...quiet, serene and no one demanding their rights to a free meal. Now lets see...our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care, free education and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen. Then the illegals came by the tens of thousands. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families: you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor: you child's 2nd grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English: Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to press "one" to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than "Old Glory" are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties. Maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

LDS and Illegal Aliens or as I like to call them, "outlaws."

Tom Tancredo Gets It While Bennett Is A Moron

Notice I said "moron," not Mormon. Bennett is probably a Mormon too, unfortunately for the rest of us in the Church. In this regard he's about as patriotic as Harry Reid a notorious coward and LDS anti-patriot.

Note the flags to the right. This was done by Reconquista types in Maywood, California at the U.S. Post Office. It's symbolic of the love illegals have for our Nation.......

Press Releases :: April 11, 2007
Carlos Espinosa 202-225-7882; T.Q. Houlton 202-225-7882

Tancredo to Block Religious Groups from Harboring Illegal Aliens
Congressman will reintroduce legislation to close Sen. Bennett’s immigration loophole
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) today criticized a loophole in U.S. immigration law that was quietly created by U.S. Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) in 2005. The “Bennett Loophole” created a broad exemption that allows religious organizations to knowingly transport, aid, abet and harbor illegal aliens.

Bennett must have lost his mind if he can't see the danger here. Muslim groups in this country already use Mosques harboring illegal aliens to seek terroristic opportunity. Albany NY and Buffalo have had such notable incidents. This begs the following questions: Why on earth do we as a church want to participate in any way in lawlessness? Why aren't we all about compliance with the law? Why should we send outlaws on missions, baptize them or give them temple recommends? The rest of us are required to be law abiding citizens why not illegal aliens?

“Allowing this law to remain on the books encourages terrorist networks disguised as religious groups to hide behind this ill-advised provision of law,” Tancredo said. “Does it really make sense to allow Imam’s and Mosques in this country a blank check to transport or harbor foreigners in this country illegally?”

Yeah well I think Tancredo is being way too nice here. It's not so much that there are Muslim terrorist groups disguised as religious groups as that Islam itself is simply a vast terrorist organization. It's own scripture demands it and with no central authority it's easy to see why terrorism follows Islam like stink follows a skunk.

Tancredo, who was extremely critical of the provision in 2005, renewed his criticism of the “Bennett Loophole” amid news reports that a number of churches in Los Angeles, Chicago and elsewhere are intentionally acting as sanctuaries for illegal aliens. The high profile case in Chicago of illegal alien Elvira Arellano and her son, Saul, is an example of the abuses the “Bennett Loophole” allows.

Yes and these aren't benign U.S. citizen wannabes, they are reconquista types.

In fact the “Bennett Loophole” has spurred Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles to begin a sanctuary movement within religious organizations. First by instructing his priests and lay employees last year to ignore the U.S. House’s immigration bill (HR 4437) if passed into law, and then inspiring an L.A. church to begin construction of an on-site facility designed to harbor illegal aliens facing deportation for violating federal immigration laws.

That cardinal ought to be arrested and summarily tossed into a Mexican prison. What a jerk! Why isn't this just overt political activity implicating the tax exempt status of the Church?

After Tancredo raised objections to the provision in 2005, the House passed legislation that would have closed the loophole. The legislation died, however, after the Senate failed to consider it. Sen. Bennett’s law was passed as part of the Agriculture Appropriations bill in 2005. The Senator claims he authored the far-reaching provision to assist the Mormon Church in utilizing illegal alien missionaries and volunteers. Representative Tancredo plans to reintroduce the legislation next week when Congress is back in session.

Just great :p Now the LDS Church is directly linked to outlaws and terror threats.

Tancredo concluded, “This law has set a dangerous precedent by giving terrorists a tool to attack the United States. No organization – religious or not – can be permitted to disregard our immigration laws and endanger public safety.”

Speaking of Tools, Mr. Bennett (hopefully Bennett is not LDS but I get the sinking feeling that he is) needs to get a clue by four upside his vacuous head.

Institutional Cognitive Dissonance

Here are some articles on the topic with some commentary:

LDS faithful wrestle with illegal immigration
Richard de UriarteThe Arizona Republic Jun. 4, 2006 12:00 AM

It is hardly surprising that the main sponsor of the Arizona Legislature's get-tough immigration measure is the indomitable Russell Pearce, a state representative from Mesa. Pearce has been the face of the anti-immigrant movement across Arizona - co-author of Proposition 200 in 2004 and a vocal proponent of putting both a fence and National Guard troops along the border. But before that measure ultimately passed and was sent on to the governor, several fellow Republican lawmakers rose in dissent, countering with a more modest and less costly measure, one that didn't call for the state to finance a radar fence along the border or pay for the National Guard. The alternative legislation also dropped language making Arizona's undocumented immigrants guilty of felony trespass. Two of those who challenged the Pearce proposal within the House GOP caucus were state Reps. Bill Konopnicki of Safford and Lucy Mason of Prescott who, like Pearce, are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In an arena in which political shorthand becomes etched in stone, Mormons in Arizona have long been subject to a stereotype, an unspoken but well-established caricature: hard right, Republican, usually East Valley, voting in lockstep, with outsized influence within the state Legislature and in the Republican Party. But the stereotype is overly broad, masking significant differences among individuals with varying life experiences, governing philosophies and personal styles. The controversy over immigration from Mexico has been vexing to several major American religions, revealing ethnic fissures among Catholics, Protestants and other denominations across America. This is not at all new in American history. But disagreements among Mormons strike us as unusual somehow. The LDS Church is a strongly structured operation, after all. As one member says, "If LDS President (Gordon B.) Hinckley declared all men should wear lime-green striped pants, I might find it strange, I might mutter to myself, but I would wear lime-green striped pants." The church itself has steered away from doctrinal pronouncements on immigration. "On this immigration issue, we don't have clear doctrine," says Kevin DeMenna, a prominent legislative lobbyist and LDS member of the Phoenix Biltmore Ward, a geographic church subdivision. (Uh yeah ....well that might be because it isn't a matter of doctrine.)

So individual "saints" can go their own way. And as a result, striking differences in policy reveal themselves, for example, between lawmakers here and those in Utah, where 70 percent of the population and 75 percent of the voters are Mormon. In Utah, for example, the Legislature created a driving-privilege card last year so the state's estimated 95,000 undocumented immigrants could legally operate motor vehicles. How could this be?

(That's a good question. Off-hand I would say it's because the legislature in Utah seems to be full of twits who evidently don't see the problem with granting entitlements and rights to people who are manifestly hostile to law and order.)

Those same Utah Republican lawmakers approved an in-state tuition rate for non-citizens last year. Really. What gives? Even with the increasing national political backlash, Utah laws and practices remain rooted in a curious mixture of compassion and pragmatism compared with Arizona, where citizens adopted Proposition 200 in 2004 and state lawmakers have opted almost exclusively for punitive and restrictive measures.

(That would be because Utah isn't Arizona so it doesn't suffer from these outlaws to nearly the same degree Arizona does. But why anyone LDS or otherwise would accord driving privileges to outlaws is quite beyond me. )

Contrasting visions

But even here, Russell Pearce's is not the only LDS voice on immigration. Maricopa County Supervisor Don Stapley says he is "baffled" by the strong anti-immigrant positions of his fellow East Valley elected officials. "I am opposed to criminalizing undocumented immigrants," he says.

O.K. Don, why would you be opposed to state criminalization? It's already a federal crime. But I do admire your blithe politically correct slide by: "undocumented immigrants;" which is sort of like calling a rapist an "unexpected lover." Incidentally, Don these folks aren't undocumented, they have plenty of documents it's just that they are forged:

Section 1325. Improper entry by alien
" (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of - (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection. Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed."

It's absolutely not merely a civil matter, it's a federal crime. We don't arrest and imprison for civil matters in this country with the exception of contempt of court and the reason we arrest and imprison there is because the party found in contempt has the key to the cell and can open it at any time by voluntarily purging the contempt.

Illegals are by law committing criminal violations punishable by imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison (anything more than 1 year is a felony). Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions of the offense.

And he is "concerned" about the current round-'em-up efforts of County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. "They're not necessarily headed in the right direction."

(Spare me Stapley, as long as the outlaws are headed back across the border they are necessarily headed in the right direction.)

As an officer in the National Association of Counties, Stapley brokered a bipartisan compromise resolution on immigration that won praise from Democrat Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, a visible immigrant rights activist. And U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake, who represents a large swath of the East Valley in Congress, has taken what is arguably Arizona's most gutsy, or foolhardy, position by co-sponsoring the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill in the House, with its "path to citizenship." It earned him a Republican primary challenger in 2004. Flake admits his bill, scorned as amnesty by critics, has made for some uncomfortable moments at district GOP meetings. But he has no regrets. "Ultimately, good policy is good politics," he says. "Sure, we need to enforce our laws, but we need to have laws we can reasonably enforce.

So when our borders are overrun with outlaws and invaders to the degree that the police can't stop them all we decide to just turn the country over to the outlaws???

Where on earth are your cajones?

Where is the evidence that the law can't be reasonably enforced?

Just because a lot of Mexicans choose to violate the law and we don't catch them all?

By this moronic standard we should never, ever prosecute anyone on drunken driving or drug charges because we have seen clearly nationwide the failure of the "war on drugs," which drugs and alcohol are freely available everywhere and DWI arrests expanding every year.

Just because we have a lot of non-citizen outlaws violating the law doesn't mean the law can't be enforced.

Some laws conflict with the reality of the American economy. They need to be modified. (Um no, rather it is that some people conflict with the requirements of American law and they need to be corrected.)

"These contrasting visions of Mormons are anchored in the LDS faith, shaped by personal experiences and political realities. State Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, an ally of Pearce, explains her position in clear, carefully reasoned phrases. "Obeying the law is a core principle of the LDS Church," she says. "This isn't just a nice thought or a reasonable idea." She cites the church's 13 Articles of Faith, one of which states: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law." That simple tenet, obeying the law, resonates among those LDS lawmakers like state Rep. Laura Knaperek, R-Tempe. It strikes a chord with much of the American public, as well. But other spiritual sentiments tug at policymakers, especially Mormons like Konopnicki, Mason, Stapley, Flake and St. Johns Democrat Jack Brown. The church's worldwide proselytizing mission, for example, has won more converts in Mexico and Latin America than on any other continent. (So what? What entitles non-member criminals to overrun the border or members to commit crimes here with impunity?)

"My faith is at the core of my beliefs, and it dictates that we are all God's children. We should not discriminate," Stapley says, adding that he has shied away from the harsh, restrictionist policies. "It is not consistent with biblical Scripture or the Book of Mormon."

(Beg to differ. The Book of Mormon and Bible contain strong teachings about the right to sovereignty, the need for law and order and both condemn the outlaw mentality and practice expressly. Besides, nobody is discriminating except with regard to criminal behavior. It is absolutely correct to discriminate against criminals and outlaws it is the whole point of law to begin with. )

The book is the faith's companion scripture to the Old and New Testaments. Jeff Flake doesn't think his religion has much to do with his own views on immigration. He harkens to growing up on a ranch in northeastern Arizona. "We had illegals working on the ranch and farm. It wasn't against the law to employ them at the time, and I would see them hide when the Border Patrol would come." (O.K. why were they hiding then if it was perfectly legal? Oh, wait now I see, you mean to say that while you weren't breaking any laws by hiring them, they were breaking laws by being hired. Isn't that a truly special distinction?)

Back then, before the border turned to such a forbidding place, Mexican nationals would come and go with the seasons and holidays. "I've never been able to get angry at a father who crosses the border to feed his family," Flake explains. "We have benefited from the immigrants who take the jobs we would not do ourselves. We have allowed the situation to become what it is."

Where to begin with this horse pucky? First of all, it isn't a matter of jobs Americans won't do as the meat packing plant round-ups and deportations followed by actual citizens seeking those jobs in lines stretching around the block clearly demonstrated. Second, the benefit historically has been from LEGAL immigrants, not illegal ones. You know, people who came here because they wanted dearly to be U.S. citizens whatever the hurdles and did what was necessary within the law to become citizens.

But outside of that and from a purely LDS perspective it sure as heck ought to have a lot to do with whether or not we allow them to be baptized (if we do) while they are illegal aliens. Lawlessness in this regard is dishonesty.

Want some doctrine? O.K. here it is: Repentance comes before baptism as a fundamental matter of doctrine.

An individual choice to violate the laws of the land is a choice to do wrong. In this case it's a choice to commit a federal crime. If they are being baptized it would be more accurate for them to wear a CTW than a CTR ring. What the government's stance is with regard to enforcement of existing law should not have anything to do with how the Church views personal decisions to violate criminal statutes -if we baptize outlaws without repentance we are tacitly saying that violation of federal criminal statutes is not wrong. Contrast that fact with these words:

President Marion G. Romney in “The Rule of Law,” Ensign, Feb 1973, 2 said:“The law of Christ” is all-inclusive. It concerns not only rules that shall govern beyond the grave, but also the law of nature here and now-local, national, and international. Latter-day Saints should strictly obey the laws of the government in which they live. By our own declaration of faith we are committed to do so, for we declare to the world that “we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” (A of F 1:12.) This we do in harmony with the Lord’s command: “Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land. “Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.” (D&C 58:21-22.) “Civil authority is of divine origin. It may be more or less adapted to the needs of man; more or less just and benevolent, but, even at its worst, it is better than anarchy. Revolutionary movements that aim at the abolition of governmentitself are contrary to the law of God. …” (Doctrine and Covenants Commentary [Deseret Book Co., 1954], p. 339.) When the “rule of law” breaks down in a family, a community, a state, or a nation, chaos reigns.”

In light of President Romney's remarks which are fully consonant with my understanding of membership requirements, it seems very clear that at a minimum potential members of the Church ought to be showing by walk and talk as the D&C states that they are worthy of it.

With their first act upon entering our country being a federal crime subsequently compounded by chronic violation including dishonesty in a host of ways as it continues, their actions don't exactly inspire me to believe that they are going to take the laws of God any more seriously than they take the laws of the land. Blatant, purposeful, chronic lawlessness doesn't seem to be consistent with membership in the Church.

This one would be just a hoot were it not so discouraging:

Hispanics get LDS assurance over license bill

By Carrie A. MooreDeseret Morning News

Hispanic political leaders met Thursday with representatives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for assurance regarding the church's neutral position on a bill dealing with illegal immigration.
(Why the Church should be neutral with respect to member's compliance with the law of the land is a question not answered. Why the Church should be neutral even with regard to the general concept of obedience to law by all within a country's borders regardless of their faith is also a curiosity. And such a sought assurance stands in contradiction to the expectations the Church has articulated in the past regarding the rule of law and in particular the conduct of its own members warning them to not only be law abiding but also to avoid even civil disobedience. )

Tony Yapias, (official state immigration moonbat) director of the state's Office of Hispanic Affairs, said he and other Hispanic leaders met for two hours with public affairs representatives of the church after a firestorm of accusations erupted earlier this week on Capitol Hill. Some conservative lawmakers have been pushing passage of a bill that would limit the ability of illegal aliens to get a Utah driver's license. (limit?? how about prohibit?) A member of one group pushing the measure said earlier this week that illegal aliens are breaking the law, (which in fact they are.) and as a result those who are members of the LDS Church should have their recommend to attend LDS temples taken away by their church leaders.

He's absolutely right about that. One of the questions in a Temple Recommend Interview is: "Do you strive to be honest in your dealings with your fellow men?" Illegals cannot possibly be striving for that since their illegal status requires them to strive to cover up their status to the government. Lying and deceit are part and parcel of being illegal and many of them have and possess forged identity documents allowing them also to deceive their employers which is a separate crime. No illegal aliens ought to be attending the temple. It's absurd and goes as far back as Jesus Christ: "Render to Caesar." Another Temple recommend interview question is: Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been cleared up with priesthood authority but have not been? -or words to that effect. How is this to be answered by an illegal: "well just the little thing about my committing an ongoing federal crime and lying and deceiving employers and others on a chronic basis. But it's all good because it's not really about choices I have made it's about my nationality?"

"We were assured by the church that the members don't need to worry about temple recommends, that they're issued on the basis of personal worthiness and not nationality," Yapias said.

Well what do you know? evidently personal worthiness is now unrelated to personal decisions about whether or not to obey the law because of a person's nationality.

"This won't be something bishops or stake presidents are going to be asking about" regarding immigration status.

Why not?? There certainly ought to be bishops and stake presidents worried about their congregations being whited sepluchres. Thankfully at least the police in LA are finally getting at the sort of people we are talking about:

The remarks made on the Hill sparked anger (What business do "Latinos" have getting angry about this? Illegals aren't citizens, they don't participate in the political process and at best are outlaws in our land. To the extent "Latinos" (presumably citizens) have any anger at all it ought to be directed at the government corruption in the home land of the illegals which is causing them leave. Illegals themselves (likely part of this "Latino" group) can take their anger and stuff it.) and fear among some Latinos that somehow the church was involved in the legislation or was trying to send a message through informal channels. A press conference called Thursday morning by the Mexican Consulate at the State Capitol on the issue included a statement from an LDS spokesman, who clarified that the church is not supporting the bill. Great. Now Mexico is interfering not only in our federal affairs but also in the affairs of state governments.

Yapias said he was gratified by the symbolic nature of the move. "We have the utmost respect for their courage. That in itself was a tremendous boost for morale, making the statement the spokesperson made. We couldn't have asked for anything more."

And there it is: He's happy because from his perspective the Church is facilitating lawbreaking and making illegals feel like their behavior stands uncondemned by Church authority. Well I for one as and LDS person condemn their behavior and in absolute terms. These are not refugees nor people coming here because they love the U.S. We have the right to keep them out and we should, absolutely. Yes I am LDS but I am also a patriot. Rule of Law matters. Sovereignty matters. President Romney was 100% correct.