Light Relief – How to respond to a request to debate with a Creationist
A professor at the University of Vermont, Nicholas Gotelli, got an invitation to debate one of the clowns at the Discovery Institute.
Dear Professor Gotelli,
I saw your op-ed in the Burlington Free Press and appreciated your support of free speech at UVM. In light of that, I wonder if you would be open to finding a way to provide a campus forum for a debate about evolutionary science and intelligent design. The Discovery Institute, where I work, has a local sponsor in Burlington who is enthusiastic to find a way to make this happen. But we need a partner on campus. If not the biology department, then perhaps you can suggest an alternative.
Ben Stein may not be the best person to single-handedly represent the ID side. As you’re aware, he’s known mainly as an entertainer. A more appropriate alternative or addition might be our senior fellows David Berlinski or Stephen Meyer, respectively a mathematician and a philosopher of science. I’ll copy links to their bios below. Wherever one comes down in the Darwin debate, I think we can all agree that it is healthy for students to be exposed to different views–in precisely the spirit of inviting controversial speakers to campus, as you write in your op-ed.
I’m hoping that you would be willing to give a critique of ID at such an event, and participate in the debate in whatever role you feel comfortable with.
A good scientific backdrop to the discussion might be Dr. Meyer’s book that comes out in June from HarperCollins, “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.”
On the other hand, Dr. Belinski may be a good choice since he is a critic of both ID and Darwinian theory.
Would it be possible for us to talk more about this by phone sometime soon?
With best wishes,
David Klinghoffer
Discovery Institute
You’ll enjoy Dr Gotelli’s response.
Dear Dr. Klinghoffer:Thank you for this interesting and courteous invitation to set up a debate about evolution and creationism (which includes its more recent relabeling as “intelligent design”) with a speaker from the Discovery Institute. Your invitation is quite surprising, given the sneering coverage of my recent newspaper editorial that you yourself posted on the Discovery Institute’s website:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/
However, this kind of two-faced dishonesty is what the scientific community has come to expect from the creationists.
Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category.
Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren’t members of your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish. Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals.
“Conspiracy” is the predictable response by Ben Stein and the frustrated creationists. But conspiracy theories are a joke, because science places a high premium on intellectual honesty and on new empirical studies that overturn previously established principles. Creationism doesn’t live up to these standards, so its proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in books, blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don’t maintain scientific standards.
Finally, isn’t it sort of pathetic that your large, well-funded institute must scrape around, panhandling for a seminar invitation at a little university in northern New England? Practicing scientists receive frequent invitations to speak in science departments around the world, often on controversial and novel topics. If creationists actually published some legitimate science, they would receive such invitations as well.
So, I hope you understand why I am declining your offer. I will wait patiently to read about the work of creationists in the pages of Nature and Science. But until it appears there, it isn’t science and doesn’t merit an invitation.
In closing, I do want to thank you sincerely for this invitation and for your posting on the Discovery Institute Website. As an evolutionary biologist, I can’t tell you what a badge of honor this is. My colleagues will be envious.
Sincerely yours,
Nick Gotelli
P.S. I hope you will forgive me if I do not respond to any further e-mails from you or from the Discovery Institute. This has been entertaining, but it interferes with my research and teaching.
Tags: Add new tag, Discovery Institute, Gotelli
March 25th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Dear Fellow Americans,
LIFE ALREADY BEGAN
On Monday, March 9, 2009, President Obama signed an Executive Order lifting the ban on “embryonic stem cell research.” In that signing ceremony, he referred to advancement of science as one of the reasons. However, science can be advanced in other areas of genetics, without the need to kill human babies fertilized for experimental research. If indeed the interest is in the genetics at the beginning of life, scientists have already discovered that umbilical cord blood and placenta blood provide “the types of cells” on which they desire to experiment.
What the President appears to have failed to understand, is that, first, pressure groups or advocacy groups that lobbied for this kind of research are primarily interested in the genetics of “where life begins.” Second, that, even though biology is “science,” it is a “science” not like Physics and Chemistry. Biology, – the most complex of all sciences regarding the physiological constitution of human beings, who are the most complex of all living beings in the universe, – unlike Physics, presents no equation, and unlike Chemistry, presents no formulae. There are no equations in biology, but in Physics; there are no formulae in biology, but in Chemistry – for living biological metabolic chemistry is the most complex of all scientific realities. In Physics, f = ma describes the relationship between force, mass and acceleration; E = MC2 depicts the relationship between Energy and Matter. In Chemistry, the formula for acetic acid found in vinegar is CH3COOH, and the formula for the process of Photosynthesis is 6CO2 + 6H2O === C6H12O6 + 6O2 . There are no such equations or formulae in biology. Physics and Chemistry are sciences for the study of inanimate matter whereas biology, especially genetics, is the study of the LIVING. Biology therefore presents moral dimensions and spiritual caveats that are intrinsic to human life in this universe. Third, the pursuit of research on “embryonic stem cells,” is based on the assumption that they will differentiate and specialize into any body part or organ when transplanted into a patient to effect physio-chemical changes – a false assumption, because these cells already belong to sperm-genes and egg-genes that have already specialized and differentiated into a unique human being since the time of conception or fertilization. For, scientists cannot “start from scratch;” it always takes a man’s sperm and a woman’s egg for Petri-dish fertilized conception, with predetermined genotypic outcome. If anything, the only “transformation” that will occur is that the patient’s body will “reject” these cells which it “considers” organically “alien” and, therefore, invasive.
Biology has a spiritual caveat and a moral dimension that other “hard sciences” like Physics and Chemistry do not possess. Physics and Chemistry produce dilemmas of external product use, whereas biology is life-invasive and life-destructive from within the human body – scientists researching on-hand human biology, are operating with LIVE CELLS that already belong to conceived or fertilized human beings with God-endowed inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Pursuit of “Where-life-begins-genetics” is not disinterested. In this case, it’s being pursued for purposes other than finding cure for diseases. For there are people contemplating population control, eugenics and ability “to control how life begins.” I once saw a Hollywood movie in which “scientists” attempted to “grow” a human baby in an “artificial womb” or “fetal incubator,” in the likeness of a Petri-dish or in vitro fertilization. In all these operations, human beings are degraded to the level of the amoeba, and scientists proceeded to begin human life in a piece of glass or plastic, and not in a woman’s womb.
One of the greatest capacities given to us human beings by Almighty God is the ability “to anticipate the end from the beginning” by driving a thought or process to its logical conclusion (Isaiah 46:10, The Holy Bible.) We continue to hope and pray and work towards its prohibition – that this “Frankenstein madness” will soon come to a befitting end for our sakes – “ourselves and our posterity.” For this is not real science – that the realities of the scientific method will provide a wake-up call to these would be “biological researchers.” We are spiritual, moral beings whose activities must agree with the commandments of Almighty God that respect the sanctity of human life.
The fantasy of these pressure groups and advocacy groups is that scientists might be able to proceed from “the piece of glass” or “piece of plastic” (the Petri-dish) to the “fetal incubator” (a bigger piece of glass) whereby the whole process of “life beginnings” may be “controlled.” And we understand the downhill slope of unfettered human will that leads to callous lawlessness – from controlling physiological biological birth to controlling educational development, called, “social conditioning,” or, in the vernacular, “brainwashing.”
Why? They’ve taken human beings – the real parents – “out of the picture!”
No human being in this universe is fit to be plenipotentiary regarding “where life begins,” “when life begins,” “how life begins,” “how life is lived,” or “how life ends.” Raise your voices in protest against such “Orwellian fantasies” and “Huxleyan brave new worlds.” And let us not allow Satan to gain a “foothold,” in American jurisprudence. For, the Devil has no jurisdiction here. We are a free republic, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for ALL, including unborn human babies.
Thank you. May God abundantly bless you in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior.
Sincerely,
Leo Emmanuel Lochard
BA, MA, Certified Teacher
State of Illinois, United States of America
March 25th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
THE “PIPEDREAM” OF “GENETIC ENGINEERING”
Dear fellow Americans:
You’ve heard, for example, that scientists will be able to “make babies no demand,” that parents could require a baby with a specific eye color or hair color, a specific height, or a specific skin tone. Truly and scientifically speaking, it’s not as simple as you hear it in the media. Now consider these scientific facts.
Conception happens when the male sperm meets and merges with the female egg. That’s also called “fertilization.” The male sperm is already set – gene specificity from a sexually mature male whose genes have already specialized and differentiated into specific body parts and specific organs. Likewise, the female egg is already set – gene specificity. Now then, how could scientists intervene to change the very way in which the human baby develops at the exact second the male sperm and the female egg form the embryo’s specific organ(s) or body part(s)?
First of all, in the Petri-dish, the embryo without the woman’s womb and placenta will not continue to grow and develop beyond a specific “fertilization size.” At that age, (not stage), the embryo is so small, and genes not “coupling” yet, that no surgical operation or gene manipulation can take place. For the sperm and the egg are still retaining their “gene packages,” each of which, is released for “coupling,” at predetermined, set, specific times.
That means the “fertilized embryo” or “conceived human being” has to be transplanted and transferred into the woman’s womb immediately to then continue to grow within the placenta.
In addition, gene specialization and differentiation for specific body parts and organs do not occur at the same time. Each body part or organ develops depending upon the age of the embryo. Scientists would have to intervene to manipulate “gene coupling” between sperm-genes and egg-genes at the exact second a body part is being formed. But the problem is: the embryo or fetus is securely ensconced into his or her mother’s placenta in her womb and cannot be taken out to be experimented upon and put back into the womb inside the placenta again. The amniotic fluid inside the placenta has a specific temperature and pressure – (it’s also called “the bag of waters)” – and would begin to leak profusely, thus endangering the life of the developing embryo\fetus\baby.
Once the amniotic sac is broken, birth has to take place. Nine-month development is the normal expected time for delivery of the baby. There cannot be multiple surgical operations to manipulate “gene coupling,” lest both the mother and the baby die. And scientists cannot cut into the placenta to leak amniotic fluid continuously to operate on the embryo or the fetus. Some organs are formed in days, others in weeks, yet others in months. For after a specific number of months, the baby will have had completely developed and all “sperm and egg gene couplings” done permanently, with continued growth for 9-month maturity remaining.
In addition, Petri-dish or “in-vitro fertilization” has to undergo multiple trials until one of the “fertilized eggs” attaches to the woman’s womb for continuum development until maturity. Scientists generally know the time at which a baby in the womb starts developing certain body parts or organs. The fact to remember is that scientists cannot do anything in the Petri-dish – for, once fertilized, the sperm and the egg must be inserted in the woman’s womb immediately, or else they die.
Therefore, what the scientists are doing in the media with their announcements is to give Americans false “hope,” as they continue to collect government and foundation grants – hard-earned taxpayers’ money. The whole thing is like the hoax called “stem cell research.” It amounts to outright fraud. But worse, it’s a godless agenda in attempts to control human population from birth to death, and at the same time, re-foment interests in eugenics in order to divide the peoples of the Earth for rekindled genocide.
Do not remain on the sidelines as observers only. Let your voices rise in protest against these gruesome experiments on human beings that are being funded by our government with our own tax money. Organize meetings, write, meet with your Senators and Congressmen and disseminate what you know.
You notice, the media is always making announcements but no medical doctor(s) or scientist(s) there ever explain in detail what they are really doing in their laboratories. They need to answer these questions. We deserve to know the truth.
God bless you in the name of Christ Jesus, our Lord and Savior.
Sincerely,
Leo Emmanuel Lochard
BA, MA, Certified Teacher, State of Illinois, USA
March 25th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
STEM CELLS – FRAUD & HOAX
Dear Christian Friends,
By the stroke of the pen on an Executive Order, President Obama has reversed the ban on fetal stem cell research. I don’t believe we should lose hope and conclude it’s a foregone conclusion that researchers will continue to abort human babies for the purpose of extracting their embryonic cells for implant into adult brains whose owners suffer from Altzeimer’s or some other disease. There are ways such “research” can be stopped even if Congress fails to act against the President’s misjudgment.
When researchers talk about “stem cell treatment,” we must understand what they are doing, how they intend to do it and what their expected results are.
When asked to explain how the process would work, proponents of stem cell treatment are at a loss. Reasons are, first, they don’t know; second, there is nothing to know, since it would not work as intended. The logic upon which the research is based is flawed and expected conclusions false. In short, it amounts to infanticide, and body-part “can-nibalism” – like the Air Force that takes parts from one airplane on the ground to install them on other planes still flying.
The activity of stem cell treatment proponents is not bio-medical science but is anchored in greed and godless lawlessness. It is imbued with selfishness and heartless callousness towards unborn babies who will be murdered in order that a few human “scavengers” can survive. To hear them speak on television programs or to read their apparent pleas to let the “research” continue amounts to validating the cries of hyenas on a rampage for prey.
First of all, these embryonic stem cells belong to unique, already procreated, formed-in-the-womb human beings whose embryonic development to maturity has been stopped, interrupted and discontinued due to external intrusion by laboratory technicians. These so-called embryonic stem cells are already predisposed, pre-designed, pre-purposed to differentiate and specialize into body organs and parts that belong to a specific human being. Just because the baby’s development in the womb has been stopped at a specific time, i.e., embryonic or fetal stage, just because there is dislocation from purposed locus of maturity, do not entail a change in genetic design or imprinting. The cells, from the standpoint of biological development and maturity are already pre-destined to differentiate and specialize into that specific human being whom the sperm and the egg have had already formed into existence, regardless of age. Dislocation from that specific human being and transplantation into an Altzeimer’s patient’s brain do not change the genetic predestination and individuation of those cells.
Thus, were those cells allowed to mature, they would be organs and body parts belonging to the specific baby formed by the sperm and the egg, before the baby was murdered prematurely, whether at the embryonic age (3 days old in the womb), or fetal development age (2 months old in the womb). This genetic specificity and unique individuation will not change just because the cells are dislocated and transplanted in another body; and no biological or chemical process will take place in the patient’s brain that will effect a change in his own neurons. They might as well take the baby’s toes and do the same with them – transplanting one body part from one human being into another. This demonstrates how flawed their logic is and how false their conclusions are from these unscientific assumptions. The only reason these cells are called “stem cells” is because at that age (not “stage”), i.e., the embryonic, they are not yet formed or differentiated into body parts, such as the eyes, the mouth, the feet, or specialized into organs, such as the heart, the liver etc… They pretend to forget that the sperm and the egg from which this unique human being is being procreated form only one genotype, one human being with a specific genome and no other. And these cells are not “stem cells” from the standpoint of biology but only from the perspective of human beings who have already committed murder and must justify their acts by identifying “cells” with their victim’s age in the womb, i.e., embryo – stem cell. But at the age of un-arrested and uninterrupted development, e.g., 5 months old in the womb, the baby is a “fetus.” Why? The baby was not murdered; cells too young to form body parts and organs, now, are maturing through the development process into their specific genetic predestination and bio-organic individuation. Consequently, so-called “stem cell treatment” is selfish self-deception and godless self-delusion. These babies are dying needlessly and murder is being rewarded with media hoopla and taxpayers’ hard-earned money.
Please do not lose courage, nor despair. It is not too late to stop them. We need to spread the truth with scientists who will listen to biologically sound scientific knowledge, citizens and public officials who will then take constructive action before this gruesome undertaking is launched on this land against the most defenseless victims amongst us, unborn babies.
Thank you. God bless you Christ Jesus, our Lord.
Leo Emmanuel Lochard, BA, MA, Certified Teacher, State of Illinois , USA
March 25th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
GLOBAL WARMING – FEAR MONGERING
Dear Fellow Americans,
Global warming is a concept predicated upon certain computer-programmed atmospheric parameters that tend to diminish the complexity of Earth eco-system inner-workings. “Global warming” is not a concept that originated from human analytical scientific thinking but is an interpretation of certain data from a computer program. And it is not right that a whole propaganda-agenda of fear be generated in every nation which, as it breeds extremism, would endanger continuum economic prosperity, even here, at home. For, regulatory measures being sought from national governments would impinge upon innovations by free enterprise, consumer product and reality-based production methods by private industry. We can be sensitive to a clean environment vision without holding to the “global warming bandwagon.” The problem is particulate emissions and not the gases themselves, for particulate emissions (e.g., quantities in PPB’s or “parts per billion) return to earth as “acid rain,” for example; and, in addition, they contribute to cancer, lung disease and respiratory problems. There is no scientific evidence for the computer-program generated “problem;” still, corporate industries have to be socially responsible and must abide by the requirements of Clean Air Acts regarding atmospheric smokestack emissions, hazardous waste control, and comprehensive potable water protection.
I have read a scientific research report by OISM – OREGON INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE – PETITION PROJECT at oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm. This is the most scientific reading I have had on this subject which elucidated how one must approach all discussions of “global warming,” – very cautiously, very prudently. I did not even know how this debate began and where the term came from. And OREGON INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE scientists explain, “Predictions of catastrophic global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy.” It’s no less than “weather forecasting” with the same machines from which our nightly weather news come, e.g., “50% chance of showers.” The climate always changes from season to season. Let me emphasize this: The human body is the climax of all the complex laws of physics, chemistry and biology and is the most efficient organic system in the Universe. And human beings exhale Carbon Dioxide as a natural by-product of biological metabolism, namely respiration. How can Carbon Dioxide then present a danger to us or the atmosphere?
In the same vein, all efficiently burnt carbon-based fossil fuels, like petroleum and coal, result in emissions of Carbon Dioxide and Water. So why is there a cry regarding “Carbon Dioxide emissions?” Is it because industrial smokestack emissions are not absorbed by the atmosphere, and do not degrade into basic chemical elements? Do they just accumulate and hover above the breathable atmosphere? Questions then are, does Earth temperature really increase because of that? What quantity or volume does it take in order for this to occur? Unfortunately, the on-going debate is mainly ideological with pressure groups taking the lead rather than earth scientists explaining the details of scientific principles involved. But the Great Flood of the times of Noah recorded in the Holy Bible, an account also reported almost in every culture on the Earth, did occur. Human recorded history is replete with natural catastrophes, from floods, to tornadoes, to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Vesuvius erupted in Italy and buried a whole city in ashes. And there had been no industrial revolution then, thus, no smokestack gas emissions. Freezing and thawing are routine geo-physical events due to solar activity and seasonal variations.
The research project at OISM did conclude that changes in Earth temperature are due to Solar activity and not to human hydrocarbon use, which only dates back to the 1880’s – about 128 years of fossil fuel exploitation (1880-2009). The USA is older than that. We began in 1776! And emissions come from major industrially developed nations, a minimum number, comprising The United States of America, Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, and more recently, India and China, rather than from all nations of the Earth. Most of the “global warming trumpeters” abide by the Theory of Evolution and believe the Universe is billions of years old; then how could just 128 years of variegated human industrial activity provoke such catastrophic temperature consequences? Is this scientifically possible? Goes “out of the window” the concept of so-called “adaptation!” There is no evidence it is. However, “acid rain” is real, objectively concrete and provable with evidence of tree damage, for example, because the particulates traveling in smokestack gas emissions are trapped by cloud formations that then liquefy and fall down as “acid rain water.”
Scientists must enter the dialogue to prove whether the problem of “global warming” is real. These problems must be scientifically understood if a scientific solution is being sought. Cannot emission-trapped particulates be filtered out before emission release into the atmosphere? Government administrators deserve to know the root-source and cause of national debates so that they are not deceived into investing resources, manpower, hard-earned taxpayers’ money, in the pursuit of “solutions” that are originally based on flawed hypothesis and false assumptions – from an electronic computing machine. After reading the material published by OREGON INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE on its website, analyzing and evaluating it, I concluded that all this “hoopla” about “global warming” is due to a weather-forecasting computer program and not to reality-connected, true-to-Earth sciences and solar system scientifically proven facts. The electronic machine cannot think, it cannot anticipate or weigh, prioritize or factor pertinent variables, but only performs as programmed; it is rather “number-friendly” but is not an analytical thinker.
Research must be conducted to find out what happens to industrial by-products such as dioxin, sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide molecules – do they degrade into atmospheric composition gases? Do they remain within the different atmospheric layers until absorbed, yet without decaying back to atomic elements? Is non-absorption why they continue to hover below cloud-cover, as particulates there-in return to the soil as “acid rain?” For example, logging and deforestation must be accompanied by a program of tree replanting. Plants and trees are renewable resources – farmers know. Corporate industries are accountable and responsible for atmospheric emissions also in accordance with international laws, treaties, and Clean Air Acts. But scientists ought to be doing the thinking, rather than let the interpretation of an electronic climate program generate fear-of-living on the Earth, as is this demagogy being perpetrated by the “global warming” progagandists. The greater question is, given that industrial producers are using petroleum-based processes – carbon-based fuels – can emission compositions be different from what they are now? And if not, what can be done to clean them up of particulates before atmospheric release? And are CO2 emissions dangerous by nature or is it due to the accumulation, non-absorption and non-degradability thereof?
Thank you for allowing me to share these concerns with you. God abundantly bless you in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior.
Sincerely,
Leo Emmanuel Lochard, BA, MA, Certified Teacher, State of Illinois, USA
March 30th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Monday, March 31, 2009
THE PROBLEM WITH ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
Dear Fellow Americans,
It is imperative that we do something concrete regarding our “bleeding borders.” Businesses that have an enlightened interest in employing the “cheap labor” of illegal immigrants from Mexico, like corporate farmers in California and elsewhere in our land, are too much blinded by their short-term profit-making objectives to understand the greater long-term dangers we face, such as importation of drugs across our borders and criminal activity by illegal immigrants on a rampage “to make a living.” And if “to our shame,” we declare to “have a need” for “illegal immigrants” to perform work that Americans themselves, will not, such as picking strawberries and watermelons in California, then let there be appropriate legislation to grant work permits to law-abiding workers, before they, even out of desperation, entertain crossing the border illegally. Are these “illegal immigrants” really performing only “jobs Americans don’t want?” How about American workers whose regular jobs went to “illegal immigrants” hired at a lower wage!
THE AMERICAN LANDMASS IS NOT LIMITLESS. Our population is already 300 million. The United States of America is bounded, in the North, by Canada; in the South, by Mexico; in the East, by the Atlantic Ocean; and in the West, by the Pacific Ocean. America cannot hold the world’s population within its borders; it’s too small for that. Though we are “a nation of immigrants,” we cannot continue to absorb illegal immigrants just because they are motivated by the need to improve their economic condition. Let’s not flatter ourselves to the point of foolish impracticability! They could prosper in their own nation, were the social conditions there, conducive to lawfully acquired domestic good fortune. We, ourselves, must have appropriate legislation to respectively assist those already working here in remaining law-abiding residents, with options of legal residency, as well as the opportunity to apply for American citizenship in due time. But the borders must be sealed permanently, except for legal activity as necessitated by trade and commerce. Border security personnel have discovered that even vehicles that are allowed to enter the United States legally, from Mexico, carry illicit drugs camouflaged within the legal cargo, for example, bales of marijuana hidden within tomato boxes.
In the mean time, we must continue to attend to the border that separates the United States from Mexico. The wall must be completed, and then must remain guarded. This is not xenophobia; this is a matter of national security and common sense realization that our geographical resources are not unlimited. Land is yearly set aside for residential development, agricultural farming, industrial and business building projects, government or public structures etc… Human beings must have space to carry out their activities of daily national living, be it residential, business, industrial, non-profit, or public space. But land-space is a limited resource confronting every nation. For example, Mexico itself, carefully watches over its Southern border with Central America. We do have legal borders. And each nation has a constructive interest in protecting entry to its land-mass, as well as providing legal means by which non-citizens can access land within its borders. We even devise legal means to protect our air-space above the limited land-mass.
The solution to illegal immigration is four-fold. We must,
1) Lawfully protect our borders from illegal intrusion, illegal assault, illegal invasion and illegal entry, on the South and on the North, on the East and on the West:
a. by finishing erection of the Southern wall between the United States and Mexico that we already began; and
b. by legally guarding its extended expanse, between Mexico and the United States.
c. We must also remain vigilant in overseeing and guarding our borders with Canada, not forgetting the work of the Coast Guard on the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines that are “routes of choice” for maritime drug smugglers.
2) Assist Mexico and other nations in developing elected, representative governments to become democratic republics, so that their citizens will benefit from a lawful and free environment that will allow them to prosper within their own borders, by their own domestic economic activities, and from their own creative capacities for discovery, invention, and productivity.
3) Help nations from which the greater number of illegal immigrants originate, develop legislative approaches to their domestic and social problems, in order to prevent the emergence of “refugees” seeking political asylum, and in order to facilitate the establishment of free market principles regarding production structures, commercial institutions, trade organizations, financial mechanisms, fiscal instruments and monetary policies.
4) Engage these nations in an open, international manner, through constructive policy contributions by the American citizenry, resulting in agreed-upon treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate.
In sum, the federal government of the United States of America cannot continue to “muddle through” the illegal immigration problem. Every administration for the past thirty years, since “the Mariana Boat Lifts,” has had ample time to face this issue in a lawful, constructive way that would protect our genuine interests in resolving this problem in a just manner that secures our human and civil rights, as well as the human and civil rights of potentially adversarial parties who would challenge us in this matter to their own disadvantage. For, every nation fiercely guards and protects its own borders as a matter of right. And all nations are expected to unquestionably do so. Therefore, none of their nationals would qualify in imputing blame or guilt to us, for desiring to lawfully do so ourselves. It is a matter of national sovereignty and civil national defense.
For, if we do not reckon with this problem now, it will blow up in our faces as a national crisis, in the same manner that Congressional escape from legislative responsibility regarding slavery resulted in a Civil War that cost thousands of lives, including the life of our beloved President Abraham Lincoln. In addition, we remember that American military forces did have to invade Mexico before, in order to deal with border excursions of “Pancho Villa” and acts of invasive vandalism by his band of mercenaries. God forbid we should wait for a national crisis to react in that manner! Yet Americans have an inalienable constitutional right to act in prevention of a foreboding disaster, due to Congressional dereliction of duty in the face of a real dilemma “crying out” for a proper resolution. For, national crises tend to lead to rash actions rooted in panic. But preparedness tends to lead to legal actions that proceed from reasoned judgment anchored in the spirit and letter of law.
God bless you and God bless the United States of America in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Sincerely,
Leo Emmanuel Lochard
BA, MA, Certified Teacher
State of Illinois
United States of America