CONGRESS MUST ACT!!

Today there are at least three proposals on the table for the Senate to consider in addressing the illegal immigration issue.

There is the House of Representatives bill (H.R. 4437) that is aimed at gaining control over illegal immigration. A key component of this legislation will require all employers to use a new automated employment verification system. H.R. 4437 will change the undocumented presence of immigrants from a civil offense to a felony offence, will plug existing loopholes in the law to ensure that those who arrange and assist in illegal immigration are prosecuted and convicted, will erect 700 miles of wall along our Mexician border, and will add new surveillance systems for border patrol. This bill addresses the issue of closing the borders to illegal immigrants, but does not provide a good way of dealing with the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country today.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has passed what they call an Immigration and Border Security bill proposed by Senators Kennedy and McCain. This would give the 12 million illegal aliens a shot at U.S. citizenship without returning home first. It would give them temporary legal status for six years as long as they can prove they are employed in the United States. They would be fined $2,000, undergo a background check, learn English and study American civics, and pay taxes. They could then get in line behind others to apply for U.S. citizenship. They would be permitted to change jobs and bargain for wages. This bill proposes a way to handle the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country today, but does nothing to close the borders and stop the flow of illegal immigrants. In fact some feel it would only cause an increase in the number of illegal immigrants crossing the border.

Senator Frist may put forth his own bill, which would deport people who come into our country illegally. This proposal would crack down on human smugglers and make it easier for employers to confirm their workers’ legal status. This bill adds 15,000 more border control officers, requires new investment in unmanned aerial vehicles, cameras, and sensors. It would also build a barrier along the 1,951 mile border with Mexico.

I find all of these bills unacceptable if considered alone. We need immigration laws that address all of the following as aspects of the issue: 1. Deter people from wanting to come to this country illegally 2. Close the border to illegal immigrants 3. Address how to handle the illegal immigrants already in our country, without harming the economy and 4. Establish new immigration quotas.

The biggest hang-up appears to be between amnesty for all illegal immigrants already here, and total deportation of all illegal immigrants. I feel that nether approach will work. I prefer a one-time amnesty for those who would register for legal status. This should be limited to 60 or 90 days. After that, the only answer is prosecution under the law and deportation.

This border and immigration issue is the most important business for Congress and a compromise solution must be obtained quickly. Whatever is done must address all four aspects of the issue. Congress should not be allowed to take a Spring break (or whatever they would call it) until this business is fully taken care of. Leaving it for a later session should not be an option.

RELIGION: A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT

On March 23, 2006 the Associated Press ran an article titled “Top Muslim clerics: Convert must die”. This article starts by saying “Religious leaders urge courts to ignore West, hang Christian”. They are demanding that Abdul Rahman, the Afghan man who converted from Islam to Christianity, be executed.

The United States, Australia, and Europe are putting a lot of pressure on President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan to free Rahman, who is facing the death penalty for converting. It is wonderful that so many countries have united to press the Afghan government. I firmly believe that freedom of religion is a basic human right. The world has long talked about human rights, but freedom of religion has, to a large extent, been ignored. Is the killing of a person for converting to a different religion any different than ethnic cleansing? NO!!

When I was in school, and admittedly this has been forty or fifty years ago, I was taught that there were two kinds of religion: polytheistic and monotheistic. Polytheists believe in many gods; examples we were given of polytheism were Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc. Monotheists believe in only one God, and the only monotheistic religions are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Our teacher said (and mind you, this was in a Maryland public school) that whether you called Him Yahweh, God or Allah, you were referring to the same Deity, and that members of these three great religions were basically all brothers because of their belief in the same One Supreme Being. Some creeds are stricter than others, just as some families are stricter than others, but I think of God as a Father Who, although He can be stern, is a just and loving God, and I find it difficult to believe that He would want one of His children killed because that individual changed from one religion to another.

The Islamic law that requires the death penalty for converting from Islam is as outdated as the reasons behind the Crusades. Are religious leaders and governments enforcing this kind of barbaric punishment, anything more than terrorists themselves? Should they be treated the same way as any other terrorists? We have not done this because of not wanting to offend Muslims, but some clerics have gone too far! No one wants to mark religious leaders as terrorists, but how can we avoid it? Civilized nations must stand together and not give ground on this issue. How can there ever be peace in the world if religions leaders are allowed to practice this kind of terrorism? Hard-line Muslim clerics need to understand that there is more than one key to the door of the Kingdom of Heaven.

NEWS MEDIA CROSSES THE LINE

Thursday this week the Washington Post ran an article by Walter Pincus titled “Ex-Iraqi Official Unveiled as Spy”. This article states that Naji Sabri, Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister, was a spy for France and the CIA. The second paragraph is what caught my eye. The retired officials who provided the information to the writer of this article refused to be identified because the information provided is classified.

Mr. Pincus and the officials who provided information about Naji Sabri and what had taken place are guilty of releasing classified information. It is my understanding that this is against the law. When I was in the U.S. Navy, and when I worked in private industry on government contracts involved with classified material, it was very clear that sharing classified information with anyone, including family, was illegal. Those who release or publish classified information should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I do not understand how the Washington Post feels it is justified in publishing such information. It’s high time the government starts prosecuting these people. They should be fined and put in jail for the maximum time allowable under the law. The government should also stop paying any retirement benefits to these people.

The liberal press seems to feel that the laws of our country are only guidelines that can be broken when they feel like it. The law only applies to others and not the press or liberal media. A member of our armed forces who releases classified information is subject to court martial, jail time, and a dishonorable discharge. It appears to me that we have a double standard that allows government officials and the media to break the law and not be punished.

IS THE U.N. WORTH IT?

The value of the United Nations is a question that I have debated with myself for years. Two articles in the Washington Post on Tuesday and Wednesday this week stirred me to write about this subject.

On Wednesday, March 22, 2006, in an article by Fareed Zakaria titled “Why Iraq is Still Worth the Effort”, he supported military intervention to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein, but was “appalled by the crude and unilateral manner in which the Bush administration handled the issue”. Did he want a U.N. resolution before we attacked? My instinct tells me that if we had waited for the U.N. Security Council to take action, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Hussein’s troops would still be killing the Iraqi people at a rate of 70-125 per day. Iraq would be actively supporting Al-Qaeda, they would be training terrorists, and they would be sending terrorists to hit our embassies, our ships, and our homeland.

My distrust of the effectiveness of the U.N. in the Iraq situation is based on the fact that France and Russia (both permanent members of the Security Council) were implicated in the United Nations Food For Oil scandal. Based on the show Breaking Point on the Fox network October 17, 2004, there is strong evidence in the Duelfer report that Russian, Chinese, and French companies were selling weapons to Saddam Hussein. French officials were receiving payoffs from Hussein to the tune of $2.9 billion dollars, and directing French companies how to take advantage of this situation. This was still occurring only twenty days prior to the start of the Iraq war. Hussein knew that France and Russia would not agree to support a U.N. invasion of Iraq, or join the coalition, due to their financial involvement, and he gambled that we would not invade without their support.

Hussein did not acknowledge that he had destroyed his chemical weapons because he felt that would be perceived as weakness in the Middle East. He planned to resume producing weapons of mass destruction, and could have been in full production within two years of sanctions being lifted. He was pursuing missile systems, tanks, anti-tank weapons, and nuclear materials, and also had plans to develop a terrorist weapon using aerosol ricin. Waiting longer for France to join the coalition would have just given Saddam more time to increase arms and to set up a stronger defense. Sen. John Kerry’s statement that he would not have gone to war with Iraq without the United Nation’s full support would only have played right into Saddam Hussein’s plan.

The Tuesday March 21, 2006 article by Dafna Linzer titled “Security Council Fails To Reach Accord on Iran” makes me wonder if the United Nations is capable of addressing the most important issues of our time. Can there be any doubt that Iran wants to obtain nuclear weapons? I believe that all the members of the Security Council agree on this. This time it is Russia and China who oppose sanctions. Are they benefiting from Iranian nuclear development? How dependent is China on Iranian oil? Russia and China want the crisis given back to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which they believe would be more likely to pursue a negotiated settlement. The IAEA has been negotiating with Iran for at least two years and has reached the conclusion that the issue needed to be escalated to the Security Council. Iran has broken its November 2004 agreement to suspend its uranium enrichment program. The Iranian government has told the world they have resumed uranium enrichment work. Getting into more negotiations is a good way for Iran to stall, giving them more time to continue nuclear development. The United States, France, and England believe the threat of sanctions would cause Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment activity. This crisis seems to be clear-cut. If the Security Council cannot come to an agreement on strong and immediate action against Iran, then the United Nations must be considered impotent.

For me the United Nations has limited value. It does a good job with humanitarian help, and does provide peacekeeping forces where needed. It does provide a forum for countries to discuss issues, and some things have been accomplished. But if we cannot correct the corruption within the organization and establish a higher level of ethics for all involved in U.N. operations, and if the permanent members of the Security Council can not put their own jingoistic needs aside and do what is right for the world, its value will always be limited. I believe we need the U.N. and must keep it going, while understanding that on major issues or crises where the Security Council fails to act, nations will be likely to take action on their own.

THE THIRD YEAR OF THE WAR IS OVER

I was reading the featured articles in Sunday’s Washington Post titled “Three Years in Iraq”, and at first was pleased that the Post was featuring our servicemen’s thoughts on the war. My positive feeling did not last long and was replaced with anger and frustration when I saw one sentence printed in bold type, ten times larger than anything else in the article (other than the title). “I don’t have any skills besides blowing up people.” This is a quote by Army Staff Sgt. John Thomas. Trust the Post to pick the most negative statement to feature, and for all we know it was taken out of context, to boot.

Here are a few statements that caught my eye and could have been featured instead of all the negative ones:

The first was by Lance Cpl. Daniel Finn, a Marine infantryman. He talked about an Iraqi woman who had her tongue cut out by Saddam Hussein’s men, people with no fingers, and others who had been tortured. This brings back memories of WWII and the Nazi concentration camps. Who among us could deny that these people needed liberating from the tyrant Saddam Hussein as much as the innocent victims of WWII needed to be liberated from Hitler’s Third Reich?

Marine Major Don Broton says “The kids were extremely friendly, the parents were extremely friendly. They are a hell of a lot more friendly than some of my neighbors in California are.” Naval Airman Clint Davis indicated what he thought was the most important thing of all, “You should ask how we feel about people in the Middle East. We love those people. They deserve to have free speech and to vote and to live freely without oppression and without fear. They deserve to be citizens of the country they were born in”. My friends and son who are in Iraq have also told me that it is easy to see that most of the Iraqis are glad we are there.

The writers stated that although those interviewed had a lot to say about how bad fighting is in Iraq, it is, however, “not bad in the ways the veterans see covered in the media”. “It was dangerous and confused, yes, but most of the vets also recalled enemies routed, buildings built and children befriended, against long odds in a poor and demoralized country. ‘We feel like we're doing something, and then we look at the news and you feel like you're getting bashed.’ ‘It seems to me the media had a predetermined script.’ The vibe of the coverage is just ‘so, so, so negative.’" Boy, was that guy right on, and I would add that the Democratic Party leadership is driving the liberal media to this approach.

This article was slanted to appeal to liberals and left-wingers, and puts the focus on the horrors of war. Many extreme liberals and antiwar people don’t respect those who serve in the military, secret service, police, etc., so it is not surprising the Washington Post would choose to highlight one quote by one soldier that would appeal to this group. I can tell you from my experience the statement “I don’t have any skills besides blowing up people” is in no way characteristic of our service men and women. The ex-military personnel I hired in my 30-plus-year career were outstanding employees, and in general out-performed those without military experience. Staff Sergeant John Thomas probably has more to offer a civilian employer than he realizes.

THE WASHINGTON POST STRIKES OUT AGAIN

On Friday March 17, 2006 the Washington Post editorial page printed an article by David Ignatius, titled “Fighting Smarter In Iraq”. The negative spin in the first paragraph of this article really made me angry! According to Mr. Ignatius “Three years on, the U.S. military is finally becoming adept at fighting a counterinsurgency war in Iraq. Sadly, these are precisely the skills that should have been mastered before America launched its invasion in March 2003. It may prove one of the costliest lessons in the history of modern warfare.”

David Ignatius totally ignores what is required to build a new Iraqi army, including recruitment, manpower training, leadership training, equipping, and field-testing. We totally dismantled Saddam Hussein’s army; it takes time to rebuild a military force that has the trust of the Iraqi people. There were those who argued that we should not have disbanded the existing army, but kept much of it intact and used it as the core of the new one. The trouble with that approach was that: 1) neither we nor the Iraqi people were willing to trust the ex-leaders of Saddam Hussein’s army in leadership positions in the new army, and 2) almost as much time-consuming training would still have been required. And, once we started putting Iraqi’s new military in place, it took time to get enough of a force up and running for it to be recognized by the Iraqi people and thereby become effective. I believe the goal is eventually to train 225,000 Iraqi soldiers and police officers. This is a major undertaking, and not one accomplished quickly.

Mr. Ignatius implies that the Multinational Force has only recently started to make progress. Untrue! The civilian death rate in Iraq since January 2003, just before the war started, has dropped from 70-125 per day under Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship to 25-28 per day. U.S. military casualties dropped 27 % between 2004 and 2005, and so far in 2006 our casualties are running 62% lower than in 2005. This is a tremendous improvement that the mainstream (read liberal) press does not make known to the public.

The rest of Mr. Ignatius’s article has positive things to say about the transfer of responsibility over to the Iraqi security forces, so why did he have to start with the negative comment about Operation Iraqi Freedom? There is only one answer, and that is the political agenda of the Washington Post. This is just another example of how the press in the United States likes to distort the truth and mislead the public. We are winning on the ground in Iraq, but the terrorists seem to be winning in the liberal press!

POPULATION SPRAWL VS FOOD PRODUCTION

When my wife and I were first married 40 years ago, we used to take Sunday drives from our home in suburban Maryland up towards Frederick and then west to Middletown and Boonsboro. Middletown was then a very small town about 50 miles from Washington, DC. I used to think how beautiful the Middletown Valley was. It was basically all farmland, with green pastures, cattle and cornfields, few roads and few people.

Today Middletown is just another suburb of Washington, DC, full of houses and townhouses, roads, automobiles, and thousands more people. It has become a sad reminder to me that we have a developing problem in the United States associated with farmland and our food supply. The following is just an overview of the problem as I see it. Hopefully, the government will address this issue in much more detail.

Per the United States Census Bureau, in 2000 the population growth rate in the U.S. was 1.22 percent. The current forecast by the Census Bureau indicates the growth rate will drop to .46 percent by 2050, but this still means that the population of the United States in 2050 will be 390 million people, and the food they eat has to come from somewhere!

Our U.S. farms produce 99.3 percent of our food supply, and about 1.2 acres of farmland is needed for each person in order to have the diversity we enjoy today in our food. Taking the population and farmland data above, by 2050 we will only have .897 acres of farmland per person; as we will undoubtedly increase the amount of ethanol production to supplement the gasoline needed for automobiles and other vehicles, thereby committing more grain (and the land to raise it on) to non-food use, the ratio of farmland-to-food production is only going to get worse.

The Population-Environment Balance (Balance) Organization indicates that in 2000 the United States had 470 million acres of arable land. They stated that we lose about 1 million acres of farmland each year due to urbanization, the addition of new roads and highways, and industrial expansion. In addition, about 2 million acres of farmland are lost each year to erosion, salinization, and waterlogging. Put this all together, and by 2050 we will have lost 120 million acres of farmland in this century alone.

In my opinion, the government needs to address this issue as soon as possible. We must ensure there are programs in place to improve the yield of our farms, and to reduce the rate at which we are losing farmland to natural causes and urbanization. It is clear that the ‘urban sprawl’ which has been taking place is going to have to stop, or at least be limited to land that is unusable for farming. Perhaps we need to put heavy taxes on the sale of farmland for non-farming use, or just not allow the rezoning of farmland to other purposes.

In addition, the era of the super-size suburban home has to come to an end. The mentality of Bigger and Bigger, which too many people have subscribed to, and which has spawned the so-called "McMansions", needs to be replaced with a willingness to return to more modest types of housing. Our farmland is too valuable to be eaten up merely to satisfy the greed of those who feel that 6,000 square foot houses are a necessity.

Are there any plans in place, or a way of monitoring our progress? I see and hear very little on this subject.

HOW CAN WE TELL WHAT’S GOING ON IN IRAQ?

We cannot rely on the mainstream press to provide unbiased reporting about the War on Terror or Operation Iraqi Freedom. Sunday’s Washington Post included an editorial titled “New Questions in Iraq” which attacked Marine General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and all of our military leaders, saying that they are so obsessed with drawing down our forces in Iraq that they make “ludicrously positive” statements about our progress. This is unsurprising coming from a newspaper that does not like to report any of the positive facts about the war and, as I have pointed out many times, they distort the truth to make it look like we are losing the war. They support the “loser attitude” of the Democratic Party leadership.

Their editorial is, I assume, referring to the comments General Pace made on March 5th to the effect that the terrorists are desperate, and their attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra was aimed at trying to push Iraq into civil war. General Pace also indicated that Iraqi security forces and their leaders are staying calm. This does not mean there is no danger of civil war breaking out. It does mean that the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people recognize what the terrorists are up to, and are working hard to try to ensure that the country does not slip into civil war. The Post is totally ignoring the fact that the security forces are very popular with the Iraqi people, and also that they understand what the insurgency is trying to do. If you would like to read exactly what General Pace said, it can be found at http://www.dod.mil/news/Mar2006/20060305_4394.html.

In November of 2005, Senator Joe Lieberman (D) from Connecticut stated “Our troops must stay”, and reported on the significant progress he had seen between visits after returning from his fourth trip to Iraq. This received virtually no coverage in the Washington Post and other liberal newspapers.

If one wants facts and not pre-judgments, we must go to news sources other than liberal newspapers like the Washington Post. I for one trust reports from sources such as the American Forces Information Service, Multinational Force Iraq, The Fox News Network, and CNSNews.com. The American Forces Information Service includes reports on individual operations such as “Iraqi Police Nab Insurgents; Soldiers Find Weapons”. If you look at the popular media reports on these operations and then compare them to the reports given by our military leaders, it is easy to see who is lying or distorting the truth. Check out the article by Randy Hall, a CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor, titled “Job Is Getting Done in Iraq, Despite US Press, Veterans Say”, which provides a view from our soldiers.

THE WAR ON TERRORISM – STATUS

There are two events that occurred this past week that impact the War on Terrorism.

The first is the damage caused by the collapse of the Dubai Ports deal. I am not taking sides on this, but merely pointing out the impact on the War on Terrorism. This was a victory for the terrorists. An editorial in the Washington Post (Happy Now? – 3/10/06) points out that “Any government in a Muslim-majority country will have to ask itself: Why take the risk of friendship? If governments find no good answer to that question, the fight against radical Islamic terrorism will suffer.” The article is referring to friendship with the United States.

A second article in the editorial section the same day by David Ignatius (Burning Allies) also reinforces the impact of the ports deal and focuses on just how western the UAE really is. He points out how the U.S. does not live up to its rhetoric about free trade and partnerships with its allies. America talks a good story but doesn’t follow through with the Arabs. Mr. Ignatius talks about how the UAE has built a modern economy, and how their people feel they are America’s friends.

The Dubai Ports deal failure may also affect the investments in America by the Arab world at a time when our economy is dependent on foreign capital. Our government now has another issue to work through with the Arab world.

The second event is the securing of our nation’s borders. The passing of H.R. 4437 in the House of Representatives was a successful battle in the war on terrorism, but it still needs to make it through the Senate. This bill, as I pointed out in my March 10th posting, is a good start and needs to be made into law. Our government still needs to swiftly address the issue of the 12 million existing illegal immigrants in the United States. How we transition them into legal immigrants, and extend to them the guaranteed wage and employment rights must be a top priority. Reducing the number of illegal immigrants in our country will help the government identify or isolate potential terrorists. Let’s keep the ball rolling.

WE ARE WINNING THE WAR IN IRAQ

It was a real delight to find an article about our progress in Iraq that agrees with the information I get from my son, who is in Iraq for his second tour of duty, and from friends who are also currently serving there. The article is by Randy Hall, a CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor who covered a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington hosted by the conservative group America’s Majority, and is titled “Job Is Getting Done in Iraq, Despite US Press, Veterans Say”. I really would like everyone to read this article, so I will only mention a few excerpts from it.

Marine Corporal Richard Gibson identifies what he calls two “tipping points” that took place in 2005. The first was that the number of Iraqi security forces surpassed those of coalition troops, which means the Iraqis are taking over more of the operations against the insurgents. The second was the December 15th election, in which the Iraqis selected their first national legislature. This election has broken the previous tie between the two primary insurgent groups, the Baathists and Al Qaeda. As the new government’s security forces increase in number and take over more of the fighting, the Baathist remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime are withdrawing; the Iraqi security forces are very popular with the people, and unwillingness to attack their own is taking the Baathists out of the fight.

The article also points out that the civilian death rate in Iraq since January 2003 has dropped from 70-125 per day under Saddam Hussein, to 25-28 per day. U.S. military casualties dropped 27 % between 2004 and 2005, and this year casualties are running 62% lower than in 2005. This is a tremendous improvement that the mainstream (read liberal) press does not make known to the public, because it does not support their primary political position--bashing the Republican administration.

J. D. Johannes, military veteran and reporter, says for the terrorists to be able to win here they would need help from their great ally, the U.S news media. He points out a battle in Iraq that lasted 30 minutes, which the news media reported as a “major conflict”, saying the coalition suffered “high casualties”-- another example of how the press in the United States likes to distort the truth and mislead the public, as a direct quote from the article shows: “The general who was involved in the fighting later said that he and his forces had been victorious on the ground, but the terrorists ‘had won it on CNN’.”

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION FINALLY BEING ADDRESSED

We have an immigration problem in this country.

The population of the United States will double in less than 60 years. We have the highest growth rate of any industrialized country in the world. The Population-Environment Balance organization fact sheet points out that over 70% of the United States’ annual population growth results from immigration, and a recent study by the Pew Hispanic Center indicates that there are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. today, 78% of them from Mexico and Latin America.

Another area of concern is the fact that there has been a large increase in the number of illegal immigrants from South Asia and East Asia; reports by the media indicate that the authorities are seeing non-Hispanics crossing our border with Mexico.

How do we eliminate the number of illegal immigrants entering the United States? Some people say our concern with illegals is unimportant, because most illegal immigrants have jobs and are law-abiding. (94% of the illegal males hold jobs.) Also, immigrants are filling jobs most Americans don’t want, and these jobs are a key part of our economy. From what I have read, the Catholic Church, other partisan organizations, and immigrant rights advocates are against the detention of illegal immigrants and those who arrange or assist in the activities associated with bringing them into our country. Their approach appears to be to ‘open the door’ and let all who want to enter come in, and greet them with open arms. This is a very Utopian idea but represents extreme risk for Americans in today’s world. There are reasons for having immigration laws. They are to protect the American population. Today more than ever, because of the threat of terrorism and the fact that we are at war with an enemy who preys on civilians, our government must know who is entering the United States, where they are working, being educated or trained, etc.

The House of Representatives this week passed a bill (H.R. 4437) that is aimed at gaining control over illegal immigration. A major component of this legislation will require all employers to use a new automated employment verification system. Since most illegal immigrants are coming to this country for better jobs than they can get in their homeland, this system is a key part in any immigration reform. Per Rep. Ken Calvert, “Turning off the job-magnet that encourages people to flout the law” is necessary if we are to gain control of our borders. The system will do a lot to ensure a legal workforce, and would reduce identity theft. H.R. 4437 will change the undocumented presence of immigrants from a civil offense to a felony offence, will plug existing loopholes in the law to ensure that those who arrange and assist in illegal immigration are prosecuted and convicted, will erect 700 miles of wall along our Mexician border, and will add new surveillance systems for border patrol. All of this is a good start in getting control of a bad situation. I hope the Senate will pass this bill and sent it to President Bush for signing.

Advocates who want legislation that would provide legalization of undocumented workers already here have an idea that has merit when you look at the fact that 7.2 million immigrants are employed, and the cost to our economy of repatriating them to their country of origin. They say, and I agree, we need to guarantee legal immigrants proper treatment in the work place.

This Bill (H.R. 4437) is a good start. Congress should also quickly revisit the key points of President Bush’s Immigration Proposal:

* Workers in the United States illegally can join a temporary labor program.

* Those workers then can apply for permanent U.S. residency, but they will receive no preferential consideration.

* Employers hiring these workers must show they cannot find U.S. laborers to fill the jobs.

* These undocumented workers get guaranteed wage and employment rights.

* These workers receive a temporary three-year visa, renewable once. They are expected to return to their countries once their visas expire.

* Congress will be urged to increase the current annual limit of 140,000 green cards.

* The U.S. Department of Homeland Security will administer the program.


This said, we must keep in mind that there is a limit to the number of people our country can physically support. I will address this in a future posting.

DOES AMERICA HAVE A STRONGER ALLY IN EUROPE?

Today I was reading an article from Newsweek International that I found on my MSN home page, titled “America’s New Ally, Jacques” by Denis MacShane, a Labour MP from England. Now, not being an admirer of the French government, this got my attention.

The article starts by stating that the United States of America has a “tarnished foreign policy”. I don’t agree with Mr. MacShane’s comment about our foreign policy. In fact, after reading the article it sounds like France as well as more of Europe is starting to come around to our way of thinking about how to proceed with the war on terrorism.

Jacques Chirac has come up with a number of initiatives that are aligned with America’s global strategy. The French are supporting the buildup of India’s nuclear energy program. Their government has signed an agreement to export French nuclear know-how to India. Earlier this year, Chirac indicated that France would use its nuclear weapons against any state sponsoring terrorism on French soil. This tells terrorists that there will be a cost to pay for any terrorist act. This is the same message our government has put out. France is also working strongly with us to stop Syria’s control over Lebanon. They are leading the effort to control Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and have strongly denounced Iranian threats against Israel.

This should all be looked at as a positive. I believe Chirac and his government have seen the light, and have reached the realization that France’s previous position on Iraq has not provided them any protection against terrorism. Today we appear to have a stronger ally in France than we did at the beginning of the war in Iraq.

THE LIBERAL MEDIA STRIKES AGAIN

Once more the liberal media has published an erroneous report indicating that President Bush lied again. This time it was about knowing that hurricane Katrina would breach the New Orleans levees. The article said the President was told the day before the storm hit that the levees could be breached. A “breach” is defined as hole or rupture in a levee, not an overflow. The Cybercast News Service (CNS) reviewed the recording and the transcript on which the Associated Press report was based and found their report was not correct.

The following is what the transcript proves what was said in the briefing with the President. National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield is quoted as telling President Bush -- the day before the hurricane hit -- "I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not. But, that's obviously a very, very grave concern." (Note: This is directly quoted from the article on CNSNews.com.)

Of course the network news and the Democrats jumped right on the AP article and have done their best to make out President Bush as a liar.

After reading the CNSNews.com article titled “Erroneous AP Story Used in Democrat Propaganda” it is easy to see who the real liars are.

It should be noted that the Associated Press did attempt to clarify their article two days later. I did not, however, see or hear that on network news.

GAY MARRIAGE & UNION (PART 2)

Karl Hahn’s comments on February 28, 2006 under my posting titled “Free Speech Has It’s Limits” are really directed at my February 7, 2006 posting titled “Gay Marriage Is Wrong”. Karl is concerned about having too many laws and losing freedom. I do not believe that my position on gay marriage affects anyone’s freedom other than those who feel homosexual acts are wrong. I feel strongly enough about this that I will address his points in this posting.

We are a nation of laws. Some states, such as Virginia, still have laws that make sex between same-sex couple illegal. I have not heard of this law being enforced for a long time. It may be a bad law; however, I must admit it does not bother me. In most states the police cannot use homosexual activity as a reason to break into someone’s home. I believe most Americans are not in favor of having this law.

Karl’s statement “So we permit homosexual activity "behind closed doors," but we do not allow these folks to express their care and concern for each other in public?” Karl is wrong! There are no laws that prevent these public displays of affection. Most people are appalled at the sight of a gay couple publicly showing their affection for each other. That is the main reason you don’t see it. On the other hand, there are places such as gay bars and gay restaurants that cater to the homosexual community where this behavior probably can be seen. I might add this is more than they deserve.

Karl is right when he says that hospitals have rules that limit visitors to immediate family when someone is seriously ill. Having someone allowed to visit and provide support at such times can be very helpful. This can be hard on a gay couple. Their life style is so wrong that many people just don’t care. Someone who is heterosexual but does not have family living in the area to visit them has the same problem. We must note that this is a hospital rule and not the law. Most hospitals are willing to work with people in this situation, especially when arrangements are made ahead of time. Sudden emergencies are another issue. We are all dependent on human kindness in these situations.

Where do we draw the line with respect to gay rights. Karl Hahn appears to be totally tolerant of gays and supportive of gay marriage. He feels that gay couples should be allow to adopt a child or bring children into their gay lifestyle. He points out that many heterosexual parents do a poor job of raising children. The school I attended indicated that two wrong don’t make a right. Heterosexual parents who abuse their children are covered by law. Granted, the law favors the parents and in many cases abuse may be hard for officials to prove, but society is trying to address the issues of protecting children. (This could also lead to another posting all by itself.)

One can look at homosexuality as a mental illness. Same-sex friends can share a lot of emotions, including love. This does not include sex. When same-sex friends cross the line and have sex, they are sinning and that is wrong. In our liberal society we tend to say ‘if I do it or if enough people do it, it must be acceptable’. For example, how many people get a deserved traffic ticket and get upset with the police officer ticketing them! Just because I say a homosexual act when committed in the privacy of one’s home should not be against the law does not mean it is acceptable or good behavior. Acknowledging gay marriage or unions amounts to society saying these union are acceptable. That is the message I do not want our children to receive at any level. Making gay unions legal has other effects on society. Employers who provide health insurance to their employees will have to cover a gay partner the same as a spouse. This will drive up the costs to the employer and all of us. Many small companies will be faced with having to hire fewer people or reducing the employer’s share of the insurance. This would be one more thing pushing us closer to socialized medicine. (Again this is another subject for a latter time.)

As far as the question of gay couples being good parents: Can couples who do not recognize their sexual acts as wrong, be good role models for a child? NO! If you consider homosexuality a mental illness, that is another strike against them. Is it worth the risk to a child? NO! Saying that gay couples are no worse than some heterosexual couples is no justification.

This is not a religious question. This is a question of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In fact, if those who believe in God and believe gay marriage is wrong allow the government to give it legal status, they are allowing the government into religion.