Religious leaders at odds with their congregations over immigration

A report from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) discusses a Zogby poll that shows the wide gap between the leaders of religious denominations and the actual membership of said denominations.

Did you know that it is the consensus among religious leaders that the way to solve the problem of illegal immigration is to make more visas available to the illegals, hence, automatically turning them into legal immigrants? The numbers of immigrants, legal and illegal, now flooding the country, and their impact on American employment, is of no consequence to most of the religious leadership. However, such matters do concern the members of their congregations.

The survey was conducted among Catholics, mainline Protestants, "born again" Protestants, and Jews. Read the report to learn how the percentages break down between religious leaders and church members on issues such as desire for more immigrants, displacement of American workers by immigrants, pathway to citizenship, and the role of law enforcement.

CIS reports: "Most parishioners and congregants prefer more enforcement to cause illegal workers to go home, rather than legalization of illegal immigrants, which most religious leaders prefer. ... Most parishioners believe that enforcing the law and improving the wages and working conditions of unskilled workers to attract more Americans is the best way to deal with illegal immigration."
•
Related

Immigration and the SPLC: How the Southern Poverty Law Center Invented a Smear, Served La Raza, Manipulated the Press, and Duped its Donors, published by CIS

The New York Times, the Watchdogs, and the crusade to destroy the immigration reform movement

There goes E-Verify

This isn't Holland anymore

Opening up jobs for Americans

Doing away with those British Anglos

It's time for a moratorium

Immigration: Betrayal By Black Elites
Read more!

No more monsters to destroy, but the U.S. keeps finding them

In How Panama set the course for post-Cold War foreign policy, the Cato Institute's Ted Galen Carpenter offers an insightful look into the United States' intervention in Panama and its long-term implications on future war making. What's a warrior nation to do after the Soviet Union falls and there's no justification to continue sustaining a gargantuan military budget? Where's all that military supposed to go? Well, for openers, they set out to bring "democracy" to the lucky Panamanian people.

Following are excerpts:
• • •
For a fleeting moment 20 years ago, the United States had the chance to become a normal nation again. From World War II through the collapse of European communism in 1989, America had been in a state of perpetual war, hot or cold. But with the fall of the Berlin Wall, all of that could have changed. There were no more monsters to destroy, no Nazi war machine or global communist conspiracy. For the first time in half a century, the industrialized world was at peace.

Then in December 1989, America went to war again—this time not against Hitler or Moscow’s proxies but with Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. Tensions between George H.W. Bush’s administration and Noriega’s government had been mounting for some time and climaxed when a scuffle with Panamanian troops left an American military officer dead. On Dec. 20, U.S. forces moved to oust and arrest Noriega. Operation Just Cause, as the invasion was called, came less than a month after the Berlin Wall fell, and it set America on a renewed path of intervention. The prospect of reducing American military involvement in other nations’ affairs slipped away, thanks to the precedent set in Panama.

How real was the opportunity to change American foreign policy at that point? Real enough to worry the political class. Wyoming Sen. Malcolm Wallop lamented in 1989 that there was growing pressure to cut the military budget and that Congress was being overwhelmed by a “1935-style isolationism.” But the invasion of Panama signaled that Washington was not going to pursue even a slightly more restrained foreign policy.

That the U.S. would topple the government of a neighbor to the south was hardly unprecedented, of course. The United States had invaded small Caribbean and Central American countries on numerous occasions throughout the 20th century. Indeed, before the onset of Franklin Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor Policy in the 1930s, Washington routinely overthrew regimes it disliked. ...

The motives that President Bush cited for the Panama intervention foreshadowed the rationales for nation-building and so-called humanitarian missions that would recur frequently over the next two decades. Among other goals, the president said, the invasion aimed to “defend democracy in Panama.” He expressed hope “that the people of Panama will put this dark chapter of dictatorship behind them and move forward as citizens of a democratic Panama.” Bush emphasized that “the Panamanian people want democracy, peace, and a chance for better life in dignity and freedom. The people of the United States seek only to support them in pursuit of these noble goals”—apparently with U.S. troops, if necessary.

Questions immediately arose in the media and elsewhere as to whether the Panama mission was an isolated example—or whether it was a template for a new American global strategy. Time correspondent George J. Church asked the question that was on many minds: “Does this suggest a new post-cold war foreign policy that casts the U.S. as a different kind of global policeman, acting to save democracy rather than to stop Soviet expansionism?” He noted that administration officials “affirm that Bush is showing a new willingness to use American military power to further U.S. interests that have little or nothing to do with communism.” ...

The Cold War itself had never been about democracy or human rights—not really—but it became an incubator for this new ideology. After the Berlin Wall fell, the war against the Noriegas of the world could begin—and it provided a convenient pretext for maintaining U.S. military power at Cold War levels. There was a new world to order, after all.

Operation Just Cause was a catalyst for Washington’s new role not only as worldwide policeman, but as global armed social worker. There was a time two decades ago when empire could have been forsaken. But instead of coming home, we went to Panama City.

Read complete article here.
Read more!

Going to war on a wing and a prayer

George W. Bush's "poodle," as England's Prime Minister Tony Blair was nicknamed, proved himself to be the faithful little puppy dog of his American counterpart. The two warmongers were well matched in their general confusion and lack of knowledge of the Middle East. In Iraq inquiry reveals chaos that led Britain to war, the Guardian newspaper cites ignorance and hasty plans that led to the invasion of Iraq. Following are excerpts:

• • •
Some will always believe that Tony Blair took the country to war in Iraq on a lie, but the most damning charge emerging from the Iraq war inquiry so far is that Britain went to war on a wing and a prayer. The main charges, after four weeks of cross examination, are that Britain had minimal influence over American diplomatic and military strategy, did not plan correctly for the aftermath of war, and utterly misconstrued post-war Iraqi society. It is these charges as much as whether intelligence was doctored that are likely to make the Labour political class squirm when they give evidence to the Chilcot inquiry starting in January.

The chronology to disaster that has seeped from the inquiry makes sometimes shocking reading. It is after all the first time the British diplomatic and military establishment have had to discuss openly their secretive relationship with the US in the run-up to the war.

The diplomats have been freed to disclose their distaste for the simplicities of the neo-cons in Washington, their limited entry points into Washington bureaucratic in-fighting and their shuffling admission that they went to war knowing the aftermath was unplanned – a "known unknown" in the immortal words of US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, one of the villains of this inquiry so far.

Yet what has emerged already from the 12 sessions with British defence, intelligence and diplomatic officials is the extent to which Britain seemed to slide into war, ultimately with little Whitehall resistance. The inquiry has also shown the extent to which Whitehall went to war ignorant of Iraq's near economic collapse, or the risks of a Sunni-Shia civil war. ...

Lieutenant General Sir Freddie Viggers, the chief British military representative in Baghdad after the war, told the inquiry: "We suffered from the lack of any real understanding of the state of that country post-invasion. We had not done enough research, planning, into …the country coming out of 30 years of the Ba'athist regime, the dynamics of the country, the cultures, the friction points between Sunni, Shia and Kurd." ...

Admiral Lord Boyce, the former chief of defence staff, said "I could not get across to the US the fact that the coalition would not be seen as a liberation force and that flowers would be stuck at the end of rifles and that they would be welcomed and it would all be lovely."

Read complete article here.
•
Related

Prince Charles campaigned actively against the Iraq war
Read more!

Steeped in Obama-hype

In Obama and Our Post-Modern Race Problem, Shelby Steele once again hits some nails solidly on their heads. He continues with his observations on Barack Obama's role as the important cultural symbol so desired by whites. Eager to display their "sophistication" on the race front, whites joined themselves, writes Steele, "to an obvious falsehood in order to achieve social acceptance." The election of Barack Obama, he claims, was essentially "a national exercise in seeing what was not there and a refusal to see what was there." These blinders were purposely worn by whites "to escape the stigma, not of stupidity, but of racism."

A year before the 2008 election, Steele did not believe that whites would allow their propensity for what he terms "guilt" (but what I call cowardice and fear), to compel them into electing a colored to the White House. This was because whites would probably come to perceive the "dreamy post-racial and post-ideological kitsch" in which Obama dressed his evangelism of "hope and change."

In this current article, Steele claims that Obama was an "invitation to sophistication that America simply could not bring itself to turn down." He calls this tendency on the part of whites "sophistication." I call it vacuousness.

Nothing has pleased the typical race-indoctrinated white more than being able to claim that he "made history" with his vote that helped to put a black man on the ascendance. Look, says this white man, thanks to me, there's goes a black man coming out of the White House, heading for the Presidential helicopter ... Thanks to me, the world is calling a black woman "The First Lady" ... Thanks to me, all those white men sitting around that conference table are subject to that black man ... Thanks to me, that black man gets to vacation not only in Martha's Vineyard, but also at Camp David! And, thanks to me, that black man's portrait will hang alongside the portraits of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Aren't I a wonderful person? Look what I've accomplished, exults the white man. You can never again call me a "racist." [Speaking of cultural symbols that make whites feel oh, so good about themselves, see the equivalent of this national frenzy in an earlier New York City mayoral race here.]

Steele describes Obama as the Emperor with no clothes, and writes, "You would think that in the two solid years of daily campaigning leading up to his election this nakedness would have been seen."

Last year, I dropped in on the Secular Right blog and was in for quite a surprise. For some unfathomable reason, I expected this to be a place of rational thinkers. Surely, people who declare themselves free from attachments to conventional, sentimental religions are also free from other kinds of religious attachments, such as those of the Multicultural/Diversity variations. Nothing could have been further from the truth. With just a couple of exceptions, these people were hooked big time on the emotionalism of Barack Obama's rise to prominence. Not only were most of the blog's team of posters thoroughly steeped in Obama-hype, so were most of the commenters.

It happened to be Obama's Inauguration Day and a discussion on the subject was in full swing. The chatter began with reflections on a post quoting remarks from another blog, whose owner is associated with a "science" foundation. Well, Mr. Science admitted that he had "wept," as in cried, while watching the Inauguration ceremony. Secular Right's commenters fell all over themselves to describe their "feelings" as well, and one after another reiterated how touched he was by the Significance of the Moment.

So, here were these white folks weeping all over themselves, and chastising me for failing to be enthralled by "the wonderful significance" of this election. One poster claimed that he knew "plenty of people who cried at this historic moment," and that anyone who did not "should get out more." Whatever that means. There was no expressed concern for the prospective policies that might emanate from this new President. And why should there be? After all, this black man had fulfilled his mission as the ultimate symbol of whites' exoneration from their evil, racist past.

One could almost hear the breathlessness of one of the team posters as she proclaimed her joy that "a majority white nation is now presided over by a black man." A fact she found "overwhelming." See, at last the tables are turned – a black man is now the Boss Man. You can't beat that for righteous symbolism!

It appeared that the only idea to which this site's participants applied their logic is the one that questions the existence of immortal gods. There was clearly no questioning of that which Steele calls Obama's "empty political slogans." Yet, shouldn't political objectives be one's primary concern about a politician – any and every politician?

I wanted to know from these people if we are expected to go through this emotional routine again, if a woman is elected President. How about the first Hispanic/Latino? And when do the Hmong get their turn? Since Latinos are the largest minority group, will these whites work to make them the next symbolic gesture? Will they get all teary-eyed as the first Puerto Rican or Mexican walks up Pennsylvania Avenue on his/her Inauguration Day?

I also wanted to know what difference it would make if Anglo-Euros were to serve as Presidents throughout the rest of this country's history – a country founded by Anglo-Euros. Is the office "owed" to every distinctive group? When I suggested that the blog's posters and commenters were caught up in sentimental, media-staged hype, the angry retorts made it clear that it was time to clear out and leave those good white folks to their Obama love fest.

Shelby Steele is right when he concludes that Barack Obama is "a president come to us out of our national insecurities." And, perhaps, out of our national childishness?
Read more!