Thursday, September 30, 2010

The State of Education

The American Public School system has reached a stage where students are ill prepared to appreciate or even to understand their unique birthright bequeathed to them through the blood and sacrifices of their ancestors. There is also an easily demonstrated basic lack of knowledge concerning the convergence of history, economics, and civics as well as the ability to discern from the rhetoric of others what is truth and what is indoctrination. In other academic areas, America’s students score consistently below their foreign counterparts on international tests and thus are ill-prepared to compete in a global marketplace. American students rank near the bottom relative to students in other industrialized countries recently placing 25th when students from 40 countries were tested. This translates to many of America’s “A” students being average in comparison to those of other countries. For nearly a century, the “Progressives” have dominated American education which over time has led to a reduction in students’ capacity for knowledge and rational thought.  The consequences of this incapacitation include most of the social maladies our country presently experiences.  The more God and the Framers of our American system are removed from education, the weaker the American education system becomes. Various individual classroom teachers understand the shortcomings, but they are powerless to change the system from within. Foundational and historical beliefs of morality have been assaulted and eroded away, being replaced by moral relativism. The present education system is leading successive generations inexorably to the point where our freedoms are being limited, our standard of living is threatened, and the very life of our Republic is at stake.

This is such a great article from Orrin that I had to republish it here:

Separation of Education & State
Peeling away the layers of rhetoric from reality in our Public School System, one discovers an interesting paradox; even though Americans enthusiastically support the Separation of Church & State, strangely, they do not feel the same vigor for Separation of Education & State.  What are the real differences between religion and education, lifting the veil on both reveals underlying presuppositions that are unprovable, making both more a matter of faith rather than science, requiring belief in doctrines that cannot empirically be proven true or false.  The administrators (High Priests) of both genres feed the faithful accepted doctrines, brooking no resistance to the approved creeds.  Don’t misunderstand me, I am not against organized religion nor organized education, the more of both the better, as far as I am concerned, for man and society.  Everything in life boils down to faith when you backtrack it to first principles, dealing with world-views and the like.   My question to the State School Board or, if I may be so bold, the Priests of Education, is why, during the founding of America, was it so important to ensure the State never crossed into the religious sphere, protecting the people against a powerful centralized State Church, even going so far as to make it one of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights?  The government wouldn’t consider creating a State Church, requiring mandatory attendance every Sunday, teaching State Doctrines at State Churches in every neighborhood; but we yield to our government the same level of control, requiring mandatory attendance, not on Sundays, but Monday through Fridays, educating all adolescents in State Doctrines at State Schools (Churches).  When State centralized education requires mandatory attendance of children at State School schools, teaching doctrines much like churches teach creeds,, reaching into every home, I get a bit concerned.  The only options for parents, other than surrendering to tyranny, are to quit the public school system entirely, while still supporting them with their local taxes. This doesn’t sound like freedom to me.

As I see it, religious doctrines and educational doctrines are merely different sides of the same coin.  Just as theories abound, teaching various religious creeds, suggesting the proper methods and principles to worship God, so too, theories abound teaching various educational creeds, suggesting the proper methods and principles to teach a child. Yet, somehow, we believe an omniscient State will select just the right creeds for our child, regardless of his or her circumstances, ignoring our child’s family life, religious principles, or career aspirations.  Now I am a reasonable person, certainly willing to hear all rational discussions on the subject, but something strikes me as disingenuous, separating a man’s religious beliefs so completely from his educational beliefs.  To use just one example, suppose a young man was taught in the home or church, that God made men and women for each other, under the sacrament of marriage.  He might have a hard time swallowing any contrary doctrine, offered up in our State Schools.  Now before you bash me as a sexist, gender hater, etc, please hear my point, the point is, shouldn’t the same freedoms that apply to religion apply when referring to education?  Regardless of the specific doctrines one believes in, a higher doctrine ought to be the freedom to choose, since America is famous for being the “land of freedom.”  No one should be forced to endure an indoctrination against his will nor forced to submit his children to the same treatment.  If parents choose to send their children to another school, aligning better with their personal beliefs, they ought to have that right, transferring their tax dollars to the school of choice, instead of paying more.  I believe in freedom of choice so much, that I would fight for your right to disagree with my beliefs, choosing to send your children to another school; the school of your choice.  Freedom ensures that we all get the education for our children that we desire, not what the State desires.  Free discussion and free choices makes us all better, that’s what makes America great.

Thomas Jefferson, one of the earliest and strongest proponents of religious freedoms, shared these principles with his fellow Virginia delegates, arguing that it’s unjust to charge Presbyterians, Baptist, Congregationalist, etc, to support the Virginia Anglican State Church.  For example, if a Baptist moved to Virginia, he was required to pay a tax to support the Anglican church even though he didn’t attend nor believe the Anglican creeds. Liberty loving Virginians could see the justice in Mr. Jefferson’s views and repealed the mandatory tax supporting the Virginia State Church.  The Separation of Church & State became a foundational plank in Virginia, eventually finding its way into the Constitution through the Bill of Rights, inspiring millions to come to America to enjoy religious freedom.  An interesting aside is George Washington’s thoughts on the Separation of Church & State, believing that churches built character through faith and creeds, Washington was hesitant to see churches not funded by public taxes; therefore, he proposed to tax all citizens, but give them a choice of which church to support.  Mr. Washington proposed a voucher program for religion, giving freedom of choice while ensuring that churches thrived to build character in the people for the benefit of society. No, I’m not proposing launching church vouchers, invoking the name of the great George Washington to bolster my position.  I believe keeping government out of local churches, the true meaning of Separation of Church & State, has been a blessing, allowing each church to serve their God and congregations as they please, not requiring, nor asking for, government handouts.

My aside on Washington was merely to point out how important freedom of choice was to our Founding Fathers, a freedom sadly missing from our current Public School System.  How many millions of children over the years, having conflicting beliefs with the High Priest of Education, went to private schools by the free choice of the parents, paying a tuition for private school on one hand, while still being taxed by the State School on the other hand. But let’s not forget the recent phenomena, if not outright revolution, called Home Schooling.  Over the last thirty years or so, millions of children have been home schooled, a challenging endeavor, where parents choose to educate their children, receiving no pay, giving of their time and money in a labor of love, but still suffering from the tax load of a State School they are no longer employing.  A young Thomas Jefferson, when faced with a similar situation in 18th century Virginia, confronted by the injustice of forcing parishioner of other sects to pay for a church they didn’t attend, loved freedom enough to do something about it. Maybe George Washington’s idea, if converted from religion to education has merit.  School vouchers, a plan where each parent is given a voucher from the State to spend at the school of their choice, would solve the Separation of Education & State issue.  Giving each parent a voucher, allowing each family to choose the school that best fits their needs, brings free enterprise and decentralization to the school system.  The school options will increase and conflicts over doctrines will decrease by allowing parents to choose an education that marries with their religious beliefs and student's career choices. Perhaps America, that beacon of light, though flickering a bit of late, will remember its great heritage, standing against injustices, even if it doesn’t directly affect them; because tyranny, when given a chance to seed in society’s soil, sinks it roots deeply, consuming everything in its path.

I purposely kept this discussion at fifty thousand feet, not diving into the details of our State School System, not that there isn’t plenty to say, but only because I didn’t want to take away from my main message.  Few will argue that our State Schools are broken, throwing more money at State Schools seems to be the only solution bantered about.  I have learned over the years that, if the riverbed is wrong, pouring more water in the river isn’t the answer.  Until we start working on the foundation, the riverbed, nothing is going to change.  The riverbed change, in my opinion, is Separation of Education & State. Of course, the State System is failing, because the State is involved in an area that is shouldn’t be. Can you name any government program designed to serve the public that hasn't failed miserably?  It’s not the teachers, nor the students, but the entire system based upon centralized control that must be rooted out.  Thomas Jefferson understood this, which is why he decentralized religion from government, making a riverbed change; we need modern day Jefferson’s to decentralize schooling from government, making another riverbed change. I believe firmly that a free enterprise school system, where parents vote with their vouchers, rewarding excellence while punishing incompetence as all customers do in free enterprise, will build a world class educational system that can compete in today’s “flat world.”  The key is for free people to make free choices.  As over time, free people making free choices will always thrive over tyrannized people following State bureaucrats.  Perhaps a Jefferson will step up, creating a Separation of Education & State as Thomas Jefferson’s created a Separation of Religion & State.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Friday, September 17, 2010

Citizen Link: Founding Fathers on the Constitution of the United States

In all my recent reading on the Constitution, I regularly read commentary on current events relative to Constitutional matters.  CitizenLink has insightful and educational articles addressing certain issues of today.  Be informed! Get involved!  It is your country. It's your Constitution.  This article in particular I found insightful since these were the men who wrote it. Should we not also have the passion to know, understand and defend it?
Friday Five: Founding Fathers on the Constitution of the United States
Posted By Catherine Snow On September 17, 2010 @ 5:04 pm In Friday 5,Top Story | No Comments

Today, Sept. 17, is the 223rd birthday of the signing of the U.S. Constitution in Philadelphia.
To pay homage to this foundational document, CitizenLink reflects on the words proclaimed by the Founding Fathers –men who pledged not only their fortunes – but their very lives – for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…”
The Constitution is under attack like never before. The liberal, elite establishment positioned throughout various pillars of society –politics, government, media, education and entertainment – want to dismantle this founding document and seem willing to replace it with international laws suite to their goals.
Americans, however, are waking up – as seen by spontaneous growth of the Tea Party movement, the intense thirst in reading about the Founding Fathers and the founding documents. Over three million pocket Constitutions have been handed out by the Heritage Foundation – and that’s just one organization! This explains the results of a new AP poll released today that says that three-fourths of Americans still believe the Constitution is “enduring and not outdated.”
1.    What would the Founding Fathers say today about the Constitution?
George Washington of Virginia and first president of the United States:
“The Constitution is the guide which I will never abandon.”
William Paterson of New Jersey and signer of the Constitution:
“What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental law are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it.”
Alexander Hamilton of New York and author of the Federalist Papers:
“[T]he Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution. But this doctrine is not deducible from any circumstance peculiar to the plan of convention, but from the general theory of a limited Constitution.”
John Jay, president of the Continental Congress, appointed by George Washington as the first Supreme Court Justice and co-author of the Federalist Papers, advised:
“Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the constitution of his country. . . . By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be the better prepared to defend and assert them.”
George Washington:
“(T)he fundamental principle of our Constitution… enjoins (requires) that the will of the majority shall prevail.”
2.    What did the Founding Fathers try to accomplish in the Constitution?
James Madison, fourth president of the U.S. and “Father of the Constitution,” wrote to Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote on Oct. 24, 1787:
“The great objects which presented themselves were:
  1. To unite a proper energy in the Executive and a proper stability in the Legislative departments, with the essential characters of Republican Government.
  2. To draw a line of demarcation which would give the general Government every power requisite for general purposes, and leave to the States every power which might e most beneficially administered by them.
  3. To provide for the different interests of different parts of the Union.
  4. To adjust the clashing pretensions of the large and small States. Each of these objects was pregnant with difficulties.
“The whole of them together formed a task more difficult than can be well conceived by those who were not concerned in the execution of it.”
3.    What would the Founding Fathers think about the federal government’s encroachment into rights relegated to the States?
James Madison:
“The people are the only legitimate foundation of power, and it is from that the constitutional character, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.”
Thomas Jefferson:
“The states can best govern our home concerns, and the (federal) government our foreign ones.”
Joseph Story, author of the comprehensive “Commentaries of the Constitution,”     which is considered one of the cornerstones of American jurisprudence:
“The plain import of the clause is, that congress shall have all the incidental and instrumental powers, necessary and proper to carry into execution all the express powers. It neither enlarges any power specifically granted; nor is it a grant of any new power to congress. But it is merely a declaration for the removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution those, otherwise granted, are included in the grant.”
James Madison:
“As the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial departments of the United States are co-ordinate, and each equally bound to support the Constitution, it follows that each must in the exercise of its functions be guided by the text of the Constitution according to its own interpretation of it.”
Thomas Jefferson:
“Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance and from under the eye of their constituents . . . will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder, and waste. . . . What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building, and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the state powers into the hands of the federal government!”
4.    What would the Founding Fathers think about this Congress’ use of the “General Welfare Clause” in order to justify everything from bailouts to “health care for all”?
James Madison addressed this very issue in 1792, when some congressman attempted to “bailout” the ailing fishing industry.  Madison explained why it was unconstitutional:
“Those who proposed the Constitution knew, and those who ratified the Constitution also knew that this is . . . a limited government tied down to specified powers. . . . It was never supposed or suspected that the old Congress could give away the money of the states to encourage agriculture or for any other purpose they pleased.”
As if a portent to the consequences this country now faces, he warned:
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the ‘general welfare,’ and are the sole and supreme judges of the ‘general welfare,’ then they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the United States; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police would be thrown under the power of Congress, for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the ‘general welfare.’”
5.    Why did the Founding Fathers make the judicial branch the weakest branch of government?
Thomas Jefferson:
“Our Constitution. . . . has given – according to this opinion – to one of [the three Branches] alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others – and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. . . . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
Thomas Jefferson:
“When the Legislative or Executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them [the people] not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”
Jonathan Mason, law student trained by John Adams and an early member of Congress:
“The independence of the judiciary so much desired will – if tolerated – soon become something like supremacy. They will, indeed, form the main pillar of this goodly fabric; they will soon become the only remaining pillar, and they will presently be so strong as to crush and absorb the others into their solid mass.”
Rufus King of Massachusetts, signer of the Constitution, framer of the Bill of Rights:
“The judges must interpret the laws; they ought not to be legislators.”
Luther Martin, framer of the Constitution and attorney general of Maryland:
“A  knowledge of mankind and of legislative affairs cannot be presumed to belong in a higher degree to the judges than to the Legislature.”
Thomas Jefferson:
“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions – a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. . . . (A)nd their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective.”
Watch Heritage Foundation’s, “We the People: Honoring Constitution Day.” [1]

Get back to the basics with Heritage’s comprehensive “First Principle” website. [2]
Read David Barton’s, “Keys to Good Government: According to the Founding Fathers.” [3]
Learn more about historian David Barton and Wallbuilders. [4]
Read former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese’s blog, “Constitution Day and the Perilous Future.”[5]
Read the Alabama Policy Institute’s, “What Will Students Learn on Constitution Day?” [6]

Related posts:
  1. Constitution Headlines Celebration in Northern Virginia [7]
  2. Position Statement on Federal Judicial Appointments [8]
  3. Abortion Law in the United States [9]
  4. Dr. Dobson Helps Larry King Understand ‘Separation of Church and State’ [10]

Article printed from CitizenLink:
URL to article:
URLs in this post:
[1] “We the People: Honoring Constitution Day.”:
[2] Get back to the basics with Heritage’s comprehensive “First Principle” website.:
[3] “Keys to Good Government: According to the Founding Fathers.”:
[4] Learn more about historian David Barton and Wallbuilders.:
[5] “Constitution Day and the Perilous Future.”:
[6] “What Will Students Learn on Constitution Day?”:
[7] Constitution Headlines Celebration in Northern Virginia:
[8] Position Statement on Federal Judicial Appointments:
[9] Abortion Law in the United States:
[10] Dr. Dobson Helps Larry King Understand ‘Separation of Church and State’:
Copyright © 2010 CitizenLink. All rights reserved.

Friday, September 10, 2010

It's Only Freedom at Stake

In light of the turmoil and lack of direction our country, our economy, our government, our culture, and pretty much everything else in America is experiencing, I have been doing a considerable amount of self study.  What I have found is this:  I absolutely love all of the incredible reading and study I have been doing on the Constitution of the United States, the history behind it, and the incredible freedoms we enjoy as Americans because of it.  I am also utterly appalled at the degradation of our Constitution's authority and purity and how we have all allowed this decay to not only endure but 'progressively' hasten.  The fragile liberties we have enjoyed are under massive attack today and are not being protected.  Many are focused on simply the economic issues while the spiritual and political freedoms are being undermined.  Each of these freedoms are not autonomous of each other but interdependent upon one another.  We will never save one without preserving the others.  Without 'The People' defending those liberties, they will surely perish.  We must be that People.  There is no one else.  This will require leadership, our own personal leadership.  That leadership begins with knowing & understanding what is at risk and why.  Read and educate yourself on the incredible providential history of these United States.  Discover why we have enjoyed the freedoms we have and how far we have come from their creation.  You will be sucked into the great mission that was America and the passion behind those first heroes who were citizens of an idea that was yet to be formed.  America needs such heroes again.  America needs YOU!!
Here is a great introduction of the foundational freedoms at stake from my friend and leader, Orrin Woodward.

Murray Rothbard - The Discipline of Liberty
I am sitting in my hotel suite, overlooking the blue ocean as the sunrises, pondering the meaning of liberty.  Yesterday, Laurie and I, plus three of our children (Jeremy lectured me on why he needed to stay home to fulfill his soccer commitments), enjoyed the freedom to hop on an airplane and travel to Hawaii.  This is our 10th time to Hawaii in 11 years.  We have been blessed to enjoy the liberty to build our own business, to enjoy the fruits of our labors and to share our experiences and knowledge with others to help others prosper.  Underlying all of these blessing is our Creator's blessings and a system of free enterprise that rewards people based upon their individual contributions.  Anyone that isn’t hiding in a hole is well aware that our liberties are waning as Big Government attempts to solve issues that it cannot solve and wasn’t created to solve.  The more government spends on items that it cannot solve, the less freedom all citizens have.

I am sometimes criticized for mixing faith, politics, and leadership together, but without combined columns of spiritual freedom, economic freedom, and political freedom, our freedom edifice will fall.  If any leader allows one of these planks to be attacked and does nothing, the whole edifice of liberty will fall.  The blood will be on our hands for not only, not improving, but allowing the rot of our liberty based systems.  Are you a leader?  Then you have a responsibility to learn why spiritual, economic and political freedoms rise and fall together, because you have enjoyed the fruits of the labor of the many who have led before us.  Freedom isn’t free and must be defended with a vigilance against all would be tyrants, even if the tyrant is an out of control democracy.  We have met the enemy and the enemy is us.  Here is a portion of an introduction by Murray Rothbard from his book Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, who is fast becoming one of my favorite economists.  Rothbard teaches the importance of economists branching out into the fields of politics, leadership, philosophy etc, as all areas tie together to create our endangered liberties.  Read the post and ask yourself what role you can play to defend liberty. God Bess, Orrin Woodward

Probably the most common question that has been hurled at me—in some exasperation—over the years is: "Why don't you stick to economics?" For different reasons, this question has been thrown at me by fellow economists and by political thinkers and activists of many different persuasions: Conservatives, Liberals, and Libertarians who have disagreed with me over political doctrine and are annoyed that an economist should venture "outside of his discipline."

Among economists, such a question is a sad reflection of the hyper-specialization among intellectuals of the present age. I think it manifestly true that very few of even the most dedicated economic technicians began their interest in economics because they were fascinated by cost curves, indifference classes, and the rest of the paraphernalia of modern economic theory. Almost to a man, they became interested in economics because they were interested in social and political problems and because they realized that the really hard political problems cannot be solved without an understanding of economics. After all, if they were really interested mainly in equations and tangencies on graphs, they would have become professional mathematicians and not have devoted their energies to an economic theory that is, at best, a third-rate application of mathematics. Unfortunately, what usually happens to these people is that as they learn the often imposing structure and apparatus of economic theory, they become so fascinated by the minutiae of technique that they lose sight of the political and social problems that sparked their interest in the first place. This fascination is also reinforced by the economic structure of the economics profession (and all other academic professions) itself: namely, that prestige, rewards, and brownie points are garnered not by pondering the larger problems but by sticking to one's narrow last and becoming a leading expert on a picayune technical problem.

 Among some economists, this syndrome has been carried so far that they scorn any attention to politico-economic problems as a demeaning and unclean impurity, even when such attention is given by economists who have made their mark in the world of specialized technique. And even among those economists who do deal with political problems, any consideration devoted to such larger extra-economic matters as property rights, the nature of government, or the importance of justice is scorned as hopelessly "metaphysical" and beyond the pale.

It is no accident, however, that the economists of this century of the broadest vision and the keenest insight, men such as Ludwig von Mises, Frank H. Knight, and FA. Hayek, came early to the conclusion that mastery of pure economic theory was not enough, and that it was vital to explore related and fundamental problems of philosophy, political theory, and history. In particular, they realized that it was possible and crucially important to construct a broader systematic theory encompassing human action as a whole, in which economics could take its place as a consistent but subsidiary part.

In my own particular case, the major focus of my interest and my writings over the last three decades has been a part of this broader approach—libertarianism—the discipline of liberty. For I have come to believe that libertarianism is indeed a discipline, a "science," if you will, of its own, even though it has been only barely developed over the generations. Libertarianism is a new and emerging discipline which touches closely on many other areas of the study of human action: economics, philosophy, political theory, history, even—and not least—biology. For all of these provide in varying ways the groundwork, the elaboration, and the application of libertarianism. Some day, perhaps, liberty and "libertarian studies" will be recognized as an independent, though related, part of the academic curriculum.

Saturday, September 04, 2010

Why Is America Bankrupt? A Real Eye Opener...

Here is a great article that can be found at Barnett Financial's recent newsletter. 

Why Is America Bankrupt?
A Real Eye Opener...

There are programs that benefit non-citizens and we often don't think of them. Well putting them all together forms a bigger picture. If you think it was the War in Iraq that has been costing so much, take a look at this...

14 Reasons Why America Is Bankrupt: 

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. 7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the US from the Southern border.
12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.
14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants in the United States

The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 billion dollars a year and if you’re like me having trouble understanding this amount of money; it is $338,300,000,000 which could be enough to stimulate the economy for the actual citizens of this country.
Are we THAT stupid? YES, for letting those in the U.S. Congress get away with letting this happen year after year!!
If this raises the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you forward it to every legal resident in the United States AND PLEASE REMEMBER IT AT THE BALLOT BOX !!!

Verify at:
Verify at: Verify at:
Verify at:
Verify at
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnncom/%20TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt..01.HTML
Verify at:;";rel=" ML%3E; 
Verify at: 
Verify at: 
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn./.com/TRANscriptS/0606/12/ldt..01.HTML<" href="; target=_blank" href="; rel="nofollow 
Verify at: Homeland Security Report Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute./.org/PDF/deportation.PDF 
Verify at: http://www/ <" href="; target=_blank" href="; rel="nofollow ; 
Verify at: http: // <<" href="; target=_blank" href="; rel="nofollow