Thread: Church Leaders Pitch Comprehensive Immigration Reform Plan

While I was looking for information that I have received from Liberty Counsel I found the e-mail below. Just listen to this they sound like our heros back then. They were all reved up about dealing with the legal issues regarding illegal immigration. http://www.libertyaction.org/8081/offer.asp?13910545

What has taken place during the past three years to make this organization spin 180 degrees.

I would be interested to know how many of you think it was acceptable for them to be addressing this issue back then based on the notion that enforcing the rule of law in every case serves to contribute towards protecting all Constitutional rights.

And if you don't think it was acceptable for them to be addressing this issue I am interested in hearing why. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here.

Regardless, one word sums it up, betrayal.



---- Original Message -----
From: "Liberty Counsel" <alert@libertyaction.org>
To: <xxxxxxxxxxxx.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007
7:41 PM
Subject: ACLU defends "rights" of illegal aliens

Mathew StaverFounder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

xxxxx,

There is an untold story behind the current immigration crisis in our nation. I'm talking about the role the ACLU is playing in advancing the so-called "rights" of illegal aliens. The fact is, the ACLU is leading the charge to undermine your citizenship and hand your tax dollars over to those who are not even here legally. ACLU advances illegal alien agenda.

When Ted Kennedy was crafting his amnesty legislation, he invited the ACLU and other open border organizations to help! The ACLU helped write this amnesty bill! A look at the ACLU website says they are "one of the nation's leading advocates for the rights of immigrants, refugees and non-citizens." You read that right xxxx, "non-citizens"– which I'm certain includes the millions of lawbreaking illegal aliens who reside in the U.S. Also on its site they list more than a dozen staffers in two offices working for the ACLU's "Immigrant Rights Project." Frankly, they might as well call it their "Illegal Immigrant Rights Project". When Hazelton, Pa., passed some common-sense laws to uphold the rights of citizens and legal residents, the ACLU successfully filed suit to block those laws. The same happened in Spring Branch, Texas, Cherokee County, Ga., Escondido, Calif., Valley Park, Mo., and Riverside, N.J. In case after case, the ACLU is winning, defending the so-called "rights" of illegal aliens against the reasonable efforts of citizens to regain some control over the illegal immigration crisis. And here's the shocking part... The ACLU is virtually unopposed in the courts in its efforts to advance the illegal alien agenda!

Challenging the ACLU

xxxxxx, I intend on changing that. What is happening with the ACLU and the immigration crisis in our nation is why Liberty Counsel was established. I want to provide a voice in the public policy debate in defense of the rule of law and the rights of citizens. That is why we launched our "Secure Our Borders" petition this week.

But that's just the beginning. I want to fight the ACLU directly in court to stop their illegal immigration agenda. And I want to stand up for communities like Hazelton and others who are reeling because of ACLU attacks. That is why I have instructed my staff to mount a full-scale opposition to the ACLU's attacks on the rule of law and the rights of citizens -- principles that uphold the very foundations of our liberties.

xxxxxx, I need your help. I need you to stand with me when I battle the ACLU's radical, anti-American, pro illegal alien agenda.

Go here for more: http://www.libertyaction.org/8081/offer.asp?13910545 Special briefing on our "Flawed Immigration Policy"

If you can help with a tax deductible gift of any amount this month, I will give you immediate access to my newest briefing: "Flawed Immigration Policy Threatens America's Future." I'm very proud of this paper, and given the present situation we are facing in the Senate, I trust you will gain tremendous insight into how our illegal immigration crisis is attacking our values and ultimately threatening our liberties.

Liberty Counsel is uniquely prepared to take on the ACLU in this arena. We have directly challenged the ACLU in court on dozens of occasions, and have a very successful track record against them. Our team knows their tricks. But most importantly, we understand the essential link between our nation's godly heritage and upholding sound immigration policy. Thank you in advance for your help, and may God bless our land.

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

Related
Conservatives for CIR Conference Call - May 12, 2010 notes
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-1061704.html#1061704

Have all you church going folk ever considered advising your church that you are going to re-direct your weekly donation to a group that upholds American values like the rule of law, say Alipac?

Plain and simple folks -- we are a republic and a democracy. I challenge any religious leader and any illegal lover to put illegal aliens to a vote this November -- a National Referendum. I believe the People of this Nation will overwhelmingly say:

YES: Deport all illegal aliens and grant them NO citizenship, protect our borders, fine employers hiring any illegal $100,000 with prison time, remove incentives to illegals like licenses and welfare, enforce existing laws, no citizenship for children born to illegal aliens, remove American citizenship from those having dual citizenship.

NO - to any citizenship, guest worker permits, amnesty, open borders, tolerance of lawless illegals.

REPUBLIC VS. DEMOCRACY... MUST SEE...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIps ... r_embedded

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."

This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.

From The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Ameri ... emrep.html

Bottom line... democratic principals are what erodes away a Republic. Hard to believe...but true...

Originally Posted by Bettybb

Have all you church going folk ever considered advising your church that you are going to re-direct your weekly donation to a group that upholds American values like the rule of law, say Alipac?

Shouldn’t we all stand and work together on what we agree on about illegal immigration without attempting to incorporate other agendas? Wouldn't you agree that everyone here can play a constructive role regardless of their personal beliefs and affiliations?

The average Church member much like the average union member has lost control of their leadership who have in essence become detached elitists and now demonstrate their allegiance to power not principle. It is going to take time to reestablish these organizations now that the problem is being recognized.

Obviously amongst the Church going folks that you reference there are those who are somewhat balanced even by the standards of an atheist or the thread would have never been started in the first place. Also, not all of the Church going folk fellowship in denominations that support secular political involvement much less illegal immigration. And while the rule of law is one of the most fundamental of all American values it is certainly not the only one. As you know many Churches and their parishioners demonstrate genuine American values through their acts of charity and assistance for others. Regardless of what involvement various Churches may have with regards to the illegal immigration issue it is far from defining them and their contribution to the fabric of our society.

On the other hand is anyone aware of the American Atheist Organization, ACLU or ACORN operating a Charity Hospital, food bank or home for youth? Perhaps members of these organizations need to look at how they allocate their resources and support American Values.

Of course at the end of the day we should all unite as Americans and give to ALIPAC!

SoverignMan,

I was not criticizing church-going people at all, and I regret that my post could have been interpreted that way. That was not the intent.

All I was doing was making a suggestion.

Since Church leaders are playing politics, and per the polls their members do not agree with them, maybe anti amnesty folks who go to church should send their pro amnesty leaders a message by switching their donations. It would get the point across. I for one, if I were supporting an organization whose leaders were engaged in pro amnesty politics, would cease to support it. Of course, people are not going to stop going to church, but they sure could stop making that weekly donation.

I would guess the reason you don't have atheist hospitals etc is because very few atheists band together, and those very few that do, do not have weekly meetings. In fact, there are only a handfull of atheist organizations.

However, there are quite a few charitable foundations that I would guess were funded by atheists. I do not know this for a fact, but my guess is that Bill Gates, for one, is not religious. I do not know if there has ever been a study done on atheist giving, so I cannot say if it is more, or less, or about the save as for religious folks. But given my experience with fellow atheists, which,of course, is not scientific at all, I would say they are very generous with no only their time but their money when it comes to charitable causes.

I find it funny that these Church leaders CONSISTENTLY refer to illegal aliens as IMMIGRANTS. What could be more false than that? It's like calling a home invader a distant relative who was just visiting. They are so ridiculous and reprehensible. If they use the word immigrant, then they make it sound like people are prejudiced and intolerant. What a fiasco. It would be laughable if it wasn't such an expensive, tax-robbing issue.