Pro Rege Papers

Here is story I got in an e-mail recently: [with grammer and spelling changes]

The following quote is from a director with SW BELL in Mexico City:

I spent five years working in Mexico. I worked under a tourist visa for three months and could legally renew it for three more months. After that you were working illegally. I was technically illegal for three weeks waiting on the FM3 approval. During those six months our Mexican and US Attorneys were working to secure a permanent work visa called a FM3. It was in addition to my US passport that I had to show each time I entered and left the country.

To apply for the FM3 I needed to submit the following notarized originals (not copies) of my:

1. Birth certificates for me.

2. Marriage certificate.

3. High school transcripts and proof of graduation.

4. College transcripts for every college I attended and proof of graduation.

5. Two letters of recommendation from supervisors I had worked for at least one year.

6. A letter from The St. Louis Chief of Police indicating I had no arrest record in the US and no outstanding warrants and was “a citizen in good standing.”

7. Finally, I had to write a letter about myself that clearly stated why there was no Mexican citizen with my skills and why my skills were important to Mexico. We called it our “I am the greatest person on earth” letter. It was fun to write.

All of the above were in English that had to be translated into Spanish and be certified as legal translations and our signatures notarized.

It produced a folder about 1.5 inches thick with English on the left side and Spanish on the right. Once they were completed I spent about five hours accompanied by a Mexican attorney touring Mexican government office locations and being photographed and fingerprinted at least three times. At each location (and we remember at least four locations) we were instructed on Mexican tax, labor, housing, and criminal law and that we were required to obey their laws or face the consequences. We could not protest any of the government’s actions or we would be committing a felony.

We paid out four thousand dollars in fees and bribes to complete the process. When this was done we could legally bring in our household goods that were held by US customs in Loredo, Texas. This meant we rented furniture in Mexico while awaiting our goods. There were extensive fees involved here that the company paid. We could not buy a home and were required to rent at very high rates and under contract and compliance with Mexican law.

We were required to get a Mexican drivers license. This was an amazing process. The company arranged for the licensing agency to come to our headquarters location with their photography and finger print equipment and the laminating machine. We showed our US license, were photographed and fingerprinted again and issued the license instantly after paying out a six-dollar fee. We did not take a written or driving test and never received instructions on the rules of the road. Our only instruction was never give a policeman your license if stopped and asked. We were instructed to hold it against the inside window away from his grasp. If he got his hands on it you would have to pay ransom to get it back.

We then had to pay and file Mexican income tax annually using the number of our FM3 as our ID number. Mexican accountants did this for us and we just signed what they prepared. I went through about twenty legal size pages annually. The FM3 was good for three years and renewable for two more after paying more fees. Leaving the country meant turning in the FM3 and certifying we were leaving no debts behind and no outstanding legal affairs (warrants, tickets or liens) before our household goods were released to customs.

It was a real adventure and if any of our senators or congressmen went through it once they would have a different attitude toward Mexico. The Mexican Government uses its vast military and police forces to keep its citizens intimidated and compliant. They never protest at their White House or government offices but do protest daily in front of the United States Embassy. The US embassy looks like a strongly reinforced fortress and during most protests the Mexican Military surround the block with their men standing shoulder to shoulder in full riot gear to protect the Embassy. These protests are never shown on US or Mexican TV. There is a large public park across the street where they do their protesting. Anything can cause a protest such as proposed law changes in California or Texas.

Please feel free to share this with everyone who thinks we are being hard on illegal immigrants.

You have probably noticed as you read my blog that I am not the most avid supporter of socialism. That’s right. I am against socialism in government.

For those of you who missed my definition of socialism in a comment I wrote, here it is:

Socialism is a system of government and economics similar, but not identical to communism. Marx said that socialism is the step in between capitalism and communism. Socialism says that the state must take care of everyone’s needs and provide all services (e.g. welfare, education, medicare) In the extreme; it means that all goods produced are shared with everyone else (e.g. Jamestown, in 1607).

Here’s Webster’s definition: “(1) Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. (2) A system of society or group living in which there is no private property. (3) A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. (4) A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

However there is one case when socialism can be beneficial: Emergencies.

In WWII, the aircraft companies of America joined together in a union. They shared ideas and concepts, plans and blueprints, and leaders and workers. This corporation worked well. It accomplished the needs of the country for combat aircraft during the war. European countries also nationalized industries during the war.

There have been other instances of governmental and corporational socialism in times of extreme need.

These provisions work well in the short term. However in the long run, they are not efficient and can sometimes bring ruin.

Today in 1846, the U.S. declared war on Mexico in what is now known as the Mexican-American war (hmmm, I wonder how they came up with that title). The protesters for equal rights to illegal aliens say that we stole California and the Southwest from the Mexicans, and thus we are the aliens, not them.

That’s just a plain lie. The Mexicans invaded Texas and attacked our troops stationed there in April of 1846. They were beaten back, but war tensions had already been brewing for a while, (the Mexicans had broken diplomatic relations) so President Polk declared war.

We had a three-pronged plan of attack: conquer California and New Mexico, and then move on to intimidate the Mexicans into surrender by invading the Mexican frontier. Colonel Stephen Kearny subjugated New Mexico (which then included Arizona, Utah, and parts of Nevada) early in the war. Commodore Robert Stockton declared California secured by August 17. Despite a rebellion afterwards, California was firmly in American hands by January 10, 1847. Mexico had been invaded by General Taylor, and the northern part of it occupied by December 1846. However, in the face of these defeats, the Mexican government still did not surrender, and General Winfield Scott had to invade Mexico City by amphibious landing. The army entered Mexico City on September 14, 1847; and the marines stood guard over the “halls of Montezuma.”

The Mexican government finally made an overture for terms. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ratified by both countries, had the U.S. pay $18¼ million for California and New Mexico, even though they rightly belonged to us and we already occupied them. It also acknowledged the Rio Grande as the official border between Texas and Mexico.

Thus, we overdid ourselves in making sure that we rightfully owned the land. The illegals are incorrect in their denunciations of the U.S. Not to mention that if they really want to be recognized as citizens of this country, they shouldn’t accuse it of being a horrible dictatorship. Waving Mexican flags, chanting anti-American mantras, and mocking the national anthem is not going to endear you to the people of this country.

People say that this country was built on immigrants. That’s true. But those immigrants at the turn of the century filled out the forms, and came to this country legally. The controversy is over illegal aliens; we have no problem with productive immigrants who come to this country by the due process of the law. If the aliens did want to get recognized, they should push for less bureaucracy in the immigration process instead of demanding that they get citizenship rights. If anyone can become a citizen, the status loses its value and purpose.

We should all remember the ones who died to keep this country free on this, the 160^th anniversary of the Mexican War.

With the recent immigration conflict, it’s good to know that we’re not alone in immigration troubles. Countries in Europe and the West generally are experiencing an influx of illegal aliens from the third world.

In Europe particularly, Muslims are coming in from the Middle East and beginning to te the Continent. The lack of motivation, morals, and conviction of secular Europeans is being replaced by the radical determination and of Muslims. Muslims, who have the solidarity of a radical religion, are overwhelming Europeans, who don’t have any solid foundation to stand on. The secular populations of Europe are shrinking with the decreased emphasis on family. But Muslims, who believe in a family and are against abortion and the like, are slowly gaining the upper hand in the population. It’s scary to think what could happen in the democratic nations of Europe if Islam gets in control. They don’t realize that the mindset of Muslims is completely opposed to Western values.

Another interesting thing, however; is that nobody seems to ask the question, “Why do we have the huge influx of immigrants, but the other nations of the world don’t?” I mean, you don’t see people lining up to emigrate to Cuba, China, or Iran. You just don’t. Why? It’s because they are opposed to freedom, and ultimately, because they have rejected Christianity. Which nations have the problem with illegal aliens? The ones that are historically Christian. These countries tend to be wealthier and more encouraging toward freedom. Why? It’s because Christianity urges people to move forward, to work hard in this life, to explore God’s creation, to fill the earth and multiply, etc. (Ever heard of the Protestant work ethic?) The Bush administration does not understand that without a Christian basis, democracy does not, and will not work.

Christianity is necessary for a Western culture’s survival. Why? It’s because Christianity gave rise to Western culture. Without the values that Christianity brings, many of our institutions would fall. Marriage requires commitment. Business requires honesty and hard work. Democracy and free governments require an equal measure of honesty along with commitment, morals, and good will. The nations that don’t have these things have lost, or don’t have a Christian foundation in society.

We didn’t get to be the most powerful nation in the world for no reason.

George Washington was one of the greatest leaders this country has ever had. He stood strong in battle, he persevered and was an encouragement to his troops in hardship, he was wise in government, and for all indications; he was a Christian.

Many attacks have been leveled against Washington. Yes, some of them are valid that he wasn’t the greatest of generals. But he wasn’t the worst either. Some have said that he was a price gouger, for example charging $10,000 to feed someone’s horse. Other statistics and prices have been recorded in certain books, with the intention of slamming Washington. But you have to remember that that those prices were in Colonial dollars, not modern ones. This currency had so flooded the economy that its value went down to almost nil. It was once remarked that a wagonload of paper money could hardly buy a wagonload of supplies. The attacks on his character are unfounded. Many who witnessed his courage were strengthened. You don’t win an impossible war by shrinking back and not doing anything.

As president, he ruled our country well. He helped the fledgling republic become a nation that could defend itself and be an example of free society. He advised, in his Farewell Address, that the U.S. should continue to expand trade and peaceful diplomacy in the world community; but that it should stay out of “entangling alliances.” In other words, peacefully influence the world for good, but don’t get involved in European wars or imperial conflicts. That’s good advice for any country, including ours then and today.

One interesting thing about George Washington’s vision for this country was his plan for the capital. He planned it on the Potomac for several reasons:

1. It was on a river, thus trade and economic growth.
2. It was geographically central to the country at that time, thus unity.
3. It had mineral resources fairly nearby, thus industry.
4. It was on the border between the slave South, and predominantly free North.

Washington envisioned a bustling commercial capital, central to the country and industrialized. He didn’t want a showy, opulent area for tourists, like France’s Versailles. He envisioned a center of industry with factories that would be an example to the South of the profit and potential of free labor. The South, which hadn’t become addicted slavery at that time, (cotton was not as profitable) could have been reformed. At any rate, Washington had a noble plan that was not carried out. Jefferson differed from Washington in his dream of the capital, and set out to build what we see today: a showy, more or less opulent place for tourists.

We should respect this great leader of our country for the great man he was, and not revile him because he didn’t fit in with modern views.

Now I am very aware that this is a very touchy topic. Some people I know seem to think that Appomattox was only a ceasefire. They hang pictures of Lee or Grant on their walls and do homage to their respective sides. In my opinion, both sides had their faults and their favors; but that position was reached only after long, hard hours of meditation. (Not really, but I thought that would sound nice) The positions on the war are evident in the many names for it. You have the Civil War, (which I’ll use) the War Between the States, the War of Northern Aggression, the War of Southern Secession, etc. What I am actually going to do in this post is not talk about the war itself, (I hope y’all covered that in high school) but the situations, debates, and positions taken by people and regions before Fort Sumter was fired on.At first, the main controversy between North and South was on the issue of state’s rights. The South believed that states should be able to nullify acts of Congress that were believed to be unconstitutional. It also held that States should be able to secede from the Union, and that the Union was not perpetual. The North (mostly New England and the mid-Atlantic states at this point) did not think that the states had that power. They also held that the Union was perpetual. These issues arose between the two regions as early as 1799, in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions drafted by those states in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. It reached open debate on the Senate floor with the Webster-Hayne debates of 1830. These issues continued to grow in power and sentiment along sectional lines until the election of Lincoln in 1860.

Then, slavery gradually came to the forefront as the distinguishing line between North and South. This issue was held off for many years, starting with the Constitution itself in 1787, extending through the Missouri Compromise of 1820, to when it came to a head in the debates leading up to the Great Compromise of 1850. The origin of this compromise started when California applied for admission into the Union. This time, unlike any other time, there was no slave state to balance the free California. New Mexico, which would probably become a slave state, was not yet ready for statehood. Henry Clay, a Kentucky Senator, attempted to resolve the problem by drafting a compromise. Its final form, drafted by Stephen Douglas, said that California should be admitted into the Union, that New Mexico would be admitted as slave or free when the time came, and that fugitive slaves could be taken from free states by their masters, even after they had run away.

There were great debates all through this time and up to the Civil War with the Kansas-Nebraska Compromise, John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, and other things that aggravated both sides into passionate speech. Most of the debating went on in the Senate, because that was where the two sides were the most equally represented. The main points that both sides insisted on and argued for were the following:

John C. Calhoun of South Carolina stated that the North was aggressing and should grant the South equal rights.

Daniel Webster of Massachusetts said that the South had good cause for complaint against attacks leveled by abolitionists at the region. But he also stated that the North also had good cause for complaint against the South’s aims to expand slavery into other states and across the western frontier. Webster also said that their criticisms against the North for its industrialization were just cause for complaint. However, he declared emphatically, the talk of peaceful secession should cease. There could be no such thing while the sun still rises and sets. Unfortunately, Webster was right.

William Seward, an abolitionist from New York, said that there was a higher law that men were bound to. This law forbade slavery. (And thus, its expansion) This appeal to a higher law became common among abolitionists.

Jefferson Davis, the future president of the Confederacy, stated that the North was trying to te the South, and should back off from meddling in the affairs of states.

Stephen Douglas held to the unpopular view of popular sovereignty concerning slavery in the various states. In other words, the people in each state should decide on whether slavery was to be allowed or not; and to if so, to what extent.

Abolitionists continually harangued the South that slavery was a sin, and that they were sinners. Southerners maintained that their cause was just, and that they were holding to the Constitution.

In hindsight, several conclusions can be reached: The South was wrong for wanting to expand slavery and maintaining that it wasn’t a sin. The North was wrong for continually pressing the issue and for virtually forcing the slave states to secede. The South shouldn’t have pressed for equal rights with the North. They were a minority region after 1850; they shouldn’t have tried to force the rest of the country to make allowances for them to have equal representation. The South was Presbyterian; the North was Unitarian. In that sense, the South was more Christian than the North, but the Southern Christians should have realized their sin and put a stop to it. (See my post on racism) The abolitionists should have waited for slavery to die out from natural causes and used the due process of the law to make slavery unprofitable; instead of forcing the South to do something it wasn’t ready to do yet. Stephen Douglas’ idea of popular sovereignty was probably the best idea in terms of slave vs. free states and the numbers of each. I don’t think it was good to have Congress decide the issue for the states. Both sides could have used a little more moderation and al lot less hot-headedness in their denouncements of each other.

All in all, the Civil War was not a shining moment in our history. It’s a little embarrassing. But nevertheless, it is part of our history, and we should learn from it.

In the 1850s, railroads were becoming popular in America. The railroad had presented itself as a reliable, efficient, and (relatively) cheap way of transporting goods. Canals had become too expensive; not to mention that almost all the commercially feasible canal routes already had canals by the mid 1840s. Roads were unthinkable as an economical way of moving things. (Remember, they didn’t have trucks) Thus, railroad building became popular in the 1850s.

Much of the financing for railroads was done by local, state, and federal governments. These were ted by people who were developing sectional tendencies to tie the Northeast to the Midwest. These officials wanted to keep the Northeast’s old nce in the Union. They feared that the Midwest would be tied to the South, since much of the Midwest is drained by the Mississippi River. So, the New England big-whigs made a massive effort to make the Great Lakes the major outlet of Midwestern goods. First, they made the Cumberland Road, tying Baltimore, Maryland to the Ohio River. That didn’t catch on too well, so they tried the Erie Canal, tying the Hudson River to Lake Erie. That was a great success, so some people in Pennsylvania thought they’d try it. They built a canal from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. Now wait a second, anyone who has driven across Pennsylvania on I-80, or has taken basic U.S. geography knows that Pennsylvania is not the flattest place in the world. As you probably thought, the “Main Line” wasn’t a huge success.

So, in comes the railroad. Once government officials saw the possibilities of railroads, they jumped on the bandwagon without thinking for another second. Governments on all levels went into debt in their financing of railroads from everywhere to somewhere else. Philadelphia went into a debt of $8 million (which was a lot back then, believe it or not) for the construction of railroads. Ohio passed a law requiring the state to supply one-third of the capital for any new railroad project in the state. And so on and so on. Pretty soon, railroads criss-crossed the Midwest, bringing the region’s produce to the Great Lakes, New England, and the Mississippi. (But mostly the former two)

The North was now tied together firmly. But the South hadn’t been as eager as the North in railroad building. The South didn’t have a very pressing need for construction of railroads. Nor was there any political motive to do so. Besides, any extra capital in the South was more likely to be spent on land or slaves than machinery or ultra-ambitious projects. The ideal life for the Southern man was to get a solid plantation and settle down as a Southern gentleman.

As I mentioned before, the Northern governments financed a large portion of the companies that built railroads there. They did this because they were focused on trying to link West and East together. Thus most of the roads were built with their endpoints at the Great Lakes or ultimately an Eastern city, such as New York, Philadelphia, or Baltimore. This drained a lot of traffic from the Mississippi River ports, such as St. Louis and New Orleans. That is not say that the transportation on those Rivers was completely stopped. Those port cities continued to grow. But the railroad traffic did take away from the level to which those cities grew and received the Midwest’s produce.

If the Northern Sectionalists hadn’t been so focused on tying East and West together and maintaining New England’s influence on the Union; it is possible that New Orleans would have become the major port city of America, thereby tying North and South together which would have been more important in the long run. New Orleans would have grown, its influence would have increased over the Southern states, and it would have been more reluctant to leave the Union when the time came. It is also possible that the example of free labor to the South by the Midwest and through New Orleans would have influenced Southerners to not be so adamant for the expansion of slavery. When South Carolina seceded, the rest of the South might not have followed.

But this is all speculation. However it is interesting to think about the possibilities.

The main point: State-sponsored activities often have something that’s not completely kosher going on behind the scenes.