2019 Brought A Bumper Crop Of UFO Stories

Most of us probably see 2019 as a banner year for weirdness. We’ve had a string of Florida man stories, a $120,000 banana, and the third year of the Trump presidency. As if that weren’t enough, it turns out that 2019 also yielded a bumper crop of UFO sightings and news.

If you’re like me, you probably figured that UFOs became an endangered species when cellphone cameras became ubiquitous. “Pics or didn’t happen” is enough to kill many tall tales, but UFO sightings seem to be persisting even though photographic evidence is often lacking.

As the New York Post reported this week, credible UFO sightings represented a veritable bumper crop in 2019. Among the credible UFO stories this year were:

·        The revelation that the navy is studying UFOs and has captured them on video

·        The claim by naval officers that “unknown individuals” confiscated videos and data of a 2004 UFO sighting involving the USS Nimitz

·        An announcement that the army is partnering with the founder of Blink-182 to study “alien metals”

·        A Sept. 21 Ohio sighting by former law enforcement officer and his scientist wife who came within 50 feet of a mysterious light that was estimated to be 20 feet in size. The husband experienced paralysis when he tried to grab his gun.

·        A Sept. 1 sighting in New Mexico in which elk hunters saw 7-foot tall “figures” and an apparent spacecraft that resembled a circus tent

·        An August 12 sighting on the Garden State Parkway near Atlantic City, N.J. in which a married couple reported seeing a “40-foot triangle craft”

·        A viral video of a strange cluster of lights filmed off North Carolina’s Outer Banks in September

You might be tempted to think that the surge in UFO sightings is par for the course in a country where large numbers of people think the moon landing was fake, that vaccines cause autism, and reject the evidence on the lack of Russian collusion and Deep State conspiracies. However, simply writing off all sightings as fantasies ignores the fact that there is compelling data, such as pictures from naval targeting systems, in a number of the cases.

I’ve always had a curiosity about UFOs and aliens, going back to the 1970s television series based on the air force’s Project Blue Book, a show that really creeped me out, if I’m to be totally honest. However, I’m also a UFO skeptic. The small likelihood of life arising elsewhere in the universe combined with the even smaller likelihood of an extraterrestrial species developing interstellar travel present long odds against alien visitors. The vast majority UFO sightings – probably 99.9 percent -can be explained away as misidentified aircraft, natural phenomena, or hoaxes.

But that still leaves the difficult tenth of a percent that aren’t easily explained away. After the revelations of 2019, however, one thing is certain: The US government is taking UFO sightings seriously. If naval aviators can lock onto “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP),” the navy’s preferred term for UFOs with advanced targeting systems such as the F/A-18 Hornet’s forward-looking infrared radar (FLIR), it is strong evidence that some sort of physical object is out there.

These flying objects that are unidentified aren’t necessarily flying saucers or alien spacecraft. We don’t know what they are and alien technology is simply one explanation. Another interesting theory is that UFOs are spiritual. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, proposed in his book, “Lights In The Sky And Little Green Men,” that UFOs could come from other dimensions and may be connected with angelic and demonic beings. As evidence, Ross notes a link between UFO sightings and the occult.

You can use an online map of UFO sightings by state to see how plausible you think this and other theories are as well as to judge your own likelihood of a close encounter. Interestingly, the South has few UFO sightings compared with the rest of the country, challenging the stereotype of backwoods, Southern rednecks as the typical UFO witnesses.

You may wonder if I’ve ever seen any strange aerial phenomena in my primary occupation as a pilot. The only example that I can think of in my thousands of hours was a little over 15 years ago as I operated an airline flight over the northeastern US. It was a clear winter night and I think that we were over upstate New York when the other pilot and I both witnessed a vivid red streak in the sky above us. The streak lasted only for a second or so before it disappeared.

What was it? We weren’t sure, but our best guess was that it was a meteor, although it didn’t look like any meteor that I’ve seen before or since. It was both larger and more colorful. This may have been because of our altitude and the atmospheric conditions that night, although I’ve seen shooting stars from aloft since then and none resembled what we saw that night. Neither of us jumped to the conclusion that it was an alien spacecraft.

No one knows what the truth is behind UFOs but the new evidence that emerged in 2019 makes the phenomena a little more real. And while the government is cracking down on illegal immigration, a wall and ICE raids won’t deter these particular illegal aliens in their saucer, triangular, or circus tent craft.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump will 'work something out' with DREAMers

Ms Phoenix/Flickr

In the interview with Time Magazine that accompanies his selection as the Person of the Year, Donald Trump raised eyebrows with a comment that he will “work something out” for illegal aliens who came to the US as minors. Trump had previously said that the illegal immigrants, known as “DREAMers” for the DREAM Act that would have given them a path to legal status, would have to be deported.

Trump told Time in the Nov. 23 interview, “I want Dreamers for our children also. We’re going to work something out. On a humanitarian basis it’s a very tough situation. We’re going to work something out that’s going to make people happy and proud. But that’s a very tough situation.”

The DREAM Act was a bipartisan bill first introduced in 2001, but never passed into law. The law would allow illegal immigrants who entered the country before they turned 16 to apply for conditional resident status if they have five years of residency, earn a high school diploma or GED, show good moral character and pass background checks. Permanent residency could be granted if they serve in the US military or attend a higher education institution for two years. The DREAM acronym stands for “Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors.”

Although the DREAM Act never became law, President Obama used Executive Orders to defer deportation for young illegals who have clean records. Obama’s Executive Order was the basis for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that gives some DREAMers exemption from deportation and two-year work permits. Trump said in the campaign that he would terminate the program.

The Texas Tribune profiled several DREAMers in a post-election article. Many came as young teenagers to be with parents who were already in the US. Jessica Azua was 14 when she came to the US illegally. Now, at 25, she is graduate of Texas A&M. Edgar Navarrete, now 22 and a student at the University of Texas at Austin, came to the US with his parents as a toddler and has no memory of his hometown in Mexico. Illegal immigrants who came to the US at a young age under the direction of their parents have no lives in their native countries to return to.

Trump has reversed position on immigration before. Before running as a hardliner on immigration, Trump told DREAM activists in 2013, “You’ve convinced me” according to NBC Latino. In August, Trump considered a new immigration position in the midst of the campaign before reversing his reversal. Even as he seems to consider a compromise on the DREAMers, Trump has appointed immigration hardliners to his cabinet.

Trump has said since the election that he still intends to build his wall, but other aspects of his immigration policy may be subject to change. During the campaign, he insisted on deportation of all illegal aliens, but has since said on “60 Minutes” that deporting violent criminals will be a priority, then “after the border is secured and after everything gets normalized, we're going to make a determination on the people that you're talking about who are terrific people.”

In the Time interview, Trump continues to call for a wall. “We’re going to build the wall. I’m going to build the wall. We’re going to have strong borders. But we’re also going to have people coming across the borders because we need workers.”

He also hints at other aspects of an immigration reform plan, which may see a change from the current family-based system to one that seeks to match immigrants to the needs of the US workforce. “We have to be able to have people come in to our country, because that’s good for all of us. It’s good for them, but it’s good for all of us. But we’re going to have very strong borders. We’re not going to have illegals coming in. But we’re going to have people coming in, but we’re also going to have them coming in based to a certain extent on merit.”

Deviation from his hardline deportation policy could cause a rift in Trump’s base, but might help more moderates to get behind Trump. Polling over the past few years has consistently shown that most Americans support a path to legalization for illegal aliens. Even exit polls of Republican primary voters, including many Trump voters, showed that the party was roughly split down the middle on the issue of legalization and that most opposed deportation of all illegals.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump flips on immigration

Gage Skidmore/Flickr

Rumors are swirling that Donald Trump is prepared to reverse his stance on illegal immigration, the cornerstone of his campaign. The Trump campaign began last summer with rhetoric that focused heavily on Mexico and illegal immigration. Trump made his promise of a wall on the Mexican border the centerpiece of his campaign.

The rumors that Trump is flip-flopping on immigration began Saturday night with a Buzzfeed article. Buzzfeed cited three sources who confirmed that Trump signaled his willingness to soften his immigration stance in a secret meeting in the Trump Tower with the newly formed National Hispanic Advisory Council For Trump. The article stated that Trump did not use the term “legalization,” but had indicated that he was open to a solution to the problem of illegal immigrants “that respects border security but deals with this in a humane and efficient manner.”

Univision also cited three sources, some of which were also named by Buzzfeed. One source cited by both outlets was Jacob Monty, a Texas immigration lawyer. Monty said, “I really liked that Trump acknowledged that there is a big problem with the 11 million [undocumented] people who are here, and that deporting them is neither possible nor humane.” Monty claimed that the new Trump plan “wouldn't be citizenship but would allow them to be here without fear of deportation.”

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus confirmed to Univision that the meeting took place and that it was part of “our expansive effort to engage the Hispanic community.”

The reports sparked a quick denial from Mr. Trump. I'm not flip flopping," he told Fox News on the issue Monday. "We want to come up with a fair but firm process. Fair but firm.”

Trump and new campaign manager Kellyanne Conway were noncommittal on the specifics of the current version of the Trump immigration plan. On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Conway replied “to be determined” when asked if Trump still advocated for “a deportation force removing the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants” in the US. Throughout the campaign Trump has been an immigration hardliner who called for the deportation of all illegal immigrants.

Univision also cited Helen Aguirre, an RNC spokeswoman who was present at the meeting. Aguirre confirmed that the Trump campaign was working on a new plan. “Trump was very categorical in saying that he's seeking a fair immigration reform," she said. "He wants to listen to everyone and announce his conclusions in the coming days."

By Sunday, Aguirre was reversing herself in a Breitbart piece. “Some folks talked about legalization, not citizenship, for the undocumented,” she said. “Mr. Trump did not say he was in favor of legalization. Some folks may have felt that he was open to it–and he gave zero indication of that.”

Aguirre told the Washington Post, “He listened to the comments and suggestions made by the various board members, but he never indicated what his immigration policy would be.”

Nevertheless, the comments by Aguirre and Conway confirmed that Trump’s immigration policy is changing. Conway said that “as the weeks unfold” Trump will reveal his new immigration plan. He is expected to address the topic this Thursday in Colorado.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line

TSA allowed illegal aliens on airliners without valid IDs

In July, Breitbart issued an exclusive report that alleged that the Transportation Security Administration was allowing illegal immigrants to travel on airline flights without proper identification. According to the story, Border Patrol officers claimed to have witnessed TSA agents permitting illegal aliens to board domestic airline flights with only a Notice to Appear, a federal citation for illegally crossing the border. To determine whether these allegations were true, Examiner contacted the National Border Patrol Council, a union for Border Patrol officers, and the TSA.

For those unfamiliar with a Notice to Appear, also called Form I-862, Nolo.com explains that it is a charging document that signals the initiation of removal proceedings and means that the recipient must appear in immigration court. The document lists the recipient’s name, aliases, address, alien registration number and date of birth, but does not include a photograph and is easy to duplicate. A sample Form I-862 is available on the Justice Department’s website.

In response to a query from Examiner, the TSA Media Team issued a statement via email which declared, “A Notice to Appear, issued by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), is not an acceptable form of ID at the TSA checkpoint.”

The TSA went on to explain that “for Mexican nationals without a passport who are returning to Mexico” an alternate procedure exists. The Mexican national can apply for a Certificate of Presumptive Nationality of Mexico (CPNM), which is issued by the Mexican government. The CPNM includes a photograph of the traveler and the TSA’s Identity Verification Call Center (IVCC) authenticates the certificate before the traveler is allowed through the TSA checkpoint.

The CPNM must be provided by the Mexican government in PDF form 24 hours prior to the flight and the passenger must undergo enhanced screening. The travel must be completed on the same day and Mexico must be the final destination. According to TSA, about 1,900 CPNMs are issued annually.

The same IVCC can also verify the identities of U.S. citizens who have lost or forgotten their identification. The TSA website lists other acceptable forms of identification.

Shawn Moran, media contact for the National Border Patrol Council, stands by the original allegations made by Hector Garza, a spokesman for Local 2455. Moran told Examiner that Border Patrol officers observed TSA agents allowing illegal aliens to board flights in Laredo, Tex. with only a Notice to Appear as identification. When asked if these were international flights that would return the aliens to their countries of origin, Moran answered, “These were solely domestic flights.”

Moran was unaware of the CPNM procedure that was touted by the TSA. He noted, “At the time our agents observed this, there was no procedure. There may be now.”

A crucial distinction is that the CPNM procedure, according to the TSA, is for foreign nationals “returning to their own country.” The claim made by the Border Patrol officers is that foreign nationals were flying, not only without a CPNM, but on domestic flights traveling to points within the United States. If true, this would not be permissible under the TSA policy.

Moran claims that the “TSA flat out lied when the story broke” about the policy of allowing aliens to fly with a Notice to Appear. “They have since changed the policy,” he says.

When asked if there is evidence to the claim beyond the testimony of TSA officers, Moran answers, “I’m sure there is, but it would all reside with TSA. They wouldn’t have gone out of their way to clarify this if it wasn’t happening.”

The smoking gun in the allegations is a letter from the TSA to Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Tex.). The letter, first reported by the Gateway Pundit and dated August 7, 2014, explicitly says that passengers with only a Form I-862 can fly under certain conditions, such as with confirmation “that the I-862 was issued to an individual with the name provided”:

“If a passenger can only present a Form I-862, TSA will attempt to establish the passenger’s identity through DHS partner Components, such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). If other DHS Components are able to provide corroborating information (such as that the I-862 was issued to an individual with the name provided) to permit TSA to verify an individual’s identity when taken together with all other information available, the passenger is permitted into the screening checkpoint to undergo screening.”

The full letter can be viewed on the website of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

When Examiner asked the TSA about the letter to Marchant, a spokesman replied, “The letter is very clear regarding the other verification methods used. The letter speaks for itself.”

After receiving the TSA letter, Rep. Marchant introduced the VALID (Verified and Legitimate ID) Act on Sept. 10. The bill would “prohibit the TSA from accepting Notice to Appear Forms as valid personal identification for clearing airport security,” according to Marchant.

It appears that the TSA was allowing illegal aliens to board domestic airliners with only a Notice to Appear at one time. The TSA has apparently now changed that policy and requires further documentation from the alien’s home country. If Rep. Marchant’s bill becomes law, this change would be made permanent.

Read the full story on Aviation Examiner

A common sense approach to immigration reform

By now it should be clear to everyone that the current immigration system is broken and beyond repair. Illegal immigrants flock across the border with seeming impunity. Businesses depend on the labor of these immigrants, even as many US citizens leave the work force or are forced to work part-time jobs. Even legal immigrants like the Tsarnaev brothers can travel between the United States and terrorist training camps abroad without the knowledge of federal authorities. Perhaps worst of all, at President Obama’s implicit invitation, many unaccompanied immigrant children have made a dangerous journey the southern border to throw themselves on the mercy of the American welfare state. A solution to these problems requires a common sense approach and a bipartisan compromise

Democrats and Republicans disagree on the solutions to these and many other problems faced by Americans. What’s more, the current balance of power in Washington in which Republicans control the House of Representatives and Democrats control the Senate and White House guarantees that neither party can force its own solution on the other. Many conservatives hold out hope for a Republican Senate majority after this year’s elections, but, even with the most optimistic projections, the GOP will not hold a majority large enough to override President Obama’s almost certain veto of a partisan immigration bill. The only viable solution to the immigration problem requires compromise.

To reach a compromise, leaders of both parties must overcome the angry voices of fringe elements of their base. Republican leaders answer the demagogues of the right who attack any attempt at immigration reform as “amnesty.” Democratic leaders must work around those on the left, including the president, who see immigration as a wedge issue with which to paint Republicans as racists and who would prefer to have open borders.

A wise man once said that a true compromise means that everyone is equally unhappy. In a compromise, both sides have to give up something. The thing that conservatives must give up is the notion that a border security bill must come before any other aspect of immigration reform.

There are two reasons that this is true. First, immigrant labor is needed by the businesses that make up a large part of the Republican coalition. Cutting off the supply of immigrant labor will only succeed in pushing these businesses toward the Democrats in spite of the left’s anti-business policies. Second, it is mathematically impossible for the GOP to pass a standalone border security bill with Democrats in control of the Senate and Barack Obama in the White House.

For their part, the Democrats must agree to enforcement triggers and border security provisions that cannot be reversed or ignored by the president or future Congresses. No one trusts President Obama to do the right thing on immigration. No one trusts Congress not to defund border security in the future.

Any immigration bill must include border security measures that would prevent a future influx of illegal aliens. In the age of terrorism, this is a national security issue rather than an economic one. Fencing is needed along much of the southern border along with increased numbers of Border Patrol agents. A better system of tracking legal immigrants who overstay their visas is also desperately needed. Like a standalone border bill, a bill that focuses solely on bringing current illegals into the system could not pass the current Congress.

Both parties must bend on how to address the problem of illegal immigrants already in the United States. Hard-line conservatives insist on deportation while hard-line liberals want a quick path to citizenship. The path to a compromise lies in the middle.

There are many reasons that deportation won’t happen. The American people are sharply divided with many polls showing a majority in opposition to deportation. Many illegal immigrants who came here as children don’t even speak the language of their native countries. Many adult illegal aliens have been here for years or decades and have established homes and businesses. In many cases, they tried to immigrate legally, but would have had to wait for years or decades. Public opinion will not tolerate families being split up as illegals are deported and legal resident aliens remain.

Public opinion also does not favor amnesty and granting citizenship to illegals. Most Americans agree that illegal immigrants did break our laws and must pay their debt to society. Although most Americans support a path or legalization or citizenship, such support is often contingent on meeting requirements such as passing a background check, paying back taxes and fines, and showing English proficiency.

The answer lies in the middle path of granting a measure of legalization to illegal aliens that is short of citizenship. This does not mean amnesty, which is a pardon or forgiveness for a crime. Under a path to legalization, which is supported by a majority of Americans as well as a majority of Republicans, illegal aliens would have to prove residency and show a clear criminal history, pay fines, and be subject to long waiting period before having any chance at citizenship.

This middle path would ensure that the punishment would fit the crime. Entering the United States illegally is a crime, but it is not a felony or a misdemeanor. According to the US code, it is an infraction akin to a traffic ticket and is punishable by a fine of not more than $250. Deportation or jail time is an excessive punishment for the crime of illegal immigration as currently defined by US law. This is especially true in light of the fact that illegal immigration has, for decades, been conducted with the tacit approval of both the US government and the American people.

The punishment for current illegal aliens must be severe enough to discourage future illegal immigration, but fair enough that illegals will choose to take part in the process rather than remain in the underground economy. There should be a grace period after which penalties for applying for legal status are more severe.

Conservatives must realize that if the current crop of illegal aliens are denied a fair chance at the American dream, their children will be birthright citizens who will bear a strong grudge against the Republican Party. If it is to remain relevant, the GOP cannot continue to write off large majorities of minority voters.

Once there is agreement on the major points of securing the border and how to handle illegal immigrants already in the US, agreement on other details should be easier to obtain. The law should be amended to elevate the crime of crossing the border illegally to felony status with automatic deportation for future illegal aliens.

In return for a secure border, legal immigration should be increased dramatically. Migrant workers should be encouraged to work in jobs that Americans won’t take as part of a guest worker program. Graduates of American colleges and universities with degrees in science, technology, engineering and math should automatically receive a visa with their diploma. Currently, many US educated students are forced to go abroad after they graduate where they take jobs that directly compete with American companies. It should be easier, faster and safer for an honest, hardworking immigrant to enter the US legally than illegally.

A strong majority of Americans believe that immigration reform is desperately needed. In the current climate of Washington, a bipartisan compromise is the only plan that has any chance of becoming law. A compromise bill that includes enhanced border security, a tough but fair approach to current illegal immigrants and an increase in future legal immigration should be able to win support of majorities of both parties and houses of Congress, while proving to the American people that the federal government is not totally and irretrievably broken.

Read the full article on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Marco Rubio proposes new GOP immigration policy

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) is proposing an immigration reform package reports this week’s Weekend Interview in the Wall St. Journal. Rubio, whose name was floated as a potential vice presidential nominee for Mitt Romney, wants to take the immigration issue away from the Democrats. According to Examiner’s analysis of exit polls of the 2012 presidential election, immigration was one of the most damaging issues for the Republicans.
The first prong of Rubio’s plan is to modernize America’s immigration system. He would issue more immigration visas to immigrants with technical skills needed by U.S. companies. Rubio notes that only 6.5 percent of immigrants come to the U.S. based on their labor and skills, but that American colleges don’t produce enough science, technology, engineering and math graduates to fill open positions. In fact, many foreign students who come to the U.S. to study cannot get visas to stay in the country and work.

Rubio believes that it is necessary to secure the border, but also supports workplace enforcement initiatives such as requiring employers to check the immigration status of workers. Rubio believes that these initiatives will remove the incentive for immigrants to enter the country illegally.

There is a real need for immigrant labor. In spite of high unemployment rates, Georgia is among the states where strict immigration laws have resulted in large crop losses for farmers. After Georgia’s immigration law took effect in 2011, Georgia Public Broadcasting reported that the Georgia Agribusiness Council estimated that the state’s farmers would lose as much as $1 billion because there were not enough workers to harvest their crops before they spoiled.

Rubio would solve this problem by increasing the number of permanent and seasonal work visas for farm workers. Farmers need immigrant labor to harvest their crops and immigrants need jobs to support their families. Issuing work visas would be beneficial to both groups in addition to bringing immigrants into the legal workforce to prevent them from being exploited. An added benefit would be the tax revenue that from the salaries of these legal migrant workers.

The problem of illegal aliens would be solved by bringing them into the open. Rubio proposes that they come forward to undergo background and fingerprint checks. If they had committed a serious crime, they would be deported. Those who had been in the U.S. for an extended period and who had lived within the law otherwise would be subjected to a fine, be required to pay back taxes, and possibly do community service. After they had paid their debt to society, they would be given legal status and could apply for permanent resident status. After a waiting period of several years, they might be allowed to apply for citizenship.

Sen. Rubio’s plan, which he would pass in several smaller bills as opposed to one omnibus bill, fills a void within the Republican platform as a way to appeal to minorities who now make up 28 percent of the electorate according to exit polls and vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats. Rubio doesn’t believe it should be this way. He says that immigration is a “gateway” issue for Hispanics. Republican outreach on this issue might well help Hispanics realize that they have much in common with Republicans on other issues.

The proposal will likely face opposition from members of Rubio’s own party who oppose any path to legality for illegal aliens.  Because of the rising share of minority voters and the ease with which Democrats demonize hard-line positions on immigration, the future of the Republican Party may hinge on the success of Rubio and his allies.

Nevertheless, Rubio believes that the issue is ripe for Republicans because President Obama and the Democrats have "not done a thing" for immigration according to the Journal article. It is likely that the Democrats will fight Republican efforts at reform in order to keep Hispanics in the Democratic fold for future elections.

Originally published on Examiner.com:
http://www.examiner.com/article/marco-rubio-proposes-immigration-reform-plan?cid=db_articles


CORRECTION:  An earlier version of this article stated that Sen. Rubio's position was did not include securing the border as a precursor to immigration reform.  Sen. Rubio's press secretary has informed the author that this is not the case.  Sen. Rubio does believe that border security is necessary before any reform package can move forward.

New Year’s Resolution for Republicans: Find sensible immigration policy

As we prepare to ring in 2013 and another four years of Barack Obama, Republicans should make a resolution to find an immigration policy that won’t turn off minority voters. Exit polls from the 2012 elections show that immigration was the single worst issue for Republicans. By a more than two-to-one margin, voters believed that illegal immigrants should be offered legal status rather than being deported. This issue undoubtedly influenced Hispanic voters and Asian voters to flock to Barack Obama by 71 and 73 percent respectively.

Obama’s record on immigration is less than stellar, but he proved less frightening than many Republicans. After ignoring the immigration issue for three years, the president issued constitutionally questionable orders to limit deportations. Although this order may have exceeded his authority as president, it proved more popular than Mitt Romney’s promise to veto the DREAM Act. Republican rhetoric on immigration has often been harsh, sometimes bordering on racist, and attempts by states to regulate illegal aliens were easily demonized by the Democrats.

Ironically, the Wall Street Journal pointed out that the state immigration laws are often bad for businesses. In Alabama, where the crackdown on illegal immigration was sold as a way to increase employment for U.S. citizens, there was a shortage of workers in industries that traditionally hired both legal and illegal Mexican immigrants. As Hispanics left the state regardless of their immigration status, employers turned to Haitian and African immigrants because native Alabamans did not pursue the open jobs. In 2011, the Journal reported that many crops were rotting the fields because there were not enough workers to harvest them.

In 2011, Georgia passed an immigration law similar to those of Arizona and Alabama. Implementation of the law was postponed by the courts, but parts of the injunction were lifted earlier this month. The law is intended to encourage illegal immigrants to leave the state, which may lead Georgia industries that depend on immigrant labor to experience difficulties in the coming year.

Republicans should recognize that the immigration problem is one of our own making. The tacit acceptance of illegal immigration for decades has encouraged more migrants to come to the U.S. to work. For years, immigration law was akin to the speed limit. Everybody knew that a lot of people were breaking the law, but it was accepted with a nod and wink. Large sectors of the economy now depend on labor provided by immigrants who entered the country illegally.

Republicans should also realize that these immigrants are coming to the country in pursuit of the American dream as our own ancestors did. Immigrants come to this country because opportunities are not good in their homelands. They come here to provide for their families and to make a better life, just as the English, Irish, Germans, and multitudes of others did since the birth of America.

The dilemma is that the needs of the economy must be squared with the need for national security in the post-9/11 world. The border must be secured to prevent the infiltration of terrorists, but legal immigration should be encouraged. In no case should otherwise law-abiding immigrants be deported simply for entering the country illegally or for something as simple as a traffic infraction. The idea of splitting up families and deporting parents or children is not something that a pro-family party should endorse.

Stories abound of illegal immigrants like Jose Castro, arrested in Hall County, Ga. for fishing without a license and threatened with deportation. In another Georgia case, Jessica Colotl was a college student arrested for driving without a license in Atlanta. After the arrest, Colotl, a Kennesaw State University student, was revealed to have entered the U.S. illegally as a ten-year-old. These cases make Republican immigration hardliners look heartless. Worse, it pushes millions of voters into the arms of President Obama and the Democrats.

The obvious solution is to allow migrants to enter the country on work visas. Illegal immigrants who are here already should be allowed to stay provided that they register with the government and pay a fine. They should not be granted amnesty or citizenship, but the right to work legally is something that both the immigrants and employers need. It would also be a boon to the government by bringing part of the underground economy into the light where it can be taxed and regulated.

It is simply not realistic to expect immigrants already in this country, many of whom already own homes or businesses, to return to their native countries before being able to obtain legal status. In many cases, the illegal aliens came here at such a young age that they have no real connection to their so-called homelands and don’t even speak the language there. A solution that is so draconian as to be unworkable is not a solution at all. If the solution is too harsh, illegal immigrants will simply remain in the shadows.

It should be easier for immigrants to come to the U.S. legally. It has long been noted that the U.S. is suffering a “brain drain” of university students who come to the U.S. to study but are unable to stay here to work. These students with science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) degrees then go abroad to work for competitors of U.S. companies. This is causing a shortage of technical workers in the U.S. Foreign STEM graduates don’t take jobs from Americans because very few Americans pursue these types of degrees.

If it weren’t for the immigration controversy, Republicans might get more votes from minority voters as well. Many immigrants tend to be socially conservative. According to a Pew poll, foreign born Hispanics tend to be much more conservative than their U.S. born counterparts. Many Hispanics also tend to be pro-life and strongly oppose same-sex marriage. They also tend to be very religious and religious voters tend to favor the GOP. Likewise, Asian voters have many reasons to lean Republican as well, but have not done so in recent elections.

It is extremely likely that the next four years of Barack Obama will prove as disastrous for immigrants and minorities as they will for the rest of the population. The 2012 election should underscore the fact that many people need more than an economic reason to cast a ballot for a Republican. They need to feel that they aren’t hated.

Republicans can reach out to the immigrant and minority communities by taking the initiative on immigration reform. Immigration languished on President Obama’s backburner for more than three years until he needed Hispanic votes for the election. He has very little credibility on the issue, but Republicans have even less. They might be able to change that by promoting common sense reforms that work for both immigrants and businesses.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/resolution-for-republicans-find-sensible-immigration-policy?cid=db_articles

Becoming a discerning internet user

Anyone who has spent any time on the internet knows that there are an abundance of fraudulent claims, hoaxes, and conspiracies. Cartersville, Ga. was the centerpiece of a 2008 hoax about rigged gas pumps and countless Georgians have received variations of the Nigerian email scam. The proliferation of such lies means that internet users need to learn how to separate fact from fantasy.

There are steps that that internet users can take to become more discerning about the information available on the internet. The first and most obvious step is to distinguish between trustworthy and unreliable websites. When looking for factual information, be leery of blogs and other websites that do not meet journalistic standards.

Wikipedia is a popular online encyclopedia site, but its articles can be edited by users. There have been several cases of false or unreliable information on Wikipedia. Wikipedia can be useful for an overview of a topic, but information found there should be verified elsewhere. Fortunately, Wikipedia entries are often footnoted with links to the source information.

Other websites have no such saving graces. World Net Daily is a news website that is less than credible. It is associated with a wide range of conspiracy theories including questioning Barack Obama’s birth certificate. The websites of Alex Jones, Infowars and Prison Planet, are notorious for propagating outlandish conspiracies on topics from 9/11 to UFOs. Documentaries posted on Youtube or other internet sites should also be treated with skepticism unless the creator of the piece can be determined to be credible. Articles by mainstream political groups and politicians may be so slanted that the truth is barely recognizable.

As a general rule, information should not be believed unless it can be independently verified by more than one source. In many cases, this can take a little searching. Sometimes this can be accomplished by following links in the article to the source. In other cases, it will involve using an online search engine such as Google or Bing.

Internet users should hone their innate BS detectors. If something sounds either too good or too outlandish to be true, it probably is. Atlanta consumer talk show host Clark Howard offers a list of resources for use in cases of suspected financial fraud. For internet rumors and conspiracies, there are several resources as well. The most famous of these is Snopes.com, but the Urban Legends page on About.com and Hoaxbusters.org are recommended as well. Politifact and Factcheck are good resources for political claims, but both of these sites sometimes lean left.

Even on reliable sites, it is important to distinguish between commentary and factual reporting. For example, the Atlanta Journal is usually considered to be a fairly reliable source, but its columnists and bloggers merely state their opinions. Therefore, news items from AJC.com can generally be trusted. On the contrary, statements by its famously left wing editorial writer Cynthia Tucker (who recently left to teach journalism at UGA) should be taken with a grain of salt.

Another clue that a website is unreliable is a fixation on how one group is conspiring for nefarious purposes. This could include racial groups, religious believers, corporations, or the government. Jews, Catholics, and Freemasons are favorite targets of conpiricists. The Illuminati, the Bilderbergers, UFOs, the United Nations, and a shadow U.S. and world government are also frequent topics on conspiracy sites.

In one recent example, the Atlanta Conservative Examiner was sent a link that purported to show recently unclassified National Security Agency documents detailing how extraterrestrial messages were decoded by government cryptologists. These documents immediately set off the BS detector because of the incredible claim that aliens had contacted Earth and that the government had decoded their message, published it on the internet, and all this had somehow been missed by the major news outlets. Googling the author of the report and the report’s title yielded only links that referred back to the original source document as proof of alien contact. Snopes and the debunker sites had no information.

Finally, an article on Open Minds (admittedly not a first tier site when it comes to credibility) was found several pages into the search results. It detailed how the messages were part of an NSA cryptology exercise from the 1960’s. As Sherlock Holmes said, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Don’t believe everything you read. Use common sense and look for verification from objective, reliable sources.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:  http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/becoming-a-discerining-internet-user

Photo credit:  Stuart Miles/ http://www.freedigitalphotos.net

Economist proposes “space alien” stimulus

In a tacit admission that the left is out of ideas on how to fix the economy, economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently proposed a new stimulus program in the form a military buildup to ward off an invasion by extraterrestrial aliens. Drawing upon the history of the Great Depression and an episode of “the Twilight Zone,” Krugman postulated on CNN that government spending on military hardware to combat aliens would revitalize the U.S. economy in short order. Krugman subscribes to the Keynesian belief that World War II and the debt-financed military buildup that followed finally ended the Great Depression after ten years of FDR’s debt-financed social programs failed to restart the economy.

In reality, the military buildup of the 1940’s and the New Deal stimulus programs were very similar. The military draft that removed hundreds of thousands of workers from unemployment rolls had civilian equivalents in the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Works Progress Administration and other New Deal government organizations that hired workers for make-work projects. Similarly, government orders for military hardware that busied factories were akin to New Deal construction projects commissioned by the Public Works Administration and the Civil Works Administration.

Krugman doesn’t actually believe that an alien attack is imminent. He merely favors a hoax to provide a rationale for spending:

“If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat - and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that - this slump would be over in 18 months. And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake there aren't actually any space aliens.”

“There was a Twilight Zone episode like this, which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace. Well, this time we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus.”

Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning economist, misses several important points here. The most obvious is that the U.S. is already at war. We don’t have to invent an extraterrestrial enemy because we have a very real terrestrial enemy in the form of Islamic terrorist groups. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused wear and tear on military equipment. The government could spend money to replace and refurbish our existing military hardware, as well as purchasing more F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II advanced technology fighters that would ensure air superiority against a new generation of high-tech Chinese and Russian fighters. The F-22 is a built by Lockheed Martin at its plant in Marietta, Ga. Presumably real world military spending is not large enough in Krugman’s eyes.

The second point that Krugman misses is that spending on WWII did not actually jumpstart the economy. The problem is that removing hundreds of thousands of idle workers from the economy and purchasing millions of dollars of tanks, aircraft, and other equipment is not a change that could be sustained indefinitely. When the war was over, as the armed forces demobilized these workers would likely return to the unemployment line and the factories would go idle if the government did not fund new New Deal programs to provide jobs and demand for material goods. In reality, this is not what happened.

In the Wall Street Journal, Burt Folsom, author of “New Deal or Raw Deal,” notes that Congress, led by Georgia Senator Walter F. George, rejected President Truman’s attempts to revive New Deal policies after the war. According to Folsom’s research, Congress reduced income tax rates across the board, cut the corporate tax rate, and repealed the Excess Profits Tax. According to tax.org, the tax reforms and reductions began even before the war ended with the Tax Adjustment Act and the Revenue Act of 1945. The Revenue Act of 1948 was smaller, but included more comprehensive and controversial reforms.

Senator George, a resident of Vienna, Ga. who served on the Senate Finance Committee at the time, is quoted by Folsom as saying that if the tax reform “has the effect which it is hoped it will have, it will so stimulate the expansion of business as to bring in a greater total  revenue." As a chart on USgovernmentrevenue.com shows, federal revenues increased dramatically in the 1950’s even though tax rates were lower than they had been during the New Deal and war years.

Finally, Krugman ignores the fact that federal debt levels today are much higher than they were at the onset of WWII. Data from USgovernmentspending.com reveals that the federal debt as a percentage of GDP is almost as high today as it was at the end of WWII, not the beginning. The government could afford to spend billions on tanks and armies in 1941 because, even after a decade of New Deal spending, the federal debt was less of a burden than it is today. If the U.S. tried to engage in another massive military buildup today, the debt would shortly become unmanageable and the result would either be a default or inflation (which Krugman also advocates).

Krugman’s idea of an anti-alien buildup is simply a sci-fi twist on the same old Keynesian policies that have failed to work for President Obama in the past. President Obama should instead follow Senator George’s example and enact broad-based, permanent tax reforms that would encourage businesses to invest.

Photo credit:  Vince DeVries/Wikimedia

Read this article on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/economist-proposes-space-alien-stimulus

Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigration has been on a lot of people’s minds lately. Recently this issue resurged with the passage of a new law in Arizona designed to give local and state law enforcement more tools to combat illegal immigration. Some on the right sound almost xenophobic in their opposition to immigration. On the other hand, some on the left seem to want totally open borders and no enforcement of immigration law.

Regardless of the ultimate fate of the Arizona law, the federal government does need to step up and enact immigration reform. If the current system were working, Arizona would not have felt the need to enact legislation to do what is the federal government’s role. In spite of the media firestorm, the law has strong support among Arizona’s voters [4].

Most of us would agree that even in our current recession the United States remains an attractive alternative to many other countries. Who among us can blame immigrants for wanting to better the lives of their families by coming to the United States? The economic opportunities and freedom found in the US are unparalleled anywhere else on earth. The truth is that most immigrants, legal and illegal, are decent people who only want to make life better for their families.

I have had personal experience with illegal immigrants as an Athens, Georgia insurance agent. We routinely sold auto policies to men with Mexican driver’s licenses since we were one of the only agencies in town that represented a company who would insure a driver with a foreign license. The men often worked in the chicken processing plants around Athens and would usually pay cash for a six-month policy. Several months later, when they had earned enough money, they would sell the car to another immigrant and return to Mexico.

The fact is that the current situation is our own fault. Yes, it is illegal to sneak into the country, but by ignoring the problem, we have given tacit approval to the practice. Illegal immigration is similar to speeding. Driving too fast is illegal, but since it isn’t taken seriously, it is a frequently broken law. If you get caught, expect only a slap on the wrist. And so many people are doing it that the chance of getting caught is miniscule.

The first step to reaching a common sense solution would be to eliminate the extremes. First, we must acknowledge that we are not going to stop all immigration, illegal or otherwise. Immigrants bring a lot of new talent and ideas to the US and have throughout our history. We are all either immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Even American Indians migrated here from Asia in prehistoric times. We should also acknowledge that we are not going to round up and deport all illegal aliens. The public would not stand for splitting up families and placing otherwise innocent people into internment camps to await deportation. Nor should they.

On the other end of the spectrum, we are also not going to leave the border undefended and ignore the potential threat to national security of having millions of unknown people within our borders. Additionally, public opinion dictates that the US can no longer ignore with a nod and wink the fact that employers are skirting tax and employment law by hiring and paying illegal aliens under the table.

The first step in any immigration fix must be to secure the border. This is a national security imperative. The 9/11 attacks are almost a decade behind us yet it is still commonplace to have people cross into the US illegally. This is inexcusable. It would be absurdly easy for terrorists to enter Mexico or another Latin American country legally and then use the services of a “coyote,” human trafficker, to cross into the US illegally. If people and drugs can be smuggled into the US, so can weapons and terrorists.

Securing the border should also done to protect the immigrants themselves. The illegal journey across the southern border into the US is fraught with danger [3]. Many illegal immigrants die each year in the attempt. Some starve or die of thirst in the harsh climate of the southwestern desert. Others fall victim to the very coyotes to which they had paid an exorbitant fee to guide them into the US. Coyotes routinely rob or murder their charges. Sometimes the immigrants are held captive until their families pay additional money to the coyotes in exchange for their release. In other cases, the illegal immigrants enter the US to life of virtual slavery working for unscrupulous employers or illegal businesses.

The process of securing the border was begun by President Bush who dramatically increased the number of Customs and Border Protection agents [1]. President Bush also began construction of a fence along the US border with Mexico and stepped up enforcement of laws banning the employment of illegal aliens.

The second step, which should be taken after the border is mostly secure, is to deal with the issue of those immigrants who are already here illegally. To deport these people would cause a host of problems. First and most obvious is the expense and cost of locating, detaining and deporting them. This would be hugely expensive and a drain on law enforcement resources that are needed elsewhere. It would also be a public relations nightmare.

Mass deportations would also cause significant difficulties to American businesses. Even though unemployment is at a very high rate currently, many of the unemployed American citizens do not want to work at the jobs that illegals routinely perform. This is especially true since congress has repeatedly extended unemployment benefits. Deportations would stress the many segments of the economy, significantly food production.

A better alternative would be to focus enforcement efforts on illegal aliens who are caught committing other crimes. If immigrants, legal or illegal, are found to be guilty of crimes such as murder, robbery, or drug trafficking then they should be deported.

The only realistic course for illegal immigrants is to bring them into the light. In aviation, a common procedure in a malfunction is to match the switch position to the condition. For example, if an item is switched, but not working, often the procedure will call for turning the switch back off. Similarly, if aliens are already here and working, we should acknowledge that reality by having them register as guest workers, pay a fine, and become legal aliens. This would not make them citizens or grant them amnesty, but it would allow them to stay here and work legally.

When this process is complete, the federal government should begin requiring employers to verify citizenship and immigration status for prospective employees. Employers that continue to knowingly hire illegal aliens should face stiff penalties.

Another following step would be to deal with the problem of “anchor babies.” Current law gives illegal aliens an incentive to come into the country illegally and have a child. When a child is born within the United States, it automatically becomes a citizen and its family is allowed to remain in the country to care for it. Congress should pass legislation that stipulates that citizenship is only granted in cases where aliens are within the US legally. This may require a constitutional amendment, or at the very least a favorable interpretation of current law by the Supreme Court. Sealing the border and enforcing visa time limits would also help to resolve the issue of anchor babies.

We also have to realize that the Mexican border is not the whole immigration problem. A more insidious problem is the number of people who enter the US legally on a temporary visa and then remain past the visa expiration date [2]. The list of people who overstay visas is long and is made up of citizens of countries all around the world, including four of the 9/11 hijackers. Additional oversight and follow up of visa visitors to the US is needed to make sure that people don’t enter the country legally and then remain illegally.

Finally, to complete the reform, the US needs to make it easier for immigrants to come here legally. The US is an immigrant nation and we should continue to welcome the “poor, the tired, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Immigrants built this country and made it prosper. They are also important for its continued success. We should welcome legal immigrants and help them to assimilate into the American melting pot.

There are also a few things that we should definitely not do with respect to the immigration debate. First, we should not allow racist language or beliefs to shape what is essentially a national security debate. Immigration reform is not about keeping out people who look or speak different from us; it is about keeping out people who want to kill us. Second, we should avoid any attempts to extend federal benefits to those who are here illegally and who refuse to come into the open when reform is passed. Likewise, the right to vote, even in local elections, should be reserved for citizens, not mere residents. We should also not push immigrants into separate ghettos or barrios or cater services to a dozen different languages. We should encourage them to assimilate into society and learn English. Speaking English is and always will be a key to success in the US.

Most importantly, the American people have to make sure that the politicians don’t let the politics of competing for Hispanic votes obscure the need for true immigration reform and border security. Hispanics have nothing to fear from legitimate reform and will even benefit from the opportunity to work and live in the US legally.

Sources:
1 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1066122/posts
2 http://www.cis.org/articles/2008/back208.html
3 http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/17768
4 http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/04/poll-most-az-voters-support-states-immigration-law/1

Chicago IL
May 7, 2010

Federal Government Rejects Georgia's Voter Citizenship Test

After the state of Georgia fought a protracted court battle over its voter identification law, the US Justice Department is again rejecting a Georgia voter verification law. Georgia voter laws are still required to pass federal muster under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In a letter released June 1, the Justice Department said that the new law discriminates against minority voters.

The charge of discrimination was also used to challenge Georgia’s photo ID law. In spite of the fact that the law offered identification cards free of charge to voters, opponents claimed that the law placed an undue burden on minorities. The law was eventually upheld by upheld by an appeals court.

The new law would have cross-referenced voter social security and driver’s license numbers to ensure that they were citizens, a requirement for voting. The Justice Department charges that many of the voters flagged by the system were citizens who were flagged in error. Further, the citizens flagged in error were disproportionately from minority groups.

For anyone who paid attention during the 2008 elections, the need for voter verification is obvious. Groups like ACORN were implicated in massive amounts of voter registration fraud. The Minnesota senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken is still contested, in part because of numerous irregularities in vote counting. The 2000 presidential election in Florida is a case study in the need for integrity in our electoral system.

Additionally, Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel said that Georgia is currently investigating 30 cases of non-citizen voting. One case involves a Jamaican woman, living legally in Georgia, who has been voting illegally since 2004. The woman turned herself in after she learned that she was not legally entitled to a vote.

Voter fraud comes in two areas. First, there is the possibility that people who are not eligible to vote will cast illegal ballots. This may include illegal aliens, dead people, or people casting multiple ballots. It is this possibility that the Republican Party tends to focus on. The second possibility is that legitimate voters will be barred from voting. This gets the most attention from the Democratic Party.

The obvious answer is that both angles need to be covered to have a trustworthy election. People who are entitled to vote need to be able to vote, but only once. People who shouldn’t vote need to be barred from casting a ballot. If people can’t trust election results then the very foundation of our democracy is in danger.

In keeping with that line of reasoning, if the current system of validating citizenship for Georgia voters doesn’t work, fix it. Don’t throw it out.

Some Democrats seem to understand this; others do not. For instance, Rep. John Lewis said the citizenship checks were “an attempt to take us back to another dark period in our history when people were denied access to the ballot box simply because of their race or nationality.” Evidently, some people feel that any burden of proof is too much.

I seriously doubt that there is any plans withing the General Assembly or the Georgia Department of State to deny minorities the right to vote. The only minorities that should be denied the right to vote are non-citizens and people who have lost that right, such as felons.

Interestingly enough, there have been several proposals around the country to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. There have also been proposals to allow felons to regain their right to vote. It should come as a surprise to no one that these proposals originate from the left side of the political spectrum. (Georgia already allows felons to vote upon completion of their sentence.)

For that reason, Secretary Handel has decided that the Obama Justice Department may require some urging to approve any such citizenship test at all. To that end, she has created a petition asking President Obama and Attorney-General Holder to allow Georgia to prevent illegal aliens and non-citizens from voting.

You can sign the petition here.

Sources:

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/stories/2009/01/14/georgia_voter_id.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=13
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jKbnt8hNDF4uWrTudYii_cvprHcwD98I5V8G0
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/metro/stories/2009/06/01/georgia_voter_screening_immigration.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab&imw=Y
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/07/09/BAGB57IUMF1.DTL
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02202007/news/regionalnews/let_aliens_vote__activists_regionalnews_frankie_edozien.htm
http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/exoffenders/statelegispolicy2007.html
http://www.karenhandel.com/site/c.nmL0KhN0LxH/b.5208601/k.ADFC/Help_Karen_Handel_Stop_NonCitizens_from_Voting_in_Georgia/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp?c=nmL0KhN0LxH&b=5208601&en=ghJHJSNCKhJLLTMBJ7IGLYPLLkJLKZPFKdKLK3PQKvE&msource=KH060209B&tr=y&auid=4927846



Burbank CA

6/4/09

UFOs Identified?

UFOs are fact. By definition, a UFO is any flying object that is unidentified. The real question then, is what are UFOs?

The vast majority of UFO sightings have rational explanations. Experimental military aircraft are probably responsible for a large number of sightings, especially in the western US. Natural phenomena explain many more. Meteorites, planets, atmospheric reflections, and the classic "swamp gas" could explain many sightings. Other man made objects like balloons, airplanes, and hoaxes round out some common explanations for UFO sightings. Hypnotic suggestion casts doubt on witnesses who only remember their UFO sightings when under hypnosis.

But if 99.9% of all UFO sightings can be explained, the 0.1% left over still results in hundreds of unexplained cases. What could be responsible for all of these mysterious sightings, many of which involve face-to-face contact with "extra-terrestrials. "

One of the most compelling explanations that I have heard can be found in the book, "Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men," by Dr. Hugh Ross (www.reasons.org). Dr. Ross is a Ph. D. in Astronomy who also has degrees in physics. Dr. Ross' theory is that unexplained UFOs may be inter-dimensional travelers that we would be more likely to call angels and demons.

Dr. Ross begins with an analysis of the likelihood of life existing in other parts of the universe. The odds for life arising elsewhere are astronomically (pardon the pun) low. Even if life did arise elsewhere, the odds that they could overcome the difficulties of interstellar travel are even more remote.

The book also notes that the majority of UFO witnesses are people involved in the occult or who are close to people in the occult. Dr. Ross also notes that people being harassed by aliens have often called on Jesus for help. When the name of Jesus is used, the aliens left immediately. Calling on other religious figures such as Mohammad, Buddha, etc., has no effect. The Bible repeatedly shows that Jesus has authority over demons and evil angels.

As Ross points out, if UFOs were a real, physical phenomenon, people who spend a lot of time in the sky would see them more often than other people. Statistics indicate that is not true, however. Links to the occult is the most important determining factor. (As a professional pilot with more than 5500 hours, many of them at night, I have never seen a UFO.)

Additionally, the "aliens" offer religious information that conflicts directly with the Bible, which is the inspired word of God. They often preach Eastern style universal consciousness or deny the fact that all humans will face judgment before God. They have even provided an alternative to the Bible in the Urantia book. Ross notes that evil spirits appear as an "angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:14-15), they perform counterfeit miracles and signs (2 Thess. 2:9-10), and inspire "antichrists" to deceive and lead people away from the one true God and ultimately to eternal damnation (Matt. 24:24, 1 Tim. 4:1, Rev. 12:9). There are many UFO cults that do just this.

The inter-dimensional theory would also explain how UFOs seemingly defy the laws of physics. Often they make rapid accelerations to very high speeds and then stop suddenly. The "aliens" reportedly walk through solid objects. They disappear suddenly and leave no trace. Jesus himself could appear suddenly (Luke 24:36-37) and pass through a locked door (John 20:19).

If you are seeing UFOs and aliens, the best advice that is found in 1 John 4:1-3. Test the spirits by asking them whether Jesus is the Son of God who came to earth as a man. If they deny this, then you are dealing with an evil spirit. Seek help from Jesus Christ.

There is much evidence that UFOs are more than a myth. The question is whether they are a help or a hindrance, good or evil. Don't believe everything you hear, even if you hear it from an alien.