To Be Illegal OR Not To Be Illegal? Aliens That Is...

I’ll admit that I haven’t been following this immigration thing too closely, but what I have heard is pretty cut and dry. If you live here you should be here legally and if you’re not then you should be deported unless there is an extreme humanitarian reason why you came here illegally and even then you should be forced to undergo a legalization process.

The other thing that irritates me is when immigrants choose to speak a language other then English in public. I feel like if you reside in a country then you should speak their language. If you’re visiting that’s something entirely different. Residency should require some kind of English speaking criteria and training.

I have heard miscellaneous parts of conversations about how our economy depends on the illegal aliens that are here working. I even heard an analogy about how social security depends on them, because they pay into it but never take out of it because they’re illegal. That doesn’t tread water though, because they just take out of it in other ways and usually in more dramatic fashions. Someone has to pay the illegal aliens medical bills when they take the ambulance to the hospital so they don’t have to pay for the taxi cab and when the emergency room treats them, but they don’t pay. Of course, this is a generalization and is not limited only to illegal aliens, nor do all illegal aliens do this.

Someone even said that illegal aliens do the work that most American’s refuse to do. Even if that is true, it is not an excuse to forego the legal process of residency. This is pretty simple stuff and in today’s world it is even a matter of homeland security. Every single immigrant should undergo an intensive and exhaustive background investigation, regardless of their country of origin. We can’t afford to not protect our borders.

Is there a side to this that I haven’t heard of or that I am missing that might change my perspective?

Public Schools are the Most Dangerous Place in America for Kids

A joint effort by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and National Center for Education Statistics examines crime occurring in school as well as on the way to and from school. Major findings include: Violence, theft, bullying, drugs, and weapons are widespread. In 2003, students ages 12-18 were victims of about 740,000 violent crimes and 1.2 million crimes of theft at school. Seven percent of students ages 12-18 reported that they had been bullied, 29 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported that drugs were made available to them on school property, and 9 percent of students were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property. In 2003, 5 percent of students ages 12-18 reported being victimized at school during the previous 6 months: 4 percent reported theft, and 1 percent reported violent victimization. Less than 1 percent of students reported serious violent victimization (such as rape, sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault).

Okay, none of those statistics really surprised me. With all the recent media attention on teachers having sex with their students, I wanted to see on paper what the numbers were saying. As if public schools hadn’t declined enough, now there seems to be a real pandemic of predatory teachers.

I am sure most of you have heard in the news about the teacher whose then 14 year-old victim refused to testify against her and so the case was dropped and she’ll receive no significant punishment. The media is taking so much interest in this one case, but I can think of at least five other cases I have heard in the media in the past few years. It’s not like it’s a first time crime. I realize that her lack of punishment and that the double standard in law for prosecuting sex crimes against children for women are different for that of male offenders is what is driving this latest reporting craze, but lets get to the root problem.

As a father of a child who will begin kindergarten this year in the public school system I have thought long and hard about his education, safety, social integration, and wellness. I believe that the present caustic state of, for lack of a better word, chaos in the public school system has been a steadily building predicament of a couple of major legislative removals of morality.

When our parents were in school the biggest violations reported in school were chewing gum, running in the halls, and talking during class. Students respected authority and if they didn’t then they received the board of education on the ‘seat of their higher learning.’ Sure there were pranks, some hazing, maybe even some forms of bullying or violence, but not to the degree we see now. So what happened?

Well, I postulate that there is a direct correlation of the removal of school prayer and The Ten Commandments which has been sending the message for years that morality isn’t important anymore. We cried out that our students didn’t have to obey anyone’s authority, the least of which were the school and their principals. The students began to lose the fearful respect they had for all authority and gradually became more and more daring and obscene.

Teachers and school officials have little recourse in disciplining children today because parents won’t allow them to hold their children accountable. This causes the teachers to feel a sense of hopelessness and so the burn out rate has risen, crimes against students has gone up, and education in general is suffering.
If you were to look at the violent crime statistics in a timeline you would see a fairly flat line and then a steady increase at about the time in history that we removed morality and God from the classrooms. Do you think that is a coincident? I don’t. I think we’re being sent a clear message and if we don’t heed the warning then our school systems, indeed our whole society, will continue to become a more volatile war zone.

Where Should Your Privacy Stop?

SAN JOSE, Calif. — A federal judge on Friday ordered Google Inc. to give the Bush administration a peek inside its search engine, but rebuffed the government's demand for a list of people's search requests — potentially sensitive information that the company had fought to protect.

I always get torn in cases like this. This particular case stemmed from a Justice Department probe into child pornography. While I support the government’s efforts to protect its citizens I also support an individual’s right to privacy. There is no clear line drawn for how much of either should be afforded.

For instance, I believe that the president was well within not only his rights but it was his obligation the American people to authorize the wiretaps of suspected terrorists during a time of war. Some of the top legal analysts have argued in his defense. Most members of congress agree that it was necessary, but that they should have been consulted and better informed.

I also believe that Rush Limbaugh’s medical records should have been protected from the courts and investigators under doctor/patient privilege. That, like attorney/client, privilege is a sacred bond and shouldn’t be violated in any way for any reason. It’s just not right, whether Rush was guilty of doctor shopping and/or drug abuse or not.

So, should there be any presumption of privacy where the internet is concerned? Don’t people do research, purchase goods and services, and work from the privacy of their computer because there it’s more anonymous? We read everyday about how identity is stolen and network intrusions abound and warnings about an individuals lack of privacy.

I think the answer is unequivocally yes, there should be an assumption of privacy from any company that you do business with unless there is a clear disclosure that privacy will not be provided. If Google had been ordered to supply their client’s information how different would that have been from an order requiring a doctor or attorney to discuss conversations and information obtained in confidence under the guise of protection? Granted the reasons for the requested information are, I am sure, noble and relevant there is still the right to privacy.

What causes me grief about this though, is even though I support the right to privacy, I also believe something radical needs to be done about the problem. I hate that most states have implemented restraints on over the counter pseudo ephedrine, but something had to be done about the growing Methamphetamine problem. I don’t think limiting the purchase of the product by itself is going to solve any problems, but where else do you start? Similarly, requiring an internet search engine to divulge information pertinent to child pornography is not going to fix the problem, but it might deter would be patrons of such perversion.

I think a better solution would be a law prohibiting companies like Google from including information about such sites in their product. We already have laws concerning child pornography so why should it be legal to point the way to such sites? Make Google responsible and liable for the information it puts out. This may not be the “cure all” and proponents may argue that we’re infringing on the company’s freedom, but I am forced with which is the lesser of two evils? Frankly, I don’t support a company’s right to freedom when it engages in providing information about such blatant illegal perversion. I do, however, think that if we force a company to break a client’s confidence then we’re paving the road to much more personal privacy violations.

Pro-Choicer’s Support Choice for Women, but NOT for Men

This blog is concerning the following link from a CNN blog. http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/

If you know me then you know I am staunchly against a woman’s right to murder her unborn child for the sake of convenience. I have, in previous blogs, demonstrated that no matter how you add all the drama around an abortion, in the end, it is all about convenience. The only exception to that is when a woman’s life is endangered.

Similarly I do not support a man being able to walk away from his responsibility to his child. This case that has started this debate and may change the existing law brings to light an issue I am surprised did not come about sooner. This dispute is very plainly stated a double standard of law that I am all too happy to comment on.

As law is interpreted now, how many choices is a man legally entitled to in cases of conception in a consensual relationship? I can think of only two, the act of sex itself and whether or not he practices birth control. After conception his legal rights do not exist, however the woman has at least three options. She can choose to abort the child, she can choose to place the child up for adoption, or she can choose to keep the child. All three of those options allow the woman to negate her responsibility as the mother and they're all legal options.

So, finally, a man has raised the question that if it is legal for a woman to avoid her responsibility for reasons of convenience then why shouldn’t a man be able to opt out without penalty as well? If women are not forced to become mothers than why are men forced to become fathers? I propose adding another approach to it and ask why a woman can legally abort her child even though the father is willing to accept responsibility for it? Why can’t the man force her to carry and deliver his child? How can it be legal for the woman to choose to abort the child, but if the man wants it aborted he cannot force her to have one?

The law is overwhelmingly slanted in favor of the woman and the father’s rights do not exist. It’s equivalent to a legal double standard and is decidedly discriminatory towards the man’s right to choose. Pro-Choicer’s would argue that the woman has the right to choose because it is her biology that is incubating the fetus and that is really their only plausible argument. However, I say that ideology is complete rubbish.

“She is the one who will have to, in the end, raise the child and be tied to it for life.” This does not tread water, because the same statement can be made by the father. Especially if he is required by law to provide support or if he is the one who would choose to take responsibility for the child.

This entire case is only about the father’s equal rights for choice. If the legal precedence is choice then that choice should be afforded to the man equally as much as the woman. After all, this child wasn’t only conceived by only the mother. His biology was necessary for this pregnancy. Pro-Choicer’s everywhere are very concerned about this case, especially in light of the South Dakota law banning abortions. South Dakota has changed the laws governing abortion in their state in defiance of Roe vs. Wade for one reason and one reason only. This defiance of the existing law is eventually going to force the U.S. Supreme court to review the existing law and rule on it again either upholding it as is, amending it or changing it completely. By the time it makes it to the highest court in the land it is likely that a couple of the justices will be retired or deceased and S.D. is banking on the hope that they will be replaced by more conservative justices. The successful litigation of both the existing law and this specific case would remove the wind from the Pro-Choice sail.

In the end, my moral judgment on this, because after all this is my blog and it is my duty to educate you people on the standard of morality, is as follows. Specifically related to this case, it doesn’t matter if the woman lied to him about her inability to become pregnant. It doesn’t matter if he explained to her that he wasn’t ready to become a father prior to the conception. Those equate to smoke and mirrors in the over all larger issue which is: if you are willing to engage in sex then you should be prepared to accept your responsibility. That goes for the man and the woman.

“Father’s rights” is a phrase that you’re going to hear more and more of and this legal double standard is completely unfair and inappropriate. Science has proven that life begins at conception and the ending of that innocent life is unquestionably murder no matter the reason. We don’t accept child abuse, child neglect, or child endangerment as a society. Why then is abortion acceptable when it is in fact the very definition of all three of those? Fear, irresponsibility, immaturity, timing, nor finances should ever be used as a motivation to allow the morally unconscionable act of killing a child

Tragically, the person who will suffer from this the most is little Elisabeth. She will grow up knowing she was conceived out of a relationship of lust and immorality and that she had a father who fought legally to abandon her. Though I agree with the man’s argument about the unfairness in the legal precedent, all of this pain and suffering could have been avoided if two people would have excercised a great deal of moral responsibility. A single act of moral irresponsibility has undesirably impacted three lives for life.

My final judgment is that the law should reflect fairly for both men and women the same rights. As hard as I try, the only way I can think to insure impartiality takes place is to make the very act of abortion illegal in all instances, except where the woman's life is in question. By outlawing the act you force both parties to face their responsibility by either owning up to it or by placing the child with someone who can and will care for it. In this way the woman and men could be afforded equal rights of acceptance or denial of the responsibility.

Judged: You've Forfeited Your Right To Live...

I caught the sentencing phase on Fox News last evening of the trial for convicted child killer Joseph P. Smith. The judge spoke very slowly and deliberately from a prepared document detailing each of the circumstances of the case and the weight each circumstance was given in his judgment. While reading, the news channels would play video clips of whatever portion of the case the judge was commenting on adding a huge element of dramatic effect.

I did not follow this case at all. I only know what I saw and heard yesterday from the judge and then the commentator’s afterward. I did have a strong feeling of satisfaction though when I heard the judge say, “You’ve forfeited your right to live.” Followed closely by, “You are sentenced to death” and “May God have mercy on your soul.”

I am a person who has a strong belief in capital punishment. In cases where the evidence is clear that the person is guilty and there is no way that it might have been someone else, I think each killer should receive the death penalty. I also support stricter punishments for other crimes, like stealing, rape, child molestation or abuse, etc.

Take stealing for example. If you steal you should have your hand cut off. But then the democrats would feel an overwhelming need to provide disability and welfare payments to that person for the rest of their life. Maybe it would hit us hard in the pocket book over the long run, but probably not as hard as rehabilitation and repeat offenses or even the cost of the products we buy (because stores raise prices to cover their losses from theft). How about a sexual crime? Sex crimes are almost exclusively committed by men. If you commit a sex crime then you should be castrated. But I digress.

What struck me about this particular case in the sentencing was how disgustingly oblivious Mr. Smith was to the damage he had done. At one point while the judge was reading Mr. Smith yawned as if he was bored. His face remained calm and he just sat there as if to say, “Can we just get this over with so I can go on with my day?”

The evidence in this case was overwhelmingly convincing and left no room for someday finding out that they got the wrong man thus the punishment for this case was absolutely correct and appropriate. Of course, it will automatically be reviewed by the Supreme Court, a necessary safeguard in our legal system. But in my opinion, they should take away all the requests for sentence modifications, clemency, appeals, etc that will most certainly follow for the next 10-20 years. This guy did it. He admits he did it. He is caught on film doing it. The evidence supports that he did it. His sentence should be carried out swiftly and expeditiously relieving the tax payers, the justice system staff members, and society of the burden of caring for him and affording him all of his ‘rights.’

Does Grandma Need Boundaries?

Two weekends ago my family and I went to my hometown for a funeral. We stayed with my mother as we normally do. Lezlie and I decided to go to the visitation without the children and my mother was willing to watch our children. On our way home from the funeral home we called to check on the kids and my older brother answered the phone. When we asked to speak to mom he informed us that she went to the store. Knowing that we had not left the car seats with her we asked where the boys were. He replied he was home alone with them. BIG BIG BIG problem!

You see my brother has a long history of drug addiction, is unemployed, and relies on my mother to take care of him. He has an unpredictable temper and keeps guns inside her home. He hasn’t seen his own children since they were babies and they’re both college aged now.

My mother is a great woman. She would do anything for anyone and I love her very much. I don’t agree with her enabling my brother, but it is her home and he is her son. However, I think I have the right to decide the where’s, when’s, how’s, and who’s concerning my children.

When I arrived home I walked in and just looked at my mother saying nothing. She returned the look with a scowl and a firm, “Don’t start with me!” I calmly said, “What were you thinking? You left our children alone with a known drug addict. That’s not even in the same vicinity as being close to the same ballpark of being okay with us.” She tried to explain that she was only gone for five minutes and I continued trying to explain that it was still wrong. The matter never did get resolved. She thinks she did nothing wrong and I think she crossed a huge line.

Am I blowing this out of proportion? I mean, she was only gone five minutes. However, coming from the EMS background I have seen many things that took five minutes or less to happen. I am befuddled at how she could have used such bad judgment with someone else’s kids. Maybe I am wrong. Am I? I’d like to hear from some of you. How would you have handled this? Is this an area that we should draw clear lines in the sand and set firm boundaries or is it one of those areas that you pick your battles in and walk away?

Will to Survive

I watched a movie a day or two ago. If you know me, you know I like scary movies. I rented a movie titled 'The Saw II.' When I rented it I thought it was going to be another stupid scary movie with no plot and lots of violence. However, I found it engaging and intriguing.

While it is a violent movie and I didn't see number 1, I'll try to explain why I liked it. It's about a man who is diagnosed with cancer which triggers a need for him to test the human will to survive. The opening scene shows a man that is faced with the dilemma of cutting out his own eye to get a key to a device that will kill him in 60 seconds if he doesn't do it. Twisted? Yes, but the pretense of the scenario continues through the entire movie with a surprising end.

How strong is the human will to survive? Strong enough to face the enormous amount of pain that cutting out your own eye would definitely cause? Take the pain away for a second. Would you be willing to cut out your own eye and face blindness, infection, or hemorrhage? It got me to thinking.

The villain of the movie has hand selected the test subjects based on their life of sin. One is a drug dealer who must jump into a pit of syringes to find a key and on and on it goes. It made me reflect a bit on what it will be like to be accountable for our sin someday. We will all have to give an account for our actions and stand in judgement, unless of course you have been covered by the blood of Jesus.

Covered by the blood? That could open a whole other discussion about the human will to survive. How strong is your will? Of course, God doesn't want us simply because we have a will to survive. He created us to commune with him in relationship, but it still begs the question...how strong is your will to survive?