Not Yours to Give

William Christensen (14) 10-9-08

Not Yours to Give

by

Colonel David Crockett;

Compiled by Edward S. Ellis

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown . It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and--'

"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

"This was a sockdolager . . . I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

"'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. . . . But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

"'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.'

"'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown . Is that true?'

"'Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

"'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown , neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington , no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.

"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"'Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

"He laughingly replied: 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

"'If I don't,' said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

"'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'

"'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.'

"'My name is Bunce.'

"'Not Horatio Bunce?'

"'Yes.'

"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had every seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him--no, that is not the word--I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted--at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"'Fellow-citizens--I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.'

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"'And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"'It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

"He came upon the stand and said:

"'Fellow-citizens--It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.

"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men--men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighted against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Holders of political office are but reflections of the dominant leadership--good or bad--among the electorate.

Horatio Bunce is a striking example of responsible citizenship. Were his kind to multiply, we would see many new faces in public office; or, as in the case of Davy Crockett, a new Crockett.

For either the new faces or the new Crocketts, we must look to the Horatio in ourselves!

(http://www.fee.org/library/books/notyours.asp)

Things Made From Oil

William Christensen (14) 9/10/08
If you would like to become independent of Oil, you had better get ready. There are a few things you will have to live without, because some derivative of Oil is used as an actual ingredient in these materials. They are as follows:

Artificial Heart Valves
Crayons
Parachutes
Telephones
Enamel
Transparent tape
Antiseptics
Vacuum bottles
Deodorant
Pantyhose
Rubbing Alcohol
Carpets
Epoxy paint
Oil filters
Upholstery
Hearing Aids
Car sound insulation
Cassettes
Motorcycle helmets
Pillows
Shower doors
Shoes
Refrigerator linings
Electrical tape
Safety glass
Awnings
Salad bowl
Rubber cement
Nylon rope
Ice buckets
Fertilizers
Hair coloring
Toilet seats
Denture adhesive
Loudspeakers
Movie film
Fishing boots
Candles
Water pipes
Car enamel
Shower curtains
Credit cards
Aspirin
Golf balls
Detergents
Sunglasses
Glue
Fishing rods
Linoleum
Plastic wood
Soft contact lenses
Trash bags
Hand lotion
Shampoo
Shaving cream
Footballs
Paint brushes
Balloons
Fan belts
Umbrellas
Paint Rollers
Luggage
Antifreeze
Model cars
Floor wax
Sports car bodies
Tires
Dishwashing liquids
Unbreakable dishes
Toothbrushes
Toothpaste
Combs
Tents
Hair curlers
Lipstick
Ice cube trays
Electric blankets
Tennis rackets
Drinking cups
House paint
Rollerskates wheels
Guitar strings
Ammonia
Eyeglasses
Ice chests
Life jackets
TV cabinets
Car battery cases
Insect repellent
Refrigerants
Typewriter ribbons
Cold cream
Glycerin
Plywood adhesive
Cameras
Anesthetics
Artificial turf
Artificial Limbs
Bandages
Dentures
Mops
Beach Umbrellas
Ballpoint pens
Boats
Nail polish
Golf bags
Caulking
Tape recorders
Curtains
Vitamin capsules
Dashboards
Putty
Percolators
Skis
Insecticides
Fishing lures
Perfumes
Shoe polish
Petroleum jelly
Faucet washers
Food preservatives
Antihistamines
Cortisone
Dyes
LP records
Solvents
Roofing

List from www.anwr.org/features/oiluses.htm

Principal or Politics?

William Christensen (14) 9/1/08

With this upcoming election, people are making up their minds on who to support. For most people, the race is between Barack Obama and John McCain. Most people are not satisfied with these choices. What about third party candidates? There are two basic arguments against third party candidates.

Obama might win

The first argument against good principled conservative voters voting for a third party candidate is that Obama might win. They say that if you vote for a third party candidate you are voting for Obama. A vote for John McCain is a vote against Obama.

They can’t win

The second argument is that the third party candidate can’t win. The reason for a candidate not winning is that he doesn’t get enough votes. But why don’t people vote for the third party candidates? Because of two reasons. The person doesn’t agree with the principles that the candidate advocates, or, the politics of voting for the republican, because you don’t want the democrat to win. Politics or principals.

How should you vote?

Most principled people I speak with are voting because of politics. I disagree. This country is founded on principles. We should vote for the person we believe would be the best president. I have more respect for the left-wing liberal that votes because of his principles, than a right-wing conservative who votes because of politics. Vote because of your principles, not politics.

Winning. Is it everything?

William Christensen 8/25/08 (14)

I often hear someone say, “Winning isn’t everything.” Upon further inquiry, I receive the answer, “It’s alright if you don’t win, all that matters is that you did your best.” This is taught to everyone at a young age. All that matters is that you do your best.

Your Best

You are capable of doing whatever you want. All you have to do is work for it. You set your limits. In your mind, you can only be as much as you can imagine. I think you can see what I am getting at. Lets use a game for example. There is a blow out win. The other team didn’t score anything. The coach for the losing team says to his team, “That’s alright. As long as you did your best, it doesn’t matter how well you did.” So, the players take this as consolation. They did their best, so everything is all right. But what are they unconsciously telling themselves? That even when they perform best, they are losers. That they can never do better, because they did their best. Quite the reward for doing your best.

The Rewards of Winning vs. Losing

In the Olympics, the winner receives a gold medal, and gets all the glory. The person who tried really really hard, but got 5^th, doesn’t get anything. In a Football Championship game, the winners get the trophy, and the glory. The other team, who tried really really hard, doesn’t get anything. In a business, the person who gets the promotion gets all the benefits. Not the person who tried really really hard. The winners in all these situations tried even harder. They didn’t set limits. Doing “their best” wasn’t enough.

Don’t set limits

A limit is a restriction. Why restrict how great you can be? Why restrict how much good you can do? Why should we say, “doing your best” is enough? Is America a bunch of pansies? The greatest nation on earth, and everyone wants to hold hands and sing. We did our best, we lost, you are better than us, let’s all be friends and watch butterflies! I am not saying that we should not show good sportsmanship. I am saying we shouldn’t go out and skip around thinking that everything is going to be all right as long as we “do our best.” Doing our best is a restriction. We say, “oh, I did my best, lost, I’m done.” We have to be better than that. Do better than you think you can. Don't be a winer and say, “But I did my best.” That means the same thing as, “I'm a loser!”

This is not to say you should be devastated when you lose, you should use that as encouragement to do better.

The Right to Fail

William Christensen 8/18/08 (14)

Equal and opposite

Imagine a point. This point equals zero.

0

This is what everything balances on. For this example, the zero equals the amount of light. Now extend a line out to the right of the zero. At the end of this line, there are 10.

0--------------------10

If there were only 10, this line is unbalanced. So you need to add a force that is Equal in length, but opposite in direction

-10--------------------0--------------------10

This balances the line. This works with everything. An Equal and Opposite force for everything. With out evil, there is no good. With out dark, there is no light. With out misery, there is no joy. If you are in a dark room for an extended period of time, normal daylight will seem blinding. If you are in a state of perpetual pain, to be relieved of the pain into a state that most people are in, will be like heaven. If you return into one of these dark rooms, they will seem worse, because you have adjusted to the light.

America is the greatest country on earth.

America is the greatest country on earth, because of our freedoms. Among our freedoms are:

Freedom to use a gun

Freedom to say what you want

Freedom to practice your religion

Freedom to choose your job

Freedom to work hard

Freedom to be self-employed

Freedom to reach for your dreams

Freedom to succeed

But as stated in Newton’s third law of motion; For every force, there is an equal and opposite force. So in order for these to balance, they must each have an opposite.

Freedom to not use a gun

Freedom to not say what you want

Freedom to not practice your religion

Freedom to not choose your job

Freedom to be lazy

Freedom to not be self-employed

Freedom to not reach for your dreams

Freedom to fail

These are all Freedoms, not guarantees. You are not guaranteed to succeed. You are not guaranteed to fail. This is why America is great. Because of out freedoms.

Now it seems like no one looks at the second list. They only look at the top list, and say those are guaranteed. Then the government bails out Fanny Mae, Freddi Mac, and Bear Sterns. They take away our right to fail. This seems good, but we forget Newton’s third law of motion. The government, by taking away our right to fail, has also taken away our right to succeed.

Gun Control

William Christensen 8/11/08 (14)

I was going to write about gun control, but I decided to let some other people tell you about it instead. Many of them are famous, and all of them are smart.

Admiral Yamamoto: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Advising Japan's military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns. It has been theorized that this was a major contributing factor in Japan's decision not to land on North America early in the war when they had vastly superior military strength. This delay gave our industrial infrastructure time to gear up for the conflict and was decisive in our later victory.

Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426.
Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.

Mao Tse Tung: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," 1965)

Senator Orrin Hatch: "If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying--that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976--establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime." Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman,Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Committee Print I-IX, 1-23 (1982).

John F. Kennedy: "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

George Orwell: "That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

The Dalai Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

John F. Kennedy: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." John F. Kennedy, Junior Senator of MA in a 1959 letter to E.B. Mann [From the 1974 Gun Digest, article titled Gun Laws]

Israeli Police Inspector General Shlomo Aharonisky: "There's no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them."

President Theodore Roosevelt: "The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world... The first step – in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come – is to teach men to shoot!" –President Theodore Roosevelt's last message to Congress.

Louisiana Governor Mike Foster: "Most people don't ever want to use a gun to protect themselves — that's the last thing they want to do — but if you know how and you have a situation with some fruitcake running around, like they've got right now, it sure can save you a lot of grief."

Ted Nugent: "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."

James Earl Jones: "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."

U.S. Sen. Malcolm Wallop: "The ruling class doesn't care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake." - former U.S. Sen. Malcolm Wallop (R-Wy.)

Paul Hager: "One of the arguments that had been made against gun control was that an armed citizenry was the final bulwark against tyranny. My response had been that untrained, lightly-armed non-soldiers couldn't prevail against a modern army. I had concluded that the qualitative difference in firepower was such that all of the previous rules of guerilla war no longer applied. Both Vietnam and Afghanistan demonstrated that wasn't true. Repelling an armed invasion is not something that American citizens are likely to face, but the possibility of a despotic government coming to power is not wholly unthinkable. One of the sequellae of Vietnam was the rise of the Khmer Rouge and slaughter of perhaps a million Cambodian citizens. Those citizens, like the Jews in Germany or the Armenians in Turkey, were unarmed and thus utterly and completely defenseless against police and paramilitary. An armed minority was able to kill and terrorize unarmed victims with total impunity." – Paul Hagar, "Why I Carry"

Larry Elder: "Anyone who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders.

Law abiding people are the ones that obey Gun Control laws. The Criminals don't have to think twice before breaking another law. - Unknown

-Isms

Joshua Gardner 5/17/08 (18)
Conservatism Once upon a time the word meant conserving the old order (of government control). Now it means conservative moral values (and using government to promote them) and limited government restriction of business.
Conservative Parties: Federalists (some), Whigs, Republicans.

Liberalism It used to mean reducing government, period. (This is now known as classic liberalism) Now it means lax moral values and even using government to promote the immorality. Since the days of FDR and the New Deal liberalism has also stood for welfare statism and even socialism.
Liberal Parties: Federalists (some), Anti-Federalists, Democrats, Constitutionalists, Libertarians

Fascism Once a word that everybody uses. You can see fasces decorating Washington DC and other places quite a bit. Original idea is Roman in character. It signifies unity and in particular a forced union (like an empire). Fascism got a bad name when the National Socialists (Nazis) and Mussolini used it to describe their governments. Modern fascism includes government control of business, aggressive militarism, extreme conservatism, nationalism, and racism.
Fasicist Parties: Some Republicans, Some Democrats

Socialism Socialism is marked by complete government control of production and distribution of wealth. Socialists claim to seek quasi-anarchist utopias but in truth will bring Fascism. Rather idyllic. (Mind this is the Marxist definition of Socialism. The Lenninist definition is more like Communism.)
Socialist Parties: Some Republicans, More Democrats

Communism A relatively new *ism. The oldest are Conservatism and Classic Liberalism of some strain or another. Communism seeks to create a Conservative (Fascist) government by preying on the Liberalism of the people. It promises freedom (mostly freedom from percieved oppressors like employers, or freedom from a lack of money) through a massive government. It's something of a hybrid.
Communist Parties: Democrats, Communists, Socialists

The above are international *isms that the definitions apply more or less wherever you go. Below are America-only definitions.

Constitutionalism A strain of Classical Liberalism that seeks to reduce the American government to the scope that is outlined in the Constitution.

Libertarianism The modern embodiment of Classical Liberalism. While many Libertarians may be Constitutionalists, some advocate a looser confederation like the Articles of Confederation. Others would like to see complete privitization of everything, including private police and courts. Libertarianism varies quite a bit and the Libertarian Party is actually rather amoral (like the Democrats).

Compassionate Conservatism Compassionate Conservatism seeks to merge Conservatives morals with Liberal "compassion" for the poor and needy, i.e. Welfare Statism or Socialism. It's a centrist view designed to grab votes and when the view is exercised you get Fascism.

Neo-conservatism Word means New Conservatism. An attempted remix of Conservatism. It's something like a more potent version of Compassionate Conservatism but has globalism mixed in. Very popular currently.

© 2008 Joshua Gardner Some Rights Reserved
Creative Commons by-nc-sa

The Real ID Act

Matthew L. 5/22/08 (14)

The Real ID Act (an act concerning a National ID card) has faced great opposition since it was first attached to a military bill and made law. Could a National ID card really be as bad as everyone says it is?

History

The real ID act was originally written by Representative James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin who managed to attach it to a necessary military bill. The bill passed the senate and, in 2005, the president signed it. On January 11, 2008 the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) released the final rule (see part 1 and part 2 by clicking on the links).

What it is

The act sets minimum standards for ID cards and drivers licenses set by the federal government. These requirements include:

● Your full name

● Date of birth

● Signature

● Gender

● Photograph

● Physical security features

● Address

● Driver's License

As opposed to what some people think, these requirements do not include RFID technology. The final rule says "DHS is not requiring that States employ RFID in REAL ID Act cards; rather the only technology required by the final rule is the use of the PDF4 17 bar code, which most States already use on their cards." However the barcode lets whoever is scanning it in (law enforcement officers) can see if the information on the card has been duplicated or not. What if hackers got into it?

The Issues

It is in question whether the real ID act is constitutionally correct. In the tenth amendment it states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". Wikipedia Quotes Anthony Romero who says "... Real ID is an unfunded mandate that violates the Constitution's 10th Amendment on state powers, destroys states' dual sovereignty and consolidates every American's private information, leaving all of us far more vulnerable to identity thieves."

Some people who don't agree with the real ID act say that it could eventually become necessary to have in order to do basic things, such as open a bank account and vote. In response, the DHS Final Rule says "DHS... understands the concerns raised in the comments about how a REAL ID might be used outside of the defined "official purposes" identified in the Act and this final rule. DHS does not intend that a REAL ID document become a de facto national identification card. Whether States choose to require presentation of a REAL ID for State purposes is not within the purview of DHSYs authority under the Act - which applies to documents that Federal agencies can accept for official purposes - and thus is outside of the scope of this rule making." This is what DHS says, but couldn't this evolve over time?

Another big issue is the way that the real ID act got in. As I have mentioned, it was attached to a must – pass bill. Congress did not revue or debate the real ID act. How James Sensenbrenner got this through is wrong and should not be allowed.

Also a point of controversy is the problem of how the state is supposed to pay for the real ID. This was a question until the federal government promised $79.8 million to assist the states. But the question is: will it be enough?

State Opposition

According to Wikipedia, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, and Utah are all opposed to real ID while other states are considering it. The reasons they aren't complying include some of the aforementioned issues. Isn't this enough to make federal government realize that this is a problem?

Presidential Candidates Views

Ron Paul strongly opposes the real ID act, saying:

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act. This bill purports to make us safer from terrorists who may sneak into the United States, and from other illegal immigrants. While I agree that these issues are of vital importance, this bill will do very little to make us more secure. It will not address our real vulnerabilities. It will, however, make us much less free. In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty.

Hillary Clinton says that the act needs to be reviewed, saying:

I believe we need to seriously re-examine Real ID and make changes that take into account legitimate concerns raised by states. I have long expressed concern with the Real ID Act, dating back to its initial consideration in the Senate in the spring of 2005.

Had there been an opportunity to properly consider this legislation, it would have been revealed that the Real ID Act imposes dramatic new burdens on our states and substantially changes our immigration and asylum laws in ways that deserve critical examination.

Among other things, Real ID's driver's license provisions impose a massive unfunded mandate on states, while ignoring our broken immigration system.

But there never was an opportunity to consider it properly. Senate Republicans brought this legislation up for a vote without holding hearings or engaging in serious debate, and by tacking it on to an emergency spending bill for our troops. By employing these tactics, Republicans revealed that they were determined to bulldoze this law through without serious discussion. I support a comprehensive review of Real ID to determine whether its various ID provisions make sense in light of our very real security needs and the challenges facing our states.

Barack Obama is opposed to the Real Id act. When asked about it, he said "I do not support the Real ID program because it is an unfunded mandate, and not enough work has been done with the states to help them implement the program."

In support of real ID, McCain says:

The 9/11 Commission recommended that the federal government set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as driver's licenses. Consistent with these recommendations, the Real ID act established federal guidelines to prevent fraud in the issuance and acquisition of identity documents. I support full implementation of Real ID but understand that states need to be given enough time and funding to implement the requirements.

Summary – My Opinion

I myself do not think that the actual real ID act is an entirely bad thing. The bad part is what may come after the real ID goes into effect. It may evolve into a citizen tracking system or something like that.

Please note: The real ID act will go into effect in 2011. A real ID card will be required for air travel and entering federal buildings.

If you feel something in this article is false or you would like to know more, please refer to the real ID final rule.

Part 1: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real_id_final_rule_part1_2008-01-11.pdf

Part 2: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real_id_final_rule_part2_2008-01-11.pdf

Open Borders

William Christensen 4/28/08 (13)
Now I will discuss the reason that the Government can only let a certain amount of people in to the country each year, and what causes all the bad things about illegal immigration. I will look a the answers to, "Why can't we have open borders?" "Why can't we let everyone in?" The reason, the answer, is HealthCare, MediCare, public education, social security, etc. Any government agency giving people "benefits" or any thing free. Now the real question, the hard one to answer: "Why?"

Human Nature
Human nature is to be lazy. Everyone would rather have fun than work. Most people realize that in order to have fun, or even live, they have to work. The more they work, the more they get, the more they can do what they want. This translates into a simple sentence: Human nature is to work as little as possible for as much gain as possible.

Welfare
The modern definition of welfare: a: aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b: an agency or program through which such aid is distributed (according to the 2007 Merriam Webster dictionary). In other words, the government giving free stuff to people who don't have as much. Where do they get the money? The money is taken from the people with more money, and given to people who don't have as much. This is the very definition of socialism.

America used to have open borders
For a person to live in America, there were a few requirements. The main requirement was that the applicant was able to show that they had enough money to provide for themselves for a little while. If they did not have enough money, they could get someone to sponsor them. For example, Peter wants to come over to America. He does not have enough money to provide for himself. So his brother, who already lives in America, will sponsor him. His brother says that he will be responsible for Peter, until Peter has enough to make his way in the world. There was no limit to how many people could come in.

The reason we can't have open borders
America can't have open borders because of human nature and welfare. If we had open borders, just about anyone would come over, and just lie around while the government gave them money for being poor. This is money they took from people for being rich. No one has any incentive to work. If we did not have welfare, we would be able to have open borders. Anyone who comes knows that as soon as their money is gone, or their sponsorship is over, they have to be doing something to live. So they get a job, allowing them to be able to sponsor others. In their job, if they work hard, they get more.

Which sounds better?
Socialism: We have to have closed borders, and we reward the lazy while punishing the rich.
Capitalism: We can have open borders, and the harder someone works, the better their ideas, the more they get.
When the government starts taking care of people, we get socialism. When people take care of themselves, we get capitalism. Start taking responsibility today. America depends on it.

Should the 2008 Olympics Be Held in Beijing, China?

Matthew L. 4-22-08 (14)

There have been a great many protests against the 2008 summer Olympics which is supposed to be carried out in Beijing, China. These are caused by many issues, a few which I will address in this paper.

One of the largest issues in question is China's disrespect for human rights. Because of the Olympics, they have made laws kicking people out of Beijing who do not have residency permits, people who are vagrants, people with mental illness, and beggars. This type of thing does not seem uncommon in this communistic country.

Even worse, they are also destroying citizen's homes to make way for tourists. The number of homes destroyed depends on who you talk to. Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions says 1.5 million fell to the dust. Beijing's Olympic Organizing Committee has a little bit different opinion saying 6,037 were cleared. People who's homes were destroyed would often protest (as you probably would), the result being a few years in jail. Do we want to support this type of thing?

Another problem includes Beijing's health issues. Among these are air pollution, which is not only bad for tourists, but could affect the athletes' abilities. On another note, we are lucky China is installing "seat toilets" because other countries don't like holes in the ground for a restroom (gross). Even China's drinking water and food is in question. This all doesn't sound too good to me.

Yet another issue comes from Tibet, who has been fighting for their freedom from China for many years. Seeing the Olympics as a chance to get help from the world, Tibet has protested the Olympics bitterly, even attempting to stop the torch. Should we support China when they support and do stuff like this?

Some think we shouldn't. A few politicians announced that they would not be attending the opening ceremony because of some of the aforementioned issues. President Bush didn't seem to be against supporting China when he said: "I view the Olympics as a sporting event." (as quoted in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia). But isn't it just a little bit more than that?

I believe that China should never have been able to host the Olympics in the first place and I will not support it now. Obviously the Olympics can not be stopped now and will not. However, before making your own opinion, please consider that Hillary Clinton thought that George Bush should boycott the Olympics, therefore she is against supporting Beijing. What could this mean?

Man Made Global Warming

William Christensen 4/17/08 (13)

What is it?

The global warming theory goes like this; When heat from the sun comes to earth, it warms us and escapes.

When man puts more carbon dioxide into the air, it traps the heat in the atmosphere and causes the temperature to go up.

This is known as the greenhouse effect.

How could it hurt us?

If the temperature were to rise 3-4 degrees in the polar regions, the ice caps would melt, destroying polar bear=s habitat, and causing the sea level 10-12 feet. This would submerge a large percentage of the coasts to be consumed. It would also cause more hurricanes. The extra heat would also destroy a large portion of the crops to die. It could easily kill millions of people.

Is it the theory true?

No. The theory is not true. Man does not cause global warming. There are pages and pages and pages of reasons why it is false. Here are a few:

Carbon dioxide is a gas produced by all living things. You create it. Volcanoes emits carbon dioxide. Animals emits carbon dioxide. Bacteria emits carbon dioxide. Dying vegetation emits carbon dioxide. The ocean emits carbon dioxide Of all the carbon dioxide created, man creates less than 10%

About 800 years ago, during the medieval era, it was a lot warmer than it is now. It was warm enough that in the south of England they had vineyards. The polar bears are still with us today, so obviously they survived that warm spell.

In an ice core survey, the ice is drilled into. Then scientists look at the atmosphere trapped inside the ice. They can tell what the atmosphere was like, and if it was hot or cold. Ice core surveys have shown that carbon dioxide is directly related to the temperature. But, it has the wrong relation

The carbon dioxide in the air FOLLOWS the temperature. If the global warming theory was true than the temperature would follow the carbon dioxide. The reason there is more carbon dioxide in the air when it is warmer has to do with the ocean. When the ocean is heated, it releases more carbon dioxide in to the air. When it cools, it takes carbon dioxide in.

Predictions About America’s Path

William Christensen 4/17/08 (13)
When Woodrow Wilson was president, he spread the idea that America was a democracy. Why would he want America to think it was a democracy? That is something to think about. Today, China is a communist country. It is not a very good place to live. The government owns every thing. In his book AThe Law@ Frederic Bastie says, AIf you control a man=s substance, you control his will.@ Before China could become a communist country, it had to go through two government changes. The first change was to democracy.

Democracy: The masses rule, the stronger come out on top. If one person had five hundred dollars, and the whole state voted to redistribute equally among everyone, would it be right? No. Now lets define anarchy.
Anarchy: every man for himself, strongest rule. If one person had five hundred dollars, and the whole state just came and took it, would it be right?

Both the governments sound similar, but with democracy the government can sway the masses. Then, the next change of government for China was to socialism.

Socialism: the government, generally through taxes, takes and redistributes. They also make laws about where and how you can do certain things, like with your businesses.

Socialism is basically the mid point of democracy collapsing into Communism. So through the idea of democracy the government draws the minds of the people towards the edge with ideas like AEquality@ ANo child left behind@ ANo more poverty@ “Health Care” “Tax Refunds” these are really mostly oxymorons. Enforced charity?! Say there was a group of 100 people, and one of them earned 500 dollars. Well the government sees this and says, AThis isn=t fair@ and they take the money and give everyone 5 dollars. That is the socialist idea of equality. Don=t let any one get ahead, so everyone is at the same level as the person in the rear. Finally, as people think they are about to reach total equality, they fall of the edge, the government controls every thing, and life is miserable. Now can you see what is going on in America to day? We are changing to a democracy. We may even be there, as many socialistic ideas are being put into place. Democracies always collapse into socialism. Socialism always changes to Communism.

I am not tying to be Mr. Doom and Gloom. I am simply pointing out what is happening today, and warn for the future. We have not strayed too far yet. We can still get back on track if we elect the right people.

A Free People

William Christensen 1/28/08 (13)

Liberty. What is liberty? By definition it is: Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government. In other words, It is having agency, the ability to choose what you want. How do we become free? What is required for the general population to be free? What if they make the wrong choices? Is it fair for someone to have more? In America, people losing their freedom to questions like these. I believe that there are three things that a people need to have in order to be free.

The first is KNOWLEDGE

If you want to be free, you must under stand what is required to be free. You must be educated to think. If you can’t think for your self, then you will not be able to make the right decisions. You will just go with the flow, and try to be like everyone else. There will be no thought of whether or not it is right or wrong. Someone else will make decisions for you. If you can=t make decisions on what to do with your stuff, then someone else will. If you can=t make decisions with your own life, then someone else will. The problem with this is that the person telling you what to do will hold their interests higher than yours. This means that any thing the tell you to do will probably be better for them than you. This brings us right into the second item:

PRIVATE PROPERTY

What is wrong with someone else telling you what to do with your stuff? Wouldn’t it be easier?

Yes it would be easier, but would it be better? It probably wouldn’t. If you worked had a candy bar, and you asked someone random off the street what you should do with it, they would probably tell you to give it to them. Most people will have their best interests served before yours. Now there is a chance that they will give you good advice. This leads to the third item:

VIRTUE AND RELIGION

If someone is virtuous then they will think of your best interests with the candy bar first. They will be fair, and let people keep the profits of their labor. They won=t steal. They won=t take your candy bar when you ask them what to do with it. Most religion teaches virtue. Most virtuous people are religious. If you are virtuous, you will not depend on others for support. You will work hard to support your self. You will also offer to help others with your profits. You will be more likely to get something you want, because you will be determined and will work for it. This is the fourth and final item:

DETERMINATION

If you want to be free, you have to fight for it. There will almost always be someone who will try to take that freedom from you. You have to set your eyes on the goal and focus on it. You will have to sacrifice. You will have to give up things now, only to have them many times greater when you reach that goal. This freedom you seek will not be easy to reach. You cannot sell it off for anything.

In order to be free, you must have all of these things. They all depend on each other. You cannot get a good education unless you are determined to have one. You cannot have private property without being able to think for your self. You cannot have religion and virtue if you don’t decide what to do with your life. The problem with America is that they are losing sight of the goal. Religion is fading. Freedom is being traded for protection. To be a free people, we need to have all of these things.

Federal Government Regulated Market

William Christensen 4/11/08 (13)
There is one question that many people wonder everyday. Why are the prices so high? The answer is simple. The federal government is regulating the market.

What Regulation Does
For example, think about all those American Airline flights that got canceled(links below). Why did they get canceled? Because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) made American Airline cancel them. Why? Because the FAA was afraid that if the wires were not bundled properly, they could spark, and start a fire. You may ask, “What is wrong with that? Isn’t the government just trying to protect us?” The problem is that the government is trying to protect us from capitalists, or the free market, “Taking Advantage”. So, what they do is place regulations on the market. Yes, This does help protect us, but it hurts the free market. This regulation has cost several large airlines a large amount of money, not to mention the airports. Aloha Airlines and ATA airlines filed bankruptcy because of it. Also, more than 100,000 passengers have been stranded at hotels far from home. Now the question, “Is it worth it?” The answer is a solid and resounding NO! There is a better way.

The Better Way
Now think of what would have happened if the FAA hadn’t have stepped in. The chances are that nothing at all would have happened. That isn’t very interesting, so lets have a worst-case scenario. One day two planes go down because of a wiring problem. Everyone on board dies. Everyone planning to take a plain ride learns about what type of planes crashed, what company they were with, ect. Then they make a decision of if they want to take the chance or not. The airline also decides if they want to fly these planes. The reason the plans went down is because they were not inspected well. The airline gets sued and goes out of business. All the other airlines learn from this and it never happens again. The Free market is the better way. We should let the people operate the market. They will know better if they want to take the risk than the government will. The government has monopolies on a lot of thing that the free market should have control of. Public schools and the postal service are big ones. If these were left to the free market, the quality would go up, and the price would go down.

See articles:
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/262153/18/
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/262241/18/
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/262279/18/

Polls

William Christensen 4/10/08 (13)
The headlines in our newspaper often say something like this: New Poll Shows That Utahans Approve of (insert something, usually bad). Then down below there will be a table that looks something like this:

Strongly Approve
30%
Somewhat Approve
25%
Somewhat Disapprove
25%
Strongly Disapprove
10%
Don’t Know
15%
This is a poll of 300 taken by Dave Jones &
Associates. It has a margin error of 7.5%

Most people read the poll, believe that 55% of Utahans somewhat or strongly approve of (insert something, usually bad). They may not even notice, but after reading stories and seeing polls all about how (something bad) is good, it affects the reader sub consciously.

Polls can be very misleading
Here are a few tips on how to decide if a poll is trustworthy or not.

How many people
Read the small print at the bottom of the poll! It tells you a lot of things about the poll. Look at the small print under the poll above. It starts out by saying: This is a poll of 300 Utahans. The news paper takes the liberty to say, because there is 55% that approve it in some way, that a New Poll Shows That Utahans Approve of (insert something, usually bad). The only thing this proves is that 165 people in Utah approve of (insert something, usually bad). And I would also like to know where these people were found. They could have been found in a rally for (insert something, usually bad). This common tactic used to skew polls. You decide if the amount of people polled is enough to say that on average all Utahans belive that way. For me, 300 is not nearly enough.

Biased polls
The second thing it says in the fine print: taken by Dave Jones & Associates. Lets say we know nothing about Dave Jones. So we go online and type in Dave Jones & Associates. Up pops a whole ton of information about him and his group. We find that his brother Jim Jones is a congressman, and his sister is married to the governor, and his wife is a lobbyist for (insert something, usually bad). We see that this guy probably has political bias. If a pollster has credentials like these, this is when I decide if the people were probably chosen over a wide area, and are a wide range of race, color, ect.

Margin error
What Wikipedia says: "All polls based on samples are subject to sampling error which reflects the effects of chance in the sampling process. The uncertainty is often expressed as a margin of error. The margin of error does not reflect other sources of error, such as measurement error. A poll with a random sample of 1,000 people has margin of sampling error of 3% for the estimated percentage of the whole population. A 3% margin of error means that 95% of the time the procedure used would give an estimate within 3% of the percentage to be estimated. The margin of error can be reduced by using a larger sample, however if a pollster wishes to reduce the margin of error to 1% they would need a sample of around 10,000 people. In practice pollsters need to balance the cost of a large sample against the reduction in sampling error and a sample size of around 500-1,000 is a typical compromise for political polls. (Note that to get 500 complete responses it may be necessary to make thousands of phone calls.)" Lets see what we can do to the poll with an error of 7.5 %:

Strongly Approve
22.5%
Somewhat Approve
17.5%
Somewhat Disapprove
32.5%
Strongly Disapprove
17.5%
Don’t Know
15%

Totally changes the meaning of the poll, doesn’t it? Plus, the margin error does not include any others errors they may have made.

Polls can be very useful
I am not saying that all polls are bad, just that we should be very careful before we believe in what one has to say.

Illegal Immigration

William Christensen 4/10/08 (13)
Today the country is faced with a problem. The problem is known as many things, such as illegal immigrants, immigrants, migrant workers, illegal aliens, ect. The problem lies in the fact that we cannot decide together what to do about them. Are they good? Are they bad? If they are good, what should we do? If they are bad what should we do? Should we put up a wall? Or tear down the fence?

Why people may think it is good.
Helps the immigrants live better lives
It is assumed the main reason immigrants who come over to America is to better their lives. By coming over here they can get better jobs, live in better houses, and get rewarded for their hard work. They are mostly hard-working honest people. In America, they can decide who runs the government, where they work (and consequently, how much they get paid), where they live, what car they own, and many many more things. They have so much more freedom here. A better chance for their families. They are trying to live the American Dream. The dream of prosperity. The ability to pursue happiness in whatever way they want.

Why people may think it is bad
Illegal immigration is Illegal
It is called illegal immigration. Please note the word illegal. Crossing the border with out permission from the U.S. Government is against the law. That means that Illegal immigrants broke the law. They are law-breakers.

Other immigrants cannot come in legally
What about all those other people that are trying to come into America? Don’t they have a right to live the American Dream? They have just as much a right to come to America as anyone else. But the Illegal immigrants make it harder for anyone else to come in. The government can only let a certain amount of people in each year (see Open Borders). Would we rather let law-breakers or others who aren’t law-breakers in?

Many immigrants who come here illegally are fleeing law in another country
Some illegal immigrants come here because they are in trouble in their own country. Do we really want these people in out country? Studies have shown that as the amount of illegals in a city has gone up, the crime rate has also gone up.

My opinion
I agree with everything said above. However, the law should be enforced to protect the U.S. citizens. I think a twelve-foot high wall with barbed wire on top should be built on the border. This should have a patrol of soldiers on top. But there will be a gate in the middle of the wall. A big gate that will let every person who can legally enter, in.