Jesus and government policies

Years ago, it was commonly asked, What would Jesus do?  There were even bracelets with four little cubes on them with the letters – WWJD.  (what would Jesus do?)

The Church in America is divided over the fact that we have millions of people walking into our country looking for a better life.  Does this mean that our government should just take care of them? 

They are not legal immigrants whom we have vetted, and whom we have some idea how they will assimilate into our country.  Most do not speak our language.

Our government is $31 trillion in debt.  There are millions more refugees around the world, and billions of people less well off than any American. 

If you are a Christian, how much debt are you going into in order to feed, clothe, and care for needy people? 

Jesus did mention a few times about people selling their possessions and giving to the poor.  And the early Church did that for a while.  But the Bible also frowns upon being in debt. 

But actually the bigger problem is that we have no idea who is coming into our country.  We have apprehended known terrorists. 

Did Jesus mean that we should open our country up to anybody in the world who can get here, and we will take care of them? 

The fact is that the border situation is entirely out of control.  People can be bringing in deadly transmittable diseases.  There could be enemy agents seeking to wreak terror and havoc throughout our country. 

With all the government benefits that we are providing for them, any poor person can come here and be better off than they were at home, and they wouldn’t even have to work for it.

The job of our elected leaders is to take care of the American people above those of other countries.  Like your family takes care of your own children before you take care of the other kids on the block.  That doesn’t mean that you hate all the other kids.  You just hope your neighbors are taking care of their own kids. 

The role of our government is, among other things, 1) to form a more perfect Union.  We are more divided than at any time in our history, and the government is responsible for that.  At least they are doing nothing to slow that down.  2)  ensure domestic tranquility.  Our government is fomenting hate and division as it tries to indoctrinate our children to despise our country and by constantly focusing on race and all the bad things in our past so that we lose sight of all that is good in our country.  3) promote the general welfare.  This doesn’t mean giving people money; it means promoting policies that create jobs and help the people prosper, like not spending our public money irresponsibly. 

Our government is putting the needs and wants of the citizens of other countries over that of its own.  Our refugee program has gone far beyond people fleeing mortal danger but extends now to pretty much anybody wanting a better life.  And our government provides any person coming here with much better living conditions than if they had stayed in their own country, so two million people have come this year alone.

In the old days, people came here for the freedom and opportunities.  Now they come because we will take care of them.

The American people are the most generous people in the world.  We just don’t like our government borrowing money it won’t pay back, so we are now paying a trillion dollars a year just in interest.

We don’t like our government not thinking about the safety of our country by just letting the border stand wide open.  Everybody has doors on their houses.  With locks.  Many have fences around their property.  Not only are we letting whoever wants to to come in, but we will put them up in nice hotels at other people’s expense.  The government has no money but what it takes from other people.  That is not compassion.  That is irresponsible, reckless spending.

Compassion is when you give to others out of your own possessions and money.  It is not compassion to take somebody else’s credit cards and just doling it out so lavishly that you are drawing more crowds who want the same things.

 

 

 

Changing the Way We Elect our Presidents

There is a push today to change the way we elect our Presidents.  In the current system, a person can be elected President who does not receive the majority of all the votes of all those who voted. 

Our Founders, profound students of history, rejected both the idea of direct democracy for our country and the popular vote for the President.  We are a republic and not a democracy, and states elect the President and not individuals. 

Since the President is President of all the United STATES, they wanted to be sure that all the states had a voice in the process.  The only way to do that is by the Electoral College. 

In this new plan, states would give all their electoral votes to the Presidential candidate who got the most votes overall.  Meaning, that even if most of the people in your state voted for the other candidate, that is to say, most of the people in your state voted for the electors of the other candidate, they will simply nullify your vote and choose different electors. 

And somehow this is better.

I saw a map recently.  Maps That Put The World In Perspective - Explored Planet  It shows the United States in red and gray.  Probably 95% of the map is gray.  There are more people living in the 5% red areas than the 95% gray area.  In other words, people who live in cities will elect our Presidents, and those in rural areas and smaller towns, not so much if at all.

Our country is currently in the midst of a social and political upheaval.  Beware of any comprehensive, major moves to change big things, particularly through attempts to get around things our country was built on, like the Constitution. 

If this is so popular, pass a Constitutional Amendment.  That is how you’re supposed to change the system.  This plan will override the votes of the majority of the people in a state to get what they want here.  You’re creating a bigger problem than the one you want to fix.

So what do we do with thousands of people a day coming into our country?

Sometimes I see an article in the newspapers that seems so absurd, I feel like I have to say something, but then surely the average reader would have seen the absurdity of it, so there is no need for me to point it out.

But then when both Chicago papers say the same thing and more than once, somebody is failing to see the bigger picture.  (trib (Our immigration mess needs an overhaul, not DeSantis’ stunts, September 18) (Time Texas Gov. Abbott sends asylum seekers here to sow chaos, but Illinois is better than that, September 18)

Over 2 million people have entered our country in the last year outside of our visa program.  They just walked right in.  Millions more if you go back a few decades.  We used to call them illegal immigrants, but they have been taught to claim asylum, so that practically speaking, most of them are going to get to stay here.  Court dates are now years away, and most don’t come back to court anyway. 

Most of these have crossed the border through Texas and Arizona.  The border states have asked for help from the federal government for decades to do something to stem the flood of people coming into their states.  And the federal government has done nothing. 

The rest of the country is essentially oblivious to all of this.  It doesn’t affect them directly, and the news media give it very little attention.  Oh, they may show a few short videos of people crossing the border, but they don’t show the impact on the state in which they are entering.

What do you do with thousands of people a day who are entering your state and expecting people to take care of them?

Some governors of the border states have started shipping some of them to areas that seem the least concerned about this massive influx of human beings. 

And so many people are calling all this a stunt, a cheap political trick close to an election. 

A stunt?  A trick?  Hell, no! 

Congress and many politicians around the country don’t see any problem with millions of people whom we don’t even know who they are just walking into our country.  They complain about a couple hundred migrants being dropped off at their door.  Like, what are we supposed to do with them?

I am as compassionate as anybody about the plight of poor, disadvantaged people, but if you don’t see a problem or two here, then you shouldn’t be making our laws or writing editorials in newspapers. 

Sometimes I think we should just annex Mexico and half of Central America.  We would need to give them 10-20 years before granting full statehood, but I think it’s something to consider. 

Whatever Congress decides to do, I think shipping migrants to certain key places around the country may be the only way to get Congress to act.

Deciding How to Vote in the Upcoming Election

I don’t like to talk about political parties.  It draws lines in the wrong places. 

I like to talk about ideas and policies.  Ideas and policies should be discussed on their own merits apart from political parties and labels.

In less than two months, we are going to have another election.  If you watch television or read newspapers, you can easily think that this election is and should be decided on the basis of one issue: abortion.

I think we should take a broader look at what this election is all about.

If you think babies are disposable like a litter of puppies or kittens, when unborn children can be killed for any reason up until the time they are born, then, by all means, yes, you need to vote Democratic.  Republicans can’t always get the details right, but they believe abortion cheapens human life, and they think our society has enough of that.

In the last year, we have had 2 million people enter our country illegally.  Yes, many of them claim to be refugees, but then they have been taught to say that, and practically speaking, almost all illegal immigrants are here to stay.  Sure, many of them are nice people.  The problem is that we don’t know who’s coming.  No background checks, no medical exams.

If you have a problem with any of this, you’re going to have to vote Republican.

If you believe that a country has the responsibility to know who is coming into it to live and whether they have any serious diseases or evil intents, you’re going to have to vote Republican.

We are having the highest inflation in 40 years, due to our government spending trillions of dollars it doesn’t have.  We are also spending a trillion dollars a year just to pay interest on our federal debt.  That is like burning a trillion dollars a year.

If you have a problem with that, you’re going to have to vote Republican.

Our federal government is $31 trillion in debt, and that debt is growing rapidly, and the government is not even trying to stop it.

If you have a problem with any of this, you’re going to have to vote Republican.

Violent crime and general lawlessness is out of hand in our country.  Police are demoralized and understaffed all across our country.  Criminals and other violent people are less worried about the repercussions of their crimes.

If you have a problem with that, you’re going to have to vote Republican.

The federal guidelines for sex education in our public schools normalizes all sexual behavior and encourages your young children to question and explore their sexual behavior and gender at the youngest ages.  Schools and politicians want to facilitate any gender transitioning and will do this without the knowledge and consent of the student’s parents if necessary.

If you have a problem with schools sexualizing your children, you’re going to have to vote Republican.

If you like the United States being energy independent, and where we don’t have to buy energy from unfriendly or unreliable sources, and heating, electricity, and gas prices being affordable, you’re going to have to vote Republican.

If you are proud to be an American, if you think the United States is the greatest country in the history of the world, if you believe in the American Dream, you’re going to have to vote Republican.

If you believe that society should be color blind, that people should be judged on the quality of their character and not the color of their skin, then you’re going to have to vote Republican.

If you believe the best qualified people should get the job, you going to have to vote Republican.

If you believe in God, the Ten Commandments as our rule of life, if you believe our rights come from God, then you’re going to have to vote Republican.

If you believe in the freedom of speech, where you are able to express your opinions freely, where we can openly talk about touchy subjects, where we can disagree and not be considered hateful, then you’re going to have to vote Republican.

If you believe in the right to be armed, to protect your life, your property, and your freedom, you’re going to have to vote Republican.  

In Illinois, the state is essentially bankrupt.  It is on a trajectory of exponentially increasing debt due to the pension clause in the State Constitution.  This will force every increasing tax burdens to pay for this. 

If you think this problem should be fixed, you’re going to have to vote Republican.

If you live in Illinois, you will be asked to vote on a Constitutional Amendment to support workers’ rights.  What they’re not telling you is that this Amendment was written primarily for government employees more than private ones. 

In Illinois, if you think politicians are enriching themselves and using government workers to solidify their control by enriching them all at taxpayer expense, then you’re going to have to vote Republican.

Years ago, choosing candidates to vote for was often a difficult task.  Politicians have made voting a lot easier today.

 

 

Extremism

We describe our political parties as right and left.  If I were on the left, I would complain about that, because right has another meaning than simply pointing in a certain direction.

Those on the right are routinely called extremists.  They are not merely right, but far right. 

Barry Goldwater, the Republican candidate for President in 1964, is often cited even today as the epitome of extremism.  His acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention is still quoted today:  “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

And, of course, Barry Goldwater is not the primary target here that we are being warned about.

But let me tell you what I find extreme today in politics.

I think it is extreme when we allow anybody who shows up at our border into our country.  No background checks, no medical exams.  Then we put them up in hotels and give them public money to live on.  Did they ask anybody if they should do this?  We have allowed over 2 million people to come into our country this year alone, but one party insists, they encourage, people from all over the world to just come in, and we don’t know who they are.  And nobody cares, and nobody wants you to know about this.

I think it’s extreme that so many people think they have a right to kill their unborn babies, and they will loudly and threateningly protest this in the streets.  Remember the protests in front of the houses of the Supreme Court justices?  A right?  In America, our rights come from God.  You think God regards human life as disposable?  The other rights are only what is legal or things the government decides to do.  Government can’t create rights, because government can just as well eliminate that right.

I think it’s extreme that there is no limit to government spending.  We are now $31 trillion in debt, and nobody cares.  At least one political party.  We spend a trillion dollars a year just to pay interest on that debt.  That’s essentially wasting a trillion dollars a year.  That’s insane. 

And I think it is extreme to erase the very idea of sex and replace it with gender identity.  The same people who have been insisting for the last two years to follow the science now want to deny science to normalize what can only be described as an aberration of the highest sort.

And these are the people who criticize the other party for being extreme.

microaggressions

Reading a newspaper is an exercise in self-restraint and time management.  Most times the headlines tell me all I need to know, including how much time I should spend on the article.

Today we had Finding a haven – and microaggression – in greater Bronzeville.  (September 11)

I did read the first three paragraphs, but it didn’t hold my interest.

The title did, which is why I am writing.

The key word here is microaggression.  Note the first part – micro.  That means something that is really, really tiny.  Things that normally we would just overlook.  But today people are looking for reasons to be offended.  That’s sad.

If you want a perfect world, you will have to wait for heaven. 

But wait.

I hear they discriminate there.  They don’t just let everybody into heaven.  Then it wouldn’t be heaven, would it?

We live in America.  The freest country in the history of the world.  With freedom comes messy.  The fact is that not everybody is going to like you.  For whatever reason.  If you want to make sure that nobody is able to express any displeasure with another person, you can simply cut those freedoms in half.  And hire a lot of people to go around looking for and punishing those offenders, and then you find your economic freedom diminished too through ever-increasing taxes. 

Our country’s moral code used to be the Ten Commandments.  There are prohibitions against stealing, killing, adultery, lying, and coveting.  If we did none of those things, our society would be a lot better off than it is now.

Micro-aggressions, selfishness, unkindness, and spite didn’t make the list.

The Workers' Rights Amendment

So the Tribune prints two letters in favor of the Workers’ Rights Amendment with none opposing, suggesting that any sound person would support this.  (I support Workers’ Rights Amendment, Fearmongering over amendment, September 11)

In general, workers’ rights are good.  What is not mentioned is that this Amendment also covers public sector workers.  Private sector employers always have both feet in reality.  They know just how much they can afford to pay workers.  Public sector employers have no such limitation.  They have no sense of money or fiscal responsibility.  Going into ever-deeper debt is always good political policy.

Our state is essentially bankrupt.  It’s forbidden by law I believe to actually say so.  Its pension clause, also a Constitutional Amendment, guarantees that all our taxes will continue to grow exponentially. 

This proposed Amendment is another safeguard against any possible reforms to Illinois’ financial crisis and mismanagement.

 

The Workers Rights Amendment

In the November election this fall, the Workers Rights Amendment will appear on the ballot in Illinois.  If you don’t live in Illinois, you should be aware of this, because it may come to your state.

On the surface, it sounds like a wonderful idea.  It champions the idea that workers should have the right to organize in order to negotiate their working conditions.  Sounds fair.  I worked in union shops much of my life.  I like unions.

The problem is with unions of government employees.  The workers theoretically have that same right, but who are they negotiating their conditions with?

Private sector employers are bound by fiscal reality.  They cannot pay what they can’t afford.  Government no longer sees that as a problem.  They will make promises well beyond their revenues, or what they can afford, and then borrow the money as long as they can before they have to raise taxes again, and they will say, well, people voted overwhelmingly in favor of workers rights. 

They didn’t tell the voters the full ramifications of what they were voting for.

In 1970, Illinois passed a provision in its state Constitution that is currently bankrupting the state, a clause about government pensions.  The state promised money they couldn’t afford.  Now there is pressure on state taxes, income and property, to pay for mounting pension debt. 

In typical government fashion, they want to make a blanket ironclad rule that applies to everybody without telling you about the cases where this could be a real problem. 

I am afraid this Amendment will pass, because people see the good but not the whole picture.  Like telling everybody that everybody has a right to a higher education.  Sounds good until you figure out how to pay for it.

In reality, this is people in government taking advantage of the system to enrich themselves and fellow government workers who will then work and contribute to keep those first people in office so they can further enrich themselves at the public’s expense.