Day Without Migrants!

Workplaces ready for day without immigrant staff

From the blogofbryce ..."that Bush and Fox often speak of "migration", instead of "immigration". The difference between these words is that "immigration" denotes passing through a national border while moving. Migration only denotes a population moving. I don't know if that is meaningful, but it certainly is in harmony with the slow erasure of the U.S. Mexican border which Fox speaks of."

Let's clearly define something. These aren't immigrants. They're CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIENS. They're here, because they violated the United States Sovereign law. The above article makes it sound like they have support. I personally hope that America sends the opposite message in that their absence will insight deepened anger and resolve to send those people home. I hope employer's will determine that we CAN function without them and that they get fired for missing work and shutting down.

From The Constitution Party, "Okay, what about all those millions of low-skill, low-pay jobs that no one but illegals are willing to perform? Think about this argument for a moment. What Bush and the pro-low-pay people are saying in effect is this: We need an underclass, and if American citizens aren't willing to be serfs, we're happy to import them. The problem is that American citizens don't think like serfs; living in overcrowded, crime-ridden slums and working for what amount to slave wages doesn't really connect with the American dream. Americans work as hard as anybody on the planet, and are as a rule far more productive, but they ain't gonna do it for nuthin', to the chagrin of certain corporate moguls and small business owners who are reluctant to pay their workers what they're worth."

This crossing of unchecked illegals does two things. It's eroding our economy because we have to have government incentives like Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, and pay for the large percentage of these illegals to be warehoused in our prison systems. The second thing it is doing is demonstrating to the world the weakness in our borders. We need to build the wall, reform our crossing policies, and add personnel to the border patrols. I am not even opposed to bring in the National Gaurd to pick up the slack on the patrols. We MUST secure our borders. The world MUST know that our borders are secure in the North and the South, the East and the West.

So on Monday, I hope you not only discourage and not support these protests for support of these criminals, but that you take action to support your businesses that remain open and committed to the laws of this great land of ours. These people need to be rounded up and sent to the home from whence they came. 11 million people would not be as big of an undertaking as attacking Iran, Afghanistan, and/or Iraq and rounding up terrorists. Why can we go after them, but not these criminals? Because big government needs them here to generate the reasons for government subsidy's and taxation. Make no mistake about it, their presence here is coming out of your pocketbook. We've become accustomed to just accepting things as status qua. We need to bring this nation back to Constitution the way our fathers intended it to be.

Lawlessness, is still lawlessness no matter how compassionate you paint it. Break this law, and they'll break others. It's pretty simple logic. Rounding them up can be done and it would probably cost taxpayers less in the end if we did so.

Good luck on Mayday. I for one, am going to look for businesses that remain open and make that my day for big purchases.

Your Moral Compass Is Moving To A New Address!

To better serve you and make it easier for you to access Your Moral Compass is moving to it's own Domain. Stay tuned and bear with me as I attempt to make this transition with the help of Zach and Lani (because I am domain illiterate). The NEW and IMPROVED address will be www.yourmoralcompass.net. I don't have a time line for completion, but I hope it won't take too long.

How Do You Define Marriage?

As most of you know, I am working towards a degree in emergency medicine. As part of any degree I have prerequisite classes mandated by the university. I have been participating in a Sociology of the Family class because I am such a strong proponent of family values and morals as Your Moral Compass. During our class time tonight we were discussing the family in crisis. We discussed the definition of marriage. Guess what, not a single person in our small group could come up with a common definition. Then we discussed if marriage is more of a religious institution, or a state contract, or both and why?

For me marriage has always been a religious institution created by God for one man and one woman; both being gifts to each other from God. That definition has served me well in approaching the issue concerning same-sex marriage which I vehemently oppose especially when they try to call it marriage. However, my professor, in all her brilliance (I mean that, I am really enjoying her class and learning so much) posed the question, if marriage is a religious thing then how can you say it is okay for atheists or agnostics to use the term marriage? After all their marriage is outside the bonds of Holy Matrimony because of their apparent disbelief in God who after all instituted marriage and lay down the guidelines for it, which is what I believe.

Believing what I believe about God and his gift of marriage then I have to conclude that I feel the same way about marriage of atheists and agnostics as I do about same sex marriage. Why is it, that same sex marriage takes center stage in topics like this, but not the atheists or agnostics? I am interested in hearing from some of you about your definition of marriage and whether these groups should be allowed to call themselves married.

Who Are We Fighting and Why Is It So Important That We Win?

After yesterday's posting on the pseudo peaceful nature of the Islamic faith and the Koran I received an email attached with the below essay. While I agree with the author on the importance of finishing what we started I am concerned about what we started. Actually we didn’t start it, Muslims did, but now we’ve been compelled to act.

What concerns me is can this war even be won? I am not sure it can be. Thousands of years the Muslims (keep in mind I am speaking generally about the history of their faith, of which I am NOT an expert, and not about some very well intentioned individuals who are peace loving within their faith) have been wreaking havoc on people of contrasting faith. When you consider the earth is only about 6000 years old (I am not an evolutionist and believe that the creation account in Genesis is accurate), that is the majority of the ages. Look at Israel and the Palestine’s or the Iran/Iraq war or the genocide’s that we’ve seen in our lifetime. That kind of stuff has been going on since the time of Christ and before.

In all that time no one, no nation, no other faith has ever been able to squelch the violent atrocities of the Muslim radical’s. How can we win this war? I totally agree with this author in the case for profiling and relinquishing some of our civil liberties and even the need to get off our politically correct bandwagon.

For better or for worse we’re in this thing now. Not by our own choosing. Not because we went looking for it. It came to us and we HAD to act. The author is right…if we lose this one, the face of the globe as we know it is going to change. I am not a doomsayer….I am of the opinion that the health of our nation is better than it ever has been morally, fiscally, spiritually, and otherwise. Our nation has issues to deal with, and we will deal with them. Make no mistake, if we don’t get a grip on the violent nature of the Muslim leadership and we lose this one, we will be in serious trouble.

We need to unite. We need to stand behind the leadership that was democratically appointed. We need to pray for them, express our opinions politely and respectfully, and then we need to trust them to make the best choices with the intelligence that they have and that WE DON’T. We don’t always have to agree with the policy, but we do have to have the capacity to understand that they have far more information pertaining to it than any one of us does.

So, why I am deeply concerned about our ability to win this war, I am equally concerned about our future if we don’t. God Bless the United States of America and may He use these times to draw his people back to himself the way He intended it to be to begin with.

Subject: Muslims, terrorist and the USA. A different spin on Iraq war.
Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
Tuesday, July 12, 2005

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our countryis now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it,that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United State is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with thefollowing attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans orDemocrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that thepredominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (seehttp://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm )

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldo m heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of noprotection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame thepeaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting. So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, themajor reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war meanshanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about ourbusiness, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is we would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they w ant us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would nothave produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them. They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It willbe increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. Itdoesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw itstroops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that theymight see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finishedtoo, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However,it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life willall vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us,if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore arecompletely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost. Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to takethat 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to bedivided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation. President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allowprofiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of thecivil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

Don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civilrights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory andin fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our PoliticalCorrectness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have aclean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or theAdministration that it almost seems they would literally like to see uslose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It isbecause they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and mediaregarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifiesbest what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving thetreatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of ourmilitary police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

Just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of theSecretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack ofcomprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrousresults of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisonerissue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned --totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, norany other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, thisdoes not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of t he situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United State, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense. We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can't! If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive,and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

Finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of theRoman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will befighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away,politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown,worldwide that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we areunited, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election,the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situationwe are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we aretalking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.....

And then the article summarizes and closes.

A Peaceful Koran?

This is a brilliant article....I received an email not long ago detailing the violent nature of the Koran and Islam as a religion. It specified numerous points of history, both recently and of long ago, and I was astounded. Yes Christianity has had violent episodes in the past and every religion is guilty of having over zealous, radical half-wits, but I can't think of a more violent loving religion then Islam historically speaking. That is not to say all Muslims are bad, but historically as a religion they're track record is that of violence and disruption and not of the harmony and peace that they would like us to believe. Please read the article below.

The appearance yesterday of another tape of Usama bin Laden should make us rethink, for a moment, our stance on theology.

You probably remember it was always considered an easy “A” — a GPA booster par excellence. We knew there was no fudging in chemistry class; the table of elements loomed large. Accounting I, II, and III fit together like a giant jigsaw puzzle — miss a lesson or two and things just wouldn’t add up. History class had a little more wiggle room, but the best professors always asked for short answers — dates, names, and places — just to make sure.
But “theology?” The study of God? We doubted any professor could tell us for sure when we got it wrong. Yes, an easy “A!”

And yet some people still fail. When Usama calls all Muslims to go to Sudan and fight United Nations’ peacekeepers, as he did yesterday, he has failed. When he points his finger at the West and calls for indiscriminate violence, he has failed. When he promises heavenly rewards for the killing of the innocent, he has failed.

And sadly, Islam is failing with him.

The problem? Believe it or not, it’s a theological one.

To study God, we must first distinguish him from other beings. Animals may be smart, but they do not reason. They may be affectionate, but they do not love. Human beings reason and love, but they do both poorly. God does both perfectly. That’s what makes him God. He is perfect.
Muslim leaders like bin Laden have attached imperfect qualities to God. By doing so, they and their followers have become incapable of differentiating his perfection from man’s own misery. Their object of worship is not the perfect being that calls us to become more like our creator, but a grandiose image of their self-serving ego that values vice, not virtue.

Religion has a way of turning theology inside out. History is full of bad Catholics, Jews, Lutherans, Muslims, Hindus, and Evangelicals. Religion turns bad when we get in the way of God, when we attribute to him and his will our own good and bad wishes. Getting in the way of God is bad theology and it’s dangerous.

What’s even more dangerous is a religion that refuses to correct itself when some of its members error. Islam as a religion is failing alongside its most outspoken spokesmen, because nobody from within dares to wrestle with the idea of bad theology.

The Muslim tradition leaves no room for interpretation or theological development. The Koran is what it is. Those who dare to interpret are considered untrue Muslims, or Westerners in disguise. This tradition of cemented theology can almost work if all play by the rules. But they don’t. The radical imams of the ilk of bin Laden have a monopoly on theological interpretation. And their grip is tightening, on Islam and on the world.

Theological problems don’t vanish with good public relations, political dialogue, or military force. They are resolved with good theology. Healthy Muslim clerics, who love God and love their religion, have a choice to make — either remain quiet and prepare to witness a clash of civilizations of epic proportion, or be willing to wrestle with the bad theology of their boisterous spokesmen. Can you provide to your fellow Muslims a convincing interpretation of a peaceful and loving Koran? We hope you can.
Our prayers are with you.

God bless, Father Jonathan

Immigration and Anti-Abortion Response From My Congressman

I wrote my congressman on the important issue of illegal immigration and also on my stance against abortion. Today I received his favorable response. It's important to express your opinion to your legislator so that they can vote the will of the people. In this case, my congressman states he believes as I do. I thought I would post it for you to review, it's lengthy, but it's my post! :)

Dear Mr. Stephens:

Thank you for contacting me about immigration issues and the sanctity of life. I appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns.

As a member of the Immigration Reform Caucus, I voted for H.R. 4437 the Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act (the Act). This bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 239 -
182 on December 16, 2005. With the Act, Congress took an important step to protect out nation from the threat of terrorists exploiting our porous borders to enter our country. This legislation will require the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment of all ports of entry and enhance surveillance along the U.S. - Mexican border while re-establishing respect for immigration laws. The Act proves that we can continue supporting legal immigration and secure our borders.

In addition, I am cosponsoring an important new piece of legislation, the TRUE Enforcement and Border Security Act. This bill provides for a border fence along our entire southern border with Mexico, modeled after the highly successful San Diego border fence. The legislation also increases the number of law enforcement officials tasked with apprehending and investigating illegal immigrants and reports of illegal immigrants.

Our country was founded by immigrants, and the American dream is a very strong incentive to someone looking to make a better life. But the porous nature of our borders creates a very dangerous situation that is taken advantage of by terrorists, drug smugglers and human traffickers, all of whom exploit the open border to enter our country. The TRUE Enforcement and Border Security Act is a necessary step we must take toward strengthening our borders.
This legislation, introduced by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), chairman of the House Armed
Services Committee, also:

Forces the Department of Homeland Security to fully implement the computerized entry-exit system, which allows us to track who's crossing our borders; Denies birthright citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants; Fights abuse of the system by stopping illegal immigrants from collecting Social Security; Stops employer tax deductions for wages paid to illegal immigrants;

Immigration reform has become one of the most important issues facing Congress today. But an initiative recently discussed by President Bush runs contrary to putting the country's security first. The President's proposal focuses on an amnesty program and makes mention of security as a compliment to that program. Under the President's program, illegal immigrants would receive amnesty for three years at which time they would have to leave the country.

With all due respect to the President, we send the wrong message by granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. Any immigration reforms must first focus on security and strengthening our borders. Our national security is too important to be considered a secondary part of immigration reform.

In addition to the TRUE Enforcement and Border Security Act, I also cosponsored the following bills which like the TRUE Act seek to secure our borders and control illegal immigration:
H.R. 418, the Real ID/Border Security Act of 2005. This legislation passed the House of Representatives on February 10, 2005, by a vote of 261 to 161. The bill establishes rigorous proof of identity for all drivers' license applicants, and requires states to verify immigration status before issuing drivers' licenses. It also contains provisions that will expedite the completion of a border security fence at San Diego, one of our most heavily trafficked sections of the U.S.-Mexico border.

H.R. 925, the Identity Integrity Act of 2005. Prohibits federal agencies from accepting, for any official purpose (such as boarding a plane), an identification document for an individual issued by a foreign government, other than a passport. The bill prohibits the use of consular IDs for federal identification purposes.

H.R. 1219, the Security and Fairness Enhancement for America/SAFE Act of 2005. Abolishes the visa lottery program. This bill's provisions were included in the Border Protection, antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act which, as noted above, has passed the House of Representatives.

I was also a strong supporter of Congressman Goode's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. His amendment, which passed the House of Representatives, authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the armed forces to assist in border protection. I also voted for the Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. This legislation authorizes 2,000 more border patrol agents. This Act also authorizes $40,000,000 to help state and local law enforcement officials enforce federal immigration laws. We must ensure that the federal government's failure to secure our borders does not adversely affect state and local governments, either by burdening their law enforcement agencies or compelling them to pay benefits to illegal aliens.

As a Christian, a U.S. Representative and a proud member of the House of Representatives Pro-Life Caucus, I have a responsibility to ensure that the federal government protects and defends an individual's right to life, especially for those who cannot defend themselves, including the unborn, terminally ill and elderly.

In July of 2005, I signed on as a cosponsor of H.R. 552, the Right to Life Act. The bill would define "human being" to encompass all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization or cloning, and would guarantee all human beings the right to life.

On April 27, 2005, the House passed H.R.748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, of which I was an original cosponsor. The bill would prohibit transporting a minor across a State line to obtain an abortion in order to circumvent parental notification laws in the minor's home State. I am also an original cosponsor of H.R. 356, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, which would require an abortion provider to ensure that any woman seeking an abortion is fully aware of the pain their unborn child will experience.

While stem cell research has great potential for curing diseases, the eagerness for scientific discovery must not supersede our duty to protect the unborn. In light of that, I voted against H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which would allocate federal dollars for human embryonic stem cell research. I was an original cosponsor of H.R. 2520, the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005. Unlike H.R. 810, H.R. 2520 would provide for the collection and maintenance of stem cells originating from human cord blood only, which does not require the destruction of human embryos, for the treatment of patients and research. H.R. 2520 was supported by National Right to Life, Focus on the Family and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to name only a few. This bill became public law on December 20, 2005.

I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 1357, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, which would impose criminal and civil penalties for performing or attempting to perform human cloning, and for shipping, receiving, or importing embryos or any product derived from an embryo for the purpose of human cloning.

I appreciate your support and devotion to this issue. Rest assured, I am 100 percent Pro-Life and look forward to continuing to vote on the House floor in line with my beliefs.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your views with me on these important issues. Please do not hesitate to contact me with additional comments or concerns on these or any other issue before Congress.
Sincerely,

Geoff Davis
Member of Congress

Weather Bulletin - North Dakota

Having been born in and raised there for 13 years, Fargo, ND holds a special place in my wife's heart. Much of her family still live in the area. The letter I am posting is one I recieved today written about the category 5 snow storm of last winter that received little press, but it applies to this weeks massive flooding as well. It is so properly written I had to post it. Enjoy.

North Dakota News: This text is from a county emergency manager out in the western part of North Dakota state after the recent snow storm.
WEATHER BULLETIN:
Up here in the Northern Plains we just recovered from a Historic event--- may I even say a "Weather Event" of "Biblical Proportions" --- with a historic blizzard of up to 44" of snow and winds to 90 MPH that broke trees in half, knocked down utility poles, stranded hundreds of motorists in lethal snow banks, closed ALL roads, isolated scores of communities and cut power to 10's of thousands.

FYI:George Bush did not come.
FEMA did nothing.
No one howled for the government.
No one blamed the government.
No one even uttered an expletive on TV.
Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton did not visit.
Our Mayor's did not blame Bush or anyone else.
Our Governor did not blame Bush or anyone else either CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX, or NBC did not visit - or report on this category 5 snow storm.

Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards.
No one asked for a FEMA Trailer House.
No one looted.
Nobody - I mean Nobody demanded the government do something.
Nobody expected the government to do anything either.No Larry King, No Bill O'Rielly, No Oprah, No Chris Mathews and No Geraldo Rivera.
No Shaun Penn, No Barbara Striesand, No Hollywood types to be found.
And, Red Cross did not come and deliver water or food.
Nope, we just melted the snow for water.
Nobody sent out caravans of SUV's to pluck people out of snow engulfed cars.
The truck drivers pulled people out of snow banks and didn't ask for a penny.
Local restaurants made food, and the police and fire departments delivered it to the snow bound families. Families took in the stranded people - total strangers. We Fired up wood stoves, broke out coal oil lanterns or Coleman lanterns. We put on an extra layers of clothes because up here it is "Work or Die". We did not wait for some affirmative action government to get us out of a mess created by being immobilized by a welfare program that trades votes for 'sittin at home' checks. Even though a Category "5" blizzard of this scale has never fallen this early, we know it can happen and how to deal with it ourselves."In my many travels, I have noticed that once one gets north of about 48 degrees North Latitude, 90% of the world's social problems evaporate." It does seem that way, at least to me. I hope this gets passed on.. Maybe ... SOME people will get the message .. The world does Not owe you a living.

Punishment or Revenge? A Self Described 9/11 Martyr

So the verdicts in! Actually the verdict has been in for sometime. Now this is the verdict to what extreme he can be sentenced. The jury says Zacarias Moussaoui is eligible for the death penalty. So why isn’t there any winner in this? The government’s victory in proving that Moussaui’s omission of critical information directly contributed to the death of more than 3000 people is a double edged sword.

The controversy in this case is just how much did Moussaoui know and what was he thinking? While it is clear that he did know something in advance of 9/11, proved by his attempt to obtain training to fly a Boeing 747, should an individual be eligible for death just because of his knowledge or even more broad his thoughts? Does this kind of prosecution open the door for prosecution in areas of law that isn’t so emotionally and politically charged?

There is no question that this man’s inaction and/or omission contributed to preventing authorities from deciphering the pending doom of 9/11. Is it fair, however, that he bear the maximum weight of that responsibility, especially since he didn’t pilot one of the airplanes himself. The simple answer, in my opinion, is yes he should be treated as if he pulled the trigger himself, but the implication of that is far more difficult to summarize.

Should Zacarias Moussaoui, being found guilty, be allowed to become the martyr that he is trying so hard to portray himself as? Watching public reaction on Fox, I feel as every person that commented that this man and others like him need to suffer to the highest degree for their transgressions against humanity and their propagation of terrorism. So how could we cause this man to suffer or greater still, does our wish to make them suffer make us any better then them?

I am a long standing proponent of capital punishment. Some people have asked me how I can support capital punishment while being so pro-life on the abortion issue. The answer is that abortion is an act against an innocent defenseless human life. In areas of crime, you forfeit your right to live depending on the nature of the crime. At the very least you forfeit your right to roam freely in society. I think that capital punishment should extend beyond our normal criteria for capital offenses. For instance, it should include people who conspire to commit murder, acts of terrorism, repeated violent crimes involving aggravated circumstances, crimes against children and/or other defenseless persons, etc.

My problem with this case in particular is how emotionally charged society is concerning 9/11 and this villain. 9/11 was an immensely terrible wake-up call filled with shock and awe for America. It left us feeling vulnerable and violated and gave us a taste of what a post apocalyptic world might be like. We, for the first time, felt like the clear and present danger glamorized in Hollywood was truly a threat and gave us our first genuine motivation to rid the world of terrorism. It wasn’t at our neighbor’s house anymore; it was in our own back yard. It was appalling and deadly serious.

If this man is guilty, and I believe he is, then he should receive no less then the greatest punishment we have. I think we need to be careful in cases like this that our motivation is one of punishment and not one of revenge. Though closely thought of, they are very different motivators. Punishment addresses the act and causes retribution. Revenge inflicts injury in return for something. I think as a society we have to be careful that we’re acting with purest intentions of punishment and not out of a need for revenge. Whole nations have been at war since time began based on repeated acts of vengeance. Our sentencing needs to reflect our desire to set high the social/moral mark and clearly define the befitting punishment for its violation.

After all, providing that terrorists won’t lead to the extermination of human life, society will someday judge us for the way and manner in which we judged others.