I wrote last week about an interesting controversy in the UK involving their gun ban.  I hadn’t heard about it in the local “mid-evil media”, but stumbled across it on the Internet.  It seems there’s another interesting controversy not covered by our “free press” – this time it’s raging “down under”.

 

Apparently Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his Ministers have lost their patience with local Muslims who want to live under Sharia law.  Quote the Prime Minister:

 

“Immigrants, not Australians, must adapt.  I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture.  Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.

 

“However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the ‘politically correct’ crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.  I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia.  However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.  This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity.  And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language, and our own lifestyle.  Our culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

 

“We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language.  Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!

 

“Most Australians believe in God.  This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented.  It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools.  If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.

 

“We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why.  All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.

 

“If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don’t like ‘A Fair Go’, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.  We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don’t care how you did things where you came from.  By all means keep your culture, but do not force it on others.

 

“This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this.  But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian Beliefs, or Our Way Of Life, I encourage you to take advantage of one other great Australian freedom ....

 

“THE RIGHT TO LEAVE!

 

“If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE.  We didn’t force you to come here.  You asked to be here.  So accept the country YOU accepted.”

 

Way to go Mate! 

 

If one of the Republican presidential candidates were to make the same speech substituting “freeborn American” for “Australian”, the eleven-man field would quickly narrow down to one.

 

As you can imagine, reaction to the PM’s remarks was swift.

 

The Islamic Council of New South Wales called the comments as “invalid an argument as it is offensive and ignorant.”

 

The Lebanese Muslims Association said Mr. Howard was “pandering to the Islamaphobia out there by making these comments”.

 

I find it refreshing that instead of backing down and issuing an apology, Prime Minister Howard stood his ground with the following “clarification”:

 

“I stand by those comments that there is a small section of the Islamic population in Australia that, because of its remarks about jihad, remarks which indicate an extremist view, that is a problem.

 

“It is not a problem that we have ever faced with other immigrant communities who become easily absorbed by Australia’s mainstream.

 

“Australians want people to assimilate.  We want people when they come to Australia to adopt Australians ways.

 

“We don’t ask them to forget the countries of their birth, we respect all religious points of views and people are entitled to practise (sic) them but there are certainly things that are not part of the Australian mainstream.

 

Not content to mearly restate his original comments, the Prime Minister then expressed concern about Muslim attitudes to women.

 

“There is within some sections of the Islamic community an attitude towards women which is out of line with mainstream Australian society.

 

“It needs to be dealt with by the broader community, including Islamic Australia.

 

“There is really not much point in pretending it doesn’t exist.”

 

Rather than “throw him under the bus” – as is so often the case when a politician makes a non-politically-correct comment over here – other members of his government actually supported their Prime Minister.

 

Treasurer Peter Costello, seen by many as the hands down candidate to succeed Howard as the next PM, didn’t hesitate in his support.  Appearing on National Television, Costello said,

 

“If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you”.

 

Education Minister Brendan Nelson was not a “wit” behind, when he told reporters that,

 

“people who don’t want to be Australians, and who don’t want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off”.

 

Wouldn’t you just love to hear someone make those comments during the next presidential “debate”?

I was just now glancing through the “The London Daily Telegraph”…

 

“Hold on there,” you say.  “What’s a freeborn American doing ‘glancing through’ the ‘The London Daily Telegraph’ ”?

 

Well it’s one of the marvels of the information highway that allows me to read what’s being said on the other side of the “pond”.  And I find it quite fun, actually, to read their manner of writing – it reminds me of the way my English cousins talk.  Sometimes I even laugh out loud in spite of myself.  In addition to the “Telegraph”, some other interesting sites are “The Times of London”, “The Scotsman”, and the “BBC News”.

 

It seems there’s a bit of a row over there on the tenth anniversary of their gun ban.  One of the first measures taken by the new Labour Government in 1997 was an almost total ban on hand guns.  This was in response, as expressed by Kate Hoey, Labour MP (Member of Parliament) for Vauxhall, to “the horror we all felt back in 1996 when 16 children and a teacher were shot dead at a school in Dunblane by a deranged man with a gun.”

 

I remember the incident, but wasn’t aware of the subsequent gun ban – I was under the impression that guns were already banned in Briton.  Turns out there had been restrictions on gun ownership, registration, and use, but the new ban was near total.  Brits aren’t even sure if parliament will pass legislative exemptions for the 2012 Olympics as requested by the Governing Body For Olympic Shooting Sport.

 

So after the 1996 shootings, “politicians reacted in haste to the call for ‘something to be done’ ”.  The new penalties for gun possession carry a minimum sentence of five years (release in normal circumstances after 30 months).  For those aged between 17 and 21, the minimum sentence is three years (release after 18 months).

 

Overnight, thousands of men and women had to hand in their pistols, and authorities provided “voluntary drop-off centres” to make compliance easier.  (Don’t you just love their quaint spellings?  I had to program my spell checker to accept them!)

 

After two years, authorities were shocked – SHOCKED – at hints that criminals were ignoring the ban.  Yes it was true!  Statistics showed the use of handguns in crimes rose by 40%.  But never mind, stay the course!

 

Now after a decade, a new study shows appalling disregard by criminals for the ban!!  The rate of crimes involving handguns has now risen 100% over that of the pre-ban years.

 

Even more embarrassing, the study said, is the discovery of an inverse “…link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of legal gun possession in London.”

 

Of the 20 police “areas” with the highest levels of legally held guns, only two had armed crime levels above the average.

 

(Still-legal guns include the following exceptions to the ban: muzzle-loading “blackpowder” guns, pistols produced before 1917, pistols of historical interest, starting pistols, pistols that are of particular aesthetic interest (such as engraved or “jeweled” guns) and shot pistols for pest control.)

 

British blogs are a twitter with perplexed Brits.  Solutions include extending the ban to include the above mentioned exceptions, not granting the 2012 Olympics’ request, increasing the number of “voluntary drop-off centres”.  An article in “The Scotsman” assured citizens that “officials [are] working with police on a series of measures to encourage people to report or hand in illegally held weapons.

 

But the subject of illegal guns is itself a hot topic of discussion.  One woman is quoted as saying, “The kids pass the [illegal] guns around each other as if they were football [soccer] collector cards.  [T]hey are just a status symbol.  And now it seems anyone who wants one can get hold of one.”

 

After the shooting of an 11 year old boy, one Chief Constable issued the following public statement he hoped would solve the problem. 

 

“In the past we have often come up against a wall of silence but enough is enough and the shooting of an 11-year-old boy demands that the community should come together.  I would like to appeal to members of the criminal community to examine their consciences.  Members of the criminal fraternity could have the key to this and we would appeal to them to come forward.”

 

Local Bobbies are still waiting for the onslaught of donations at the local “voluntary drop-off centres”.

 

After surfing for upwards of an hour I remained dumbfounded that the British were so perplexed.

 

Just as I was about to abandon the dern Limeys to their own fate, I came across the following posting that demonstrates at least one of them may actually have an intuitive grasp of the obvious – and a sense of humor to boot:

 

“How is this awful murder possible?  Doesn’t the UK have a gun ban?

 

“Perhaps the criminals are not obeying the law?  I suppose it would not be the first time criminals have committed crimes.  And does the government believe that the criminals will cheerfully drop off their handguns in a drop box?  Do they really think that will happen?  I hope it is just spin.  Otherwise, we have a case of terminal stupidity.

 

“So there you are.  Criminals have guns with which to shoot law abiding citizens.  Law abiding citizens have no way to protect themselves.  They can’t count on the police, since the typical criminal does not shoot people with a constable standing by.  So if you are a law abiding Briton, the government expects you to go quietly into the darkness.  Thank God Winston did not live to see this.”

 

I say old chap.  I think this bloke may be on to something!!!

 

 

 

Quote of the Day

 

A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year.  And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.—Winston Churchill

 

Meet Gianna Jessen; this beautiful 19 year old young woman (photo and bio) is a singer and lecturer.  She is remarkable because she has cerebral palsy, a fact that astonishes many who attend her concerts.  However at the end of the concert they respond in stunned silence – I dare say they are “astonished exceedingly” – when Gianna announces that she is an abortion survivor!

 

In testimony before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee in 1996, Gianna said “Death did not prevail over me ... and I am so Thankful!!  (full testimony)

 

Other abortion survivors aren’t as lucky.  Ana Rosa Rodriguez’s right arm was torn off in the process of an unsuccessful abortion in 1991.

 

Ximena Renaerts was “delivered” into a plastic pot and placed on a stainless-steel counter with other “dead” fetuses – even though she was “moving, gasping, (and) crying weakly.”  For over an hour she refused to die, and was finally transported to a hospital.  But Ximena had suffered sever loss of body heat which caused extensive brain damage.

 

Then there was Baby Hope.  Hope’s mother was having an abortion but went into premature labor.  At 22 weeks, Hope was not expected to live – although some fetuses have survived at 21 weeks. 

 

Knowing that no effort would be made to save Hope, a nurse asked to cradle her until she died.  “I wanted her to feel that she was wanted.”  Hope “sucked on her lower lip, opened and closed her eyes and moved her arms and legs” – for three hours!

 

Aside from the horrors of abortion itself, of being left to die on an ice-cold counter moments after coming into this world – or of being ripped apart moments before – other questions arise. 

 

• Did Ana Rosa feel pain as the “Doctor” pulled her arm off? 
• Did Ximena suffer as she was left to shiver for over an an hour?
• Did anyone tell these mothers that their babies might suffer excruciating pain as their limbs are ripped from their bodies?
• Were any of these mothers told that being injected with saline solution – that makes the body of the unborn baby shrivel up and die – produces an agonizing burning sensation?
• Does an infant’s pain ever cross the abortionists mind?
• Is she even told that the arms and legs are of her baby are pulled off and removed from her uterus one at time? 
• Can a mother really make an informed decision without this knowledge?

 

Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ) doesn’t think so.  He has reintroduced a bill – defeated last year mostly along party lines (guess which party voted against it) – requiring abortionists to do two things.

 

First they must inform their patients of the medical evidence that the unborn child feels pain.  And second, if the “mother” still chooses to proceed with the abortion, to offer her anesthesia for her unborn child.

 

Last year, this bill went down to defeat. 

 

Why, I’ve been asked, would anyone deny the most helpless of our society this modicum of human compassion?

 

Because, to admit that an unborn child feels pain is to admit that unborn is a child.  The pro-abortion lobby hinges its arguments on the fetus being a “lump of cells”, a growth to be removed.  To make the mother comfortable is fine, but never the lump of cells, the tumor… the fetus. 

 

The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act has 107 co-sponsors in the House (H.R. 3442) and 29 in the Senate (S. 356). 

 

Have your Congressman (Click here) and Senators (Click here) signed on to co-sponsor these bills?  Now would be a good time to ask them to join – or thank them if they already have – this effort by millions of freeborn Americans to help our most helpless! 

 

 

 

Quote of the Day

 

Congressman Joe Pitts (R- PA) offered an amendment to SCHIP that would include an unborn child if the pregnant mother did not have insurance.  The Democrats were appalled and voted it down.  Illegal alien kids are in the program, but those still in the womb are not seen as human by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her liberal army in Congress — William Murray, Aug 3, 2007

It’s not often I agree with the New York Times, so when they ran an editorial back in 2005 defending then Judge Samuel Alito I took notice.  During his nomination hearings, Democrats were having a public hissy fit over his 1991 opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. 

 

The case involved Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act. Five provisions of the act were being challenged as unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade.

 

1.     “Informed consent” required doctors to provide women with information about health risks and possible complications associates with abortions.

2.     “Spousal notification” required women to give prior notice to their husbands.

3.     “Parent consent” required minors to receive consent from a parent or guardian.

4.     “24 hour waiting period” before obtaining an abortion.

5.     Statistical “reporting requirements” imposed on abortion clinics.

 

All provisions were found constitutional except the spousal notification rule, which was deemed an undue burden upon the woman.  Alito had joined in a descenting opinion in support of the rule – incurring the wrath of the Democrats 14 years later.

 

To be sure, NYT didn’t support Alito’s nomination, but as they said at time…

 

There may be many reasons to oppose Judge Alito’s nomination, but his Casey opinion is not one of them. … Nor is his position contrary to national sentiment: a majority of Americans feel that the husband should be notified about an abortion. 

 

The Times noted that “…when men and women engage in sexual relations both parties recognize the potential for creating life.  If both parties willingly participate then shouldn’t both have a say in whether to keep a baby that results?”

 

Of course, the husband may not be the actual biological father.  The Pennsylvania law may have created the embarrassing possibility of a woman having to inform her previously sterilized husband that she was pregnant.  For hundreds of years, common law has held that, lacking compelling evidence to the contrary, the husband is presumed to be the father of his wife’s baby.  But “[t]oday” noted the editorial, “we can know who the real father is, thanks to DNA testing.”

 

That was back in 2005.  I bring it up now because the Ohio legislature is considering a bill that would give fathers a say in whether their unborn child can be aborted.

 

The bill would ban women from obtaining an abortion without written consent from the father.  In cases where the identity of the father is unknown, women would have to submit a list of possible fathers.  (How many “possibles” could there be?  In today’s society, I probably don’t want to know!)  The physician would then be required to conduct a paternity test from the provided list and then seek paternal permission to abort.

 

Claiming not to know the father’s identity is not a viable excuse, according to the proposed legislation.  Simply put: no father means no abortion.

 

Women who claim rape or incest would be required to present a police report as proof.

 

State Representative John Adams, arguing if favor of the bill, said, “This is important because there are always two parents and fathers should have a say in the birth or the destruction of that child.  In most cases, when a child is born the father has financial responsibility for that child, so he should have a say.”

 

Also in favor of the bill is Denise Mackura, director of the Ohio Right to Life Society.  “Pregnancy is a unique human condition and obviously a woman is affected differently than a man.  As a woman, I can sympathize.  However, to completely take rights away from the father is unfair.  Currently [in Ohio], even in a marriage situation, a man has no right to even be informed of an abortion.  But if a woman doesn’t have an abortion, men sure have a lot of responsibility then.  It’s really not fair.”

 

But fairness isn’t really the issue.  This is about freeborn Americans putting some sanity back in the Constitution.  It’s about reducing the carnage wrought by the unconstitutional Roe decision.  It’s about allowing a father to save the life of his unborn baby. 

 

It’s may be a drop in the bucket, but it’s about time!

From the early days of the Republic of Texas, “Texicans” prided themselves on being self-reliant.  Nowadays we call ourselves Texans, and we’re proud that the Republic of Texas is now the State of Texas – one of fifty in the greatest country in the history of the world.  We still have a sense of self-reliance – even though some of it has been eroded in the intervening years.

 

For instance, under “Texas Common Law”, we have had what is referred to as the “castle doctrine”.  Under this doctrine, if a man stumbles upon an intruder in his home, he has the right to stop him with whatever force he deems necessary.

 

However, there was a time when this common-sense approach to ridding the gene pool of the “bad seed” was taken away.  In 1973, the then-liberal state legislature imposed a “duty to retreat” in the face of a criminal attack.  Foreshowing their response to the 9/11 attacks, state Democrats reversed the long-standing practice of recognizing the right of a person to stand his ground in the face of an attack.

 

In 1995, freeborn Texan’s right of self-defense was partially restored.  The castle doctrine was reinstituted.  The Texas Legislature “granted” an exception to the duty to retreat before using deadly force in response to an unlawful entry into one’s habitation.  Texans once again had the right to defend their homes… but the duty to retreat still applied to any other location where a lethal attack might occur.

 

During the recent legislative session, many of us petitioned our legislators for passage of House Bill 284 (Senate Bill 378).  This bill accomplished three things, it:

 

1.)  Establishes the legal presumption that a criminal who unlawfully and forcefully enters a home, vehicle, place of business, or place of employment is there to cause death or great bodily harm.  The use any manner of force – including deadly force – against said criminal is presumed to be both reasonable and necessary.

 

2.)  Explicitly states that a person has no duty to retreat if he is attacked in a place where he has a right to be present.  

 

3.)  Creates immunity to any civil action brought by an injured or killed attacker or his family.

 

The bill passed by a vote of 133-13, and Governor Rick Perry signed it into law – effective September 1, 2007.

 

One of the small group of Democrats who voted against the bill was State Representative Borris Miles.  Like many Democrats, Borris thinks the “common man” doesn’t have enough sense to make correct decisions, so politicians must keep him on a tight leash.  But Borris is also hypocritical enough to think he himself is above the restrictions liberal politicians place on the “little people”. 

 

Here’s where his hypocrisy surfaced.  After the legislative session ended, Borris had time to resume work on a house he is building outside of Houston.  As he was working upstairs, he heard a noise.  Upon investigating, Borris found two men stealing copper wiring in an unfinished room downstairs.

 

Surprised by his sudden appearance, one of the men threw a pocket knife at him as they both headed toward the door.

 

Now since this was not his home, the castle doctrine did not apply; the would-be thieves were making their getaway, so Borris wasn’t in imminent danger; and since House Bill 284 – the bill Rep. Miles voted against – has not yet taken effect, Borris had a duty to retreat and let the bad guys return to continue ripping him off.

 

But Borris didn’t retreat.  After all, he’s a liberal; he’s a Democrat; he’s a State Representative; he shouldn’t have to!

 

Instead, placing his own property rights above the “human” rights of the thief, Borris pulled out his gun and shot at the bad guys – hitting one in the back of the leg.

 

When Rep. Borris Miles runs for reelection next year, I hope the good citizens in his Houston, Texas district remember his campaign motto:  “Do as I say, not as I do”!

When I worked on Ronald Reagan’s Presidential campaign, I had high hopes for his administration.  But little did I realize the role we were playing as we elected the greatest president of the 20^th century. 

 

Reagan reminded us of the significance of Independence Day.

 

July Fourth is the birthday of our nation.  I believed as a boy, and believe even more today, that it is the birthday of the greatest nation on earth...  In recent years, however, I’ve come to think of that day as more than just the birthday of a nation.  It also commemorates the only true philosophical revolution in all history.  Oh, there have been revolutions before and since ours.  But those revolutions simply exchanged one set of rules for another.  Ours was a revolution that changed the very concept of government.  Let the Fourth of July always be a reminder that here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights; that government is only a convenience created and managed by the people, with no powers of its own except those voluntarily granted to it by the people.  We sometimes forget that great truth, and we never should.  Happy Fourth of July.”

– Ronald Reagan

 

We sometimes forget that prosperity comes from allowing people to pursue their own lives and to take responsibility for their own actions.  We need government to maintain a legal system that respects the civil and property rights of the people, and to defend our borders and national interests. 

 

Thomas Jefferson once said “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

 

Both Jefferson and Reagan knew that in order to restrain government we need an active and involved citizenry.

 

That citizenry is now being tested whether it has the resolve to keep government bridled, to keep the pressure on the Islamic terrorists – who would kill our people and destroy our liberties – and to support our troops. 

 

For some, the siren song of “something for nothing”, of financial “security” guaranteed by government from cradle to grave – at the cost of our free agency – or of withdrawing into a cocoon of perceived safety is strong.  But to right-thinking freeborn Americans, the realities of human behavior guide our thinking, our actions, and our votes.  Will we insist that Congress make the Bush tax cuts permanent?  Will we hold them to their promise to secure our national borders?  Will we allow them to withdraw the support our troops need to maintain our freedoms and our way of life?

 

In the early-morning hours of September 14, 1814, Francis Scott Key expressed the truth that despite its desolation, freemen must occasionally wage war to preserve the peace. 

 

O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand,
Between their lov’d homes and the war’s desolation;
Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the heav’n-rescued land
Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserv’d us as a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

– Francis Scott Key

 

May God bless our troops, and God bless the United States of America! 
Happy Independence Day!

When I read the book 1984 by George Orwell, 1984 seemed a long way from reality – both the chronological year, and the concept of Big Brother and the “Thought Police”.  I won’t tell you when I first read it – hint: the book was written in 1949 – but many years later, the actual year 1984 did come and innocently went with nary a hint of the Thought Police.

 

No, they stayed under the radar until 1990, when George H.W. Bush signed into law the “Hate Crimes Statistics Act”.  The act required the Attorney General to gather and publish statistics on crimes based on “hate”.  Although I opposed the bill, it seemed so innocuous at the time and so much else was going on, I didn’t write any letters opposing it.  But in 1994, when Bill Clinton signed the “Violent Crime Control Act”, I hear the thought police panting with anticipation.  This bill allowed judges to increase sentencing for crimes deemed to be motivated by hate.  Federal judges and juries would now be required to read the minds of criminals.

 

Sidebar

Although I have been increasingly critical of George W. Bush in recent years, during his 2000 presidential campaign I wrote him expressing my full support of his reaction to the James Byrd murder – the black man dragged behind a car in Jasper, Texas.  Mr. Bush was being accused of racism for not supporting hate crime legislation in Texas.  In his response to my letter, he reiterated that “…we don’t need tougher laws.  We need to equally and fairly execute the laws we have.”

 

After all, two of Byrd’s murderers were sentenced to death and the third to life in prison.  What more could we do to them?  Castration is widely considered to be unconstitutional!

End sidebar

 

Since 1994, various states have enacted laws mandating enhanced punishment if “hate” is deemed the underlying motive.  These laws ignore the fact that a heterosexual who is beaten and robbed is just as injured as is a homosexual victim.  Or an that 82 year-old man is no more a victim of mugging than the 56-year old woman assaulted by the same criminal.  In my opinion, punishment should be “enhanced” for all victims, not just a protected class of politically correct victims.

 

Another sidebar

My thanks to Chuck Colson who sent me the following information:

 

In 2005 (the latest year available), out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault nationwide, just 177 cases were crimes of bias against homosexuals – far less than even 1 percent.  What justifies longer sentencing for the attackers of these 177 than for the attackers of the 863,000?

End another sidebar

 

But empowered by the lack of public outrage by freeborn Americans, the thought police didn’t stop there.  Thumbing their collective nose in true Big Brotherhood style, they now want control over not just “hate crimes” but “bad thoughts” as well – and they get to determine what thoughts qualify as bad.

 

Consider the following:

 

The French legislature fined two of its members for criticizing the homosexual agenda during debate. 

 

Or Sweden where a pastor was jailed for 30 days for offending homosexuals after he delivered a sermon on the duty of Christians to “love the person” while not condoning the sin of sexual immorality. 

 

Or the British couple who were refused a pending adoption because their Christian faith might prejudice them against a possible gay child.

 

Or the two Australia men prosecuted for holding a seminar to educate Christians on Muslim beliefs.

 

Or Dr. James Dobson, who has to edit out of his Canadian broadcasts any commentary on homosexuality. 

 

The list goes on, but before you say “Yes, but that couldn’t happen in America”, don’t forget that Justice Anthony Kennedy and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor have already cited foreign law and court decisions in their written Supreme Court opinions. 

 

“But,” you say, “we have the First Amendment.  It would never hold up in court.”

 

Oh really?  Just last week, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed a decision won by the City of Oakland, California. 

 

A group of city employees had been using the city’s e-mail system and bulletin boards to advocate gay rights activities and express their political views on gay rights.  In response, members of the “Good News Employee Association” (GNEA) put out a flyer advertising their group as “a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day, with respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family Values.”

 

Those phrases – “Natural Family” and “Marriage and Family Values” – were deemed by the City of Oakland to be inflammatory and as such tantamount to a hate crime.  They were denied access to either the e-mail system or the bulletin boards used by the gay rights group, and their flyers were confiscated and destroyed.  GNEA was told to cease and desist, while the Gay right advocates were allowed to continue accessing both.

 

Hopefully, this decision by the 9^th Circuit Court will be appealed.  (This is why Supreme Court appointments are so important.)

 

In the mean time, two months ago, the House passed H.R. 1592 the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act”.  It is now in the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

 

Among other things, the bill authorizes the Attorney General to prosecute violations of state or local hate crime laws at the request of the local officials.  Thus the Federal government could prosecute a Minister in New Jersey for preaching a sermon that may cause a gay member of his congregation “annoyance or alarm”.

 

“But,” you say, “they wouldn’t do that.  That can’t be the intent of the bill.”

 

In an attempt to assure this wouldn’t happen, Representative Mike Pence from Indiana authored an amendment protecting the freedom of religion: “Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution.” 

 

The amendment was defeated because that is indeed the intent of the bill.

 

It can’t happen here?  It’s already started. 

 

1984 was just a little late in arriving!

As was the case with the Harriet Myers nomination, the Dubai Ports World deal, and The Secure Fence Act of 2006, politicians in Washington have heard the “voice of the people” and they have reacted.  The McCain/Kennedy Immigration Bill is dead – withdrawn yesterday by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid when it became obvious there weren’t 60 votes for closure.  It was killed – at least for now – by the hundreds, the thousands, perhaps even millions of phone calls, e-mails, and faxes that inundated the Senate.

 

“The people” had had enough…

 

We’ve had amnesty – with the promise that it was to be a one time deal, that the borders would be secure, and that it would stop any further illegal immigration.  We were lied to on all accounts.

 

Eight months ago, President Bush signed a bill authorizing the construction of a 700 mile border fence.  With less than a mile built, is it any wonder the country is beginning to feel that we were lied to again?

 

When some of the details of the McCain/Kennedy “compromise” finally leaked out, freeborn Americans across the country – Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike – could smell a rat.  This was confirmed when Harry Reid and company rejected amendment after amendment that reasonable Americans wanted included.  Amendments like the one submitted by my Senator John Cornyn of Texas that would have exempted from amnesty illegals who have been convicted of felonies.

 

Other provisions in the bill belied the claim that it would be good for the country – provisions like the 24 hour limit that law enforcement would have to run security checks on applicants for the Z-Visas before their records would forever be expunged.  Or the provision that allowed instant legalization of those previously deported.  Or the one that Z-Visa applicants be forgiven unpaid back income and Social Security taxes – try asking for that sweet deal as an American citizen!

 

This bill that rewarded criminal behavior might be dead, but there are some Senators who still haven’t got the memo.  We all know that nothing is ever final in politics.  Like the “Equal Rights Amendment” that died in 1979 and then again in 1982, but is now once again rising up from the dead, this fight will not just go away.  Ted Kennedy has vowed “We are not giving up!”… fair warning for us all to never give up, never fail to keep watch over those we elect to office, and never turn your backs on Washington D.C.  We must all keep applying the heat that our Senators have been feeling over the last few weeks.

 

John McCain – another one of the walking dead – not realizing that his presidential aspirations were buried along with the bill, asks “Where’s your plan?”

 

Well here, Senator, is our plan…

 

Separate the major provision into discrete stand-alone bills and stand-alone laws.  No more catch-all bills cobbled together in secret.

 

1.)  Number one priority is national security.  Secure the border.  Build the fence.  Hire more Border Patrol Agents. Track legal emigrants, guests, and visitors.  We can do it, we have the technology!

 

2.)  Increase workplace compliance.  Strengthen employment verification.  Increase the fines and enforcement of employers hiring illegals.  Follow up – every year the IRS kicks out millions of phony Social Security numbers along with names and employers.  Create a tamper-proof Social Security card and minimum security requirements for state ID/drivers licenses.

 

3.)  Deport the illegals you find.  End sanctuary.  We withhold federal funds for speed limits, seatbelt compliance, emissions etc. – but when a city comes out in open defiance of national immigration laws and declares itself a “sanctuary city” there are no consequences.

 

4.)  Eliminate this nonsense of “anchor babies”.  The fourteenth Amendment states that…“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  Illegal aliens and their babies are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore ought not to be considered automatic citizens.  Congress needs to clarify this outrageous miscarriage and abuse of the constitution.

 

5.)  Then, and only then, should Congress separately consider and separately debate if and under what circumstances and for what length of time guest workers will be allowed in the country.

 

Congress ought to borrow a page from the medical profession and its Hippocratic Oath – “Do your country no harm.”  Or in the case of the late McCain/Kennedy Immigration bill, “Don’t make the problem any worse than it is!”