Martin's Blog

MARTINEZ STATEMENT ON FAILURE OF IMMIGRATION BILL

2007-06-29T18:13:00.000-04:00

June 28, 2007 -

Washington - U.S. Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) today made comments following the Senate’s failure to invoke cloture on the immigration reform bill, S. 1639. Senator Martinez voted in favor invoking cloture. The vote failed 46 to 53.

The comment I’d like to explore: “I congratulate those who were successful; I also wish them well, as they now have a responsibility to tackle this problem.”

Dear Senator, I do not think your responsibility has ended - for example if you were to pull out of S.1639 those items that are truly in our National best interest and offer a new bill with just those items and leave out the Slave Labor / Amnesty clauses, you would not only look Republican again, you’d actually be doing a service to that country you love so much. Here are some “Keepers”:

TITLE I--BORDER ENFORCEMENT

Subtitle A--Assets for Controlling United States Borders

Sec. 101. Enforcement personnel.

Sec. 102. Technological assets.

Sec. 103. Infrastructure.

Sec. 104. Border Patrol checkpoints.

Sec. 105. Ports of entry.

Sec. 106. Construction of strategic border fencing and vehicle barriers.

Subtitle B--Border Security Plans, Strategies, and Reports

Sec. 111. Surveillance plan.

Sec. 112. National Strategy for Border Security.

Sec. 113. Reports on improving the exchange of information on North American security.

Sec. 114. Improving the security of Mexico's southern border.

Sec. 115. Combating human smuggling.

Sec. 116. Deaths at United States-Mexico border.

Sec. 117. Cooperation with the Government of Mexico.

Subtitle C--Other Border Security Initiatives

Sec. 121. Biometric data enhancements.

Sec. 122. Secure communication.

Sec. 123. Border Patrol training capacity review.

Sec. 124. US-VISIT System.

Sec. 125. Document fraud detection.

Sec. 126. Improved document integrity.

Sec. 127. Cancellation of visas.

Sec. 128. Biometric entry-exit system.

Sec. 129. Border study.

Sec. 130. Secure Border Initiative financial accountability.

Sec. 131. Mandatory detention for aliens apprehended at or between ports of entry.

Sec. 132. Evasion of inspection or violation of arrival, reporting, entry, or clearance requirements.

Sec. 133. Temporary National Guard support for securing the southern land border of the United States.

Sec. 134. Report on incentives to encourage certain members and former members of the Armed Forces to serve in United States Customs and Border Protection.

Sec. 135. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.

Subtitle D--Border Law Enforcement Relief Act

Sec. 141. Short title.

Sec. 142. Findings.

Sec. 143. Border relief grant program.

Sec. 144. Enforcement of Federal immigration law.

Subtitle E--Rapid Response Measures

Sec. 151. Deployment of Border Patrol agents.

Sec. 152. Border Patrol major assets.

Sec. 153. Electronic equipment.

Sec. 154. Personal equipment.

Sec. 155. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE II--INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 201. Removal and denial of benefits to terrorist aliens.

Sec. 202. Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed.

Sec. 203. Aggravated felony.

Sec. 204. Terrorist bars.

Sec. 205. Increased criminal penalties related to gang violence, removal, and alien smuggling.

Sec. 206. Illegal entry.

Sec. 207. Illegal reentry.

Sec. 208. Reform of passport, visa, and Immigration fraud offenses.

Sec. 209. Inadmissibility and removal for passport and immigration fraud offenses.

Sec. 210. Incarceration of criminal aliens.

Sec. 211. Encouraging aliens to depart voluntarily.

Sec. 212. Deterring aliens ordered removed from remaining in the United States unlawfully.

Sec. 213. Prohibition of the sale of firearms to, or the possession of firearms by certain aliens.

Sec. 214. Uniform statute of limitations for certain immigration, naturalization, and peonage offenses.

Sec. 215. Diplomatic Security Service.

Sec. 216. Field agent allocation and background checks.

Sec. 217. Construction.

Sec. 218. State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.

Sec. 219. Transportation and processing of illegal aliens apprehended by State and local law enforcement officers.

Sec. 220. Reducing illegal immigration and alien smuggling on tribal lands.

Sec. 221. Alternatives to detention.

Sec. 222. Conforming amendment.

Sec. 223. Reporting requirements.

Sec. 224. State and local enforcement of Federal immigration laws.

Sec. 225. Removal of drunk drivers.

Sec. 226. Medical services in underserved areas.

Sec. 227. Expedited removal.

Sec. 228. Protecting immigrants from convicted sex offenders.

Sec. 229. Law enforcement authority of States and political subdivisions and transfer to Federal custody.

Sec. 230. Laundering of monetary instruments.

Sec. 231. Listing of Immigration violators in the National Crime Information Center database.

Sec. 232. Cooperative enforcement programs.

Sec. 233. Increase of Federal detention space and the utilization of facilities identified for closures as a result of the Defense Base Closure Realignment Act of 1990.

Sec. 234. Determination of immigration status of individuals charged with Federal offenses.

Sec. 235. Expansion of the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transfer System.

TITLE III--UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS

Sec. 301. Unlawful employment of aliens.

Sec. 302. Employer Compliance Fund.

Sec. 303. Additional worksite enforcement and fraud detection agents.

Sec. 304. Clarification of ineligibility for misrepresentation.

Change SEC. 645. ADDRESSING POVERTY IN MEXICO to something that actually puts some pressure on Mexico to improve conditions instead of just giving them indirect Land Grants.

Of course if you do not continue your work with Border Security it will leave you that much more time to deal with the H-1B issues. I did note the subtle change in section SEC. 522. a.2.A “A) by striking `a United States institution of higher education (as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a))),' and inserting `an institution of higher education in a foreign country,’ “ - Wow that could have really picked up those H-1B Visas!

More to Watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqGBIHmv7jo

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act

2007-06-22T19:57:00.000-04:00

I blogged about this topic back on April 1, 2006 – yes April fools day because our government thinks its citizens are fools. Weeks before the Senate was about to vote on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S. 1348) I wrote my Senator, the honorable senator Mel Martinez. He unfortunately did not write back until AFTER the Senate was unable to force this poor excuse of legislation down the collective throats of the American workforce. I’ll spare you the complete reply I received (as I’m sure lots of Floridian’s had a chance to read their own copy) but I would like to highlight just a few items from that reply:

1 - “Delaying comprehensive reform does a disservice to America”

2 - “To do this, we must secure the border first. The first section of S. 1348 mandates that border security and worksite-enforcement benchmarks must be met before other elements of the legislation are implemented.”

3 - “However, physically securing the border will not solve the entire problem.”

4 - “To address the labor shortage in industries with a demonstrated need such as, the Florida Citrus and Hospitality Industries, a guest worker program will be implemented.”

I’d like to take these salient points in order and offer comment:

1 – How? Since masses are streaming into America unabated, along with H-1B workers (more on that later), and the main focus of S. 1348 is to bring in Slave Labor, how could delaying this “slegislation” do a disservice. If the honorable senator is referring to delaying the border security, well I’m getting to that right now…

2 – Secure the border first then the “other” elements of the slegislation are implemented! Can someone please tell me why we are negotiating with ourselves in some kind of schizophrenic parliamentary salsa? Why can’t and more importantly WHY DIDN’T our Slegislators offer up S. 123EBS – “Enact Border Security”. That’s it – see how simple, just do it! While this country is spending Billions and the Blood of our finest to supposedly protect its people, our Slegislators can’t find the right formula to pass a bill securing our borders unless it includes a slave labor clause – pathetic! There are tons of articles about Hezbollah working in Mexico (Google-It), so why since 2002 when the Department of Homeland Security was establish have we been unable to simply and competently “lock our door”? Talk about a disservice to America!

3 – Excuse me but it is one hell of a start, don’t ya think!?!?!

4 – Ahhhh we saved the best for last. Unless you know me well you really can’t appreciate how the words “Jobs Americans won’t do” (or as the honorable Senator puts it “To address the labor shortage in industries with a demonstrated need…”) makes me want to Jihad. I would like to think I made all the common sense points in my Blog of April 1, 2006 along with some they still haven’t thought about on Capital Hill but let me end this rant with two easy questions for all of the Sleigslators supporting S. 1348:

Over the past 5 years I’ve seen layoffs and outsourcing of thousands of jobs reported across this country, if not hundreds of thousands; can you please show me ONE business that shut down because they could not find workers?

During those past 5 years and all of those layoffs and all of those outsourcings I can’t remember ONE time the House or the Senate worked this hard to keep jobs in the USA. I can’t even remember them trying to pass ONE piece of legislation to “Save Jobs Americans Will Do…”

In closing this Blog-Rant let me address an earlier comment about the H-1B visa program. My honorable Senator Mel Martinez is also in favor of raising this cap, obviously the more the merrier. You can read about that from the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE):

Senator Mel Martinez's (R-FL) office sent an inexperienced junior staffer who was less receptive, abruptly attempting to cut short the conversation several times. She responded by restating that the Senator was "in favor of raising the cap" and she was not eager to explore IEEE-USA's solutions.

Be you a Senator or a working American I ask you to watch this short clip from a real American Hero

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsp2V3ifZjM

And this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU&NR=1

Global Warming

2007-03-04T10:56:00.000-05:00

It is time my blog is heard on this topic. When I first started hearing the term Global Warming I ran a report on the highest temperatures in US recorded history. I found that many still had not been reached in the last 5 years. I also remembered from my days in Ham Radio that Sunspot activity was going to hit peak cycles in the coming years. If you remember it made news a few years back when we were expecting interruption of radio and cell phone communications.

Now what surprised me was with all this talk of CO2 emissions causing Global Warming, I couldn’t find a single person talking about, referencing, or even questioning sunspot activity. I’ve yet to hear Al Gore comment on sunspots – with all of his knowledge of the sciences does he know they exist?

Well my wait is over and the facts are very interesting. N ational Geographic News is reporting a new study that shows both Earth and Mars are experiencing a warming. In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the "carbon dioxide ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Now it could be these “Man Made Probes” are also causing increased CO2 emissions on Mars – I think they are powered by Diesel!

The National Geographic article goes on to state:

“Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.”

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.”

Now what is even more interesting is a period in history known as the “Maunder Minimum”. What is it? Surely Al Gore told you about this in his Award Winning movie… The Maunder Minimum is the name given to the period roughly from 1645 to 1715 A.D. when sunspots became exceedingly rare. What is also interesting about this time is that the Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of the so-called Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America, and perhaps much of the rest of the world, were subjected to bitterly cold winters.

So just what am I saying? Should we rape the land and pollute the air? Should we not consider the effects of man on our planet? Of course not! But to have a “Scientific” debate about "Global Warming” and not consider that really big bright “Hot” ball in the sky that sometimes throws heated fast balls at us like an MLB pitcher on steroids seems to me to be at best dim and at worst disingenuous.

Feds cut off phone tax after 108 years

2006-09-04T10:15:00.000-04:00

Feds cut off phone tax after 108 years

A tax imposed in 1898 to help pay for the Spanish-American War was finally terminated this year (2006!). This is old news now as the event passed with little fan fair. Instead it should have been greeted with parades and fireworks. This 108 year old tax should give us some idea of taxes ratcheting effect. They go up but they rarely go down and that is why every American should be concerned with taxes and how they are used. Does anyone reading this think Governments (both local and federal) are running at their most efficient, stretching every procurement, stretching technology and otherwise making sure every dollar spent is maximized? Almost all tax payers have to do these tasks daily but this is not true of Government. There is no incentive for Government to save money or maximize its use of money. If a Government spends millions on a project they tout the accomplishment but how often are Governments praised for innovation that saves money and reduces your taxes? The system is so configured that if a Government decides to save ‘real’ dollars, not those fake ROI dollars, they inherit all the risk with little reward. A prime example is Open Source software. Some Governments are taking on this challenge yet while they will save real money, they inherit with it all the risk involved and fake ROI studies. But I digress, back to taxes…

The 1898 tax was designed as a tax on wealthy Americans, back when phone service was considered a luxury. (This is another example why ‘tax the wealthy’ is not a good idea but a consumption tax will provided a ‘natural’ way to obtain this desire.) Another like luxury tax was imposed on those wealthy enough to own cellular phones not long past. Of course today almost everyone owns one and everyone is paying those luxury type taxes. I live in Florida and our tax rate for cell services breaks down like this - State & Local 16.10%; Federal 6.05% making for a total tax rate of 22.15%! (Also applying in every state is a 6.05% federal levy composed of an excise tax and a fee that subsidizes service to low-income homes and remote areas).

Of course this high taxing does not just happen on Cellular phones, it happens on long distance services. I recently reviewed my land line long distance service fees and here is the break down:

Florida Communications Serv. Tax (Gross Receipts) [2.37%]

Local Communications Services Tax [6.32%]

FCC Common Carrier Regulatory Fee [0.26%]

Network Access Charge [17.9%]

Federal Universal Service Fund Charge [10.5%]

That totals 36.85%!!

Why is this happening? Many state and local governments consider new cell phone taxes necessary to recoup money lost from a drop in the number of standard wired phones. The number of wired phone lines nationwide fell from 167 million in 2000 to 132 million in 2004, the Federal Communications Commission reports cell phone subscribers rose from 109 million to 182 million during that time.

My state is in the “Top 10 Worst Wireless Taxed States”. In fact we are number 2! Now that’s something to be proud of… I wish there were a “Top 10 Most Innovative States to Lower Taxes” chart. I’d be proud to live in a state that was number 2 on that list! To learn more: http://www.stopaddingtomybill.com

To be fair my State doesn’t have a State Income tax and that would make one think Florida is probably one of the least taxed places to live. In fact we are 39 out of 50 in State taxes which is good but our federal tax burden is 16 out of 50. Our total combined State and Federal tax burden is 31%, compared to a national average of 31.5% - surprising isn’t it!

Florida
State-Local Tax Burden Compared to U.S. Average
(1970-2006)

Year	Total Tax Burden*	State Rank (1 is highest)
1970	0.298413	13
1971	0.293694	11
1972	0.302767	15
1973	0.294379	22
1974	0.291698	37
1975	0.274298	37
1976	0.283521	34
1977	0.28714	31
1978	0.291721	27
1979	0.294052	29
1980	0.290432	38
1981	0.294805	41
1982	0.293503	35
1983	0.282158	34
1984	0.285112	28
1985	0.291357	21
1986	0.295816	19
1987	0.305325	19
1988	0.304423	20
1989	0.301594	26
1990	0.297859	28
1991	0.296499	30
1992	0.29953	24
1993	0.302047	23
1994	0.309458	16
1995	0.311962	17
1996	0.319368	14
1997	0.327188	12
1998	0.331169	15
1999	0.329254	15
2000	0.3341	16
2001	0.323182	17
2002	0.295938	18
2003	0.288135	18
2004	0.288127	17
2005	0.303189	21
2006	0.309937	21
* May not add to total due to rounding.

Source: Bureau of Economic

Analysis, Department of

Commerce, and Tax Foundation

Calculations.

Care to see where your state ranks? Click HERE

Immigration Idiocy

2006-04-01T10:19:00.000-05:00

Immigration Idiocy

Undocumented workers, Guest Worker Program, Jobs Americans Won’t Do… Stop, Stop, just Stop It! If I hear one more obtuse phrase about this important issue I’m going to BlogOut. Ok let’s get on with this current rant…

First the disclaimer – this posting and the thoughts contained in it have nothing to do with the Mexican people (with the exception of Vicente Fox). I am fortunate to live across from land that is farmed and I know, and I see, just how hard “undocumented workers”…well work. If I was in their shoes I too would be working my way to America (of course I’d leave the flag of the dismal county I’m fleeing behind).

There are so many things wrong with this debate, and the people waging the verbal war on this topic, it is hard to know where to start. I’ll start with two people who simply don’t get it... for if they did each would be so embarrassed they’d be doing a “Permanent Presidential Perp Walk “; a coat over their heads every day. First we have Vicente Fox, President of Mexico. He is President of a country where the people are leaving in droves, risking death and incarceration, yet he apparently sees no problem. When asked about these illegal immigrants he responds with “they are not illegals!” … Umm, Ok Mr. President. Next we have Presidente El Bush, he is President of a country spending over 300 billion dollars in Iraq to secure us from terror (which includes trying to secure “their” border by the way), while guys in lawn chairs with binoculars have to protect our borders. When he is asked about illegal immigrants he responds with “they are doing jobs American’s won’t do!” … Ummm, Ok Mr. President. Why aren’t these guys embarrassed?

Do you remember NAFTA? It has been over ten years since NAFTA was signed and do you remember the promise? It wouldn’t hurt American jobs and it would help the economy of our neighbors…especially Mexico. Can we finally say NAFTA is a miserable failure or are 10-20 million Mexican’s fleeing their country a sign of success? I already noted that Mexican people are hard workers but Mexico itself is a fertile country. Some of its natural resources are petroleum, silver, copper, gold, lead, zinc, natural gas, and timber. It has a free market economy that recently entered the trillion dollar class. Its Oil Proven Reserves are over 46 billion barrels of oil (if my math is right that equals over 1.9 trillion gallons of gas), its Natural Gas Proven Reserves are over 420 billion cu m, it has over 66 billion in reserves of foreign exchange and gold, and it has 65,000 sq km of irrigated land… you know where you can grow crops that Americans won’t pick. The one resource Mexico lacks is the same one America needs – Leadership that cares about its own people.

Jobs American’s won’t do…. Since I was a little boy I’ve been told America was great because of capitalism, free market forces and the law of supply and demand. Those words are sacrosanct in the Republican Party (of which I am a former member) and yet on this one issue they are not content to let market forces prevail. If market forces were allowed to work (instead of illegal immigrants) then the price of a tomato would rise because you have to pay people more to harvest them and thus the labor force would benefit or people would stop eating tomatoes because of cost. The other option is someone invents a better way to grow and harvest tomatoes, just like we did for hay and cotton. But no, on this one issue market forces can not be trusted. When high paying jobs like automotive manufacturing and electronic manufacturing, two technologies America invented, were being lost then it was fine to let market forces work their magic. If it hurt American’s they would just have to retool, relearn and remake themselves; after all you don’t tangle with a free market – that is unless you are talking about saving the production of tomatoes. No, on this one produce item we simply must save an America resource… even if we have to bring in people to work at slave labor rates. Of course we aren’t simply talking about tomato picking jobs (does anyone really think we have 10-20 million people picking tomatoes and lettuce) but hotel workers, lawn care workers, and construction workers. I’m not sure where my President has been but I have to believe people do want these jobs! And even if people didn’t want these jobs, why isn’t the free market allowed to work – you know like it did for auto, electronic, and call center industries. Why now do we make a stand to keep an industry active in America? Why is Vicente given a pass by the press? Why has our President been trying to legalize illegal immigrants since his first year in office? When you can answer those questions for yourself you will have the key to this debate. (Hint: cheap labor and votes)

There are so many other issues involved like Security, Health Concerns, Over Burdened Hospitals, and Culture Shifts due to lack of Assimilation but I must close. The final irony is this, if you legalize illegal immigrants it means they will have to get minimum wage, and that is the first increase. If they are working hard, legal and living in this country as a citizen, it won’t be long before they will want more for their hard work. In effect legalized illegal immigrants will become the new American’s that won’t do these jobs!

An Open Letter to Rush Limbaugh

2005-11-02T10:11:00.000-05:00

An Open Letter to Rush Limbaugh

By Martin Zinaich; Tampa, Fl

Dear Rush,

In my humble opinion you are to be credited with the Conservative Coup that happened several years ago when the Republican Party gained control of the House, Senate and Presidency. You broadcasted out the marching orders from behind the “Golden EIB Microphone” and millions of loyal listeners executed those orders in hopes of a better America. The hope of a Reagan Republic was steeped in the hearts of millions.

What none of the loyal masses could see was that the Conservative Coup was a Liberal Trojan Horse, headed up by Neoconservatives whose very backgrounds are based and formed from liberal ideals. Worse yet the Doctor of Democracy, the Truth Detector and yes the Dean of the College for Advance Conservative Studies remains silent about this infiltration of the Conservative party. Not only do you remain silent about this departure from the Reagan Republic, you endorse, support and are an apologist for these Neoconservative ideas. In Bush’s first term you called Karl Rove a political genius. You promised your loyal listeners that if they stood the course there would be some sort of unexplained “reverse” of direction in the second term. That of course did not happen because the Bush philosophy is not unlike Bush the Elder, that of a “New World Order” Neoconservative.

Rush you have lost your intellectual honesty and sold it for tee time with the powerful. In years past you were often fond of saying that a Military is only used for two purposes; “…to kill people and to break things”. I have not heard those words depart from the “Golden EIB Microphone” in many years now. You may be tempted to respond at this point with the normal “...but that was pre 9/11”. I have to ask myself how Ronald Reagan would have responded to 9/11. While no one can know for sure, a logical guess would be much like he responded to Khadafi’s agents blowing up a Berlin discotheque. It was a measured response of cruise missiles aimed at the problem. Reagan did not respond with “Nation Building”. Which again begs the question, if our major Iraq problem was Saddam not complying with UN inspectors; I have to wonder why measured cruise missile attacks were not employed until compliancy was obtained. Clearly the Iraq war was a “Nation Building” Neoconservative goal, not a measured Conservative response.

The words “Tax and Spend” were also heard quiet often in days of old, coming from the “Golden EIB Microphone”. I now have to wonder which is worse; “Tax and Spend” or “Debit and Spend”. Logic would seem to dictate “Debit and Spend” to be worse because there is no pain involved during the process. You seem to be very silent on the current Administration’s big government spending. A recent CATO report based on revised data released during the summer by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), making a side-by-side comparison of the spending habits of each president during the last 40 years, shows that “George W. Bush is one of the biggest spenders of them all. In fact, he is an even bigger spender than Lyndon B. Johnson in terms of discretionary spending”. The report goes on to say “The increase in discretionary spending—that is, all non-entitlement programs—in Bush’s first term was 48.5 percent in nominal terms. That’s more than twice as large as the increase in discretionary spending during Clinton’s entire two terms (21.6 percent). [Bush] has presided over massive increases in almost every category…” Despite all of these facts, the “Golden EIB Microphone” remains silent.

I have to ask myself just what true Conservatives gained from this massive coup of government. Lets see... the biggest education bill in history, a 100 Billion (with a B) farm bill, $15 Billion (with a B) African Aid package, a $400 billion (with a B) Medicare prescription drug bill, and let’s not forget federalizing all airport screeners, creating huge new ineffective government agencies (when just fixing what was in place would have worked), trying to legalize all illegal aliens, and the never ending Iraq war! A recent report noted that “Corruption in Iraq under US-led CPA may dwarf UN oil-for-food scandal.” Reagan vetoed 23 bills in the first 3 years in office, Bush to date - zero! Worst of all, our republic goals have been transformed into imperialistic goals under these Neoconservatives and still the “Golden EIB Microphone” remains silent.

When confronted with some of these facts on your radio show your reply is always the same “…but where can we go?” That’s it? That is all from the “Dean of Advance Conservative Studies”? The masses of Reagan Republican’s do not have a “Golden EIB Microphone”; they rely on you to preach the values they believe in because it is what you once did in a past life. With your intellectual honesty almost depleted, our party being hijacked by Neoconservatives and our county being flown into the ground at super sonic speed; I think the time has come, yes even long past, for you to once again speak the truth. Reagan Conservatives and Reagan Democrats deserve better!

They sweat, we think

2005-10-21T10:10:00.000-04:00

I've been saying this for the past 10 years, when at the start of the Internet bubble everyone seemed to be "fine" with the US moving away from manufacturing and toward a "service" economy. I wasn't and I'm still not!

But Bill Bonner of the The Daily Reckoning said it better this week:

"Occasionally, the devil slips his leash and all hell breaks loose. It happened in the 14th century. It happened again in the 20th. For Europeans and Asians rarely was there a more dangerous or disagreeable time to be alive than during long stretches of the last century. They suffered the worst wars, the most deadly (at least in total numbers killed, the Spanish flu was the worst ever) epidemic, the worst famines (self-induced by the public officials in China and the Soviet Union), the most lethal governments (Nazi Germany, Communist China and the Soviet Union, Pol Pot's Cambodia...etc.), and arguably the worst art and architecture in history. Americans were spared the worst of these abominations and ended the century as the world's Alpha Race...its lead dog...its imperial people, taking over from the British after WWI and consolidating their position in the following decades. Like an ambitious undertaker, America practically rigged the traffic lights to cause accidents. But now something has fundamentally changed. The Anglo-Saxon Empire is, and always was, based on commerce. It succeeded by taking raw materials from the colonies, adding value by manufacturing, and reselling the products to the world. But the Aanglo-Saxons no longer make what the world wants to buy. Turn over any object at home or at the office and you are likely to find a "made in China," or "made in Malaysia," or "assembled in India," notice. Increasingly, America's old industries - such as G.M. and Kodak are going bust, unable to compete with Asian labor rates. Is this really a cause for worry? Many say it is not. They say that the real money is not made in manufacturing anyway, but in design, branding and marketing...or better yet, in finance! Mommas and papas throughout the developed world know this is true. They want their babies to grow up to work on Wall Street, not on assembly lines, so keenly that they sign the poor tots up for the right nursery schools, the right secondary schools and push them to get into the right universities...so they may take their places among the masters of the universe, rather than the wage slaves. We have spent the week wondering what magic these "sophisticated" businesses bring us. We wonder what they actually do that is of value, and how it can liberate a whole nation from the grind of having to get its hands dirty? "They sweat, we think," is now our national motto. We wonder, too, what magic makes it possible for us alone to do all the thinking? Is it merely the last conceit of an imperial people? Surely the Asians have had a thought or two. We are witnessing something remarkable; a great empire is rolling over. It is an opportunity for the devil; we wonder when he will show up."

One Nation Under God or Man?

2005-09-20T10:03:00.000-04:00

Seems like Mike Newdow has a problem with the word 'God'. Poor Mikey... well he is at it again and this is something I wrote last time he tired. (Sorry this is long)

One Nation Under God or Man?
July 4, 2002
by Martin Zinaich

As this country examines, and the high court rules on the phrase Under God I believe we are long over due for this self examination. Unfortunately scholarly minds across this great nation will take a vacation from reality instead. Reality given an open and honest review would suggest that even if you are one who has no belief in a deity but you are one who enjoys your freedom, then you too want everyone in America pledging that we are a nation Under God. You laugh, you scoff, you look down at me from your loftily intellectual fortress but will you take the time to examine this point?

First lets a look at the most misused, misapplied and misunderstood words in our founding papers
- Separation of Church and State. Would it surprise you to know that these words do not even appear in our founding papers? Many who use the words actually believe they are written in our constitution. Others who know the words are based on other like words have no idea just where to find them. These misquoted words are found in this country’s First Amendment. The actual words are “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... “. Many may argue that these words mean the same thing as Separation of Church and State, but those who do are simply wrong. How can I be so sure they are wrong? Well like so many discussions about the written word (the Bible being a prime example) one has to examine words in their context. You see the First Amendment does not talk solely about this issue. No, it continues “or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Yes that other often quoted right called Freedom of Speech is also contained in the same First Amendment. Now what can a logical thinking human conclude from that fact? Let us look at this from the Freedom of Speech angle. We protect who with this statement? If you say every American, you are correct. But protected from whom? The same answer, every American but more specifically those Americans that we have elected to office; in short the Government. Noting here that people in Government are still Americans and still have the same rights as everyone else, while called to a higher standard they are no less protected by the First Amendment. It should be easy to see that the First Amendment in total is limiting the governmental power over the people and NOT the other way around. That being said the so called Separation of Church and State clause is only making sure the government does not establish or prohibit the free exercise of a religion. It does not mean that the Government for example can not have free speech or have its own press, for these items we know it does currently possess undisputed. It also does not mean that the Government has to deny our heritage. While many would like nothing better and have a strong belief it should, they would be well advised to rethink this fateful position.

The same people who think it is fine that America is founded on Christian beliefs but think that our heritage should be just a thing of the past, expunged from school text books as it has been and generally ‘kept in the closet’ feel just the opposite when it comes to other issues like homosexual agendas, pornography and drugs. Christians are often accused of being hypocrites but many lay claim to this moniker. It is simply easier to call a Christian one because they openly have a written set of standards. Standards, which in a country founded on Christian principles, are constantly and un-apologetically attacked. On the other hand when ones standards can change on a whim then pinning the hypocritical tail on the donkey becomes a bit more difficult. The fact remains the same; this country was founded by Godly men to be a nation under the same. Time and space does not allow a full look at our humble beginnings but I feel a brief glance is warranted. Let’s jump back to the Separation of Church and State. Those words actually came from one of our founding fathers. In an 1802 letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson, then president, declared that the American people through the First Amendment had erected a “wall of separation between church and state.” The clear intention of his words (clear ONLY if you actually read his words in the context of the letter he wrote) was to simply assure the Baptists that they had no reason to ever fear being subjected to an established state church. Thomas Jefferson also had the following to say:
“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”—Thomas Jefferson, 1781, Notes on the State of Virginia.
“To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others.”—Thomas Jefferson from The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh
“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?”—Thomas Jefferson. This hardly sounds like the man many would try to paint as Thomas Jefferson.

I must at this point diverge to make a quick point. Those who are all so worried about the Separation of Church and State and who are constantly worried about our children being indoctrinated into the Christian faith should take note. The above lines (and others that are soon to come) are historical facts, yet I am willing to venture that you never have had occasion to read them, hear them or have any exposure to these quotes. If you are an adult then you went through a school system much more favorable toward our founding faiths and beliefs than our current anti-heritage school indoctrination camps and you still were not presented a full and accurate picture of our culture. In short, you can stop worrying!

So is our heritage important? Well let me ask you a question; are your past events important? Is it important how you were raised, what you were taught and what you believe? You know it is; our prisons, shelters and universities all are testaments to what a troubled past can deliver. Ok, maybe the university crack was a cheap shot...maybe. Simply put and always understated, the fact is that our country was founded on a belief in God. Our Declaration of Independence has not one but many references to God. “We hold these Truths to be se1fevident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” Note that the framers said that we are endowed by our Creator. Endowed means to be ‘given’ something, you can not be given something from nothing, nor can you be given unalienable Rights from someone who does not have the authority. This is really the pivotal point but I’m getting ahead of myself. Please also note the framers did not say “Men are endowed by a primordial soup...” Now the framers did talk about separation in the Declaration of Independence. In referencing their desire to dissolve their ‘political bands’ from the British Crown they wrote “the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature‘s God entitle them”. Now who could they be referring to when they wrote Nature‘s God? Don’t answer yet there is more; “Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions” and then there is “for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” Now for those of us with a public education, divine means heavenly and the definition of Providence used here is the protective care of God. Clearly these men were driven by and designed a country based on a belief in God. Let’s go back even further and look at the Pilgrims. After landing on this continent they wrote the Mayflower Compact adopted November 11, 1620. Here is the opening line “In the name of God, Amen”. But just why did the Pilgrims come here? They were a group of separatists fleeing from persecution by the Church of England. As for why they came here, let us read that from the Mayflower Compact. “Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith...” Again I’ll ask you to reflect on these words and try to remember if you have ever heard them before? Are they important historical words regarding the founding of our country? Just in case you are not fully convinced of our founder’s faith, let’s fast forward to the founders again. Here are some more of their quotes:

“Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits and to humbly implore His protection and favor. “—George Washington, First National Day of Thanksgiving.

“To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian.”—General George Washington, May 2, 1778, Valley Forge, PA

“And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”—George Washington, “Farewell Address,” 1796.

“Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue?”—George Washington, “Farewell Address,” 1796

“History will also afford the frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion, from its usefulness to the public; the advantage of a religious character among private persons; the mischief of superstition, and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modem.”—Benjamin Franklin, Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1749)

“And have we forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men.”—Benjamin Franklin, quoted by James Madison in “Notes on Debates in the Federal Convention of] 787.” Athens: Ohio University Press, 1985, Page 209.

“He who should introduce into public affairs the principles of Christianity will change the face of the world. “—Benjamin Franklin

“We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better that the builders of Babel.”—Benjamin Franklin as quoted by James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, Henry D. Gilpin, ed. (Washington: Langtree & O’Sullivan, 1840), Vol. II, p. 985.

“I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning...”—Benjamin Franklin, June 28, 1787, Constitutional Convention.

“If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?”—Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Thomas Paine (skeptic).

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”—President John Adams in his October 11, 1798 address to the Military.

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were...the general principles of Christianity…1 will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. “—President John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson by Thomas Jefferson. Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904. Vol. XIII pp. 292.294.)

“‘The Christian Constitutional Society,’ its object to be first: the support of the Christian religion; second: the support of the United States.”—Alexander Hamilton in 1802. Hamilton signed and voted to ratify the US. Constitution.

“Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birth-day of the Savior.”—John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request, on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4^th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 5.

“Almost all the civil liberty now enjoyed in the world owes its origin to the principles of the Christian religion.” AND, “...the religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and his apostles.” AND, “This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government. “—Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 300, Sec. 578.

“The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His Apostles.... This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.”—Noah Webster, History of the United States, 1832, public school textbook

“And to the same Divine Author of every good and perfect gift we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land.”—James Madison, 1815 Presidential Proclamation.

“The Christian Religion, in it’s purity, is the basis and the source of all genuine freedom in government.”—James Madison

“He is the best friend of Liberty who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind.”—John Witherspoon, “Sermon on the Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men, “May 17, 1776; quoted and cited by Varnum Lansing Collins, “President Witherspoon,” (New York: Arno Press and The New York Times, 1969), 1:197-198; quoted by John Eidsmoe, “Christianity and the Constitution: Faith of Our Founding Fathers, “ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 85.

“God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to support the establishment of both.”—John Witherspoon, “Sermon on the Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men, “May 17, 1776; quoted and cited by Varnum Lansing Collins, “President Witherspoon,” (New York: Arno Press and The New York Times, 1969), 1:197-198; quoted by John Eidsmoe, “Christianity and the Constitution: Faith of Our Founding Fathers, “(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 85.

“This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed .“—Patrick Henry, From a copy of Henry’s Last Will and Testament obtained from Patrick Henry Memorial Foundation, Red Hill, Brookneal, VA.

“That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.”—The Virginia Bill of Rights, Section 16, acknowledged by all to have been penned by Patrick Henry

“Let the children.. .be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education.”—Benjamin Rush, A Plan For Free Schools, 1787.

“The memory is the first faculty which opens in the minds of children. Of how much consequence, then, must it be to impress it with the great truths of Christianity, before it is preoccupied with less interesting subjects. “—Benjamin Rush, A Defense of the Use of the Bible in Schools, 1830

“Every just principle that is to be found in the writings of Voltaire is borrowed from the Bible; and the morality of Deists, which has been so much admired and praised where it has existed, has been I believe, in most cases, the effect of habits produced by early instruction in the principles of Christianity.”—Benjamin Rush, A Defence of the Use of the Bible in Schools, 1830

“It is an anti-Christian idea to suppose that it can be profaned by being carried into a schoolhouse, or by being handled by children.”—Benjamin Rush, A Defence of the Use of the Bible in Schools, 1830.

“A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another, even as I have loved you.” By withholding the knowledge of this doctrine from children, we deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their minds.”—Benjamin Rush, A Defense of the Use of the Bible in Schools, 1830.

Ok, Ok... I’ll stop but I could go on for many pages. Let me ask you another question, especially if you are acquainted with the law. Who said the following:

“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise, and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian. .These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”

Any guesses…Another one of those fanatical founding fathers? No, not this time, this time it came from the highly educated, the often quoted (selectively of course) Supreme Court! (Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States; 143 U S. 457, 471 (1892)). I know I said I would stop but here are a few other Supreme Court quotes:

“We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” AND, “When the State encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. “--12. Zorach v. Clauson; 343 U S. 306, 312-314 (1952).

“The Constitution (does not) require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.” Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger. Lemon v. Kurtzman, (403 US. 602 (1971)

And in the most recent ‘Under God’ case which has sparked much public opinion, including the words you are now reading, the court said:
We recognize that the Supreme Court has occasionally commented in
dicta that the presence of “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance
is constitutional. See Allegheny, 492 US. at 602-03; Lynch, 465
US. at 676, id. at 693 ‘O’onnor, J., concurring); Abington Sch. Dist. v.
Schempp, 374 US. 203, 303-04 (1963) (Brennan, .1, concurring); id. at 306-08 (Goldberg, J., joined by Harlan, I, concurring); Engel, 370 US.
at 435 n. 21.

And just one more piece of evidence for this country’s founding, belief in and reliance on God, did you know that every constitution of the fifty states which make up our union contains a reference to God? Now how should it be that all of them have gotten it wrong?

So what is really the point to all of this? Does it really matter if God is part of our history or our future? I said at the beginning of this article that even those who do not believe in God should hope that we continue to be a Nation under God. Why am I making such a statement? It is really quite simple. Before I answer that let me make a few more points. This nation of ours was really an experiment. I’ll bet you have never thought of it that way, but when it was founded no other country in the history of the planet had tried to be a country of, for, and by the people. Not one. If I may be so bold let me suggest the single reason that this concept worked and not only worked but became arguably the greatest nation on earth. That single reason was and is that this country be a Nation under God. Now before you think I’m speaking hyperbolically consider just where your rights come from. They either have to come from God or they must come from man. If they come from man, then you are subject to not only his inherent nature but you are subject to (as we noted before) his undocumented whims. You may have gleamed some of this sentiment by reading the excerpts of the founding fathers quotes. They truly understood this need in subjugated authority. Again I ask you to not only read but understand some of the founder’s comments:

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”—George Washington, “Farewell Address, “ 1796
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”—President John Adams in his October 11, 1798 address to the Military.

The framers understood all to well the nature of man set to his own course. Many will make reference to religions many short comings in our past. History has many examples of men injecting their own warped religious dogma. This does not take into full account the countless good that religion has bestowed on this globe. Nor does it effectively take into account the true nature of man. When men warp religion they are doing so at their own peril. The true religious mandates of love, kindness, selflessness, honor, morality will always prevail as long as these precepts are available to the masses. As long as they have not be so filtered out by a society in constant pursuit to not offend a single individual, while outraging the masses. As long as they are the corner stone of any building, they will stand. I understand why so many faithless people have an adverse reaction to the actual historical fact that their country was founded on a very strong belief in God. They have unfortunately been confronted by well meaning but over zealous Christians trying to offer them the only thing in life that matters. They have not in these encounters seen the true face or nature of God. Many faithless believe that Christians want to force everyone to think the same way and live the same way. This again misses the true nature of God. I find it both amusing and frustrating to watch these unbelievers. When it comes to the nature of God they never really understand Him. Of course they never really try. They will often say, “How could a caring God let this or that happen?” And when you try to explain ‘free will’ to them, they seem to glaze over cold. And this is what prevents them from understanding that the freedoms they currently enjoy are based upon that same God. The reason that each of us enjoys the freedoms this country offers is directly related to the fact that our founders understood the nature of God. They understood the rights and choices He has given each person. They understood that every person was created in the image of the Father. They understood that salvation was a gift, not something forced on every individual, but a gift one must accept. They also supported ones right not to accept that gift, to accept a different gift or none at all, because they like the God they founded this county on believe in rights granted to every person. As long as this country is founded on a supreme being, the God the founders knew so well, then no man can ever have a greater right over another. Every man must answer to well defined and published words of the Father. No single man or group of men can ever take away the rights endowed men by their Creator. Take away God and you take away those unalienable rights. For if there is no creator and we have truly climbed out of a primordial soup and survival of the fittest is the law of nature then we no longer have a nature‘s God. We are then left to the will of man and if you find that more comforting than the will of God, then you do not understand the nature of God or man.

Some like to quote and others are bothered by Thomas Jefferson’s letter regarding Separation of Church and State, I however am much more troubled by his words “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” Thomas like his apostle name sake truly understood the nature of God.