ANCHOR BABY: ANOTHER LEFTIST ATTEMPT AT CENSORSHIP

“Anchor babies” are identified as such because their parents are illegally in the country and the parents are fully aware that once the child is born he/she/they are immediately eligible for government handouts, among these are WIC subsidies, Food Stamps, housing assistance and welfare and may even include, under the Obama administration, legal residency. This term is used to quickly refer to the situation of these children while economizing words. This method of creating terms for people is quite common in society. I don’t recall anyone ever objecting to the term “crack babies”; a term used to describe children who are born to mothers that are addicted to crack cocaine. Is this a form of racial slur? Is this a detestable label? How about “welfare mother” or “soccer mom” or DINK (dual income no kids), or Yuppie (young upwardly mobile), or X-genner, Y-genner? And what about the use of the term “Tea bagger,” is this also a detestable label? This term is also meant to punish, degrade and dehumanize. No-one on the left ever called for the end to its use?  Personally I find the term Chicano offensive but I have never called for the end of its use. This indignation is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize and silence anyone who disagrees with the left's view on illegal immigration: if you use the term you are racist and therefore your ideas are not worth listening to.

The left wants to silence anyone who takes a position against their agenda. This does not, however, change the dynamics of the phenomenon we know today as anchor babies. The United States is broke and indebted up to its ears; unfettered immigration is steadily increasing that debt as more and more illegal immigrants come across the border with the sole intention of giving birth to their children in the United States in an effort to abuse the system and to take advantage of the American people.

The left claims that birth-right citizenship is a constitutional right, when, in fact, Rule of Naturalization is a power given to the Legislative branch under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;” This would make it statutory, not Constitutional. I’m
sure that the left would then point to the 14^th Amendment as Constitutional proof, but even Senator Howard, who wrote the 14^th Amendment explicitly stated that it was not intended to apply to aliens: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers”… Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, elaborated: "What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means ... It cannot be said of any (one) who owes allegiance ... to some other government that he is 'subject' to the jurisdiction of the United States."

If the left wants people to stop the use of the term “anchor baby” they should support efforts to eliminate the situation which creates this category of people. If illegal immigration is the root cause of what society calls “anchor babies” then the logical solution is to eliminate, as much as possible, illegal immigration. But this is not part of the left's agenda; they merely want to squelch people’s right to express their opposition to illegal immigration by feigning indignation instead of talking about a real solution to the illegal immigration problem in the United States.   

A Public Service Message to Pro-life Candidates

As the election cycle begins for 2014 I am publishing this post as Public Service to Pro-Life conservatives.  As an observer of politics I often see politicians attempting to explain their position but unable to articulate the message.  It is important for the truth about abortion to come to light and to elect candidates who support life.  So in an effort to help conservative pro-life candidates get their message across I have written this post.  One warning!  IF you are not really pro-life, don't make the argument, you will be exposed!

This post all started with a conversation I had with an acquaintance. I was asked why I am so staunchly pro-life. My answer could have been as simple as, “I am Catholic.” Since Catholic Church doctrine is against abortion, so am I. If I were to give this response, it would reduce the issue of abortion into a theological discussion and would weaken my argument. I have contemplated my position and have distilled it down to a very simple direct and concise sentence which conveys the moral principle.

Abortion is to kill innocent human beings.

That is the sum total of the argument. The beauty of this sentence is it's simplicity and the fact that the statement is empirically true. If we deconstruct the sentence word by word, it is impossible for anyone to argue that it is untrue. So, I will begin with the last word first and work my way to the first. I will use the Miriam-Webster on-line dictionary; the definitions will be in italics.

Definition of BEING

1

a :  the quality or state of having existence

b (1) :  something conceivable as existing (2) :  something that actually exists (3) :  the totality of existing things

c :  conscious existence :  life

2

:  the qualities that constitute an existent thing :  essence;especially :  personality

3

:  a living thing; especially :  person

Based on the definition above and based on what we know scientifically; once an egg is fertilized by a sperm a zygote is formed. There is no doubt whatsoever that this zygote exists. Its existence is verifiable and undeniable. We have pictures of zygotes as well as measurements. The zygote divides itself every 20 hours; by the time it is an adult human being it is “made up of about 60-90 trillion cells.” So, since the zygote begins to grow immediately from the first day of conception it can also be said that it is a “living being.” Logic dictates that anything which can replicate and grow is alive, and “the cell is the smallest unit of life... It means that the cell is the smallest living thing capable of replicating.” Any one can argue about the size of a zygote but can not argue that it does not exist nor that it is not a living being.

Definition of HUMAN

1

:  of, relating to, or characteristic of humans

2

:  consisting of humans

3

a :  having human form or attributes

b :  susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature

Since I have established that a zygote exists at the moment that an egg is fertilized by a sperm and is therefore a being the next step is to establish whether or not it is human. Based on the definition the “being,” previously established, is human; since the egg has 23 chromosomes from the human female and the sperm has 23 chromosomes from the human male. There can be no argument that the existing being is not human, since the chromosomes carry the DNA which contain all the genetic data which carry the characteristic of each of the contributing humans. The man and woman are both human therefore the resulting zygote “being” must be human. It can not be anything else, it is certainly not bovine, equine or canine or gorilla for that matter.

So to this point we have established a human being: something having existence which is of and has the characteristic of humans (DNA).

Definition of INNOCENT

1

a :  free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil :  blameless b :  harmless in effect or intention; also :  candid c :  free from legal guilt or fault; also :  lawful 

The human being in its earliest stages of development is free from any guilt, it cannot be at fault for its own existence or creation. Since its existence was a result of intercourse between a human male and a human female and not the causation, the “human being” can not be guilty of its own existence. This is in no way a commentary as to the circumstances by which the “human being” was created. In the case of rape, there is no argument that a man who rapes a woman is in any way, shape or form justified. In fact any man guilty of rape should, rightfully, be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. My point here is that the result, the creation of a “human being” through pregnancy, should not be confused with the causation, intercourse between a man and a woman.

Definition of KILL

transitive verb

1

a :  to deprive of life :  cause the death ofb (1) :  to slaughter (as a hog) for food (2) :  to convert a food animal into (a kind of meat) by slaughtering

2

a :  to put an end to b :  defeat, veto 
c :  to mark for omission; also :  delete

d :  annihilate, destroy 

Since I have already established that the “human being” is alive and that from its creation this human being begins to grow, it is logical to say that any deliberate action to force that human being to stop growing is depriving that human being of life. To kill something is to stop it from growing or replicating. It is irrelevant whether that something is a virus, a bacteria, a plant or an animal; once it can not longer grow as a result of a deliberate action it can be said that it has been killed. A weed can be killed in a myriad of ways; chemically with pesticides or physically by pulling it out by the roots, either way the result is the same. And either way it is killing weeds.

Pro-abortion forces will, and have for many years, obfuscated these empirical truths. They have done this by using medical terms in an effort to distract people from the reality that is abortion. It doesn't sound very bad if you say, “I terminated the pregnancy,” versus “I killed an innocent human being.”

That is what abortion is. Abortion is the action of causation and the effect is to kill an innocent human being. When couched in this manner it is impossible for anyone to discredit the statement. From a strictly objective perspective the statement is undeniable and unassailable. And by any measure the statement is the truth.

Abortion is to kill innocent human beings.

Today

Today on this day, with the world as witness and before God in heaven I confess to you that you are the love of my life.  This day commemorates the day that you changed and renewed my life.  The day I stopped being “me” and began being “us.”

Since that day, my life has not been the same.  I will never again wake up without looking to see if you are by my side.  Never again will I come home without expecting you to be there. Never again will I look at our children and not see you in their eyes.  Never again will I go to sleep at night without thanking God that you are mine; my wife; my partner; my love.

You have changed my life in so many ways; some obvious and some almost imperceptible.  I don’t deny that we have had our difficult times, but we have also had so many happy moments, moments of tenderness and moments of passion.  I have all those moments saved in my thoughts and in my heart.  And no matter what happens, I know that I will have the memories of our life together to inspire me, console me, and to strengthen me. 

Maybe I don’t deserve you.  Maybe you are entirely too good for me.  But it is not important how you came to love me; nor how you came to need me; nor why you decided to stay with me.  It is enough for me that you said “yes”; that you want to spend your life with me; that you want to be my wife; that you want to live with me and our children.  I know that sound selfish, but I don’t care how you came to be mine, only that you are mine.

I thank the Eternal Lord that he put you in my path, and I thank you for accepting me.  Although I may be a sad, broken, imperfect and flawed man; I am completely and irrevocably yours.

I love you! I Love You! I LOVE YOU!

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, MY LOVE.



(from FOB Salerno, Afghanistan)

Hoy

Hoy en este día con todo el mundo como testigo y ante Dios en el cielo te 
confieso que eres el amor de mi vida.  Este día conmemora el día que cambiaste y renovaste mi vida.  El día que paré de ser “yo” y que empecé ser “nosotros.”

Desde ese día, mi vida jamas ha sido la misma.  Jamas despertaré sin ver si estas a mi lado.  Jamas llegaré a casa, sin esperar que estés allí.  Jamas podré mirar nuestros niños sin verte en sus ojos.  Jamas me acostaré por la noche sin darle gracias a Dios que eres mía; mi esposa;  mi pareja; mi amor.

Has cambiado me vida de tantas formas; algunas obvias y algunas casi imperceptibles.  No niego que hemos tenido nuestros tiempos difíciles, pero también hemos tenido tantos momentos felices, momentos de ternura y momentos de pasión.  Todos esos momentos los tengo guardados en mis pensamientos y en mi corazón.  Y pase lo que pase, se que tendré los recuerdos de nuestra vida juntos para inspirarme, consolarme y fortalecerme.

Tal vez no te merezco. Tal vez eres demasiada buena para mi. Pero no me importa como llegaste a amarme; ni como llegaste a necesitarme; ni porque decidiste quedarte conmigo.  Solamente me basta que me dijiste “sí”; que quieres pasar la vida conmigo; que quieres ser mi esposa; y que quieres vivir conmigo y con nuestros hijos.  Sé que se oye egoísta, pero no me importa como fuiste a ser mía, sino que eres mía.

Le doy gracias al Señor Eterno que te puso en mi camino, y te doy gracias a ti que me aceptaste.  Aunque yo sea un hombre triste, roto, fallado, e imperfecto; así soy irrevocablemente y completamente tuyo.

Te amo! Te Amo! Te AMO!!

FELIZ ANIVERSARIO, MI AMOR.

(desde FOB Salerno, Afghanistan)

BILL CLINTON ENDORSES NEWT GINGRICH??

Many pundits, analysts, and media types are wondering how the voters of South Carolina could favor Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney and the other candidates.

There is a lot to be said for his performance at the two debates prior to the primary and that may have had a lot to do with it. But beyond that I think that former President Bill Clinton gives us a small glimpse into why voters are ignoring all the “establishment” Republicans who have endorsed Mitt Romney. (Among those that have endorsed him are John Sununu, John McCain, Tim Pawlenty, Bob Dole, Jon Huntsman, Lisa Murkowski, and Nikki Haley).

In his interview with Bill O'Reilly, in response to a question of whether he respected Newt Gingrich as a man, Clinton responded:

"I don't disrespect anybody who works with me in good faith. He was way more political than I would have been. He defended what he calls 'scorched-earth politics' and I certainly was the beneficiary of that.”

I interpret this to mean: Newt didn't care who he angered as long as he did what was necessary to accomplish the goals that he had set, and I (Bill Clinton) got to reap the rewards by getting a second term as president.

In that one sentence Bill Clinton tells all conservatives what they need to know about Newt.

1. Newt is unapologetic about doing what is necessary to advance the Conservative cause and do what is right for the country.
2. Establishment republicans didn't like Newt's leadership because he didn't care about their individual fiefdoms.
3. Newt was honest in his dealings and negotiations with the president which is why Bill Clinton agreed to the legislation passed by the house. (Which would lead one to believe that the President would have urged the Senate to also pass the legislation).
4. He challenged republicans to cross him, but they didn't dare, because they knew they would be exposed politically.

I for one want that in my speaker and more importantly in my President. I want my President to be passionate. I want him to take members of his own party to task for abandoning conservative principles. I want him to take no prisoners when it comes to passing legislation that is right for the country, even if it isn't politically popular within his congressional caucus. Welfare reform passed with 226 of 235 Republican representatives voting in favor, with 30 Democrats. This sounds like leadership to me. 225 Republicans voted in favor the Tax cuts passed in 1997, along with 164 Democrats. Is that not leadership????? Where were all these Congressmen then? Where were their cries of explosive personality and instability?

Most of the “Republicans” complaining about how Newt is a bad leader cannot seem to explain how he persuaded them to vote with him. Most seen to imply that he was combative, confrontational and explosive. The question is never asked: If Newt had not had these traits, would republicans have been able to get welfare reform passed, cut taxes and balance the budget?? And more importantly, if Newt had not been the Speaker of the House would Republicans have even tried?

Probably not.

I CANNOT

On a dark and moonless night I look up
and can see a million miles away
as the way off stars of the Milky Way
sparkle across the expansive distance.
But, I cannot look into to your dark beautiful eyes
as they twinkle with love and mischief.

I can hear the roaring of cargo plane engines
as they land on the runway
and helicopter rotars as they lift off the ground  
But, I cannot hear our children laughing and begging me
to spin them around, one more time.

I can smell the acrid oder of fires burning
in the distance and of jet fuel exhaust
rising from the airfield.
But, I cannot smell  your perfume
that gently wafts through the air
to let me know that you have been here.

I am here and you are there.
separated by thousands of miles,
continents and oceans,
on the other side of earth.

But, I cannot escape feeling for you
the same as I did when we first met.
I cannot avoid needing you
as much as I ever did.
And, I cannot ask for a more perfect person
to call “My Love.”

To my wife Tania
From Foward Operating Base Salerno

ATHEISM AND THE DOCTRINE OF NOTHING

I continue to see  and read in the news about atheist organizations which bring suit upon suit against municipalities, schools and other public institutions and it got me to wondering; what is it that these people want?  And then it hit me like a thunderbolt, they want us to believe in the same thing they believe in.  You see... atheism is a belief system like any other.  Unlike theism, or the belief in God (or gods), atheism is believe in no god.  You may think that I am stating the obvious, but when you use the suffix -ism, by definition it is a belief or doctrine.  Think about it! Mono-theism is a belief in one god.  Poly-theism is belief in many gods.  Buddahism is belief in Buddah as god.  Protestantism is the belief in one of the protestant religions. Judaism is the belief in the Jewish religion. Catholicism is belief in the Catholic religion, and so on.  But it isn’t just religion, per se; there is agnosticism, mysticism, capitalism, socialism, and communism.  All of these are belief systems of one type or another and they all have a doctrine to which they are beholden. 

So what is the the doctrine of atheism, aside from the obvious disbelief in a god.  Well, that is where it gets interesting.  As far as I can tell they believe in nothing.  Christians, Jews, Muslims, all believe that one God created the earth. I am not sure about Buddism, Hinduism and other religions, but I assume they all have a “creation” doctrine.  Atheists believe that nothing created the earth. All of this is merely some sort of accident, without explanation, and from that everything evolved, or some other explanation.  But the bottom line is that they believe that no matter how the earth came to be, God didn’t do it.   That’s fine they can believe that.  

But here is my question, why must the government shut out my belief system and give priority or pre-eminence to the atheist belief system.  The government has unwittingly become an agent of a belief system of unbelief,  a belief system of nothingness.  The government is endorsing the religion of atheism.  A religion that has as its central belief the belief that there is no god.  And the government by forcing the removal of religious displays is endorsing the religion of nothing.   

Atheists don’t want anything to have meaning beyond themselves.  They can believe that there is nothing beyond themselves, that is not at issue.  But, since atheists believe in nothing; they have displays supporting their belief system in front of every courthouse, municipal park, public building  and school for most of the year.   Because for most of the year in front court houses, libraries, schools, and public buildings there is... NOTHING.  All I am saying is that Christians, Jews and any other religion should also be allowed displays which support their beliefs.   We as believers in God (or many gods or mother earth, etc...) should not be forced to deny our God because someone doesn’t believe in anything.  Just because atheists don’t believe in God, does not mean that He does not exist; and it certainly doesn’t mean that the government should surrender to and endorse their doctrine of nothingness. 

Atheists see a cross and it is an offense to them;  since they are unwilling or unable to find in that symbol any meaning to their lives beyond their current existence. It is quite sad, really.   Christians find solace in the cross, whether it is on a mountain top or a grave.  What do atheists put on their graves???  Nothing.  Their journey ends with death, where as a Christian believes that death is merely a weigh station on his journey to a much brighter and happier place.  For an atheist the world ends when he dies.  Since there is no after life and God doesn’t exist... then his family doesn’t exist; his children, his friends, the whole world, all die with him.

Atheists look at the world and see the world.  I look at the world and see all the wonders that God has created.  Trees that live off the the air that I breath out and, in turn, create the oxygen that I breath in.  Hummingbirds and bees that shouldn’t be able to fly but do.  Children whose curiosity never ends and whose lives are just beginning.  I see God in everything and in everyone, although I forget Him much more than I should.  I understand that no matter what I do or what I say or how badly I mess things up, I can turn to God and He will give me comfort and He will give me aid; and when I die, there is a better place, a joyous, happy place where I will see my dad once again, and be with all my loved ones. 

That is what the Nativity scenes are about, they are about hope.  Hope in He who came to the earth to redeem me through His sacrifice.  Christ knew that His life on earth was about more than just Himself, it was about redemption for all of us.  I thank God everyday for without Him my life would have no meaning.   At the end of the day that is what these atheist extremists want to do; take away anything that will remind us of God’s existence and of His sacrifice.  All they accomplish is to remind me even more of my faith and the importance of God in my life.



Have a Merry and Blessed Christmas, and have a Blessed Hanukkah!!!