Tag Archive for 'immigration'

Preachers, Religion, Politics and Hispanics

Rev. Samuel Rodriguez is one of those preachers that understands what it means to be a Christian in a political world. I watched his interview on Bill Moyers Journal and knew this was someone who had come to terms with the concept of the separation of church and state. As President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, Rev. Rodriguez helps serve 16 million Hispanic born-again Christians.

I have no patience for most politically active preachers, at least the ones with regard to which I am most familiar, those of the religious right, the ones with big mouths, small minds and million dollar homes, who tend to have agendas that are anything but Christian. And yet, thousands of thinkless sheep follow them down the path to destruction, destruction of American institutions and destruction of true religion. Such leaders are willing to pervert our political institutions, our courts, our legislatures, in order to motivate their flocks to keep giving them money, money, money. But enough about them!

I was curious about Rev. Rodriguez after I saw the Moyers’ interview, primarily because he obviously recognizes the growing political power of Hispanic Americans. And yet, listening to him it was apparent that his message is significantly different than that of the religious right. For one, he believes in the separation of church and state, not the attempted manipulation of the state by religion, such as we have seen in the last 8 years. He seems to understand that if religious faith motivates political activity, it does so within the confines of political discussion in a free country, not as a religious discussion where God supports one side and the other is going to hell.

I also wanted to know what Rev. Rodriguez thought about immigration and illegal aliens. He believes we need to stop secure our borders and stop the flow of illegal aliens. At the same time he believes that we need to find a solution to deal with the illegals who have been in America for years. I realize that many people, including me, want all the illegals to leave the country and enter legally, but, my point is that Rev. Rodriguez’ position is, in the very least, just might provide a basis for resolution of a difficult issue.

What I like and appreciate about Rev. Rodriguez is that his Christianity encompasses much more than abortion, gay rights, etc. He believes that fighting poverty, taking care of the environment, decent wages, affordable health care and all sorts of similar things should be on any Christian’s political agenda. A discussion with Rev. Rodriguez is like a breath of fresh air compared to the bigoted, braggadocio of the kind of preachers that support John McCain.

Even more importantly, although I cannot put it into words in this short post, he makes you understand, almost intuitively, that a Christian can be involved in the political process without demanding that the separation of church and state be abolished. If there is any hope for America, religiously and spiritually, it lies with men like Rev. Rodriguez, not the Hagees and Parsleys and similar Pharisees.

 
 Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference [29:18m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (306)

Numbers and Immigration: Jobs and the Environment

If you don’t know where you stand with regard to the illegal aliens, maybe you can at least get a handle on the problem with LEGAL IMMIGRATION. Just like your check book, it is all about numbers. Roy Beck has the numbers. And, as we all know, numbers don’t lie - even if we don’t want to believe them!

Now, you can watch the video or read the rest of this post. My advice: do both!

Beck is a former journalist who now devotes his time to educating Americans about the destructive truth of our immigration policies. Roy started Numbers USA in 1997 to carry out the recommendations of the U. S. Commission on Immigration Reform, created by the Immigration Act of 1990 and the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. Some people don’t like him, but all I can say is that he makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Remember, I am talking about legal immigration, those people who enter the US with our permission each year. How many people do you think that is? Would you believe that from 1776 through 1976 the traditional level of immigration to this country was an average of 250,000 people per year.

Roy’s point is that throughout our history when we have exceeded traditional levels of immigration we have always had problems assimilating the additional immigrants. Immigrants have also suffered from high levels of immigration because they are forced to compete for jobs in a market flooded with available workers.

However, beginning in 1959, US immigration policy has taken a wrong turn. After the devastation of WWII, many people wanted to immigrate from Europe to America for a better life. By the end of the ’50s, Europe;s economy had improved and less people were immigrating to America. You may remember this was about the same time a lot of us were being told we needed to achieve zero population growth. Well, the law of unintended consequences went into effect when Congress, apparently fearing we would not have enough European immigrants, began opening the floodgates.

Up until 1965 there were annual immigration quotas and East European countries had the largest quotas. In 1959 Congress invented “chain immigration” so that Europeans could bring their extended family. With chain immigration, the person who is approved for entry into the country gets to bring his relatives with him. In 1965 Congress did away with quotas and allowed immigration from all countries on the same basis. As a result of chain immigration, since 1990 we have been averaging 1,000,000+ legal immigrants a year. This is in addition to a milliion or more illegal aliens entering the country every year.

Do you wonder why immigration hasn’t been a big deal for the last 60 years (since WWII) and now, all of a sudden, it is a very big deal? Well, it’s because when legal immigration is at the traditional level of 250,000 a year, the country has been able to cope with this increase in population. However, after almost 40 years of higher levels of immigration, we are experiencing the pressure of these increased numbers on our utility and transportation infrastructure, our schools systems, our employment rates and wage rates.

According to Roy, there is a relationship between levels of legal immigration and illegal immigration. The greater the number of legal immigrants, the greater the pressure on others to enter illegally.

One of the problems with our immigration policy is that it has been run by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the ACLU. The Chamber and its pro business agenda promotes higher levels of immigration to exploit cheap labor at the expense of the American worker. Naturally, the ACLU is motivated bythe liberal idea that everyone should get to live in Amercia. (While I generally support ACLU principles, like all organizations, they can take the wrong stance on any particular issue. This is one of them.)

The problem with our immigration policy is that it is not guided by the most important question: What level of immigration is in our national interest? Politicians ignore focusing on this issue because of political correctness and voters. They don’t want Hispanic Americans mad at them.

I asked Roy where our presidential contenders stood on this issue of reducing immigration levels. (You can find check out your state delegation here.) All three of the remaining front runners, McCain, Clinton, and Obama, have the same rating: abysmal.

 
 Roy Beck, Founder, Numbers USA [29:36m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (271)

Numbers USA: Traditional Immigration! What Is It?

Numbers USA is an organization dedicated to educating the public to the facts concerning immigration, both legal and illegal. Its stated goals are: (1) To examine numerical levels of annual legal and illegal immigration. (2) To educate the public about the immigration-reduction recommendations from two national commissions of the 1990s: The bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform and The President’s Council on Sustainable Development.

Now, if you think you know something about immigration and you haven’t heard from Roy Beck, I suggest you take a few minutes and listen.

Opening the Floodgates: The Purpose of “Immigration Reform”

Kevin Johnson is an attorney, a law professor, an author and a proponent of open borders. He teaches at the University of California, Davis. He has written many books on the issue of immigration.

He was recently in Atlanta, speaking at Emory University. He caught my eye with an article he wrote that was published in The Sacramento Bee.

It is Thursday night and I am headed to Cleveland, but I wanted to post this interview before I left. I do not have time right now to comment on it as I ordinarily would, but this interview is one that you should listen to if you have any interest or concern in the “illegal alien” vs. “immigration reform” issues. You should also read the article in the Sacremento Bee.

Kevin is a proponent of open borders, what he sometimes refers to as permeable borders. You can listen to the interview and decide for yourself, but the important thing that I want to point out is this: Kevin makes it clear (at least to me) that the purpose of “immigration reform” is never going to be to build a fence. It will never be about securing our borders. It is never going to be to enforce the immigration law. It is never going to be about validating 10 to 12 million people who entered the country illegally. All of these are just stepping stones to the ultimate goal: OPEN BORDERS!

Kevin will tell you that America needs workers from the other side of the border, more than the 10 to 12 million here already. Kevin will tell you that just like the European Union, our uniting with Mexico would be good for the economy. Kevin will tell you that it is impossible to enforce the immigration laws and therefore a waste of time, just like Prohibition. Kevin will tell you that you can’t keep them from coming to America with a fence so why not embrace the idea of open borders.

Kevin will tell you a whole lot of things that sound reasonable. But what Kevin will not tell you is the truth about OPEN BORDERS. He will not admit that Mexico is a corrupt little country that has absolutely nothing to offer America except cheap labor, exploited and exploitable labor, the kind of labor that we had a century ago. They passed NAFTA and our American manufacturing industry went South. With open borders, they just want to bring the cheap worker north to the American jobs.

It is truly scary to me to think that there are leaders in this country who seriously contemplate a North American Union, who would even consider uniting this great country with a poor excuse for a democratic nation, or who would think that a steady flood of cheap labor from Mexico is just what the American worker needs.

Cheap labor! Think about it! The rich might want it, but they are less than 1% of the population (or somewhere in there). Big corporations and small employers might want it, so they can save a dime. But, I guarantee you, if you make anyone crossing the border legal and eligible to work, it will not be long before they will take the jobs Americans do want to do, because they will do them for a wage that is un-American, but far more than they can earn in that corrupt and poor little country south of the border.

I recommend you take a few minutes to visit American for Sovereignity. You don’t have to agree with everything anyone says about this issue, including me, but I suggest you not swallow “immigration reform” just because some politician tells you it is the right thing to do or the only thing to do.

This exact same thing happened with NAFTA and now just about everyone realizes we were duped. These lovers of cheap labor know that at some point, even if it was a bad idea, it goes too far and you can’t undo it. That is exactly what they want when it comes to open borders. Step by step, until it has gone to far and no one can stop the ultimate goal of open borders.

If you think I am wrong, prove it. I am ready for another interview!

 
 Kevin Johnson, Author, Lawyer, USC Davis [31:10m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (339)

Will Cobb County Lead The Way In Enforcement of Our Immigration Laws?

I have conducted a lot of interviews about border security, particularly with regard to the issue of the fence on our southern border with Mexico. There is another equally important aspect of a sound, common sense, immigration policy: enforce our immigration laws. If the federal government is dragging its feet on building a fence, it is equally deficient in enforcing our immigration laws. This is not a criticism of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel charged with this responsibility, as much as it is a recognition that there just aren’t enough ICE personnel to enforce our immigration laws in the cities and towns of everyday America.

Well, there is an alternative and, I think, a good one: local law enforcement enforcing our immigration laws. Now, doesn’t that just make good old, common sense? I am not sure how many ICE enforcement officers there are, but there are literally hundred of thousands of local law enforcement officers all across America. Why spend the money to hire more immigration officers? Why not harness the abilities of law enforcement officers already out in the field?

To effectively enforce our immigration laws on a local basis, cities and counties need two things: (1) training for law enforcement officers, and (2) state and local laws which assist in identifying illegal aliens.

On Tuesday night D. A. King, Founder of The Dustin Inman Society appeared before the Cobb County Commission and proposed that the Commission require applicants for business licenses to declare whether or not they are citizens of the US or otherwise here legally. We require pharmacists to report people that buy certain drugs on the basis that they may be manufacturing methamphetamine. We require doctors and preachers to report information of possible child abuse. We even require people to swear their tax return is accurate. I cannot imagine but one reason that we don’t ask people to declare their legal status when they want to get a driver’s license or open a business: we didn’t think about it.

Well, now we have thought about it. Cobb County has thought about it. Hopefully, they will act on it, as well.

And apparently, Cobb County Sheriff Neil Warren is the only sheriff in Georgia who has thought about it and decided to do something about it. Sheriff Warren has taken advantage of the provisions of existing federal law to have several of his deputies go through the training necessary to have them authorized to enforce our immigration laws. As a result, in Cobb County when someone is arrested for DUI or speeding or whatever, his legal status in the country is checked and if the person is illegal, local law enforcement can initiate the deportation process. Without this ability, even if the illegal status is discovered, getting ICE personnel to do something is not necessarily easy or efficient.

So what is the sheriff or the chief of police in your town or county doing to enforce these laws locally? If you don’t know, maybe it is time to find out!

 
 D. A. King, Dustin Inman Society [28:52m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (180)

Congressman John Barrow on the Southern Border

Congressionman John Barrow recently went to the Border (you know, the one with Mexico) to find out for himself what was going on. (BTW, this interview aired Thanksgiving Eve, but unfortunately, I just could not get it posted until today.)

John’s group visited El Paso, TX and Tucson, AR. I was encouraged by John’s report. John makes it clear that we need border security. Like most everything else that we think and believe about things we don’t experience personally, the idea that our borders are being crossed by men, women and families that just want a better life is just wrong. Sure, some may just want to come to work (and send the money to Mexico), but there is also the reality that many of these individuals are nothing more than criminals and drug smugglers. While John and his group were present, a guy with $30,000 on his person (drug money) was apprehended, as well as someone wanted for murder and a tractor trailer transporting drugs. Imagine what would be coming into this country if we had “open borders,” which is the ultimate goal of those who want to reform immigration policy, rather than enforce the law.

While John didn’t call it a war, it sure seems to be one. He said that the Border Patrol has the highest rate of fatalities of any law enforcement agency in the USA. Everyday, in border cities like El Paso, the border patrol have rocks thrown at them from the Mexican side of the border as they try to apprehend someone crossing illegally.

John explains that the purpose of a border fence is not to be an absolute barrier that can’t be crossed, but more of a “force multiplier” that increases the border patrol’s available response time. In a border city, such as El Paso, TX, law enforcement only has a few seconds before an illegal alien disappears into the crowd. A fence that takes more time to cross increases the available response time to minutes. Further out, in the middle of nowhere, motion detectors and sensors accomplish the same thing by increasing the response time to hours and even days.

The most amazing thing is that thanks to former Republican Arizona Congressman, Jim Kolbe, there were absolutely no “check points” along the Arizona border with Mexico. You’ve heard of earmarks to put pork in a congressional district, well Kolbe used earmarks to prevent any funds being spent in his district for check points. Incredible! How in the hell can the security policy of this country be controlled by one congressman? At least, Kolbe did not run for re-election in 2006! The idiot.

But, as John points out, border security is not a priority for everyone and there is a lot of feet dragging. On 9-11, there were about 10,000 border patrolmen, now, six years later there are only 15,000. That’s not a lot when you think of how much border there is.

Ultimately, this issue of border security and law enforcement is an economic one. You can continue to be in favor of amnesty and paths to citizenship if you think the issue is that simple, but illegal aliens are a work force that take American jobs. You know, the ones that Ameicans won’t do! Well, John puts that argument into perspective: Americans won’t do them, sure, because you pay a Mexican wage. Pay an American wage and Americans will do it.

They (the NAFTANS) exported our manufacturing plants in the 1990’s. The next target is to cheapen the labor that can’t be exported. Think about it! Mexico does!

 
 John Barrow, Congressman GA-12th [28:15m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (180)

One Year After the Secure Fence Act: Where’s the Fence?

Are you concerned about border security?  Do you think your government is actually doing something to secure our borders?  NOT!

On October 24, 2007 the GAO issued a report on the status of the DHS’s (Department of Homeland Security) efforts to build the fence on the border with Mexico. In 2006 those fine people in Congress passed a law, the Secure Fence Act, that required Homeland Security to build 850 miles of fence along specific stretches of the southern border.

DHS was supposed to construct 70 miles of the fence in the first year. The GAO says it built 73 miles, but according to Steve Elliott, the Executive Director of Grassfire.org, the GAO isn’t exactly telling the truth. Yes, 73 miles of fence have been constructed, but only about 5 miles of it is of the type mandated by the law: a double barrier fence. The other 68 miles might keep out a blind man in a wheelchair during a sandstorm–my analogy and totally without a factual basis.

Steve checked out the GAO report by actually going to the border and inspecting the construction of the fence with Glenn Spencer, a member of the American Border Patrol.

Here is what the Secure Fence Act said should be built and where:

(1) SECURITY FEATURES.
(A) REINFORCED FENCING.—In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide for least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors—
(i) extending from 10 miles west of the Tecate, California, port of entry to 10 miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry;
(ii) extending from 10 miles west of the Calexico, California, port of entry to 5 miles east of the Douglas, Arizona, port of entry;
(iii) extending from 5 miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso, Texas;
(iv) extending from 5 miles northwest of the Del Rio, Texas, port of entry to 5 miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, Texas, port of entry; and
(v) extending 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry.
(B) PRIORITY AREAS.—With respect to the border described—
(i) in subparagraph (A)(ii), the Secretary shall ensure that an interlocking surveillance camera system is installed along such area by May 30, 2007, and that fence construction is completed by May 30, 2008; and
(ii) in subparagraph (A)(v), the Secretary shall ensure that fence construction from 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to 15 southeast of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry is completed by December 31, 2008.
(C) EXCEPTION.—If the topography of a specific area has an elevation grade that exceeds 10 percent, the Secretary may use other means to secure such area, including the use of surveillance and barrier tools.

You can see a presentation by Steve Elliott prepared with the help of Google Earth explaining precisely where the fence is. You can also visit American Border Patrol and see the fence that is being built, as well as videos of activity at the border.

If you want to make sure your representatives know how you feel about border security and the construction of the fence, you can sign Grassfire’s online petition.

 
 Steve Elliott, Grassfire.org [27:00m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (172)

Illegal Aliens and the Dream Act!

You may remember several months ago when the bipartisan effort at comprehensive immigration reform (another way of saying “amnesty”) was defeated. Since the defeat, the effort to pass some form of amnesty for illegal aliens has not ended, it just takes on different forms. The latest reincarnation is the Dream Act which was similarly defeated last week by a vote of 52-44. Believe it or not, the Dream Act was first introduced in 2001. It was also included as a part of the comprehensive reform effort. It apparently has 9 lives. Maybe more.

In this interview with Steve Elliott, Executive Director of GrassFire.Org, Steve discusses this most recent effort at amnesty. One of the major provisions of The Dream Act purported to provide a “Path for Citizenship” to illegal aliens that came to America before the age of 16. And how does an illegal alien prove he arrived in America before age 16? Let’s see! An illegal alien does not have papers documenting the illegal entry into the U.S. Under the Dream Act, he just says he got here before he was 16, even if it was actually last month. Further, according to Steve, he can make this claim 10 years from now.

You may recall that the earlier comprehensive legislation was essentially written behind closed doors and was unveiled shortly before the vote in an effort to force a vote without providing either the public or our representatives an adequate opportunity to study and understand the legislation. Well, the same kind of strong-arm tactics continue to the order of the day. According to GrassFire:

Harry Reid and Dick Durbin are using “Rule 14” to push the Dream Amnesty Act directly to the Senate floor — bypassing committee hearings, debate and markup. To invoke Rule 14, Reid and Durbin must get 60 “yes” votes on a special cloture vote.

Our own Georgia Senators, Chambliss and Isaakson, initially supported amnesty and a “Path to Citizenship,” but changed their minds when they realized that most Georgians do not favor amnesty. Last week, they both voted against the Dream Amnesty Act.

Here is how the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU) describes the legislation:

The bipartisan Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2003 (S.1545), or DREAM Act, would also make it easier for immigrant students who have met long-term residency and other requirements to pursue permanent legal residency status. HACU supports this legislation and companion House legislation as the opportunity to open new doors to college for tens of thousands of talented students.

Note that HACU makes no attempt to clarify that “minor” is in the US illegally.

And here is how the National Immigration Law Center describes the “need” for the legislation:

Each year about 65,000 U.S.–raised students who would qualify for the DREAM Act’s benefits graduate from high school. These include honor roll students, star athletes, talented artists, homecoming queens, and aspiring teachers, doctors, and U.S. soldiers. They are young people who have lived in the U.S. for most of their lives and desire only to call this country their home. Even though they were brought to the U.S. years ago as children, they face unique barriers to higher education, are unable to work legally in the U.S., and often live in constant fear of
detection by immigration authorities. Our immigration law currently has no mechanism to consider the special equities and circumstances of such students. The DREAM Act would eliminate this flaw. It is un-American to indefinitely and irremediably punish them for decisions made by adults many years ago. By enacting the DREAM Act, Congress would legally recognize what is de facto true: these young people belong here.

Makes it sound right, doesn’t it! Well, it isn’t. But this isn’t about education for minors. As the NILC article recognizes, the children of illegal aliens are being educated. This isn’t about racism or xenophobia. Pardon me for harping on this, but this is about American sovereignty. When the President of Mexico says that where ever a Mexican is, there is Mexico, I know that our neighbor to the South is nuts. Mexico is a politically corrupt country with a third world mentality and standard of living. Mexico would love to export its problems and its poverty to America and import our money to its economy. They want, and are even demanding open borders so that they have absolutely no barrier between our standard of living and theirs.

We need a sensible and reasonable immigration policy. We need a fence on the border for security. We need to enforce the laws we have. We don’t need to give to Mexico what it wants.

 
 Steve Elliott, GrassFire.Org [28:50m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (187)

Meet Bill Gillespie, Iraq Vet and Candidate for Congress (1st-GA)

One thing the Iraq war is accomplishing, in addition to giving us all something to have an opinion about, is, it seems, more and more veterans are getting involved in politics. Bill Gillespie served his country in the Army for 23 years, but the Iraq War and the policies of the Bush Administration gave him pause to consider whether or not he needed to serve in another way. He’s running for Congress in Georgia’s 1st Congressional District which has been Republican since Jack Kingston’s election in 1994.

It is early in the campaign and there are still a lot of issues and positions for Bill to fully develop, but as he notes, he’s represented America in uniform all over the world and has a pretty good foundation for understanding our foreign policy and how we are perceived as a country and as a people. Whether it is the Iraq War, immigration or healthcar, Bill believes that it is time for good, honest men, who will tell us the truth, to step forward and serve.

By the way, you remember 1994 don’t you! That was the year Newt Gingrich first fooled America with his Contract with America. That’s the year Jack Kingston got elected promoting term limits, and now his term has been 14 years. In fact, I probably voted for Jack, since I believe Toombs County was in his district at that time. (Could be wrong!)

What happened to the Contract that was supposed to change things?

Turns out it wasn’t a contract with America, but a contract with Jack Abramoff, Halliburton, and lobbyists in general.

Do you remember that contract? Well, if you were Republican then (like I was), you need to go back and read it and realize how utterly stupid we were to believe that things were going to change.

Here’s what the contract promised:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Now, they may have passed this crap in the House, but as far as I know, that is about as far as it went. I do know that nothing in that list solved any problem, because all of them still exist. I dare say there was not one substantive change in American government as a result of the Contract, only a change in who sold us the goods.

I do know that as a Republican in 1994, I bit, hook, line and sinker, for Newt’s Contract with America. Over the next 6 years I enjoyed the wars of conservatives versus liberals. I trusted the Jack Kingstons of the Congress to bring true morality to government, not just radical, partisan morality that suited their base. I even voted for Bush in 2000, not yet realizing the depths to which the Republicans could sink when they controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

We need a new breed of politician. We don’t need representatives in Congress that are unwilling to oppose their own party and offer “rubber-stamp” support, no matter what the issue. We need politicians that can get above the partisan debate and actually solve something. We need politicians that don’t really want to get re-elected. We need politicians who will do what is right, even if we don’t like it every now and then.

2008 is going to be a landmark election year. Don’t miss it. Get involved. VOTE!!

 
 Bill Gillespie, Democratic Candidate, 1st GA [28:33m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (165)

Does the Illegal Alien Problem Justify Churches Breaking the Law?

Take a look at this CNN video featuring Reverend Spencer Frances Barrett and D. A. King discussing the “New Sanctuary Movement.”

People like the good Reverend who interpret scripture to suit their purposes, bother me. If I recall correctly, the New Testament doesn’t even support the ideas that slaves should be rebellious. I don’t mind the debate about what to do with and about illegal aliens, but injecting the church into it is a little much. No, it’s not a little much, it’s ridiculous.

I don’t remember Martin Luther King hiding in churches. It also seems to me that he got arrested for protesting bad laws, rather than breaking the bad law itself. I could be wrong, but that is what I remember.

Now if you want to break the law, whether you call it civil disobedience or something else, in order to make a point, that is fine with me. Have at it, but if you get arrested, don’t blame the police. Just don’t hide in the church building (or on the church farm) as if God has blessed your efforts in particular. After all, even the devil thinks he is God.