Arizona's Law

This should be obvious to everyone, but sometimes the obvious is not so obvious.

We are a nation of States - the United States of America.

It is impossible for anyone to immigrate to the United States, legally or illegally, without immigrating to one of the states, i.e. one must be IN one of the states to be IN the United States.

The Constitution gives presumptive authority to the federal government to regulate immigration, but it does not give the federal government authority to regulate immigration in such a way that a particular state is harmed or benefited by such regulation, e.g. all immigrants with college degrees must live in Utah while all high school drop-outs must reside in Nevada.

Since the federal government has defaulted on it's responsbiility to control the southern border so that the states adjacent to that border receive the bulk of illegal immigrants, and bear the financial and crimminal burden of such unregulated immigration, the federal government is operating, de facto, to the harm of those states.

It is therefore, legitimate for the states suffering such harm to take action to relieve themselves from the burden incurred as a direct result of the federal government's failure to enforce federal laws. This does not give them authority to enact new immigration laws, but it does give them authority to enforce existing federal laws.

One would certainly not argue that if the federal government failed to repel an actual armed invasion by a foreign nation that the state/s suffering from such an invasion would be prohibited from acting to protect themselves (their citizen's lives and property) and repel the invastion.

You say Potato and I say Happy-fruit

The debasement of language as a prerequisite to cultural and moral decline

It started in the Garden when the serpent told Eve that God didn’t really mean what he said about eating the forbidden fruit. It has continued throughout human history when sinful men desired to throw off the shackles of restraint and justify their conduct. In order for previously condemned conduct to become legitimate, the terminology must first be changed.

No despot in his right mind would describe his conduct in ordinary language. From Lenin to Mao, murder, theft and oppression have always been portrayed as being necessary for the greater good. So, conquest is redefined as “liberation;” unprovoked assault is justified as “pre-emptive” self-defense.

Advocates of cultural reconstruction also find it necessary to alter the common vocabulary in order to justify their plans. Thus, every kind of inappropriate behavior is defined as “disease,” or “addiction.” A married man who commits adultery at every opportunity is said to have a sexual addiction. Fornication is reduced to “pre-marital sex;” un-wed mothers (already a compromised term) are re-categorized as “single-parents,” an innocuous term that includes widows and unmarried adoptive parents.

A major victory for cultural and moral relativism occurred when advocates of homosexual behavior succeeded in re-branding their conduct; sodomites became “gays.” Such conduct was no longer viewed as an offense against nature and God, it was merely a lifestyle choice or, more significantly, a genetic predisposition. After all, who could object to a lifestyle described as “gay.”

The final assault in the homosexual offensive is the inclusion of sodomite and lesbian relationships under the umbrella of “marriage.” The key to their ultimate victory, as in the previous assault, rests in a redefinition of terms – a perversion of language.

To speak of “same-sex marriage” is to speak nonsense unless the plain, historic meaning of marriage is first destroyed. Aided by their willing accomplices in the main-stream media, homosexuals have been largely successful in this effort. When Rosie O'Donnell came to San Francisco to marry her "partner," she introduced her new spouse as her "wife" (Rosie and Keli have since divorced and Rosie has announced plans to move-in with a new "girl friend"). Does that mean that Rosie is the husband, or that a sodomite couple is composed of two "husbands?"

Various efforts to affirm the historic, linguistic and legal definition of marriage, such as California’s Proposition 8, are changed into “anti” same-sex marriage statutes and thus, inherently immoral. In the campaign for Proposition 8, opponents actually described the law as “wrong.” Advocates were just mean-spirited, selfish reactionaries who wanted to deny homosexuals the same "right" to marry that straights have.

Of course, it does not matter how much language is redefined, sodomites and lesbians cannot marry (except as Michael Medved points out, sodomites can marry lesbians). It will simply mean the further destruction of our culture where words can mean anything and, therefore, nothing.

Not my father's bible hero.

I don’t know what movie Drew Zahn (World Net Daily) saw, but it wasn’t the same one I saw last night. Eli is not a bible hero – he is a man on a mission which happens to involve delivering a book to an unknown destination. The story has more to do with Waterworld than a biblical epic.

I don’t recall the word “bible” being used at all – it was always “the book.” It could have been any book – this is confirmed at the end of the movie when “the book” is placed on a shelf with other “books” including the Koran.

There is no real scripture in this movie. There is no grace, no atonement, and salvation is the generic kind of doing more good than bad. It is humanism that is preached, not the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is prayer, but it is prayer to an unidentified deity, not offered in Jesus’ name. The book is never actually read, although Eli says he reads it and there are a couple of scenes where he has the book open. He quotes a couple of Old Testament verses, and paraphrases Jesus’ words in the Golden Rule.

The “faith” that is portrayed is faith for the sake of faith. When his young female companion asks him why he believes that he will succeed in his mission to deliver the book (after they have killed and mutilated a dozen or so bad guys), he says something like “sometimes you just have to believe.” This is the gospel of Quai Chang Cane, not the apostle Paul. Like all stories of this genre, the moralizing is tolerated for the moments when the hero kicks the snot out of the bad guys.

At the end of the movie, Eli’s chick disciple heads back home, armed with his shot-gun and killing knife, apparently to continue his "kill or convert" evangelism. It is unclear whether or not she has a bible – she certainly doesn’t have “the book.”

So, viewers will be disappointed if they’re expecting any serious bible theology, certainly no Christian theology. It is an interesting movie. The cinematography and special effects are noteworthy. The film is not black-and-white, but neither is it normal color. It is almost sepia, which adds to the bleak, barren environment.

The message of the movie is not, as Zahn proclaims, about the victory of the word of God, it is the victory of mankind to remake itself, even after a world changing calamity.