Wednesday, May 5, 2010
The Bank: Mr. Customer, I need to verify your information, but in order to help you, I'll need verification of who you are..
Customer: Why should I give you my social security number? The reason I'm closing my account is that your bank is issuing credit cards to illegal immigrants who don't have social security numbers. You are targeting that audience and want their business. Let's say I'm an illegal immigrant and you've given me a credit card. I have a question about it and call for assistance. You wouldn't be asking me for a Social Security number, would you?
The Bank: No sir, I wouldn't.
Customer: Why not?
The Bank: Because you would have pressed '2' to speak in Spanish. We don't ask for that information when calling in on the Spanish line.
Obviously this is a bank I will never use. It IS NOT racist to say if you come to live in my country you have to learn the laws and the language. It IS racist if you are here illegally and you get preferential treatment from government or businesses and are given opportunities that those of us who are here legally do not get. It IS NOT racist to expect an immigrant to carry proof of citizenship with him at all times because that is what THE LAW REQUIRES. It IS racist to march and protest against the country you are in illegally.
Oh, by the way, if you think I’m wrong here, you’re racist.
And finally, I want to say something here about The National Day of Prayer which as of this posting is tomorrow. I have the right to assemble and pray. People fought and died for that right, and that is a debit we can never repay for Christ showed us there is no greater love than someone laying down their life for our own. This country needs God. It needs to be asking God for help. Its’ leaders need to be asking God for guidance. It’s people need to be praying for the next Supreme Court Judge, no matter who it is. In her 66-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb said the holiday violates the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment, which creates a separation of church and state. She said,"I understand that many may disagree with that conclusion and some may even view it as a criticism of prayer or those who pray. That is unfortunate.”
No kidding. What is really unfortunate is her eye sight, because I see no such clause. Unbeknown to many liberals, the words "wall of separation between church and state" do not appear in our Constitution -- nor is this notion implied. Thomas Jefferson penned those words in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in response to a letter they wrote him objecting to Connecticut's establishment of Congregationalism as their state church. Jefferson assuaged their concerns, telling them the First Amendment prohibited the national government from establishing a "national church," but he concluded rightly that the Constitution (see the Tenth Amendment's federalism provision) prohibited the national government from interfering with the matters of state governments -- a "wall of separation," if you will, between the federal government and state governments.
There is ample evidence that Jefferson did not intend for that metaphor to become an iron curtain between church and state. Though he favored a secularist state, he knew that the Constitution offered no such proscription on religious observance and practice in the public square. Those, including judicial activists, who insist such was Jefferson's original intent, and that of our Constitution, are either historically nescient or they harbor a disingenuous motive to serve a secularist constituent agenda.
This fundamental violation of federalist principle was the central issue in 2003, when Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore defied an order by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state's justice building rotunda. Of such judicial diktats, Thomas Jefferson warned, "The Constitution [will become] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
Indeed, it has become just that.
As for that utterly phony "wall of separation," Princeton scholar Stanley Katz says that correcting the "Jeffersonian myth" will have a "profound impact on the current law and politics of church and state." Joining the debate, Justice Clarence Thomas argues, "This doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now."
However, this issue is not merely about federalism and states' rights. It is about the rule of law and the future of our Constitutional Republic. That is precisely why Senate Democrats are so insistent on blocking the President's judicial nominations. They know that the real locus of central-government power now resides on the federal bench, not in the legislature. This struggle between judicial governance versus government of, by and for the people, is really at the core of the current debate.
Pray for peace. Pray for our troupes and their families. Pray for this nation, that under God, all men and women are equal and given the dream so many have worked hard to realize. But above all, pray God is allowed back where he should never have been chased out of: In the halls and gathering places where freedom is preserved and laws are made. May we turn from man, and look to God for guidance, for it is only with God we are assured the victory.