Q:  There is bipartisan immigration reform legislation being debated in Washington. The bill would secure our borders, block employers from hiring undocumented immigrants, and make sure that undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. with no criminal record register for legal status. If a long list of requirements is met over more than a decade, it provides eligibility for a path to citizenship. Would you support or oppose this proposal?  (emphasis supplied)  (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/poll-suggests-north-dakotans-strongly-support-immigration-reform/­­)

Note the actual question.  People are FIRST asked if they support  securing our borders.  The next phrase is “block employers from hiring undocumented immigrants”.  The rest is sort of how we should deal with those already here, how we should challenge them.  The follow-up questions basically ask, assuming the above conditions, would they want their congressional delegation to support the bill.  What’s not to like?  Securing borders, not hiring undocumented immigrants, requiring the law-breakers at least “register for legal status”?  Who would object to that? 

I have been involved in the process of polling.  You can elicit whatever response you want depending upon how you phrase the question.  Example:  How do you feel about clean air? For it or against it?  This can be manipulated to support more EPA involvement in our power industry or to support legislation requiring that smokers stand 40 feet from the nearest building.  When you begin by asking whether we support securing our border or protecting our own labor force and end with support of a bill which does neither it’s just part of the game of manipulation.  Don’t get me wrong – polls can be useful.  If done forthrightly they can be indicators of broad public opinion difficult to ascertain otherwise.  And in any case they can be useful as a catalyst for public discussion. 

Here’s my question:   What “bill” are they talking about?  Because the only bill I have been hearing about does none of these primary things.  It does not secure the border.  Here’s another question:  Why HAVEN’T we been enforcing our border to begin with?  The poll suggests that only if we get on with passage of this bill can we ever secure our borders.  We don’t need a “bill” to enforce our borders!  If we could do it if this bill passed, presumably we can do it NOW.  We have drones that can read the seed packets for our tomato plants, kill Americans in the desert and leap tall buildings with a single bound.  Why aren’t they concentrated on our Mexican border?  That’s where the drug cartels and crime syndicates are killing our people and creating general mayhem in our southern tier states.  If we can’t stop this now, why does anyone think we would – or could – do it after this silly bill is passed? 

A nation, by definition, has borders.  That’s how we know where our laws apply and who is a citizen of our country.  This is not peculiar to America.  It is a concept as old as time itself.  Since the human race has organized itself into nations we have had borders.  Often we have fought wars to establish or defend them.  All of a sudden America is the “bad guy” because we want our borders  defended?  When Hitler invaded Poland we decided that borders were important.  Or at least Britain did.  Finally.  Why is it different now?  We have a border for which our men fought and died and bled for.  Is it too much to ask to hold that border?  To guard it and prevent its breech?

Indeed, there are many, many reasons to oppose the current thousand-page bill.  It would reward those who have broken our laws first thing out of the gate.  It would likewise penalize those who have respected our laws.  We’re told we need more workers.  Who needs more workers?  Corporate farms?  Who?  We have a severe unemployment problem here in America.  Our economy is severely challenged.  Every single thing this administration (and most of what the last administration) has perpetrated has compromised our economy.  The cost of our social programs is clearly out of control.  Obamacare is going to exponentially worsen this picture as it becomes implemented.

What we are talking about with this bill is basically importing Mexico into America.  It is substituting Mexico’s political culture (and thus their economic and social problems) for our American one.  So, a good question to ask Americans responding to polls is: why do you think Mexicans want to come here?  Mexico is vastly rich in resources.  Their climate is productive.  They have the benefit of two seacoasts.  They are a major crossroads of the Western Hemisphere.  Their official language, Spanish, is mainstream, a major language for everything from culture to commerce to science.  What’s not to like about Mexico?  There is one thing, or a pair of twin things, which are enough to negate all of these important positive attributes:  CRIME and CORRUPTION.  Unhappily, these are the two things which will be brought into America through this amnesty bill (and it IS an amnesty bill – don’t let anyone tell you anything else).   The corruption which has destroyed a nation with every reason to enjoy high productivity and an excellent quality of life for its people will destroy our country as well.  It is not the people of Mexico, it is not its temperate climate nor its mineral wealth, its happy geographical situation or its impressive cultural heritage that has caused its people to stow themselves and their children away in car trunks and pickup beds to sneak out of their country and into ours, to cross that inadequately secured frontier.  It is the crime and the corruption which allows the crime to flourish. 

One of the effects of the culture of corruption and crime is the self-censorship of journalists and commentators in Mexico.  If they cause too much trouble or bring too much light to bear on the cockroaches in the corners they are found murdered.  They become examples.  The corruption of the police and judiciary is legend.  We can’t be very proud of our own condition here, especially throughout the last two or three administrations, but can we afford to make it even worse?  And that is exactly what this bill will do.  It will bring Mexican voters into America.  I am not against Mexicans.  They are entitled to clean up Mexico.   Far be it from me to stop them.  But until the people of Mexico call their government and their law enforcement to account to them why should they be here messing up our government and our law enforcement?

Our country, as the disclaimer always goes, has been grandly enriched by our immigrants.  We are a nation of descendants of immigrants (not a nation of immigrants).  The criteria under which our ancestors came to America were stringent.  They did not allow for felons or the infirm to emigrate.  They were based very largely on the fluctuating need we had for growing the labor force.  They demanded a high degree of assimilation.  English was a requirement.  Knowledge of our government and our history were required.  A knowledge of and respect for our laws and our Constitution were expected of them.  Their expectations?  An opportunity to own their own land, a chance to run their own business, to provide the best life for their children, to live in freedom.  Not Obamacare.  Not an Obamaphone.  Not job preference.  Not first place in the welfare line.  Not the chance to come here and re-create the same hell that drove them out of their homelands.  The result?  A population enriched by the cream of their societies.  The most energetic, the strongest, the most ambitious and willing to work, those whose characters were such and whose values were such that freedom and opportunity were utmost for them, ahead of “security” or welfare.  The people who have emigrated here over our three-hundred-year history have been the best of the best – the most adventurous, the most courageous and those whose consciences and values led them to risk all they had at home to come here. 

Are these the kinds of people we want?  People who share our passion for liberty and are willing to work hard for it?  People who are law-abiding and patient and will persevere in the pursuit of the right way to enter America and become citizens?  Do we want people like this voting in our elections?  Or do we want people who do not have the will or the courage or the perseverance to fix Mexico?  People who are looking for someone to take care of them?  I know many people of Mexican descent and a few who were born in Mexico.  They are hard-working, they are honest, they obey our laws and respect our Constitution.  They deserve our respect.  They are not well-served by a policy or a bill which allows others without those attributes to pour into our country.  Why should we discriminate in favor of those Mexicans who are lawless at the expense of those who come here legally?  What is the sense in that? 

I have heard enough about immigration being “broken” and we have to “fix it”.  That is utter nonsense.  What, exactly, does that even mean?  If by “broken” we mean our borders are like the proverbial screen door on the submarine, we can fix that.  No bill needed.  Just secure that border.  Next?  All those “undocumented” people here?  When we find them, either charge them with a crime if they have committed one, or if not, deport them.  Let them re-apply legally.  Are they working without green cards?  Same thing – send them home.  The big push on the Republican side for this bill will likely have come from corporate farms or other businesses which wish to employ the cheapest labor.  This does nothing for legal citizens’ opportunities.  Time to stop this “broken immigration” crap.  We can fix whatever needs fixing right now.  What is needed is not another immigration bill that will solidify the socialism here, but the will to close the border and enforce the laws we have.

We have no right nor duty to spread our way of life but by example.  This is why our Mideast policies have all failed.  That is why we have borders.  Within those borders we can create a wonderful culture and society where opportunities and wealth will flourish in the freedom we cherish.  We cannot impose these values or qualities on any other nation.  They can choose to follow the example we set, but without borders we must either impose our way of life on all others or ultimately lose it entirely for ourselves.  Within our borders we can preserve America.  Without borders there is no America.

 Visit Sally Morris on her website at fromtherampart.webs.com.

 
 The following application deals with a current major legislative issue. Substantial news centers on immigration reform, or what is formally known as S.744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. Note "Border Security" in the title. More about this in a
 moment. Interestingly, this Senate bill is also known as the Tibetan Refugee Assistance Act of 2013, the Child Trafficking Victims Protection Act, HELP Separated Children Act and several other titles.
 
 Four points dominate the S.744 debate: border security, cost, amnesty and a "comprehensive approach". Despite claims to the contrary, S.744 does not provide for border security. It delivers nothing new. The cost to future generations is prohibitive. It would add trillions of dollars  in Obamacare benefits, Social Security, welfare and Medicare to an already overwhelming national debt. Amnesty is not essential to immigration reform.  It merely serves as a magnet for more illegal immigration and that is not the intention of reform. Amnesty in 1986 did nothing to solve our  immigration problem and it won't solve it now. "Comprehensive reform" was the term used in 1986 for amnesty. This type of comprehensive reform resulted in quadrupling the illegal immigrant population since 1986.  Americans will trust immigration reform once the borders are secure.
 
 As the title implies ("Border Security"), S.744 allegedly proposes to secure America's borders as an absolute first step in addressing any immigration reform. That is how the Gang of Eight framed the discussion and how it is advertised on radio and TV. However, when Senator Charles  Grassley (R-IA) offered an amendment (S. Amdt. 1195) to the 1,947-page bill  explicitly requiring that the border be secured for six months before  America's 11 million illegal immigrants are granted amnesty, Senate Majority  Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) filed a motion to table Grassley's amendment  effectively killing it. On June 13 Reid's motion passed on a simple majority  vote of 57-43 with support from Gang of Eight Republican Senators John  McCain (R-AZ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Lindsay Graham
 (R-SC) voting with Reid.
 
 North Dakota's two senators split their vote. Heidi Heitkamp voted to kill Grassley's border security amendment by supporting Reid’s motion to table thereby agreeing to allow amnesty to 11 million illegals as a first step. John Hoeven voted to uphold Grassley's amendment providing for border security first.
 
 The test vote on Grassley's amendment says it all. Border security even in the eyes of the Gang of Eight takes second place to amnesty. At this rate our borders will never be secure. This in spite of
 polling data that indicate Americans want border enforcement first by a margin of 4-1.
 
 Armed with this knowledge my wife and I called the Washington offices of both senators to voice our support of border security first before any other immigration matters are considered. S.744 must not stand first as an amnesty bill.
 
 Exercising citizenship is hard work and good citizens act best on sound information. OpenCongress offers just such information in an effort to help citizens sort through media hype and understand legislative issues and senators' and congressmen's positions. Using OpenCongress affords a
 pathway to GOOD citizenship.
 
 Last week former Senator Rick Santorum raised an apt battle cry.  "Wake up America. Our freedom is in jeopardy."
 
 
 
 Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or
 bnt@midstatetel.com.

One that says one thing one moment and another that says a different thing at a different moment.

After all, while Rubio appeared in this deceptive ad touting the supposed conservative nature of his amnesty bill, The Examiner tells us the following:

In a Spanish-language interview Sunday with the network Univision, Sen. Marco Rubio, the leading Republican on the Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform group, made his strongest statement yet that legalization of the nation’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants must happen before any new border security or internal enforcement measures are in place, and will in no way be conditional on any security requirements.

“Let’s be clear,” Rubio said. “Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.”

And then comes the death of the nation.

The Gang of Eight (GOE) scamnesty bill would grant legalization to more than 30 million migrants — and the number could be far higher — over the next 10 years, who will then have further access to taxpayer-funded services, programs and handouts. Moreover, demographic electoral analysis clearly shows that virtually all these new “Americans” would vote for socialist politicians (read: liberal Democrats), just as they did in their native lands. So I understand why GOE-Scam authors Dick Durbin (D-IL), Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) consider the bill a good idea. I understand why Mexico considers it a good idea. I understand why China, Russia and any other nation that wanted American power and culture neutralized would consider it a good idea. But why, Senator Rubio, do you consider the bill a good idea? You and your politics keep some very strange and alarming bedfellows.

So I have something to say, and this isn’t just for Rubio. Any politician — Democrat, Republican or independent — who supports amnesty in any form or by any name is dead to me.

Dead.

Immigration is a deal-breaker issue because it involves forces with the power to reshape your land into a different nation altogether. Thus, I would say that there can be no compromise on it, except that compromise isn’t even on the horizon. That is to say, imagine the powers-that-be didn’t have the will to punish the current crop of apprehended bank robbers; instead, they wanted to grant them amnesty and let them keep their ill-gotten gains. But they promised that if we agreed to this plan, they would increase police presence and reinforce bank-vault doors in the future. Would you consider this compromise? Would it even be that if we granted amnesty to only 20 percent of bank robbers?

Agreeing to facilitate law-breaking isn’t compromise — it’s capitulation. In a sane world, you don’t allow criminals to reap the benefits of their law-breaking; you punish them. Compromise would be if we were discussing ending all immigration — as we should do — but then agreed to settle for a mere reduction in the numbers.

But it appears that some so-called “conservatives” have taken a high-dose stupid pill. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Ronald Reagan got bitten by his 1986 amnesty (which he called a “mistake”) when he agreed to legalize the law-breakers in return for a Democrat promise of border enforcement, a promise that wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. And since then we’ve had six more amnesties.

Fact: the Democrats have never secured the border.

And they never will.

Oh, if the new arrivals had a history of voting GOP, the border would be locked down so tight a bacterium couldn’t breach it. There’d be a wall with a fence on top of it, military patrols and Star Wars-type drones with heat-seeking technology buzzing about. But the Democrats have no intention of rejecting their main constituency: anyone who isn’t Americanized.

And that’s the point. Allowing immigration doesn’t just invite new people into your nation — it invites new voters into your nation. And any Republican who believes that the Hispanic voting bloc can be wooed with Rubioesque pandering is far too ignorant and dangerous to hold office.

If Marco Rubio and his fellow travelers want to hasten the death of traditional America, they are dead to me. Let’s ensure that their political careers rest in peace long before the republic does.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Before we decide that Edward Snowden is a “traitor”, as various commentators and Speaker Boehner assert, we should try to learn a little more about what motivated his actions.  It is easy to pontificate about “proper channels” or “appropriate routes”.  Faced with knowledge of information so damning and as hugely important as Snowden had, where would you go?  Your “higher-ups”?  What do you think they would do with your report?  You can just guess, can’t you?  And as to giving the story to the Guardian, he did try to give it to a U.S. paper, but they were too frightened to use it.  One cannot go door to door with this like a vacuum salesman.

Today I read a poll on WND, admittedly an audience of people naturally attentive to their Bill of Rights and to history.  What I read was really astonishing, regardless. The poll asked which Americans thought was the greatest threat – 1) terrorism, 2) natural disaster or 3) our own government.  The results were (at the time of my reading) terrorism: 11.79%; natural disasters: 16.2% and our own government: 72.01%.  Our fear of terrorism is apparently the least of our worries.  Imagine how unbelievable this would have been in even 1989!   But it is the current mindset.  Obama and his administration have done wonders for our morale.  And just in case you think this new scandal will destroy Obama, don’t hold your breath.  It actually firms up the grip he and his government hold on the people.  The power of intimidation only increases with the number of people who know they are under surveillance.  The very knowledge of this program of constant and pervasive surveillance of the innocent helps in their intimidation. 

If we look at our own personal lives, honestly, we can ask ourselves these questions:  If you are a parent, do you feel secure that your children will not be snatched on some pretext?  We read those headlines every single day.  Right here in America.  If you have donated to a political party (not the one in power currently) do you feel secure that your family or your business will not suffer from IRS persecution?  If you have doubts, the latest headlines should enlighten you.  Maybe it’s the ATF or the EPA that will get you.  They got Gibson Guitar. 

Can we get accurate and complete information from our own news sources?  Well, our journalists aren’t secure – they have been compromised.  Their emails, phone conversations and those of their sources, no doubt, have been read by the government. 

Charles Krauthammer displayed his naiveté when he admonished us that no one had complained about ill effects of the surveillance (as differentiated from the “damage” to journalists); who is he kidding?  How often does a blackmail victim come forward?  There are many ways in which this abuse is manifest.  Usually we find that it might well account for otherwise mysterious machinations of our nation’s leadership.  Example:   Justice Roberts’ reversal of his position on Obamacare.  Now, what on earth prompted THAT?  Many of us have suspected something fishy, but my smarter sister notes his bizarre ruling that Obamacare was a “tax”.  If he thought it WAS a tax, he would have to have found it unconstitutional on those grounds alone.  After all, ALL tax bills, by law, MUST originate in the House of Representatives and THEN go to the Senate.  If it had followed the Constitutional route (the “proper channel” so vital to these people) it would never have passed.  Many of us were left completely flabbergasted by this strange adjudication.  Now, perhaps, do we have a little clearer idea of how some of these things are “managed”? At least now we can entertain the myriad possibilities.

And all the while our leaders are coming out in defense of the NSA and against the whistleblower, they persist in considering (and will, I predict, pass) a bill legalizing the illegal immigrants.  We don’t feel that threatened by our “enemies”.   In fact, some 72% of us think our enemy IS our government.  No doubt the people of East Germany and Russia and of China, have felt this way about their governments.  Our biological data is being collected and archived, whether through a routine traffic stop or now through our medical records.  Our phones are tapped, our email read.  Then this information is shared with whatever agency can hit us the hardest.

I can hardly condemn Mr. Snowden out of hand.  We just cannot have our Fourth Amendment and First Amendment rights destroyed in the name of chasing “terrorists”.  A terrorist is someone who threatens us or someone we love, our business, our employees, our home, our property.  That would be our government.  I clearly recall the announcement by Bush of the creation of the “Department of Homeland Security”.  I was, in fact, in a waiting room at a hospital, and my first thought was “now we’re finished”.  I knew that our freedom was over then.  I had read enough about the Guardia Civil, the KGB, the Stazi, the Red Guard, the SS.  I have always thought that one reason America was free was that we did not have a national state police force.  I think my belief has been vindicated.  And today, many others agree with me.  Ask yourself, “Who do you think is most likely to kick in your door, grab your children and take your computer?  Who is likely to get you fired from your job?  Who is most likely to run you out of business? Who is likely to punish you for your political activity?  And who is telling your pastor or priest what he can or cannot say?”  I can almost guarantee you won’t answer “the terrorists”. 

Snowden cannot be seen to have personally profited by this.  He is vilified by some of our most patriotic “leaders”, men like John Bolton, and loyal bureaucrats alike.  He no longer has a job, a home, a family.  It’s hard to see a selfish motive on the surface at least.  Yes, he did flee to China.  But if you think about it from his perspective, he was fleeing his own government.  Why go to a “friendly” nation?  That would just be a ticket back.  His choice of China is not that illogical from that perspective.   Truly an unhappy decision to have to make.

It is long past time for us to take off our blinders and step out of our “happy bubble” and face the stern reality that we are living in what can only be described accurately as a police state.  We have our Stazi, we have our KGB.  And we’ll soon discover that we have our Gulag as well.  We do know that Homeland “Security” has bought enough bullets to fight Iran on our land for 20 years.  We know they’re not using them to guard our southern border.  Explain that, John Bolton.  Explain that, Charles Krauthammer.  I’m sure you can think of some reason.   Our State Department is riddled with members of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s right hand woman was Huma Abedin.  Are we concerned about national security when we consider this?   But Bolton says it’s all “legal”.  At one time the quartering of troops was “legal”.   We made it “illegal” through our Bill of Rights.  At one time constant surveillance of citizens and violation of their privacy was “legal”.  We made that “illegal” too.  Look at the Fourth Amendment in our Bill of Rights.  Just because people in three branches of government CONSPIRE to break our laws does not legitimately countermand those laws.  The Fourth and Fifth and First Amendments have not been repealed.  So, no, this surveillance and collection of intelligence on US is NOT “legal”, Mr. Bolton.  Check the pertinent facts here.

It’s time to quit lying to ourselves and each other.  We do not live in the America we grew up in and were once taught to love.  In some respects it looks familiar.  But the character of our people is now governed more by fear than by confidence, and it shows.  We long ago sacrificed our liberty for our “temporary security”.  We now have neither, and increasingly we are hearing from those who realize, as the Roman senators realized about Julius Caesar, that the Republic has come to an end.  Seventy-two percent of us seem to agree.  So, should we seek to prosecute Snowden as a traitor?  1) As a “free” citizen what were his real choices?  2) Inasmuch as our State Department and most other areas of our federal government are peopled with those whose allegiance is to our most ferocious enemies, how “compromised” is our national security?  Aren’t we, the people, actually the last to know? 

It is clearly time for the people to act in defense of our Constitution.  What happens with Mr. Snowden is perhaps secondary.  The main thing is we mustn’t get caught up in the “traitor/hero” question and become distracted.  The revelations he provided now confront Americans with some fundamental questions about our freedom and our future.  Will it be possible to restore our liberty peacefully?  And how shall we go about this?  The Republican Party, sadly, seems to offer us no hope.  True, there have been a few courageous Republicans, but they do not represent the party elite, which controls the money and the nominating process, nor do they enjoy their support.  We must either reconfigure that party or develop a better one.

Sally Morris is a former member of the North Dakota and Minnesota Republican organizations, serving as Precinct Committeeman, convention delegate and committee chairman.  Visit her website at http://fromtherampart.webs.com

A multiplicity of countries exists because each wishes to sustain its differences. It is possible for countries to successfully co-exist, not necessarily in harmony, but without open hostility. However, when cultures mix and seek to sustain their differences within a country's borders, hostility and strife are likely outcomes.

We can see this dynamic in Canada, with its tension between French-and English-speaking provinces. Canada is a divided country. The historical and geographical differences are exacerbated by the language divide, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to have meaningful cultural unity.

Recent riots in Sweden are the result of that nation's experiment with multiculturalism going bust. One Muslim summed up the problem this way -- 20 years earlier when he emigrated from Iran to escape war and religious strife, he was part of a numerical minority. Since then, more and more Muslims have come; his neighborhood is now made up of foreigners, all promoting their own cultures. What he had moved to find was now gone -- the Swedish culture has been so diluted that it no longer provides the benefits he found 20 years earlier.

Unless America awakens to the harms of multiculturalism and re-embraces the idea of assimilation as a prerequisite to immigration and citizenship, we will follow the path of Canada and Sweden.

###

Tweet, email, and/or share at Facebook at

http://www.fgfbooks.com

###

A Voice from Fly-Over Country is copyright (c) 2013

by Robert L. Hale and the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation, fgfbooks.com. All rights reserved.

This column may be published or posted if credit

is given to the author and fgfBooks.com.

###

Robert L. Hale is founder and director of a

nonprofit public interest law firm.

Robert Hale's biographical sketch and photo

http://www.fgfbooks.com/Hale/Hale-bio.html

###

LONDON, June 11, 2013 – Some years ago Billy Graham made a statement that set off a firestorm in the Christian world.

In a televised interview with Robert Schuller, Graham suggested  that some non-Christians may make it to heaven.

Graham’s words drew anger and condemnation from parts of the Christian community. Some went even so far as to suggest that Billy Graham is not actually a Christian but an impostor.

Such outcry may seem surprising against the man who has preached the gospel of Jesus Christ to more people than any other person in history.

But the anger becomes intelligible once we understand that his words ran counter to a doctrine which is held very deeply in many Christian quarters. That doctrine asserts that only Christians can have a true knowledge of God.

On this view, it is only Christians who can enjoy genuine fellowship with God, whether on this earth or in heaven. Thus, every non-Christian who presumes to have knowledge of or communion with the divine is either lying or mistaken. Damnation is their inevitable fate, for in the end they will be condemned to eternal torment for their error and presumption. Graham’s pronouncement ran contrary to this deeply-held doctrine, which is why it drew such an emotional response.

But in their zeal to correct and condemn, Graham’s critics failed to ask the important question: Why did the great evangelist make his statement? Why would a man who so has faithfully preached the gospel of Jesus Christ around the globe say something like this?

One may be tempted to think that perhaps Billy Graham wanted to please his audience. But Graham made his assertion on a Christian program where he was speaking to another Christian minister. The possibility that he wanted to gratify his hearers can thus be discounted. Quite to the contrary, he must have been aware that making such a statement in a Christian venue could mean trouble. There is every indication that Graham said what he did, because he truly believes it.

It is not difficult to see how Graham had arrived at his position. Having travelled the globe for decades as a Christian ambassador, he had numerous opportunities to meet people from different spiritual traditions. Having interacted extensively with individuals of different faiths, Graham recognized that there are many godly persons among them and that they exhibit what seem to be a genuine love and knowledge of the divine. It is very likely that it was this recognition that lead him conclude that they, too, can enjoy communion with God.

It is only understandable that such a pronouncement would unsettle those who think that only Christians have the truth. All the indignation notwithstanding, this belief is difficult to sustain when we examine the lives and statements of saints from other traditions. When we do this with even a small measure of open-mindedness, we cannot but conclude that love and knowledge of the divine are not the sole province of Christians. In fact, the love and devotion to God that are often found in other places easily put the worldly professor of Christ to shame. And yet, so many of us average Christians are absolutely certain that we are going to heaven while all the others are slouching toward damnation.

Billy Graham, a man who devoted his life to the spreading of the Gospel, does not apparently think that every non-Christian will necessarily end up in hell. Graham can, of course, be mistaken, since he’s neither a god nor a prophet. He is, however, a man of considerable spiritual insight and experience, and we would do well to ponder his words rather then summarily reject them out of hand.

There is, however, some tension in Graham’s statement. Billy Graham does, indeed, believe that Christ is the doorway to heaven, but having perceived that non-Christians can also know God, he needs to reconcile his doctrinal stance with what he sees. His solution is that heaven-bound people from other traditions are really Christians even though they do not know it. But this is something of a stretch. It is the same as if a Hindu who recognized the godliness in Billy Graham told him that he really was a Hindu at heart. Dr. Graham would surely object to such characterization of himself.

Nevertheless, Graham’s statement reveals much about the man. For one thing, he has the generosity of spirit that allows him to see that there may be godliness in other places. Secondly, his heart is not so hardened by doctrine that it would prevent him from seeing the fact that God has also worked in the hearts of people from faiths other than his own.

Unfortunately, such thinking is not very common. We often summarily dismiss what others say or feel, because we operate on the assumption that only we can right and everyone else is wrong. This attitude not only does not correspond to what we see when we really look, but it is also rife with danger. Those who hold it in the sphere of religion tend to transfer their feeling of infallibility to other areas of life such as politics, for example. The temptation, then, is to use government and force in order to confront that which we deem error. This is, in my view, one of the reasons why we evangelicals have been so zealous to use military violence in international affairs. Needless to say, our behavior on that count constitutes an astounding distortion of what Jesus Christ taught and stood for .

We, Christians, should give an honest consideration to what Billy Graham said and ponder why he said it. This kind of meditation may prove remedial in more ways than one.

Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/higher-things/2013/jun/11/can-only-christians-go-heaven-billy-grahams-view/#ixzz2W2hJ36Pv
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

I write in response to the June 5 Forum story on an increase in baby boomer suicide rates. First, I am not a clinical psychologist. I speak in the macro and my comments are not directed to individuals. My sympathy and prayers go out to all who have suffered the loss of a loved one.

While the suicide rates have gone up for baby boomers, rates are high for all, and especially for our teens. The Washington Post article seeks to ask the why and what can be done.

Hopelessness. If I needed to attach one word to the foundational cause of suicide, it would be hopelessness. While joblessness, a depleted retirement account, a failed romance or a physical or mental health issue can be identified as the problem, what results from these problems is hopelessness. Long-term hopelessness brings on a sense of no way out or absolutely no options. If going it alone, it seems – well – just hopeless.

The article focuses on the expectations of the boomers; flush retirement accounts, carefree, happy lives sparked by the sexual revolution, and staying young forever. Obviously not all boomers share those expectations, but the key word is expectations. We all have expectations. The issue is how we respond to unmet expectations.

If these unmet expectations lead to despondence, despair, and hopelessness, we need an anchor to hold on to – to take us through the tough times. Some of the boomers looked inwardly, to self to cope. As they deal with obesity, drug abuse, broken relationships and mental disorders, they find going it alone is overwhelming. This phenomenon of looking to self is not limited to the boomers.

So where do we look? We look to our faith, family and friends. The intact family is a safe place of stability and security. It is a place where we should place no condition on our love, a love that doesn’t condone or approve of all our actions or behaviors, but will love us as a person. As imperfect created human beings, foundationally we need that safe place.

Sadly, the intact family has been in decline for decades. Today a child born in North Dakota has only a 50 percent chance of having his or her married biological parents living together when he or she reach their 17th birthday. Research data validates less mental disorder with teens from intact families.

As a Christian, my hope is built on Jesus Christ, He is the foundation. It is that relationship that enables unmet expectations to be put into perspective, a perspective of the temporary versus the eternal. Even in times of despair and problems thought overwhelming, there is hope, because that hope is not in self, but in him.

Suicide is real and affects so many. It is a societal issue. We need not look to the government for a solution. We need to take responsibility personally, practice a love without condition in our family and reach out in our church family, our circle of friends, our workplace and the greater community.

Freier is the executive director of the North Dakota Family Alliance.

The rise in female breadwinners is a sign of a civilization in decline.

Let's start by first examining the study. While the term "breadwinner" conjures up images of pleasingly plump paychecks, the real story here is the rise of poor single mothers. Among the 40 percent of women in the breadwinner group, 63 percent are single mothers. This isn't surprising, since the out-of-wedlock birthrate has risen from about 4 percent in the 1940s to 41 percent today (72 percent in the black community). So what kind of "bread" are we talking about? Writes Amy Langfield of CNBC, "The median income for a single mother who has never been married was $17,400 as of 2011." And, obviously, having large numbers of single mothers, with essentially fatherless children, struggling to make ends meet isn't good for the women, the children, or the society as a whole.

The picture looks better for the married 37 percent of the breadwinner group, but only by comparison. Twenty-nine percent of these women's husbands are unemployed. Moreover, Pew describes these women as older, college-educated, and white. Translation: they're the one-child wonders. These are often women who postpone childbirth in deference to careerism and then, perhaps after dropping a tidy sum at a fertility clinic, have their sole son or daughter. Why does this warrant mention? Because as the documentary Demographic Winter points out, this phenomenon is a significant contributing factor to the plummeting birth rates among Western peoples. Outside New Zealand, there isn't one major European-descent group with a replacement-level birth rate. And for all you secular-feminist chauvinists so proud of your cultural hegemony, what do you think happens to values that cause people to erase themselves?

So why can't the Megyn Kellys of the world perceive the rise in female breadwinners as the warning sign it is? Because their feminist dogma teaches that any female "gain" relative to men is positive, and any criticism of it is blind male chauvinism. These are the people who cheer girls' "better" performance in schools even though this is largely attributable to boys' worsening performance (and improved female test scores aren't relevant, because the exams, like the boys, have been dumbed down). It's a mindset that would consider it a good thing if women won every future marathon because men either lost their legs or stopped running.

And that is the point. If a warring nation must move a few divisions from the southern front to shore up the northern, it isn't a victory for those divisions; it means the war effort is waning. And if the divisions' generals view it as a personal victory because they'll have the opportunity to distinguish themselves, they're self-centered and ignorant.

Likewise, it was a sign of crisis when women had to assume men's roles in the factories during WWII, but the idea was that the crisis would end and normalcy resume. But today we are in perpetual war — culture war — in a never-ending crisis in which we fight ourselves and confuse losses with gains. No, the intersex wage gap isn't a bad thing, and it isn't good when it starts to close. The size of that gap correlates with the health of the nuclear family; the larger it is, the greater men's ability to support their families and women's opportunity to stay at home with the children. No, it isn't good when girls outshine boys in school, as this reflects a society of undisciplined lads and a hostile yet permissive, feminist-oriented academia.

And, no, it isn't good when you destroy patriarchy. Why? G.K. Chesterton put it best when he wrote, "What is called matriarchy is simply moral anarchy, in which the mother alone remains fixed because all the fathers are fugitive and irresponsible." If you want matriarchy, just go into the black community. Women rule the roost there, but they reign in a hell born of degraded morals and family breakdown. There has never been a successful matriarchy -- the notion of a matriarchal prehistory is a myth -- and there never will be.

This is why, ultimately, the feminist model is destined for the dustbin of history. The only system that ensures the perpetuation of civilization (replacement-level birth rates) is patriarchy; the only system that compels women and men to fulfill their responsibilities to hearth and home is patriarchy. And this is why, barring the end of man or a dystopian future in which children are lab-created assembly-line style to be the collective's drones, patriarchy is inevitable.

There is no substitute for tradition. The Soviets learned this the hard way, for after undermining the family, sex roles, and religion, mass murderer Joseph Stalin actually outlawed abortion in a vain attempt to combat a bottomed-out birth rate. But today Russia's population is still declining by 700,000 per year — the wages of their statist sin.

When a people would be invaded or conquered years ago, the men and boys above a certain age would sometimes be killed. Emasculate a society, and it's no longer a force to be reckoned with. But we have emasculated ourselves, killing off manhood by neutering men emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. This won't end well, but for sure it will end. Because the feminist band can play on, but the rising water will soon drown out their music — for good.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com