What is the Problem with Illegal Immigration?

By Peter Merz

According to the L.A. Times 40% of all workers in L.A. County (L.A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angles are illegal aliens. Over 2/3 of all births in Los County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

Do we have an illegal immigration problem? Okay if you answered no, then perhaps reading comprehension isn't your friend or you like reading with your eyes closed or maybe you find yourself in the latter group described below:

The latest telephone poll taken by the Texas Governor's office, asked whether people who live in Texas think illegal immigration is a serious problem: 

11% of respondents answered: 'Yes, it is a serious problem.' 

89% of respondents answered: 'No es una problema seriosa.'

Okay humor notwithstanding, we need to be honest with ourselves and let it sink in that illegal immigration is a serious problem in the U.S.A and that it needs to be dealt with a serious approach. How we choose to respond to the problem of illegal immigration has ramifications in multiple areas and has grown into a near-unmanageable national problem.

The problem with illegal immigration is not any one answer. It affects the economy, as illegals take jobs for a lower pay than an American Citizen would; it affects the crime rate as demonstrated by the statistics cited by the L.A. Times and 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens; it affects the ramifications of a national healthcare plan. 29% of illegal aliens are on welfare while only 2% are out their picking our crops. Why are we providing succor and sustenance to people who are here illegally in this country?

There's also the issue of population expansion. In some places we are bursting at the seams. Over 70% of the United States' annual population growth (90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.

Getting back to the point on healthcare, let me ask: do you mind paying for healthcare and education for illegal immigrants while the states are broke? California alone is trying to close a $42 billion budget shortfall and is considered by more than a few to be the first failed state within the United States. 


In our president's helter-skelter haste to bring national healthcare to the U.S.A, it seems the issue of illegal immigration has been left by the wayside, let's not forget about securing our borders, enforcing the current immigration laws on the books, and doing something about the illegal immigration problem beyond just granting emancipation, pretending that the problem does not exist.

Stem Cell Research

By Peter Merz

Stem cell research is a touchy and controversial subject for many people. It calls into question our very ethics and morality in an ever-advancing society (see Daniel 12:4). And how do those who hold to a Christian Worldview find any sort of consensus on this somewhat volatile issue? Is there a line in the sand we can draw and say without hint or trace of ambiguity, "We will not cross over this line"?

First a little bit of housekeeping before delving into the ethics and morality of the stem cell research issue. What is a stem cell? Stem cells are found in most, if not all, multi-cellular organisms. They are characterized by the ability to renew themselves through mitotic (Mitosis is the process by which a eukaryotic cell separates the chromosomes in its cell nucleus into two identical sets in two daughter nuclei) cell division and differentiating into a diverse range of specialized cell types (see "Cytological Demonstration of the Clonal Nature of Spleen Colonies Derived from Transplanted Mouse Marrow Cells" by A. J. BECKER E. A. McCULLOCH & J. E. TILL, Nature 197: 452 – 454, 1963 and also "The Distrubution of Colony-Forming Cells Among Spleen Colonies" by L. Siminovitch and J. E. Till, Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology 62: 327–36).

Let's be clear the issue is not stem cells in and of themselves, but with how the research of these stem cells is handled or carried out. Research in the stem cell field grew out of the findings by two Canadian scientists (Ernest A. McCulloch and James E. Till) in the 1960's. The two broad types of mammalian stem cells are: embryonic stem cells that are isolated from the inner cell mass of blastocysts (The blastocyst is a structure formed in the early embryogenesis of mammals, after the formation of the morula, but before implantation. It possesses an inner cell mass (ICM), or embryoblast, which subsequently forms the embryo, and an outer layer of cells, or trophoblast, which later forms the placenta), and adult stem cells that are found in adult tissues.

The controversy is over embryonic stem cell research and not the latter adult stem cell research. Time and space does not allow me to get into the all of the specifics and potential ramifications, but needless to say there are scientists who believe that breakthroughs in medical science can be made through the use of these stem cells – breakthroughs that may offer substantial cures or relief for diseases such as Parkinson's and other degenerative maladies.

So we have two major trains of thought on this subject. One train of thought argues that the benefits outweigh the ethical and moral issues of destroying embryos so that they may save many lives or at least provide therapeutic and necessitating medical procedures available to the community at large. Perhaps to phrase it another way it is good that one life be destroyed so that many may be saved (see John 11:49-50). The other train of thought argues that all life is precious and destroying embryos for the benefit of science is nothing more than murder that only offers those suffering from incurable degenerative diseases the hope of a someday maybe or someday perhaps apple-pie-in-the-sky type of cures and benefits. Simply put: the end does not justify the means.

So now that the sides are clearly drawn let's proceed into the heart of the matter and see what the Bible has to offer us counsel on this oftentimes contentious matter. Murder outside of war or criminal punishment is always considered wrong and a sin in the eyes of God.

"Then the LORD said to Cain, 'Where is Abel your brother?' And he said, 'I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?' He said, 'What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to Me from the ground. Now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer yield its strength to you; you will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth'" (Genesis 4:9-12 NASB).

"Whoever sheds man's blood,

By man his blood shall be shed,

For in the image of God

He made man" (Genesis 9:6 NASB).

"You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13 NASB).

"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:12 NASB).

"If a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 24:17 NASB).

"If a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely be put to death" (Numbers 35:30 NASB).

"Cursed is he who strikes his neighbor in secret. And all the people shall say, 'Amen' (Deuteronomy 27:24 NASB).

"For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother's were righteous" (1 John 3:11-12 NASB).

"For He who said, 'DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,' also said, 'DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.' Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law" (James 2:11 NASB).

Okay so no matter how you try to twist, shape, and contort it. The Bible is not going to condone unjustified homicide. As with abortion the murder of embryos (whether frozen or unfrozen) is not compatible with an authentic Biblical Worldview. Sacrificing life at the altar of 'scientific research' is not acceptable, and it is not a gray issue where we whistle "Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide". Murder is murder, capiche?

Okay now all that being said. I do not see moral or ethical problems arising from the further and study and research of stem cells from adult stem cells and from cells don't are not from the result of the loss of embryonic life (i.e. umbilical cords, placenta, and the like). I believe there is a way to come to a consensus of morality while also finding ways and means to advance the cause of science that provides breakthroughs and cures that benefit humankind.

Bring Them Home?

By Peter Merz


The war in Afghanistan? Should the U.S. ramp it up? Well first let's look at strategy? Do we have a winning strategy in Afghanistan? Not that I can tell. We seem to be handling this war with kid's gloves on. Look at some of the ludicrous limitations we place upon our soldiers who stand in harm's way.



Unless our troops in combat are absolutely certain that no civilians are present, they're denied artillery or air support; If any civilians appear where we meet the Taliban, our troops are to "break contact" -- to retreat! We seem to think that we're fighting a prim and proper British gentleman who plays by all the rules – not a bunch of radical zealots who think nothing of blowing themselves up as long as their enemies get killed or their cause is elevated (that and the promise of 72 virgins on the other side).



I think any success from a surge in Afghanistan will be minimal as long as we hamstring our soldiers with these lame brain Politically Koreshed combat rules. Al Qaida will think of nothing to create battle maneuvers where civilians will be present, using them as shields and buffers against our troops who are expected to shout at the enemy, "Time Out!"



I would propose either fight this war like we mean to win it, or bring our troops home. There's no point in our men and woman in combat sacrificing their lives so our president and congress can pat themselves on the back at how PC they've executed the war in Afghanistan. If we had used these same rules in fighting Nazi-Germany and Japan in World War II, that war would have raged on for who knows how long and we would all either be speaking German or Japanese right now.



Perhaps if President Obama would spend less time apologizing to other nations for real or imagined wrongs this nation has done and more time putting into a place a winnable strategy into place in the War on Terror we could actually win this war. But as long as our military policy is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, we might as well call it quits and bring our troops back home.

Should President Barrack Obama have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?

By Peter Merz

The "Rainbow" Tour (featuring the dynamic duo of Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama, and the man of the hour himself – Barrack Hussein "I'm So Sorry" Obama) set out on an ambitious mission to Copenhagen to make the case for bringing the Olympics to Chicago. Hope was high. Can we bring the Olympics to Chicago? Yes we…can't. Michelle Obama's tears did not persuade the IOC. Nor did Obama's Perry Mason-esque (maybe he should have gone with more of a Matlock approach) arguments that the Olympics should be held in Chicago so he could walk to the Olympic Games without having to drive or worry about parking (perhaps he should have also mentioned it would help him leave a smaller carbon footprint).

Formerly Obama-friendly newspapers (like the Guardian) called attention to this loss and hinted that it would be damaging to Obama on the political scene. On the heels of that loss Saturday Night Live (SNL) decided that the honeymoon was over and trashed him in the opening spot on SNL – touting that he had basically done nothing since getting elected. Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark!

Not to worry though for all those out there who are still acorns about Barrack Hussein Obama. He's down but he's not out. It may beggar belief, but, he is this year's Nobel Peace Prize recipient!!! Now you may think that is an impressive accomplishment – but you may not realize just how impressive this feat of his really is. The nominations for Nobel Peace Prize nominees were due in by February 1, 2009. Which means that President Obama would have been on the job as President for a grueling 11 (yes, count 'em!) 11 days! After being the U.S. President for 11 stellar days, he gets nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize; thus joining the ranks of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson (both of whom received the coveted Nobel Peace Prize while in office as a sitting President of the U.S.)

So what great achievement or accomplishment did Obama receive this award for? Was it for the lassoing in of the economy? Nope. Was it for bringing a successful and peaceful conclusion to the War on Terror or even the engagement in Afghanistan? Nope. Was it for bringing Iran to their senses and getting them to finally abandon their nuclear programs? Good guess. But wrong. None of those answers. According to Norwegian Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland it was for climate change. Way to go Barrack, you have brought about climate change. I'm sure Al Gore would be proud of you! But wait Chairman Jagland is not talking about the Inconvenient Truth type of climate change. Here are Chairman Jagland's words in context,

"He [Barrack Hussein Obama] got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate" (Emphasis mine).

Okay so that sounds like an achievement.  Sure it's a weak one, but an achievement nonetheless. But let's check out what Obama's press secretary (Robert Gibbs) has to say on this.

"This [Nobel Prize] represents not the achievements of one man but the hopes of millions around the world."

What the blazes?!! Obama got this award not for an achievement but for audacious hopes!

Oh, but it gets even better. Obama calls his receiving the Noble Peace Prize, "A call to action". So now we have completely politicized the Noble Peace Prize. It's no longer about what one can achieve, but about political capital. To borrow a line (well maybe a few lines) from Charles Dickens,

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."

A fellow high school alumni of mine commented that,

"Obama should decline the Nobel Peace Prize and urge that the committee instead give the award posthumously to Neda Agha-Soltan, the woman killed by the Iranian government after the fake June elections (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan). Doing this would focus the world on the dangers and illegitimacy of the Iranian regime, while advancing sexual equality around the world. By trying to bring about peaceful reform of Iran's theocracy, Neda truly sought to advance the possibility of Middle East peace."

But sadly, President Obama has missed another golden opportunity in his presidency.

Not to worry; he's given plenty of ammo to the writers of SNL and to all the late night talk show joke writers. President Obama has even given me hope. I'm thinking of contacting the Pulitzer Prize committee about them awarding me the Pulitzer Prize for the novel that I intended to write.