WHO WILL PROTECT US AGAINST INVASION?

Who Will Protect Us Against Invasion?

---

by Phyllis Schlafly, August 15, 2008

---

President George W. Bush, in China attending the Olympic Games, responded promptly to Russia's invasion of Georgia with the caveat that "territorial integrity must be respected." We're still waiting to hear the Bush Administration's response to this month's invasion of Arizona's territorial integrity by the Mexican military.

More than 40 times this year, the Mexican military has crossed our border. The Mexicans even held one of our border guards at gunpoint.

How long are we going to put up with Mexican impudence and federal neglect of duty? One of the most emphatic duties set forth in the U.S. Constitution is that the Federal Government "shall protect each of them [every State] against Invasion."

Some pretend there is a "misunderstanding" about exactly where the border is. But border guards say there is a barbed wire fence at the point where the Mexicans entered the United States.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) immediately pointed out that if the Bush Administration had built the double fence that Congress ordered, the Mexican vehicles would not have been able to invade U.S. territory. The open-borders crowd claims that a fence is useless because people can easily climb it, but a Mexican army truck can't do that.

Nor can the Mexican vans loaded with illegal drugs climb a fence. All the talk we hear about our "war on drugs" is totally hypocritical so long as no fence is built to keep out the drug-laden trucks.

It's not just Mexican military vehicles that are invading our space. Again this month we read about an SUV packed with illegal aliens that evaded detection by our border patrol and then rolled over on a highway southeast of Phoenix, killing nine people and injuring the other ten on board.

They were crammed into two bucket seats in front and three seats in the back of a speeding Chevrolet Suburban. A border patrol spokesman commented, "The smuggler doesn't care if their cargo lives or dies" because he's already been paid.

But we care about the law, about highway safety, and about the cost. Ten people with critical injuries, who had no right to be here, are now being treated in Arizona hospitals at the U.S. taxpayers' expense.

These latest Mexican invasions come on the heels of further depressing news about the mistreatment of border guards Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.

When federal prosecutor Johnny Sutton embarked on his national public relations campaign to defend his prosecution of these border guards for allegedly shooting a professional drug smuggler in the rear end, Sutton's most impassioned argument was that Ramos and Compean obstructed justice by failing to report the incident. But on appeal, the Fifth Circuit overturned that part of Ramos's and Compean's conviction, even though the court upheld the jury verdict and the 11- and 12-year prison sentences.

It's time to question not only President Bush but also the presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama. Will you pardon these two border guards who most Americans and 75 Members of Congress believe are the targets of unfair prosecution (by friend-of-Bush Johnny Sutton) under a law never intended to be used against border guards, an unfair trial in which the Bush-appointed judge withheld from the jury damaging information about drug smuggler Davila who was the key witness against the defendants, unfairly long sentences (years longer than the same judge gave the professional drug smuggler whom Ramos and Compean intercepted), and unfair prison treatment in which they were beaten by illegal-alien prisoners?

In another recent flouting of the law, the Bush Administration quietly posted a notice late on August 4 that it is extending from one to two years its plan to allow Mexican trucks to enter the United States and have free access to our highways and roads. Only the week before, the House of Representatives Transportation Committee voted to terminate the program.

There are few issues on which Congress has demonstrated its will so emphatically with a bipartisan vote as the matter of Mexican trucks on our roads. Both Houses of Congress have voted overwhelmingly against the invasion by Mexican trucks which do not meet U.S. safety standards, driven by Mexican drivers who do not meet U.S. safety and language standards.

The House of Representatives voted against the entry of Mexican trucks by 411-3 on May 15, 2007, followed by a second voice vote on July 24. The Senate voted likewise by 75-23 on September 11, and this law was signed by President Bush on December 26, 2007.

When will the Bush Administration stand up for the territorial integrity of the United States against foreign military vehicles, vans with illegal aliens, truckloads of illegal drugs driven by professional drug dealers, and unsafe trucks and drivers that don't meet U.S. standards?

By Phyllis Schlafly Click here for bio and archived articles

JESUS WELCOMES ALL - BUT ACCEPTS ONLY THE FEW Posted On: 08/24/08 10:03:25 AM Age 64, OH Thanks for the kind reply dear friend. As far as immigration goes, this a very complicated issue as most are. We need to walk in the Spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. Even governments and courts should do this. But that requires that our officials and judges have real wisdom and not be so foolish as so many of the ones who now serve. Our forefathers seen this problem from afar, they said this system of government would only work for a people who revered the Lord Jesus Christ and His book the Bible. We have an example of the answer to this problem in the scriptures. God told Israel not to mix with the heathens. We are also told in the NT that what do people of the light have in common with people of darkness. Israel was to keep separate, BUT to allow ANYONE who wanted to become a part of Israel to become one. But, they had to become a part of Israel to get in. they had to be circumcised and worship the God of Israel. We have NOT followed this example at all. We have let others in to the extent that they now rule instead of us. No one can preach to these people if they make preaching against the law, and we are close to that at this time. The Lion does not wag the tail, but the tail wags the Lion. The same is true of any church. Of course we want to welcome unbelievers. But if the unbelievers are left to be comfortable in their unbelief, then it is not long until they rule the church, instead of the believers. It is not long until these unbelievers make it against the rules to preach the Truth. This is the case we have right at this time in the church of this nation. - Back to immigration; if illegal immigrants are let in, we lose complete control. Not only do we lose control, but the rule of law is destroyed. It is as Jesus said, many are called, but few are chosen. Jesus welcomes all, but accepts only the few. The church has lost the church and lost this nation. We need to stop pointing the finger and confess our sin to Jesus and repent and follow Him. Peace and grace to you. Lou Thanks for your responses Posted On: 08/22/08 12:04:01 PM Age 27, MO Hey, Thanks for the gentle feedback Lou and John. I appreciate your thoughts. So, Lou, you rightly say that Jesus cared and died for all. I think we should very much be concerned about one group taking the lives and livelihood from another group of people. What I am not sure about is if war with that first group of people is the best way forward. Why are we upset with one group taking from another? Because it denies the image of God present in the second group. Our challenge is to respond to the situation that shows Christ's love for both the attackers and the attacked. How do we as citizens of the Kingdom of God help the situation without denying the images of God in the attackers? Christ loves and died for them as well. I am not advocating any sort of easy solution, but rushing to defend them through killing their enemies seems to fly in the face of what Jesus advocates. Lou, you also talk about how most illegal immigrants are hostile to Christianity and suggest that on this basis we keep them out. (I might be misrepresenting you on this point, so let me know if I am, for that is not my intention.) Assuming for the moment that this is the case, I love the idea of having people move in around me that are hostile to Christianity, for there are more opportunities to grow the Kingdom of God and help restore interpersonal relationships and to help them get to know their creator and to trust in Him for their salvation. John, I completely agree with you when you say that we need to be involved in the affairs of this world. I agree wholeheartedly. I think we disagree in terms of how we go about doing that. I see us as citizens of the Kingdom of God first and American citizens second. As such, I think that Christians as a group and individually should act from our primary membership, as citizens of God's Kingdom, not America's Republic. Jesus did confront the world, but he did not battle it (in terms of physical aggression, that is). He used teaching, aid, and relationships to transform the world. We should, as citizens of His Kingdom, employ the same tactics. We are called to be good citizens, to be sure and God has instituted the governments of America (and Iran and China by the same logic). But we are to be citizens of God's Kingdom first and to our local political systems second. I think (and I could be wrong) that God's Kingdom would be better served if we acted via God's Kingdom rather than via America's interests and methods. What do you think? JESUS CARED FOR ALL Posted On: 08/21/08 12:15:41 PM Age 64, OH Are we not to lead all men to Jesus Christ. Would that not include people in the government, people of the government, and people for the government. I try to show the Way of Jesus Christ by all that do or do not do. Jesus was concerned for every single person and died for all. Should I be unconcerned about one group trying to take the property of others or even one group trying to take the life of the poorest and weakest and most innocent of the humans here on this earth. We know that most of these illegal immigrants have a religion that is hostile to true Christianity. Our government is giving this nation away to those who have not shed any blood, sweat, or tears for it. Should we not protect the innocent in this matter. I do care about a van load of children being killed by Mexican trucks that can not even read our signs let alone obey our laws. Lou answer Posted On: 08/21/08 01:08:52 AM Age 48, MO Well, Christianity is giving. If we say we have love and aren't involved in the affairs of the world, do we have love? You say Jesus was not involved in the affairs of the world, however, he battled the world, the world systems, and their beliefs. This is why He is hated and why we are to be hated. Jesus also said to give unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's. He said this because governments are instituted by God and we are to be salt and light, defend rightousness, and be bold. To put this all together, I would say faith and love requires action. As for the USA, we still should defend the good and proactively try to change the bad. The principles of freedom and democracy are biblical and worth defending, bondage (Egypt) is the alternative and the unsaved seek it. John The U.S. government will not protect its citizens Posted On: 08/19/08 03:27:36 PM Age 61, MO The U.S. government is filled with vile, traitorous officials. These officials have turned their backs on the citizens for the last several administrations, until they have systematically destroyed or corrupted the fabric of our social, political, economic, and religious traditions. We can expect no relief from the current election cycle. The only way we can protect ourselves is to shut down the odious bureaucracy that governs us, by starving them out. We must keep the fruits of our labor: no more to entrust that fruit to any who would fill their coffers without giving anything back. Let he who does not honestly work, not eat. George Cancilla Should Xians be concerned with this? Posted On: 08/19/08 03:22:08 PM Age 27, MO How much should Christians be involved in political affairs? I don't see Jesus or Paul or anyone of the New Cov era getting involved with Rome's invasions or defense. I wonder (and I am not sold either way) if we followers of the prince of peace should be concerned with advancing and defending America's political, economic, and cultural power and instead be concerned with showing God's love to the world though our deeds and actions and rhetoric. What do you think?