Same Sex “Marriage” as a Weapon Against Liberty

There are many powerful people who purport to believe that religion, “the opiate of the people,” is a scourgjoseph-stalin-39-728e on humanity. Altruists, they purport to genuinely believe that society would be better if all religions, especially Christianity, were expunged from planet earth.

That’s not a constitutional view of course. Freedom of religion is as sacred as the freedom of speech. Like the right to marry, it is part of what is innate in people and part of who we are as people prior to governments. It’s self-evident, no matter what one believes about religion, that governments need to, as much as is possible, keep out of the business of policing faith. Any law or ordinance that puts government into the business of arbitrating religious belief should be shunned. Indeed, governments ought to be in the business of promoting and exalting those freedoms that abound in a free people. This includes the “right to marry” and the practice of religion openly and freely.

marriage 3For instance, the ACLU may believe in the right of same-sex couples to call their unions a marriage too. That’s fine; however, if Reverend James Wilson is correct in his analysis of the effect of laws in Canada as applied in the United States, perhaps the ACLU and others have a more nefarious agenda in mind. Perhaps there is a secret treasure to be exhumed from the corpse of our mangled national marriage laws. With a victory in the Supreme Court, perhaps the ACLU can end religion in public life completely. We will be able to think religious thoughts, but we will not be able to either speak our beliefs or practice them in public.

To some, it’s an abomination to say that humans are, by nature, God-hungry. Indeed, to some, such a belief is a blasphemy against enlightenment. To some, all who profess such things as a right to worship should be shunned and cast out of the public square as filth. That’s fine, but that’s not our constitution. We the people, not the courts, were entrusted by our founders with the legal authority to change the constitutional basis of our land.

Reverend James Wilson wrote in “Proposition 8 protects freedom of religion” that:

“The state Supreme Court decision OK’ing civil rights laws for suppression of doctors’ consciences is part of an alarming pattern. The decision held doctors liable after they refused for religious reasons to inseminate a lesbian. The doctors referred her; there was no injury to the woman as she was inseminated and gave birth. But the court said doctors lose their right to free speech and religion when licensed to practice medicine in California. And if the experience of northern Europe and Canada is any indicator pastors will lose those rights should Proposition 8 fail in November. That is because courts in those nations have found pastors (and any who express politically incorrect views) guilty of hate speech.’:”

Many in California at the time tried to laugh off such notions as ridiculously alarmist, but, even in those days, the series of bilious comments by readers of Wilson’s article made one suspicious. Here were a few from long ago:

“Rev. James Wilson, it’s a shame you don’t follow Jesus’ teachings to love one another instead of spreading hate like this column.
Practice what you preach.”
You have no idea what the Bible says, do ya…

“He’s just being a hypocrite.”

“…it IS ‘hate speech’, MR. Wilson (you don’t deserve to be addressed as “Reverend” – that title should be reserved for people who attempt to reflect God’s love and compassion in their lives).

Revgrx_topbar_v01-40. Wilson’s most controversial line was that “love without truth is not love.” Reverend Wilson’s article was simply one of a tremendous variety of instances in those days surrounding California amending its a Constitution to  define marriage as between a man and a woman. At almost every turn the volume of the spiteful ad hominem attacks increased exponentially when faith was mentioned at all. The raw enmity expressed in any number of reader comments associated with those expressing religious disagreements with homosexuality itself was a firestorm. Whether the religion is Roman Catholic, Mormon, or Muslim, the hate was as furious as it was obvious.

There is no shortage of even more intolerance today. The Supreme Court of the United States’ decision on gay marriage has only made matters Whether it is threatening pizzeria owners in Indiana or suing a little old lady’s flower shop in Washington, examples abound of mean-spirited hate being unleashed nation-wide against Christian believers. Perhaps, this, this torrent of brown-shirted, fascist hatred against the faithful is exactly the point of the entire same sex marriage movement.

Oh, so, when those crazy extremist, right-wing Christians’ heads were on the ACLU’s chopping block, it was no big deal. Have you noticed that even your girls high school locker rooms and your little girls’ public bathrooms are not safe from the homosexual assault on liberty and privacy? Is it a big deal yet? Have you noticed who your true friends have been all this time? Can you see who Liberty’s true enemies are yet?

Law suits are very exact instruments. No one has to sue. No one has to sue a Muslim cake maker. No one has to sue a Muslim cake maker in Dearborn, Michigan. No on has to sue a Jewish florist, but if a powerful group like the ACLU wants to target Christian religious institutions in every state in the nation, the Supreme Court has handed the ACLU a perfect weapon.

We’re still feeling the consequences of the weapon of Roe v. Wade of course. However, this new weapon would be more like the weapon delivered to the ACLU in 1967 when prayer and God were banned from public schools. A fundamental misrepresentation of the Constitution has now become a wedge by way of which the ACLU has threatened even a cross standing as a war memorial in San Diego.

Perhaps it is this weapon against the faithful, not marriage equality at all, that is what the entire court driven, elite media agenda has been all about. The promise of atheism is license to “do whatever feels good.” It’s truth, atheism’s essence is totalitarian slavery.

Darwinism Deselected: Darwin’s Black Box

A scientific theory, besides being readily testable, should explain the natural environment and predict future CDKpo8OXIAAGyGdscientific discovery. As Darwin’s Black Box introduces more recent developments in biochemistry, it illuminates the utter failure of Darwinism as a scientific theory.

Michael Behe’s summary of the latest in microbiology is a manageable and yet thorough read. Even college level biology students would profit by the review. Behe points out the tips of icebergs as he touches on a variety of scientific achievements, but it’s enough. The magnified view of life’s complexity at the cellular level reveals Darwinism as a drooling, infantile failure. Nothing on the cellular level could have happened accidentally, and none of the cell’s intricacies were anticipated by the evolutionary science of the 1890’s. While elements of Darwin’s Black Box are technical, Behe salts his writing with clear analogies designed to usher readers into the sparkling, jeweled caverns modern science has unearthed by delving into the nature of microbiological processes.

The Battle Against the Mousetrap

Some of Behe’s analogies, such as a mousetrap for the key concept of an irreducibly complex system, have become folk lore in the rhetorical sparing over Darwinism. Yes, there is still sparing. Though written in 1996, more than a

mousetrapdecade later, there seems to be little in the Behe’s work that has been clearly refuted or widely accepted. However, Behe, like his the mousetrap analogy, has completely moved the discussion. For instance, a number of Intelligent Design’s more vociferous opponents have all but completely abandoned Darwin in their war with Behe’s mousetrap. Rather than random mutation they have opted for notions such as self-organization (at Part 3), redundant complexity (at Part 4), or symbiosis and cooperation (Margulis). Though these alternative explanations for the irreducibly complex systems within a single cell remain riveted in naturalism, they are simply not Darwinian. If Darwin is still kicking, it’s like a hind in the jaws of a lion. In the parlance of the ready scientific mind: in the Darwin-Behe bout: “Darwin got lit up.”

Though it represents a battlefield over a decade old, Darwin’s Black Box remains an important read. Behe’s argumenmicrobets are often dismissed by an appeal to authority rather than an appeal to evidence or reason. Likewise, his detractors often truncate his arguments to the point of misrepresentation. At times too, his work is grouped with the work of others and then the examples of others are criticized while Behe’s are ignored. There is sort of a religious vehemence in the resurrect-Darwin crowd. It’s as if they seriously believe that scientific knowledge can only be produced by atheistic minds. Newton did OK. Mendel did well enough. When such emotions are engendered over any topic, it is all the more important to go to the source.

Microevolution and Macroevolution

Behe fully embraces what is known as microevolution, or evolution within a species. He does, however, reject macroevolution as an explanation for the irreducibly complex systems that are the foundation of biologic life. If the building blocks are irreducible, their combinations in complex organs are surpassingly irreducible. The likelihood, statistically, of irreducibly complex building blocks giving rise to even more irreducibly complex interactions are staggering. Some other force, reasons Behe, must be in operation besides random chance.

Of course, it is impossible not to recognize microevolution as scientific. From horse-breeding to rose hybrids, evidence for genetic change within a species is irrefutable. However, unlike many biology textbooks that, seemingly, seek to blend both microevolution and macroevolution into a single spectrum, Behe competently walks the reader through the distinctions between the two. From mammalian life to the virus, Darwin’s Black Box catalogs examples of microevolution errantly used as evidence for macroevolution.

Unlike microevolution, macroevolution has never been observed. It is the speculative part of Darwinism; it is the theoretical conclusion of Charles Darwin based on his observations of the natural world. Behe believes that the study of genetics, a field of science that has evolved since Darwin’s passing, really puts the nails in the coffin of the blurred distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. In “The Natives are Restless” section, for instance, Bmendel2ehe quotes George Macdonald of the University of Georgia who wrote: “…Those [genes] that are obviously variable within natural populations (species) do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many, if not most, major adaptive changes apparently are not variable within natural populations.”

This genetic strength within a species, this orderliness in nature, is so profound that, of the millions of forms of life in existence today, we witness no cat-dogs or mice-hares. Nor, over the century since Darwin, have we seen ought but the catfish and the horsefly as examples of macroevolution.

Behe, though, is still filled with such scientific piety that he will not willingly cast off its set traditions so easily. He yet will allow endless time for the age of the earth and eons upon eons for the spawn of chance to arrive. It is only because of the statistical impossibility of random chance giving rise to irreducibly complex systems that Behe has strayed from the flock.

Of Philosophy and Science

As a reader, I would have liked to have seen Behe take on the formulation of scientific theory. For instance, while gravity is an invisible force, its qualities are everywhere testable. Likewise, while microevolution is everywhere observable, the invisible laws of its regulation can be tested over and over. To my thinking, any scientific theory based on a definition that cannot be observed or tested is inadequate. Perhaps this, though, is more philosophy than science. Behe does, in his two sections “Acculturation” and “How Do You Know,” take on the usefulness of Darwinism as a theory in microbiology. He lists biology textbook after biology textbook with almost no index entries for evolution. He does so to show the lack of academic enthusiasm for testing Darwinian explanations, but, at least, implicitly, he also shows just how useless Darwinism has become to the actual business of science itself.

Beginning in chapter 10, Darwin’s Black Box takes on elements of natural philosophy as a guide to primitive theories of Intelligent Design. In chapter 11 this search for historic understanding of irreducibly complex systems begins to touch on the ontological and philosophical ramifications of a continued committed belief in Darwinian macroevolution. Behe does finally talk about ideas held as part of science that are not ideas formed scientifically. origin_evol_lifeLikewise, he does an adequate job surrounding the counter argument of his detractors that his conclusion that life arose by Intelligent Design is an argument from ignorance.

Behe’s casual foray into philosophy is the only place he touches on Darwinian evolution as a philosophical idea, and he does not do so directly. Darwin’s theory of evolution is, of course, plainly a philosophic notion. We would not even discuss Darwinism if the origin of life was not the question. Is such a question even in the purview of the natural sciences? Like accurate or inaccurate history, the way we answer these questions affect the way we look at ourselves, our actions and the actions of others. While Mendel’s two, very testable laws of microevolution, made no claims about the origin of life, macroevolution depends on a specific answer to this ancient philosophical debate.

Darwin’s macroevolution supposes, or potentially can be construed to suppose, no starting point. All arises from chaos. Additionally, the claims of macroevolution are that biologic life arises according to no consistent law. Instead, it arises from the principle of randomness, again from chaos itself. Even the zero in math represents the start of a period or sequence. Even the laws of probability and chance require known factors as well as unknown, variables and constants.


If Darwin’s answer to the origin of life is philosophical rather than scientific, then is Behe’s answer also philosophical? Ultimately, Behe’s argument for Intelligent Design contains two conclusions. The first is that Darwin is toast; microbiology cannot be explained by evolution. His second is that since chance cannot explain the natural world, only design can.

His first thesis is certainly correct. The second will be up to each reader. For some there will never be enough evidence. But for the first conclusion is more than enough scientific evidence for anyone interested in purely scientific knowledge. Darwin has been deselected in the evolution of humanity’s knowledge of the universe.

Let each high school student see that the Darwin theory is insufficient, and let the question of our origins boil within each heart. Think of the inspiration for further discovery that will result.

For other readers who, like myself, need little prompting to believe that spring rains, the human family, and a waddling mallard with her ducklings all mean this old world couldn’t have happened accidentally, Darwin’s Black Box represents the start of a great excursion. What was once the purview of personal observation has is now also the dominion of man’s greatest observational tools in math and science. The recognition of science’s power to magnify the amazing wonder of creation represents an amazing adventure. Our increased ability to observe Design through the lens of science is dramatic. We can go from seeing the dim outlines of a great lion in the distance to suddenly having a telescopic lens detailing his blood shot eyes and shaking mane as he roars upon the prey.

Oddly, where philosophers have haggled themselves hoarse on the matter of the evidence of the divine in the logic of man, Darwinism may, by being discredited as a science, allow science to bear new and powerful witness to the things of God already known to the created things from the beginning.

A Scientific Consensus: Darwinism is Dead

Stephen C. Meyer, expounding Intelligent Design in his book Signature in the Cell, makes a point he does not seem
to appreciate: for decades microbiologists have been abandoning Darwinism. Breakthrough technologies have shown nov12spreadsketchthat life at the cellular level is complex beyond anything Darwin or any 19th century biologist could have predicted. From the variety of cellular functions to the complex information transmitted in the gene, many outstanding scientists recognize that the math just doesn’t work. Intelligent Design represents only one concession to the statistical impossibility that chance caused the life of simple cells. Interrupting the following parade of microbiologists who, like Meyers, recognize that random chance alone cannot have produced the simplest cellular life, are a panoply of various conclusions flowing from a scientific consensus that Darwinism is dead.

  1. Christian de Duve, for example, a Nobel Prize winner, and in no way an advocate of Intelligent Design, has abandoned random chance as the agent of upwards evolution or the ascent of man. He envisions primordial planet earth as a chemical reaction waiting to happen. Recognizing that the odds of random chance being impossibly against the formation of a single cell, let alone man, he has ceaselessly been searching for the string of chemical reactions that, once started, must have inevitably and, without chance, led to mankind. So far… no luck.
  2. Ilya Prigogine, won his 1977 Nobel Prize for his theory that biological life self-assembled from inorganic non-life through the non-equilibrium thermodynamic processes. Again, random chance was abandoned, this time for the notion of an outside force arising in a thermodynamic process that, somehow, energized evolution. Such a force has never been identified.
  3. Manfred Eigen, won the Nobel Prize in 1967 for his work measuring extremely fast chemical reactions brought about by energy pulses. Though proud to use the term evolution, his models of the origin of life are not based on chance but on self-organizing chemical reactions that cycle to higher and higher levels. He is also the author of Eigens Paradox that explains a critical problem in positing cycles of RNA that lead to DNA.
  4. Lynn Margulis believes parasites aided random chance in the evolution of the cell.
  5. Freeman Dyson, feeling random chance and self-organizing molecular scenarios are insufficient seems to believe in a combination of Eigens self-organizing RNA cycles and Lynn Margulis sense that cellular evolution was the result of parasites.
  6. Michael Polanyi, whose interest in science often impacted his philosophic notions, rejected chance as the origin of life in Lifes Irreducible Structure.
  7. Bernd-Olaf Kppers, like Michael Polanyi, supports his notions that the whole (the living cell) is greater than the sum of its parts (chemical reactions) with evidence that random chance cannot result in the irreducible complexity of a living organism (60) nor explain the information it transmits.
  8. BerndOlaf Kppers, using methodology like that of noted Darwinian apologist Richard Dawkins, also modeled mathematical algorithms that guide randomly generated computer simulations of origin of life scenarios. Kuppers calls his theory of self-organization the molecular-Darwinistic approach. It is hard to tell what Kuppers means by statements like, inanimate matter organized itself of its own accord into animate systems (82).

Chance and randomness as the source of life is dead, as dead as Darwinism. Modern culture may have been grave  stoneconvinced by the Copernican Revolution that science can be both counter-intuitive and true. Hence, the counter-intuitive notion of chance as the author of life may have become as widely accepted as faith in the invisible electron. However, since the 1960s humanity’s knowledge of the living cell, just the living cell alone, magnifies what we have known intuitively about the order, beauty and majesty of existence: it could not have happened accidentally.

  1. Fred Hoyle, superb mathematician and astronomer who, according to some reports, deserved a Nobel Prize for his role in showing that we are all star dust, also abandoned Darwin. He was well-known for comparing the possibility of the random rise of a single cell to the chance that a tornado hitting a junkyard would produce a 747. He is not an Intelligent Design theorist in the traditional sense. Instead, he believed life came from outer space by way of Panspermia. What will they think of next?
  2. Robert Shapiro likewise abandoned random chance as the source of life as is plain from the first lines of A Simpler Origin of Life.
  3. Stuart Kauffmans work has steadily evolved. His first book The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution involves a great deal of Darwinian affirmation while it systematically demolishes any chance for a single cell to have arisen by way of random processes. However, his second book, At Home in the Universe, is much more forthright. In his more recent publication, Reinventing the Sacredhe expresses an admiration for the innate creativity of our universe. Of course his work is not religious; its all very scientific.

In the late 1950s there was a legitimate consensus of most scientists that chance gave rise to life even as Darwin’s 1249507230_1281_P576x324 celltheory predicted. This reinvigorated neo-Darwinism was well represented by scientists such as Jacques Monod, Stanley Miller, and Alexander Oparin. However, in the late 1960s this changed. As 1967 was a social crack in time for America, 1968 cracked the facade of Darwinism. The breakthrough mathematics, Darwinism’s death knell, can be found in the work of Von Neumann, Wigner, and Morowitz. Many others, like Kuppers and Polanyi, corroborated these results. Whats sad is that this was an age ago. Almost two more generations of young people have been indoctrinated into what is, today, plainly junk science about the origin of life.

  1. John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, in Anthropic Cosmological Principle point out 10 steps in the course of human evolution, such as the development of the DNA base genetic code, so improbable that before it could have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star, and would have incinerated the earth.
  2. Eugene Wigner, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963, calculated the odds of chance giving rise to the first cell at zero! (Paragraph 3). According to Kuppers, Wigner associated himself with a teleological model (p. 80 ), or a belief in an unknown biological principle that differs from the mechanical laws of inanimate matter.
  3. Robert Sauer of MIT reported the odds of a functional series of amino acids arising in several of the 100 known proteins were 1 in 1063. Try the odds of getting a series of these proteins together in self-replicating chains.
  4. Harold Morowitz has also abandoned chance as the reason for the origin of life. He believes that thermodynamic energy is stored in chemical bonds of higher and higher complexity. His theory is unproven. Morowitz testified against the Creationists in 1982.
  5. Alexander Cairns-Smiths alternative to Darwinian randomness as the source of life is called the clay theory. It became an allegory for a type of self-organizing process that might have occurred in pre-biotic earth. Though his theory is not widely accepted, since the odds are zero that random chance alone generated a single cell, the search for such a pre-biotic missing link continues.
  6. Hubert P. Yockey in Self organization origin of life scenarios and information theory takes on the self-organizing theories of Shapiro, Kauffman, de Duve, and Prigogine. Although he claims not to be an I.D advocate, his denials (far down this page) are surprisingly supportive.
  7. Leslie Orgel, a classical Darwinist to the end, nevertheless took on a variety of his contemporaries’ origin of life scenarios such as self-organizing molecules arising through catalytic cycles, the contributions of meteor activity, and that life started on volcanic ocean vents. Orgel also challenged the likelihood of the pre-biotic RNA world suggested by Joyce, Szostak, and Holliger. His conclusion is that the odds against these theories are insurmountable at this time.

All of the above speculative notions arose because the scientific complexity of the cell was nothing Darwinism predicted or could explain. The scientific consensus is that there is no way chance could produce something so complex. There had to be, therefore, additional naturalistic answers. There just had to be. They’ve looked for forty gj_1 cell 3years; so far, nothing. No promised land… nothing. Have we heard about the wandering reductionists plight in our lowly high schools and state colleges? No… more’s the pity.

Like Richard Dawkins, though, Orgel would say that based on what we know now there is no chance that a single cell arose by random processes. These scientists have faith in Darwinism. This is why, at its core, the Darwin Theory is a philosophy of science. Will some breakthrough someday show that random chance caused life? That premise is not falsifiable; it is not testable. It is not scientific and cannot be disproved. However, right now the odds that random processes generated even a single living cell are zero. That is the provable, consensus science today.

If random processes cannot produce even a single cell, how much more impossible is it that they produced a daffodil, a dolphin, or a man? Darwinism is dead.

Although a number of microbiologists such as Gerald Joyce, 2009 Nobel Prize winner Jack Szostak, and Philipp Holliger profess to be inspired by Darwin’s notion of incremental evolution through random chance, their methodology is one of conscious synthesis. On the one hand, they have begun designing RNA molecules in an attempt to construct a series of incremental steps consistent with classical Darwinism. In 2009 Joyce’s group produced a self-replicating RNA strand, and recently Hollinger’s group made RNAzymes of 93 bases that self-replicate even more reliably than Joyce’s. These molecules are enzymatically active. On the other hand, Hollinger confesses the sheer joy of scientific accomplishment in finding their needle in the haystack (paragraph 6) even if by way of synthetic biology (paragraph 7).

Neither lab seems to have shown any interest in developing a statistical analysis of the odds of RNAzyme arising by chance, but, even more instructively, the choice of methodology dismisses any genuine belief in chance as an agent of molecular design. Using highly sophisticated laboratory techniques to develop previously unknown forms of RNA instead of working with billions of unaltered generations of a virus, shows recognition of the odds against chance giving rise to a cell. What is designed by man and what is natural are, almost by definition, distinct. In fact, the use of molecular design shows that intelligent design is one way the first cells could have been formed (Meyer p. 26/63).

Intelligent Design Proponents

  1. Dean H. Kenyon: Now a proponent of Intelligent Design, Kenyon began as a Self-Organization theorist who fell into heretical Creation Science in 1980. However, Kenyon’s form of Creation Science did not include a young earth or having dinosaurs on Noah’s arc.
  2. David Berlinski, philosopher, mathematician and agnostic.
  3. Robert J. Marks, II, set his career at Baylor at Risk for his convictions about Intelligent Design.
  4. Charles Thaxton, like Kenyon, Thaxton felt the need to change the vocabulary of his views to separate himself from some Creationist positions.
  5. William Demski, like Robert Marks, set his career at risk for his convictions about Intelligent Design.
  6. Douglas Axe, followed up Sauers work in greater detail. He estimated 1064 for the possibility of low functioning sequences of amino acids to arise by chance and 1077 as the possibility for a specifically functioning protein to arise. Try the odds of putting together a series of these proteins so as to be self-replicating.
  7. Paul Nelson is a critic of common descent. His critiques involve recent advances in embryology and genetic homology.
  8. Jonathan Wells has demolished another key piece of the Darwin theory in his work with advances in the understanding of genetics and homology.
  9. Michael Behes first book, Darwin’s Black Box popularized the failure of the Darwin theory to explain the origin of even a single cell. His second book, The Edge of Evolution, represents advances in the Intelligent Design philosophy of science. He delineates what mutation and chance can and can’t do along a series of frontiers while expanding what Intelligent Design can and has predicted about natural science.

Tradition dies hard in every generation. Ignorance is not a lack of information; it is willfully ignoring knowledge. Centralized bureaucratic power breeds fear even in professionals, but tenured teachers can do better. It’s time to tell the kids: it is statistically impossible that Darwin’s explanation of the origin of life is correct.

PaulI did name Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell as my reference point for “A Scientific Consensus: Darwinism is Dead”; however, I want to revisit the credit due Dr. Meyer. Stephen Meyer’s work led me to almost all of the scientists I’ve listed above. I simply checked Dr. Meyer’s sources and documented them, as well as I could, in an online environment.

I will take the heat for considering the list a scientific consensus. Dr. Meyer is simply referring to the work of others to augment studies of his own.

Some of my Libertarian friends are especially hardcore when it comes to atheism and neo-Darwinism. However, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that, apparently, “A Scientific Consensus: Darwinism is Dead” contains views not incompatible with the views of Ron Paul himself. See Ron Paul’s speech on UTube. There is no reason why a healthy American political life cannot be clearly articulated within the Jeffersonian framework of Deism, for Thomas Jefferson also believed in Intelligent Design.

Texas National Guard Border Surge Undermined by Federal Air Lift Program

We are in a constitutional crisis.

Even as the Texas legislature counts the costs of border control efforts forced on it by the White House’s flagrant violation of current
BN-HS634_txbord_M_20150403134152immigration laws, the White House has engineered a cynical countermeasure. A new State Department and Department of Homeland Security program employs federal taxpayer dollars to fly the children of parents immunized from deportation, directly into the United States. This is, essentially, undermining the free people of a sovereign state. That is a constitutional crisis. One that can be resolved if the Senate will end the filibuster.

Costs for the Texas National Guard’s counter surge at the border have been escalating, becoming as much 400 million dollars per year. Even so, Governor Perry’s bold moves in guarding Texas taxpayers remain popular because the shock of last summer’s border kid fiasco is still a bitter memory.

Governor Perry and other Texas officials credit the National Guard deployment for a significant drop off in illegal immigrant apprehensions, but the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson credits the continued work of his federal authorities.

However, during the peak of the unaccompanied children crisis most of the federal agents were busy “processing” the illegal border kids who willingly turned themselves over to “authorities.” Texas Representative
kids Louie Gohmert told Fox News that he had never seen his district border area so understaffed and overwhelmed.

Recently, Texas Governor Greg Abbott said that the effort by Texas to secure the border has slowed the surge of immigrants from 1,000 crossings per day to 10,000 per month. Perhaps the appearance of the Texas National Guard only intimidated the “coyotes” who trafficked in unaccompanied minors throughout the surge. Despite Governor Abbot’s disappointment at these results, the plainly illegal executive actions of the Obama administration in pursuit of a Texas-proof way to get illegal immigrants into the country, are proof positive that Jeh Johnson’s assessment of the Texas National Guard’s failure is simply failed propaganda. Apparently, a surge of 10,000 per month is not large enough to suit the current administration.

Just as the once great state of California is simmering in an understated drought teetering on the edge of a full-blown disaster, so our entire nation is in an understated constitutional crisis. The crisis at the border is only one sign of an executive branch that has sided with America’s enemies. Yes, enemies. Any nation that would support wave after wave of illegal incursions into the United States is an enemy. Sadly, other examples abound in every arena of American life from environmental protection to foreign policy and educational overreach.

The United States voter has unhesitatingly risen to the occasion and given Congress a chance to bring the branches of government back into constitutional harmony, but Congress will not. Specifically, the Senate will not. The Senate must stand up for the Constitution by sacrificing its extra-constitutional tradition of the filibuster. If the people’s House and the Congress make a law curtailing an illegal executive action, the President’s veto will not stand up in obamacourt.

The Senate could still keep a wide range of filibuster traditions alive if it only ended the filibuster with regards to laws designed to reign in illegal executive actions by the executive branch. Either way the Senate must act or it is as complicit in our current constitutional crisis as is the President of the United States an his henchmen.