Christian Persecution: Colorado Baker Jack Phillips Loses His Court Appeal

jack-phillips

– 17 August 2015 –

Janus:

Janus-smallOn August 13, Colorado baker Jack Phillips lost his latest battle to bake cakes according to his conscience.  From WorldNetDaily:

Three Colorado appeals-court judges endorsed Thursday a lower court’s decision to force a Christian baker, already labeled by a state official as a Nazi, to violate his faith and provide wedding cakes to same-sex couples.

The state’s plan also includes indoctrinating bakery workers regarding the treatment of homosexual customers.

The state Court of Appeals opinion by Judge Dan Taubman was joined by Alan Loeb and Mike Berger.

They rejected constitutional arguments raised by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys who represented baker Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop.

Phillips was targeted by homosexuals who explained they were getting married in another state but wanted a cake in Colorado, where same-sex marriage at the time was not legal. The court opinion notes Phillips said his bakery accepts customers regardless of sexual orientation but does not make cakes for same-sex wedding ceremonies.

Nevertheless, the homosexual duo, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, filed a complaint with the state, which ruled against the bakery. One official compared Phillips and his cakeshop to Nazis.

That was when Diann Rice, a member of the state civil rights commission, said: “I would also like to reiterate what we said in the hearing or the last meeting. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust, whether it be – I mean, we – we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to – to use their religion to hurt others.”

Sounds like an inquisition for a heretic rather than a free and fair trial.

diann-rice-2

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, or Inquisition, to combat heresy against protected victim groups. Diann Rice, who can’t distinguish between the state forcing Christians to participate in un-Christian behaviors from slave-ownership and—of course—the Holocaust, finds the argument of religious freedom ‘despicable’.  She is seated second from the left.

According to a Daily Mail article, Phillips and his lawyer haven’t ruled out appealing their case to the Supreme Court.  I hope they do, though it is likely that the corrupted Supreme Court would uphold the previous verdict.

Phillips has shown a patient and gentle fortitude in this three-year-long war.  He hasn’t budged in his resolve during all of this time, and he will never obey these rulings.  He is an example for us all.

Todd Starnes from Fox News wrote an excellent article on this newest update in the case:

As it stands – Jack will be required by the government to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples. If he denies anyone service, he will be required to explain why. He is also expected to retrain his staff in the state’s anti-discrimination policies – including his 88-year-old mother.

It sounds like the government wants to round up Phillips and his staff and haul them to a reeducation camp – where they can be purged of the religious beliefs that offend the LGBT community.

“My mom is on my staff and she said she will not be retrained,” he defiantly said. “And I’m not going to make same-sex wedding cakes.”

Jack stopped making all wedding cakes last year – but one day he hopes to resume his passion.

“I would like that to be my choice and not the government telling me which ones I can do and which ones I can’t,” he said.
Jack said Christian business owners are under attack – especially those providing goods and services to the wedding industry.

“A lot of Christians are under attack – bakers and florists, wedding chapels,” he said.

Jack came under attack in 2012 when he declined to make a cake for Craig and Mullins. There were plenty of bakeries that would have provided the cake – but for whatever reason – they targeted Masterpiece Cakeshop.

According to the court documents, Jack offered to make them any other baked goods – including cakes. But that wasn’t good enough for the gay couple. They demanded that he make a wedding cake.

And when Jack refused – they filed discrimination charges – leading to a long court battle.

If you Google Jack’s name – you’ll find that many of the LGBT bullies and their minions have smeared his good name. He’s been called all sorts of things – from homophobic to a right-wing bigot.

But in reality he’s none of those things.

There was one item that I found particular interesting in the appeals court ruling. Apparently an administrative law judge had been investigating Phillips’ spiritual life. Here’s the verbatim quote:

“The ALJ found that Phillips had been a Christian for approximately thirty-five years and believes in Jesus Christ as his Lord and savior. Phillips believes that decorating cakes is a form of art, that he can honor God through his artistic talents, and that he would displease God by creating cakes for same-sex marriages.”

I suppose the LGBT bullies and their minions might call that paragraph the “smoking gun.”

And in a way it is – it exposes the heart of this good-natured man.

“I’m a man who is devoted to following Jesus Christ,” he told me. “He’s the one that’s in charge of all this.”

And when all is said and done – Jack Phillips does not answer to the Colorado Court of Appeals. He answers to a Higher Power.

“It’s not up to the courts to decide what marriage is,” he said. “It’s up to God to decide that. If we are living in obedience to Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Bible we are on the right side of history – no matter what they say.”

I pray that Phillips wins his appeal or finds a way to keep baking in freedom.  But regardless of the outcome, he wins through his obedience to Christ.

Note: I’ve been following this case since 2013, previously posting on the subject here and here.

Advertisements

Colorado Baker Jack Phillips Stands His Ground, Suffers for His Faith

jacks-phillips-cbs

Patulcius:

Patulcius-sqLast December, I wondered if Colorado baker Jack Phillips would stand firm in his faith after his state ruled against him for his refusal to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding.  I was wrong to doubt: Phillips’ resolve seems—if anything—stronger now than ever.  But having already ruled against him, Colorado now cranks their persecution up another notch, forcing Phillips to undergo re-education.  From Charisma News via Canada Free Press:

A family owned bakery has been ordered to make wedding cakes for gay couples and guarantee that its staff be given comprehensive training on Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws after the state’s Civil Rights Commission determined the Christian baker violated the law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, in Lakewood, Colorado was directed to change his store policies immediately and force his staff to attend the training sessions. For the next two years, Phillips will also be required to submit quarterly reports to the commission to confirm that he has not turned away customers based on their sexual orientation.

The masks of the left-wing pigs are slipping off, exposing the tyranny that always lurked behind their facades of tolerance and peace.  In a way, we should celebrate this exposure: we can more clearly see an enemy who has always attacked us from within.

We on the side of traditionalism can also take heart in this lost Colorado lawsuit.  If Jack Phillips is typical of Christians in America, he shows that common, every-day believers are prepared to face persecution and inconvenience, even jail time and unemployment, against these bullying tyrants.  The fascist masks fall off, but the pigs may be surprised that the Christian flocks have backbones under all that fluff:

“My God is bigger than any bullies they’ve got,” he said. “I don’t worry about it. I honor my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and be true to what He wants me to do.”

And the Civil Rights Commission is going to have a mighty hard time trying to “rehabilitate” Phillips and his staff.

“My 87-year-old mom works here and she says she’s not being rehabilitated,” he said.

Martin said the Alliance Defending Freedom will “continue to stand with Jack against overreach and tyranny by the state.”

“Jack has gone out on a limb and taken this stand – and not capitulated to the government’s demands,” she said. “That speaks volumes about him.”

And should the highest court in the land force Jack to do the bidding of homosexuals?

“There’s civil disobedience,” Phillips told me. “We’ll see what happens. I’m not giving up my faith. Too many people have died for this faith to give it up that easily.”

Meanwhile, the bullying tactics of the militant gay rights community have not hampered the bakery’s bottom line. They’ve gotten so much business from the sales of cookies and brownies, they’ve temporarily stopped making wedding cakes.

“Obey Christ rather than worry about what man can do to you,” Phillips said.

In his firm resistance to persecution, Jack Phillips has become a Christian hero.  Let us keep him in our prayers.

Tonsillectomy Death at the Oakland Children’s Hospital and Why Americans Shouldn’t Trust their Doctors

Jahi-McMath

Clusivius:

Clusivius-sqA 13-year-old girl named Jahi McMath went to the Oakland Children’s Hospital on December 9 for a tonsillectomy to treat her sleep apnea. Hours later she died at the same hospital from profuse bleeding and cardiac arrest caused by the procedure. The hospital managed to keep her on life support, but their tests showed no brain activity, and they declared her legally dead.

The public controversy of this case arises from the hospital’s desire to cut off the life support on this “dead body” and the family’s attempts to keep her body alive in their hope for a miracle. So far a judge has twice intervened to extend her life support, now to January 7. But complicating the case is the potential complicity of the hospital in her death and the cold-hearted eagerness of the hospital to pull the plug.

Children’s Hospital Oakland has a very good reputation where I live in the Bay Area. But its public communication around the tragedy of Jahi McMath’s ”brain death” has been astoundingly insensitive, bordering on arrogant.

The hospital’s statements quoted in today’s San Francisco Chronicle continues the maladroit insensitivity. The hospital states it will remove the ventilator the moment that can be done legally. From the story:

Children’s Hospital Oakland officials confirmed Sunday they will turn off the machines sustaining Jahi McMath’s body as soon as a legal injunction expires at 5 p.m. Monday unless otherwise ordered by a court. “Barring any other court-order legal action by the family, the ventilator will be shut off at 5 p.m. tomorrow,” said hospital spokesman Sam Singer. “It’s tremendously sad, but that’s what’s going to occur.”

Not five minutes after five. Not sometime after five. Not one second after five. At five! I can picture a doctor looking at his watch counting down the seconds, “three, two, one…”.

Then there’s this:

“Children’s Hospital Oakland continues to support the family of Jahi McMath in this time of grief and loss over her death,” the hospital said in a statement Sunday. “We continue to do so despite their lawyer’s criticizing the very hospital that all along has been working hard to be accommodating to this grieving family.

Gee, that’s big of you. Why have hospital spokespersons acted throughout this sad saga as if the institution is the victim?

Much of the nastiness comes from the hospital’s PR consultant Sam Singer, who seems ill suited for his job of sugar-coating the hospital’s eagerness to not only pull the plug on this girl but to prevent any other facility from taking her in her present condition.  The coldness of the hospital’s lawyer, Douglas Straus, only adds to this nasty impression.

singer-straus

The insensitivity and arrogance of Oakland Children’s Hospital spokesman Sam Singer and the hospital’s attorney Douglas Straus has created a PR disaster for the California hospital.

Meanwhile, the fact that Jahi McMath died because of a failed surgery performed at this same Oakland Children’s Hospital seems to have little bearing on anyone’s behavior in this case and isn’t widely highlighted in the news. One gets the impression that this sort of death just happens sometimes, like hail storms, and there is nothing that anyone can or should do about it.

While hospitals are quick to say that any surgery is risky, death from tonsillectomy is rare, occurring in 1 case for about every 15,000 performed.[1] [2] Each tonsillectomy death that happens ought to be carefully scrutinized, and maybe this one was. But that doesn’t excuse the callous treatment by the hospital.

According to reports, this family’s insurance is willing to pay to keep her on life support for some time, so it doesn’t appear that the hospital will lose money. (And would these sprawling medical palaces with their indoor waterfalls and botanical gardens ever allow themselves to lose money?) So why is the hospital placing so many roadblocks for other facilities to accept her? The hospital’s lawyer, Douglas Straus, issued a statement that rather coldly outlines all of the conditions that they require for another facility to accept the girl. Callous experts seem to think that the hospital is fighting against the possibility that brain deaths will be harder to declare in the future.

The moral of the story: we should not trust our doctors. Doctors, for all of their fancy and rigorous qualifications, aren’t much better at diagnosis and repair than the local grease monkey at the auto shop.

Like any businessmen, doctors have an incentive to make money with the minimal effort possible. If that means rushing a patient through a five minute interview and telling the nurse to prescribe some pills to shut him up, then so be it.

Doctors often inflate the value of their own knowledge and abilities, achieved through their qualifications and experience, a knowledge that they believe trumps any doubts or complaints (or even questions) that their patient may have. They hear all sorts of babble from hypochondriacs, and this can make them cynical. But they haven’t lived with their patient’s body for decades, either.

And doctors, especially in hospitals, also tend to take a possessive attitude towards their patients, considering them to be wards in their custody. Doctors know what’s best, and they aren’t inclined to allow a patient to leave their care once that patient is admitted. Just try to leave a hospital without their proper discharge. This conceit especially applies to children, as the recent example of the Amish girl with cancer highlights.

CVC-garden-from-above-21-1024x682

Would these sprawling medical palaces with their indoor waterfalls and botanical gardens ever allow themselves to lose money?

Provisions in ObamaCare to gather a variety of impertinent information on medical patients, such as sexual relations and history of psychological issues, could impact our lives in unknown ways. Surely the government will use this information for its own purposes, which may be simple data analysis or the typical social engineering, but certainly could be used for outright gun confiscation or political blackmail.

As the government intrudes ever more deeply into the medical industry, Americans can expect a shift from a system whose primary customers are insurance companies to one where doctors show the most concern for satisfying the government. And while insurance companies must at least somewhat consider the wishes of their paying customers, government bureaucracy has little incentive to do so. Unfortunately, it’s easier—a little—to change our insurance companies than to change our government. The end result is a medical system that cares less about the well-being of its patients and more about staying out of trouble with the government. In that case, we can expect more cases like that of Jahi McMath.

One way or another, we mustn’t blindly trust our doctors. Especially now.

Patulcius:

Patulcius-sqThe Oakland Children’s Hospital is definitely showing a lack of sensitivity to the family of a child who died because of their own failed procedure, and as Wesley J. Smith said in the above-quoted article, it is a PR disaster for them. But the hospital is correct to try to move this case along, even if they aren’t doing it with the greatest finesse.

The grieving mother will never willingly pull the plug on her daughter’s body. She sees a child who appears to respond to her voice and touch and doesn’t care what anyone says about it. Who could blame her? Most mothers would behave the same way in this situation.

But the child is showing no brain activity at all. She’s not in a coma and she’s not in a vegetative state, she’s dead. According to some of these news stories, the state of California requires two doctors to confirm brain death with two separate tests three hours apart from one another. Additionally, the family (rightly) brought in three additional doctors to confirm the condition, and all five doctors found the child to be brain dead. While a miracle from God could certainly save her, we can’t expect the hospital to keep her on life support on the basis of a miracle when she is already clinically dead.

Bluntly said, hospitals are intended to save lives, not cater to corpses. It’s an unpleasant truth, but those who deal with death so frequently must address this unpleasant subject.

This is one of those cases where technology has muddied what once was a clear-cut matter.

As far as trusting doctors, a second opinion can be a good idea, but we should weigh a doctor’s opinion pretty heavily. They have experience and knowledge that we typically don’t. But maybe we don’t have to run to a doctor for every sneeze or runny nose, or to request the latest prescription for restless leg syndrome that we saw on a one-minute commercial.

Considering ObamaCare, we should resist sharing information to doctors or to the government that has nothing to do with our particular cases. It isn’t necessary to openly defy them (this can cause even more unnecessary troubles). If it’s possible to say nothing, we should say nothing; if an answer is required, a quiet “N/A” should suffice.

Concorditas:

ConcorditasAs terrible as many of California’s ideas about laws and rights may be these days, it seems like matters are proceeding as they should in the case of Jahi McMath.

The mother is rightly fighting for her child’s life. She sees her child responding to her touch and her voice, and she’s right to challenge the hospital in every way she can.

The hospital is justifiably, if heartlessly, trying to pull the plug on the girl. They see a brain-dead corpse, and they want to avoid a precedent that will make it harder to declare a person dead. They might have chosen a callous way to push their case, but they are justified in doing so.

And the legal system is allowing time for this case to get settled in a just way by extending her life support until January 7. McMath’s mother has more time to either find a facility that can comply with the hospital’s conditions for removal and/or for doctors to observe her case over a period of time. Or for her lawyer to determine if the hospital is trying to hide its complicity in McMath’s death.

The system seems to be working in this case. Meanwhile, my prayers and best wishes go out to McMath and her family.

[Update: On January 5, Jahi McMath was moved from the Oakland Children’s Hospital to an undisclosed facility where she will remain on life support.  Medical “ethicists” howl and scream in indignation.]

[1] Windfuhr, Schloendorff, Sesterhenn, Prescher, and Kremer. “A Devastating Outcome after Adenoidectomy and Tonsillectomy: Ideas for Improved Prevention and Management.” Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery (2009). Metro Atlanta Educational Society for Otolaryngology, Apr. 2009. Web. 1 Jan. 2014. http://www.metroatlantaotolaryngology.org/journal/apr09/Devastating%20T%20%26%20A.pdf>

[2] Encyclopedia of Surgery. “Surgery.” Tonsillectomy. Advameg, Inc., n.d. Web. 01 Jan. 2014. <http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/St-Wr/Tonsillectomy.html

Will the Colorado Baker Stand by His Convictions or Fall in Line?

6_6_2013_cake-0028201_s640x426

Patulcius:

Patulcius-sqNow that Colorado has declared illegal his refusal to bake a homosexual wedding cake, what will baker/criminal Jack Phillips do next?  Will he stand firm?

When asked yesterday on Fox News’ Fox and Friends whether he would go to jail for his religious beliefs, he guessed that he would.  See the video at 2 minutes, 41 seconds:

I wish Jack Phillips well, and I have no reason to doubt his convictions, but he doesn’t seem to be very firm in his determination to go to jail for his beliefs on this issue.  Maybe he’ll just flee the state and find some other place to open his business where there aren’t as many homosexuals.  But I’d expect the merciless homosexuals would track down his new business.  (It’s not like they have to worry about finding babysitters for their children.)

But he has already stood up for a year and a half, facing a great deal of pressure to cave to this ever-so-tolerant minority:

A Lakewood gay couple may end up having a masterpiece of a wedding, but they won’t have a “Masterpiece” cake to go along with it.

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, told the couple they have their sexual orientation to thank for that. It’s an event that occurred on the afternoon of July 19, and it’s sparking national attention, a petition and a boycott of the local bakery…

…While this incident has brought about several death threats – the cake shop was forced to call the police Sunday – Phillips said the boom in publicity hasn’t hurt business. Just the opposite, in fact.

“(On Monday) we had about twice as much business as normal,” Phillips said. “There are people coming in to support us.”

So far his convictions haven’t hurt him very much.  But what will he do when the police pay him a visit or when his wife is crying at night?  I hope and pray that Mr. Phillips stands firm.

The Senate Amnesty Bill; Why Must the West Uniquely Open the Floodgates?

Gang-of-8

What’s so funny, Gang of Eight? Just the decline and fall of Western Civilization, that’s all.

Patulcius

The United States government seems bent on foisting an amnesty for the country’s supposedly 11 million illegal aliens on the American people whether they want it or not.[1]  The ‘Gang of Eight’ Senate bill, called the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (S. 744), would allow illegal immigrants who arrived before 31 December 2011 to become legal residents if they meet various conditions, such as paying back-taxes and having a clean criminal record,[2] and the bill gives them a pathway to US citizenship.

The smug, aptly-named ‘Gang of Eight’ assures Americans that this bill will establish border security before these migrants can become citizens, but we heard this sort of nonsense back in 1986 to promote the passage of the previous amnesty.  The new bill grants more H1-B worker visas each year (from a current 85,000 to 205,000), and it allows more agricultural workers inside the country.  The bill allows Congress to change the amounts of future immigrants based on ‘economic conditions’, but this would likely mean, in practice, that limits on the numbers of issued green cards would effectively disappear.

Earnest-faced conservatives, terrified that they might feel racist, are always saying that they don’t mind legal immigrants, but they strongly oppose the illegal variety.  But how does an invasion that the government sanctions bring different results than an invasion that happens illegally?  Our country is still transformed, our local cultures drowned out.

And why must the West uniquely absorb the excess populations of other nations?  In doing so, Western nations seem to say that they possess no national or cultural heritage that is worth maintaining.  Our globalist leaders would suggest that our economies, our laws, and government benefits matter the most in a country.

But our nations at one time understood that we were a collection of people who shared a common history, language, ethnicity, and culture.  Minorities were tolerated to various degrees, but they were not allowed to disrupt the nation that surrounded them.  People once considered nationhood as something to cherish and uphold, and, if necessary, to defend.  Virtually no one questioned such an obvious commitment.

What changed?

Since the 1950’s and especially the 60’s, Western nations, ashamed of their recent legacies of colonial exploitation and white supremacy, embraced a suicidal policy of immigration from other countries, particularly from non-European countries.  It wasn’t ‘nice’ to deny the benefits of one’s country to others, especially when one’s country had shamelessly exploited the people who clamored to move in.  Whites forced themselves to believe that anyone from anywhere could assimilate into their countries, that Turks could become good, orderly Germans, that Moroccans would transform themselves into fine, upstanding French snobs.  Mexicans, we are assured, want to become law-abiding, English-speaking US citizens.  Somehow the reality has failed to meet these utopian ideals.

Rather than assimilate, the non-European migrants have created large pockets of restless, unemployed, resentful populations that are reproducing faster than the secularized, egalitarianized natives.

riot-cp-3953861-392

Europeans are starting to figure out that mass immigration isn’t working.

In Europe, mostly Muslim immigrants possess little respect for the societal nihilism that surrounds them, and they wish to impose their own unyielding society on the natives.

In the United States, immigrants more simply want to work and send money home, or take advantage of the welfare system.  Few of them have any real loyalty to the United States, even fewer value our traditions of individual liberty and Christian morality.  (And why should they when so few Americans do?)

Given enough time and enough continued migration, the immigrants will transform their host nations into the types of countries from which they departed—poor, heterogeneous, corrupt, and unstable.

It is interesting that people from non-Western countries have come to understand that it is okay to maintain their cultures and ethnicities as nation-states in their own lands (although these countries often do force their own local minorities to assimilate), but white countries become dangerous and racist when they assert dominance within their own countries.  This dichotomy ironically stems from the worldwide ascendancy of Western culture, a culture that despises its own traditions and history of ethnic dominance.  People in non-Western countries ultimately face, as the West now faces, self-destruction of their own culture, sovereignty, and ethnicity pushed by their own Westernized international elites.

Each nation of people on this earth, however great or small, should be able to maintain its own borders, language, ethnicity, and culture.  Likewise, each nation should respect the borders, language, ethnicity, and culture of other nations.

We in the United States, in order to uphold our own enfeebled nation-state, should resist this newest amnesty.  Regardless of the rhetoric, this bill increases the already perilous threat to our language, ethnicity, and culture.

The awful ‘Gang of Eight’ and the major political parties will pressure everyone to support the bill.  The Democrats will support the expanded voter base, and Rubio and McCain will warn Republican suckers that without the support of Hispanics they will never win another presidency.

romney-cincy

Typical Romney rally in Cincinnati: Not many brown faces in this crowd. “Fend for yourselves!” doesn’t play out among non-White voting blocs.

But these arguments are false: non-white voting blocs do not share elite progressive concerns; they only want government benefits.  And for conservatives, Hispanics will never, as a whole, become ‘good Republicans’; amnesty will only accelerate the decline of American conservatism.

Strong popular opposition to immigration ‘reform’ has derailed such immigration bills in the recent past, and may well do so again.  We shall see if the American people have the will to preserve themselves.

Clusivius

The immigration situation for Western nations outside of Europe isn’t quite so grim as Patulcius suggests.

In general, very limited immigration can benefit a country if it can attract the world’s best and brightest.  The phenomenon of ‘brain drain’ brings such talented people to an advanced country like the United States.  These are people whose skills would be wasted in their own poor countries.

And, outside of Europe, the immigrants are assimilating.  In the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, most immigrants show signs of learning English (or French in Quebec) and their children have absorbed much of the culture.  By the third generation, these immigrants are often culturally indistinguishable from the white natives.  The prognosis in the long term for the assimilation of immigrants in these countries is quite good, despite some of the heated rhetoric.

Admittedly, immigrants are failing to assimilate within parts of the United States, such as southern Florida and regions of the American southwest, and these do pose a threat to the integrity of the country.  But in areas where a single immigrant group doesn’t dominate a large area, the immigrants will gradually adopt the culture of their new countries.

The greatest danger of immigration, particularly in the United States but also in other Western countries, comes from the political disruption that immigrants bring, at least in the short run.  For the most part, immigrants have little respect for individual liberty as a political ideal.  Their own countries use politics as a means to gain support from different factions within their electorate, and immigrant populations (like many native populations) view voting as an exercise in determining the distribution of largesse.

Elites in the United States dislike individual liberty, and they have managed to tilt the electoral balance in their favor by flooding the country with new voters who care nothing for the Constitution, for individual rights, or for self-sufficiency.  Since so many native-born citizens no longer value these freedoms, they will vanish at the national level as immigration continues to accelerate.

I, too, oppose the amnesty bill.


[1] Dann, Carrie. “They’re Off! Immigration Debate Begins on Senate Floor.” NBC News. NBCNews.com, 7 June 2013. Web. 10 June 2013. http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/07/18829022-theyre-off-immigration-debate-begins-on-senate-floor?lite

[2] How difficult can this be for an immigrant without papers?

  • October 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « May    
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    293031  
%d bloggers like this: