Archive for April 11th, 2006

At Least One Good Member of Congress

Tuesday, April 11th, 2006

I received this letter from Congressman Culberson and wanted to re-post it here. Congressman Culberson is right on track with this.

To keep the debate over illegal immigration in the proper perspective, I am attaching these two articles from the Washington Times. The Houston Chronicle is terminally biased in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants and does not report on the national security threats created by our open borders. I hope that Houstonians read this vital information since you will never see these stories in our local newspaper. I have verified the complete accuracy of these reports either in person or through questioning witnesses who testified under oath before my committees. I have also confirmed the reliability of Mike Maxwell, the former Director of the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Office of Security and Investigations, who quit because he was outraged over the blatant refusal of CIS to solve the security problems he uncovered. I am putting together both open and closed Congressional hearings to expose the massive incompetence, fraud and even espionage at the Department of Homeland Security and CIS. Most importantly, I will continue to focus Congress’ attention on national security solutions that will work right away, like my successful effort in the House to send a total of $100 million directly to every border county sheriff from Brownsville to San Diego so they can hire enough deputies to enforce law and order, stop the flood of illegal immigrants and build enough detention beds to house them until they can be deported. America will never win the war on terror until we protect our borders. Congress must never reward someone who has broken our laws by legalizing their behavior.

I am honored to represent you in the United States Congress.


John Culberson
Member of Congress

Rally: ‘Who You Calling Immigrant, Pilgrim?’

Tuesday, April 11th, 2006

These people are completely missing the point! Most of us have no problem with immigrant coming to this country. They are right, all of us, at some point in time, were immigrants.
But here is the difference:
Most of us came here Legally!!
If you have come here legally, then I say “Welcome and Good Luck!!”
If you have come here illegally, then I say “Go Back to Where you Came From!!”
What part of “illegal” are they having trouble understanding?
Coming here illegally tramples on all the people who did it right.

( – Tens of thousands of immigrants from nations all over the world – many unable to speak English and some admitting that they entered the U.S. illegally – gathered on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., Monday to demand “liberty and justice for all.”
They were protesting legislation in the House of Representatives that would crack down on illegal aliens by making unlawful entry into the U.S. a felony. The crowd carried signs reading, “Who Are You Calling Immigrant, Pilgrim?” and “God Loves Us Too,” and stretched from near the U.S. Capitol almost half-way to the Washington Monument.
The crowd cheered as speakers, alternating between Spanish and English, led a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Yellow sheets of paper, which representatives of the Service Employees International Union distributed to those in the crowd, contained the words of the Pledge broken down into phrases with a phonetic pronunciation guide for those who did not speak English.
Thousands of people carried large and small American flags. Many also held flags representing Mexico, Cuba, Bolivia and other countries.
Bonard Molina-Garcia, of Takoma Park, Md., was a small child when he and his parents entered the U.S. from Mexico illegally. They applied for amnesty in the 1980s and received permanent resident alien status. He has since completed his bachelor’s degree and, after becoming a U.S. citizen last year, will graduate from Georgetown Law School next month.
Molina-Garcia carried a sign that read, “I was undocumented. Now I am a U.S. Citizen thanks to amnesty. I met my wife. I went to college. I am in law school. I vote. America is better off because I’m here.”
The Mexican native is opposed to the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437), which would elevate unlawful entry into the U.S. from a civil violation to a felony.
“It’s wrong morally. It’s wrong ethically and I think it’s a bad idea for our country. I’m an example, I think of the type of opportunity the U.S. provides, what the American dream means, everything that we stand for,” Molina-Garcia said. See Video.
He believes the U.S. should extend amnesty to any illegal alien currently living in the country who is otherwise obeying the law and contributing to society.
“It’s good not just for the people that are coming in but the types of things that we bring. People like me, now, contribute to the U.S. in ways that I don’t think people would be able to otherwise,” Molina-Garcia said.
The aspiring lawyer does not agree with detractors who say offering amnesty to illegal aliens discourages citizens of other countries from following the long process to legally immigrate to the U.S.
“It doesn’t necessarily mean that the people who do it the established way have to be left behind,” Molina-Garcia argued. “The trick is just to make sure that the people that are here, undocumented, but that are still here legitimately that are working hard that want to get ahead have an opportunity to do so.”
Domingo Alvarado of Gainesville, Va., emigrated to the U.S. legally from the Philippines in 1982 and became a citizen in 1987. He is now an accountant and a business owner. Alvarado also opposes the House plan to block future illegal immigration and to make it harder for those who live in the U.S., illegally to get jobs.
“It’s a little bit harsh. We should not penalize these people who are already here,” Alvarado said. “These people have families. They have worked. They are here to work, basically.” See Video.
Alvarado rejects the fact that illegal immigrants are criminals.
“To me, as long as they’re not breaking the law and they’re not killing people, or selling drugs, or doing bad things to other people, to me that’s okay I guess?” Alvarado said.
Lucinda Megill, of Washington, D.C., and Judy Stermer, of Montpelier, Vt., both U.S. citizens, came to the rally to show their support for illegal immigrants and their opposition to H.R. 4437.
“We need to make laws that make sense and there’s [sic] obviously a lot of people here that are needing to speak and I’m just here to speak with them because, I don’t know, this is the future of America,” Megill said. We have to make sure of their rights.” See Video.
Stermer was more pragmatic in her reason for attending the rally.
“I just want to be a part of this. I mean, this is like the civil rights movement of our time, you know,” Stermer said. “I just want to be here to support and show my solidarity with people that deserve to be here just as much as I do.”
Like Alvarado, Megill disagrees with laws against unauthorized entry into the U.S. and does not accept the descriptor, “illegal alien.”
“They’re not criminals. They’re doing work and they need representation. They need to be recognized and they need fairness,” Megill concluded. “They don’t have a voice and I don’t want that to be happening in my country.”
Alvarado admitted that – even as a citizen who followed the rules and as a successful businessman – it is difficult for him to justify paying higher wages to a legal worker for unskilled labor when he knows an “undocumented immigrant” is willing to perform the same job for much less money.
“If I go out there and hire [someone] to fix my plumbing, clean something or cut my grass, I mean, it’s hard,” Alvarado said. “It’s hard to hire people charging me $25, $30 or even $100, whereas you can hire [an illegal alien] for less than that.”
But that it exactly why Kevin Lancaster of Frederick, Md., criticizes illegal immigration and opposes any legislation that would offer amnesty to illegal aliens already living in the U.S.
“If you have three guys who will work for the price of one, who do you think you’re going to hire?” Lancaster asked. “And if those three guys don’t have to pay any taxes, guess what? Your business has just saved paying all those taxes.” See Video.
Lancaster and seven other individuals who support better control of the U.S. border and harsher penalties for employers hiring illegal aliens organized a counter-demonstration. After initially being surrounded and shouted-down by Spanish-speaking protesters, Lancaster’s group was surrounded by U.S. Park Police and an area was cordoned off for their gathering.
“I work in the construction field. I’ve seen it happen,” Lancaster continued. “I know dry-wallers that can’t get the wages they got back in 1985 because now [employers] can hire illegal aliens at below minimum wage, not pay the taxes and not pay Social Security.
“It’s all over,” he concluded. “It’s exploitation by the businesses.”
Legislative efforts in the U.S. Senate, aimed at putting most of the nation’s illegal immigrants on the path toward legal status, broke down last week. The Senate and House will return to the subject when members return from their two week recess.

Researcher: Abortion Advocates Manipulate Data To Make RU-486 Look Safe

Tuesday, April 11th, 2006

If any other drug, treating any other illness/symptom, was even suspected of causing a death, it would be yanked off the shelves almost immediately, but because this one falls into the abortion category, it’s being allowed to stay. Guess we need some more women to die before they take it off the market. How backwards is that?

(AgapePress) – A pro-life activist says while the abortion lobby “plays with numbers,” women are dying from the use of the abortion drug RU-486.
According to Randall O’Bannon, a researcher with the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the pro-abortion lobby claims more than half a million women have taken RU-486 — also known as mifepristone — with only a handful of problems occurring. However, he contends, this claim about the broad-scale use and low incidence of complications “doesn’t seem to be true on either side.”
Since RU-486 was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000, six women in the U.S. and one in Canada have died after taking the abortifacient, causing some abortion providers to suspend use of this chemical method of causing an abortion. However, many “abortion rights” proponents continue to tout the drug as a relatively safe medication, estimating the number of patient fatalities in mifepristone abortions at about one in 200,000.
But O’Bannon believes pro-abortion advocates are playing with the numbers, first of all in order to exaggerate the number of women actually taking the dangerous drug, and secondly to downplay its harmful effects. “They count these by the doses that are sold to clinics or doctors, not actually the number of women who have taken the pill,” he says, “and then they multiply those sales figures by a factor of three because a lot of these people are changing the dose.”
Meanwhile, the researcher points out, women who experience complications after taking RU-486 are usually treated in hospital emergency rooms, not by the doctor or clinic that originally gave them the drug. “They may or may not even be able to tell the doctor that they’ve taken this pill,” he says. And generally, when one of these “chemical abortion” patients dies as a result of the complications, he adds, “it never gets reported as being a death due to this whole sort of process here.”
In such cases, O’Bannon asserts, deaths that occur as a result of RU-486 may actually get recorded as being due to complications from serious infections or natural miscarriages. In any event, he insists that RU-486 is far more dangerous than the abortion lobby suggests.
“We think that they’re overestimating how many women have used it,” the NRLC spokesman says, “and they may be grossly underestimating the number of women who have been injured or have died because of this.”
O’Bannon is convinced the abortion lobby is being untruthful when it says half a million women have taken RU-486 with only a minimal number of problems reported. The pro-life researcher believes that assertion is a disingenuous claim based on manipulated numbers and that RU-486 is in fact responsible for many more than the seven deaths currently attributed to the drug.

Christian Plaintiffs in Upstate NY Censorship Case Win Free-Speech Victory

Tuesday, April 11th, 2006

Thank you Lord!! Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion wins again!! In your face ACLU!!

(AgapePress) – A federal judge has ordered an upstate New York school district to return bricks inscribed with Christian messages to a high school walkway, and a pro-family civil liberties attorney is praising the outcome as a victory against viewpoint discrimination.
The dispute arose after the Mexico Academy High School class of 1999 in Mexico, New York (Oswego County), sold bricks that could be inscribed with personal messages and included in a walkway as a fundraiser. However, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) complained that certain bricks, particularly those inscribed with the messages “Jesus Saves/John 3:16” and “Jesus Christ, the only way,” constituted public school endorsement of Christianity.
The ACLU maintained that the bricks violated the so-called “separation of church and state,” and the group’s complaints prompted school officials to remove the contested bricks in 2000. Other bricks purchased by private individuals bore messages that referred to God or to local churches but were allowed to remain in place; only the bricks mentioning Jesus were taken out of the walkway.
Two community residents who had purchased the extracted bricks filed a lawsuit challenging the school district’s censorship of their messages. In that case, Judge Norman Mordue of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York has now ruled that removal of the bricks bearing the Christian messages was a violation of the free-speech rights of those individuals who paid for them.
Although the District Court initially refused to grant a preliminary injunction to have the bricks reinstalled, it was forced to reconsider the issue when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case for reconsideration. The court’s ultimate ruling orders school officials to restore the bricks inscribed with religious messages to the school walkway.
Pro-family attorney John Whitehead is president of The Rutherford Institute, the civil liberties and human rights defense organization that represented the Christian plaintiffs in the lawsuit, arguing that the school’s censorship violated rights guaranteed to citizens by the First and Fourteenth Amendments as well as by the New York Constitution. He is pleased with the court’s ruling and says it is consistent with the outcomes of many similar suits in which his legal group has been involved.
“We’ve won several of these cases in this area,” Whitehead notes. ” It’s called viewpoint discrimination. You can’t discriminate against the religious viewpoint, and the judge said that’s what happened here. It violates the First Amendment.”
The attorney asserts that officials with the high school, in initiating the walkway fundraiser, created a public forum that allowed for private speech, and apparently the bricks with the Christian messages were initially welcomed. “But when the ACLU threatened a lawsuit,” he says, “they actually removed the bricks, and the judge said that’s viewpoint discrimination. That violates the First Amendment when you have different messages on a sidewalk or in [another public] forum.”
One More Victory in the Ongoing Battle for Faith in the Public Square
Although the court ruled in accordance with the Constitution this time, Whitehead believes such cases will not simply go away. He predicts that people’s right to free religious expression will continue to face challenges and says this is because public schools are becoming increasingly secular — and are by far “more secular than they were 25 years ago when I started The Rutherford Institute, even though we’ve won cases.”
That is why Christians need to “get in there and really fight” for their viewpoint, the civil liberties defender contends. Believers need to wake up and join the battle for the right to express their faith in the public square, he says, including “the right just to say Jesus’ name along with other gods or other viewpoints, in the public schools.”
If Christians lose the right to express their viewpoint in the public schools, Whitehead warns, “all those 50-some million children there are probably going to think Christians are kooks because we’re going to get so marginalized.”
But for residents of Oswego County, New York, at least, Christians’ equal right to express their religious viewpoint along with others’ private expressions has been upheld in what the Rutherford Institute president is calling “a great victory for free speech.” In concluding that the removal of the Christian-themed bricks from the Mexico Academy High School walkway constituted viewpoint discrimination, Judge Mordue rejected the school’s arguments and cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Good News Club v. Milford Central School — an earlier Rutherford Institute victory — that “speech discussing otherwise permissible subjects cannot be excluded … on the ground that the subject is discussed from a religious viewpoint.”
Whitehead says The Rutherford Institute is pleased with the outcome of this case and appreciates the district court’s thoughtful consideration of the constitutional issues. Still, he urges Christians to remain vigilant and aware of their rights, and to stand up against attempts to censor their expressions of faith.