God Save America

H.R 4437, Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act 2005: The Foreboding National ID cards are coming!

Illegal aliens, criminals and terrorist from abroad have always found it easy to cross into the United States through is mostly unguarded boarders. And once in the U.S. they can usually operate and live without fear of detection. But the Congress is planning to change all that through new legislation, H.R 4437, Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act 2005.

But, once when this new law goes into effect, so goes into effect a National ID system for all legal and illegal citizens.  The beginning of SEC. 707. REPORT ON SOCIAL SECURITY CARD-BASED EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION states:

A requirement that social security cards that are made of a durable plastic or similar material and that include an encrypted, machine-readable electronic identification strip and a digital photograph of the individual to whom the card is issued, be issued to each individual (whether or not a United States citizen)

For years our government has wanted to issue some form of national identity card, and they have always meet with much resistance by the voters. But because of the threat of terrorism, our government is trying to convince us that the time has come for the ID cards, if he battle against terrorism is to succeed.

However, if our government had properly protected our borders most of the illegals and terrorist would have been stopped. The government needed a good reason for the national ID cards, and now they have one albeit for a problem that the government was responsible for creating in the first place.

Today, with all the new technology, these ID cards will make it easier to track everyone’s activities in our country. This will result in some loss of freedoms for law abiding citizens.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The activist courts are at it again. This time the sanctity of life of an unborn is in questioned. Depending on who terminates the life of the unborn the judgment could vary form a slap on the hand to life in prison.

Last month the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled in favor of a pregnant woman charged with killing her unborn child by ingesting crystal methamphetamine shortly before his birth. Tayshea Aiwohi, who was found guilty in connection with the death of her newborn son was found not-guilty by the high court because they ruled an unborn child was not a "person" when Tayshea was smoking the drugs, therefore, she could not be prosecuted for harming the infant in her womb.

Was this court asleep at the bench? A new-born baby dies because of his mother’s actions, and yet the mother walks away a free person.

Interestingly, while pregnant mothers are shielded from prosecution for their own detrimental behavior, others are not. Under the new, federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, people other than the mother who cause the death of an unborn child can face prosecution for the baby’s demise. This act, also known as "Laci and Conner’s Law," was enacted in the wake of the murder of Laci Peterson of Modesto, Calif., and her unborn son by her husband Scott Peterson.

This is a double standard that deserves attention and correction. The message is it is alright for a mother to kill her unborn baby.

Last June, Gerardo Flores of Texas was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison after kicking his pregnant girlfriend repeatedly in the stomach to cause her to lose the couple’s twins. The girlfriend, Erica Basoria, did not want the babies to be born and allowed Flores to kick her, but she was not charged with any wrongdoing by the state of Texas.

Who is to say that Tayshea Aiwohi’s boyfriend did not force or encourage her to take the crystal methamphetamine?

It has become a bad omen when death of a helpless newborn is justified by our courts. And this precedent is not good for the pro-life groups.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.