Conspiracy debunked: The children from Central America are mostly refugees escaping horrendous violence

Libertarians in the US have been circulating conspiracies theories as to why tens of thousands of children have crossed into the US from Mexico. Those Libertarians claim that it is a plan by liberal Democrats to have more liberal voters in the US. Those claims are completely misguided and the result of typical knee-jerk analysis done by people who simply hate government and want laissez-faire (anarchistic) capitalism, capitalism without any governmental restraints at all or nearly so. Anything less than that they call collectivism and socialism and use those terms as being synonymous with pure evil, as if publicly owned, non-toll sidewalks have somehow been conjured up by those with bad intentions.

While rumors of increasingly lenient immigration policies appear to have partly fueled the mass exodus from these countries, the U.S. government and immigration advocacy groups say explosive levels of violence in the region are to blame. The isthmus has become one of the deadliest fronts in the war against drugs, serving as a vital transportation hub and providing a constant stream of drug gang members who manage the trade. A 2013 report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime cited Honduras as the country with the highest homicide rate in the world.


Tom Usher

Source: Honduras’ First Lady Says She Will Collect Her Country's Child Border-Crashers.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not one who claims all conspiracy theories are wrong. People conspire all the time. It's why people are prosecuted and rightly convicted for criminal conspiracies. They plan to commit crime. It's a frequent occurrence every day.

Barack Obama has reportedly said to the President of Mexico that the children won't be allowed to stay. Frankly, that's not up to him. We have laws that prevent us from returning people to places where there is a likelihood of violence against them. The children will be interviewed, and decisions will be made according to the law, not simply by order of Barack Obama. I hope the reporting on it is wrong and that he didn't say that in an unqualified manner, though it wouldn't surprise me.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism. Bookmark the permalink.