PINE BLUFFS – In Maryland, death penalty opponents are at it again! Democrat Governor Martin O’Malley’s desire to repeal the death penalty statute, re-enacted in that state in 1978 but seldom used, has everything to do with placating his liberal Democrat base, and nothing to do with looking after the welfare of the citizens of his state.

          Proponents of repeal argue that Maryland’s death penalty law has not resulted in

any reduction in the total number of murders in that state, and as such it is neither a deterrent nor an act of retribution. They overlook the fact that, in at least one case – that of the perpetrator – it is both a deterrent and an act of retribution. A murderer, carefully tried, convicted and sentenced to death in accordance with constitutionally required due process of law is, well … deterred.

          To conclude that repeal is the way to go, Mr. O’Malley ignores statistics, both national and state, that clearly demonstrate the positive effects of capital punishment on murder rates. To see this, let’s start by comparing the number of murders in Texas and Virginia during 2004 - 2007 with the number of murders in Maryland during those same years. Why select these states? Because prosecutors in Texas and Virginia – populous states that had death penalty laws on the books during that time period – aggressively pursue the death penalty, while Maryland does not enforce its’ statute:

Comparison of the number of Murders in Maryland with the numbers in Texas and Virginia during the period 2004-2007:

Year:            Maryland       Texas           Virginia

2004             521              1,364            390             

2005             522              1,407            458                       

2006             546              1,384            399             

2007             553              1,420            406                                 

          In the table above, you’ll note that the number of murders in Texas exceeded the number of murders in Maryland during the sample period. Many more people reside in Texas and Virginia than in Maryland. During these sample years, Texas was our second most populous state, and Virginia hosted a population about one and one-half times larger than Maryland’s. Next, to get a better understanding of what the figures are telling us, the populations of the three sample states should be compared.

Comparison of Populations of Texas and Virginia with the population of Maryland during the period 2004-2007:

Murder Rates in Maryland, Texas and Virginia per 100,000 people during the period 2004-2007:

2004             9.4            6.1           5.2

2005             9.9            6.2           6.1

2006             9.7            5.9           5.2

          Even as Maryland and a few other states debate whether or not to stop executing criminals, Texas, for many years the national leader in executions, has picked up its pace in the first two and a half months of 2009, marking its 11^th and 12^th executions during the second week of March. It is on a pace to eclipse its 2008 number (18), which was a lower than average figure that year due to the freeze placed on executions nationally by the Supreme Court as it studied whether or not the lethal injection method might be unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment.  

          Why has Maryland not seen a reduction in either the number of murders, or its murder rate? Simply because, even though the death penalty statute has been on the books since 1978, it has not been used much – not sought or applied by prosecutors, who cite numerous reasons for not doing so, including the expense of prosecuting a murder case. What they leave unstated is that Maryland is effectively a one-party state, where Democrats control the Legislature and most city and county governments. That means that with the two notable exceptions mentioned below, the vast majority of legislators and prosecutors in Maryland are liberal Democrats, who own a philosophical bias against the death penalty. That bias long ago surfaced as a racial argument – that blacks are disproportionately executed in Maryland – even though recent statistics show that this is not accurate.  

          Mr. O’Malley is cut from the same cloth. Since moving into the Governor’s office in Annapolis in 2006, he has frequently stated his desire to eliminate the death penalty. In 2009, he urged the Legislature to abolish the death penalty. A bill to do just that was introduced in the Maryland Senate. It seemed likely to sail through.

          But perhaps there’s hope for the people of Maryland. The 47-member Senate rejected Mr. O’Malley’s repeal plan, and on March 4, 2009, announced a “compromise” of sorts on the death penalty repeal bill by amending the existing bill [rather than killing it – no pun intended] to further restrict capital prosecutions – perhaps at least partially recognizing the wishes of many Marylanders who support the death penalty, but nevertheless, choosing exactly the wrong way to go in a state where gangs of thugs in Baltimore, for example, terrorize its large black population with a murder almost daily. Here’s why I say that.

          The proposed revision to the law would preclude murder cases where the only evidence is eyewitness testimony (which liberals deem unreliable), and in turn, require DNA evidence, videotaped evidence, or a voluntary, videotaped confession. After announcing the “compromise,” Senate President Thomas V. “Mike” Miller, a Democrat and death penalty supporter, said his chamber would not take up any further debate [on the issue] this session. Governor O'Malley then acknowledged that reform was the best he could hope for this year, and urged delegates to abandon repeal in favor of the Senate plan.

          However, in the view of some death penalty supporters, the limitations are tantamount to actual repeal. Maryland’s Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler, a former Montgomery County prosecutor and another death penalty supporter, was quoted as saying that the legislature's compromise "significantly limits the death penalty so as to almost nullify it in the state of Maryland."

          But both Maryland’s Attorney General and President of the Senate are now on record as supporting the death penalty. That bodes well for efforts to keep the statute alive.

          Look for advocates of this change to continue repeal efforts. They cite the findings of a “bi-partisan commission” appointed by the Governor in March 2008 but denounced by Republicans as a “stacked deck,” since proponents of Governor O’Malley’s repeal position occupied twelve of the nineteen Commission seats. At the time, a Republican Delegate from Cecil County said, “The outcome [of the Commission’s work] will be that the death penalty is racially biased, that it’s cruel and unusual punishment, and that it’s more costly to use the death penalty than life in prison.” Other Republicans labeled it “a decision waiting for a process to validate it.”

          As predicted, Marylanders were told that the Commission “carefully studied” the states’ death penalty and recommended abolishing it. But most students of the political scene understand that the appointment of a commission to “study a problem and recommend a solution” is a tactic frequently resorted to by governors, and even presidents, when they recognize a controversial issue and do not want to take responsibility for any change. That way, they cannot be blamed if a commission which they appointed returns with an unworkable solution, or one that proves unpopular with the voters.

          Approximately two-thirds of the American public believes in capital punishment. I support that belief. Even though I was, for a time, a defense attorney, I feel there are some criminal defendants who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer by committing a murder or murders with aggravating circumstances present. Human life is sacred. It cheapens the life of an innocent murder victim to say that society has no right to keep the murderer from ever killing again. It’s my view that society has not only the right, but the duty to act in self-defense to protect its innocent and weaker members.

          The astronomic number of murders in the state of Maryland each year is disturbing. It should no longer be tolerated by the citizens of “the line state.” However, as long as the voters continue to elect Democrats to public office, there will be no “change we can believe in,” and more innocent people will die at the hands of merciless killers.   

Anthony Joseph Sacco, Sr., a writer, licensed private investigator, author of two novels; The China Connection, and Little Sister Lost, and a biography, Echoes in the Wind, holds degrees from Loyola University of Maryland and the University of Maryland Law School. His articles have appeared in the Washington Times, Baltimore Sun, Voices for the Unborn, the Catholic Review, WREN Magazine and the Wyoming Catholic Register. E-mail him at anthonyjsacco@hotmail.com, and visit his website at www.saccoservices.com.  

Prior to September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, or against U.S. citizens and military personnel in other parts of the world, had been carried out numerous times. (For a comprehensive list by year, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents). Those receiving the most media attention were the first World Trade Center bombing on February 26, 1993, when a car bomb exploded below Tower One, intended to knock the North Tower into the South Tower and bring both down, killing thousands. Although the demonic plan failed, it did kill 6 people and injured 1,042; and the USS Cole attack on October 12, 2000, when a small craft loaded with C-4 explosives blew up alongside the Arleigh Burke class destroyer while it was making a routine re-fueling stop in the port of Aden, Yemen. The blast killed 17 sailors and injured 37.

At least two other noteworthy terrorist incidents that did not garner much attention at the time were: January 25, 1993, when Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fired an AK-47 rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of CIA headquarters in Virginia, killing 2 and injuring 3 others; and March 1, 1994, the Brooklyn Bridge shooting, when Rashid Baz killed a Hasidic Jewish seminary student and wounded 4 on the bridge in New York City.

But Democrat President, William Jefferson Clinton, in the White House from January 1993 to January 2001, failed to recognize what was happening; that radical Islam had declared war on the United States. Consequently, little if anything was done militarily to serve notice on the Arab World that the United States would act promptly and decisively to avenge these incidents, protect itself against Islamic extremists, and otherwise join the battle. Further, Clinton continued the outmoded policy of arresting and trying terrorists in our criminal courts, despite the fact that this resulted in long delays in apprehending the perpetrators, and huge expense to American taxpayers as the legal system ground its way through trials and numerous appeals. He and his minions completely ignored the fact that as enemy combatants, terrorists are subject to the terms of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the protections afforded to them therein, not the due process rights guaranteed to American citizens by our Constitution.

However, all that changed in 2001. George W. Bush moved into the White House in January that year, full of bipartisan zeal, and eager to attack the serious problems – foreign and domestic – that faced us. Little is known as to how his presidency might have impacted those problems, because just eight months later - in September - Mr. Bush was forced to radically alter whatever his plans had been, and devote almost his entire time and energy to a “war on terror” which was thrust upon us.

Because of the policies Mr. Bush has pursued since then, our country has been free of any further attacks like those described above. His actions involved revamping the intelligence community so that CIA and FBI now work together, monitoring terrorist communications that originate outside of America’s borders, and taking the fight to the enemy abroad, by searching out and destroying its training camps and sanctuaries.

But by far his biggest and most important undertaking was the creation of a new Cabinet level organization: the Department of Homeland Security.

In the face of numerous threats to the security of the United States, an entity was needed to come to grips with and attempt to manage the risks. President Bush saw this and moved quickly to establish this agency, appointing Pennsylvania Governor, Tom Ridge as its first Secretary. Later, on February 15, 2005, Michael Chertoff, who previously served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, where he prosecuted several noteworthy cases, and as an Assistant U.S. Attorney General, where he headed up the Criminal Division and co-authored the Patriot Act, became the second Secretary of this new and important cabinet Department, overseeing a $40 billion dollar budget (2008 figure) and coordinating 22 distinct agencies and programs, employing 218,501 employees, approximately 81% of them civilian, and 19% military personnel.

“On an average day,” said Mr. Chertoff in an op-ed piece in The Washington Times (CHERTOFF: Keeping America Safe, 12/26/2008), “the men and women of my department will screen more than 2 million domestic air travelers, inspect more than 300,000 vehicles crossing our borders, check more than 70,000 shipping containers for dangerous materials, and secure thousands of pieces of critical infrastructure.”

The Department’s overriding mission is to lead a unified national effort to secure the country and preserve our freedoms. While it was created to secure the United States against those who seek to disrupt the American way of life, its charter also includes preparation for and response to all hazards and disasters, including events like Hurricane Katrina.

Recognizing that it is impossible to provide “perfect security” to a country as large as the United States, with borders joining Canada (5,525 miles), and Mexico (1,969 miles), and two seacoasts with numerous busy ports, Mr. Chertoff understands that it is probably impossible to eliminate all risks. “Our goal and [former] President Bush’s vision has been to provide risk-based protection against the most significant threats, reduce our major vulnerabilities, and mitigate potential consequences, with minimal disruption and inconvenience,” he said. “I believe we have achieved these aims. Across land, sea, and air, our nation is better equipped to deal with threats of the 21^st century. In many cases, we have implemented programs and capabilities that did not exist prior to September 11.”

He is correct. The task has been daunting. In the transportation field, more than 20 layers of security have been added to airline travel. These include federal air marshals on many flights, 100 per cent screening of passengers and their bags, hardened cockpit doors, and heightened cargo security requirements. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), comprised of 43,000 security officers, inspectors, directors, air marshals, and managers who protect our nation’s transportation systems so we can travel safely, look for bombs at border checkpoints and in airports, inspect rail cars, patrol subways with law enforcement partners, and work to make all modes of transportation safe.

During the week of January 20 –January 25, 2009, TSA reports that 9 passengers were arrested due to suspicious behavior or fraudulent travel documents, 16 firearms were found at checkpoints, 4 artfully concealed prohibited items were discovered, and 12 incidents that involved a checkpoint closing, terminal evacuation, or sterile area breach were processed.

In the area of Immigration, the Department’s most significant accomplishment has been with the U.S. Border Patrol. It has met President Bush’s goal of doubling the workforce during his presidency from around 8,000 agents to its present force of over 18,000. According to Border Patrol officials, the additional personnel have helped elevate drug seizures and apprehensions of illegals coming across the border.

Just in time, too. The country is reeling under the impact of illegal aliens streaming across what was once a porous southern border. Many communities, conscious of the slogan, “We are a nation of immigrants,” have attempted to provide jobs and services to these people, even though that slogan is not altogether accurate; it is more correct to say, “We are a nation of legal immigrants.” Perhaps these statistics, taken from an article appearing in the Los Angeles Times, a newspaper not known for supporting conservative causes, might bring some perspective to the problem:

1. 40%of all workers in LA County, California (LA County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.
10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish. (There are 10.2 million people in LA County).
11. Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on
    welfare.
12. Over 70% of the United States' annual population growth (and over
    90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.
13. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

And that’s not the half of it. Just look at these statistics regarding what is spent annually to support this invasion of illegals from our neighbor to the south. For ease of checking, the URLs have been included so you can confirm these facts yourself:

1. Nationally, $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments. Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77<http://tinyurl.com/zob77>

2.  $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html>
 
3.  $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html>

4.  $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English. Verify at:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI PTS/0604/01/ldt.0.h tml <

5.   $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html <

6.  $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html <

7.  30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html <

8.  $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. Verify at:
http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html <

9.  $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by illegal aliens. Verify at: < BR>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html <

10.  The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens.  In particular, some experts believe that their children are going to create a huge additional crime problem in the US. Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html <

11.  During 2005, there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border, and also as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries.  Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.  Verify at: Homeland Security Report:  http://tinyurl.com/t9sht <
http://tinyurl.com/t9sht>

12.  The National Policy Institute “estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.” Verify at:  http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf.

13.  In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. This means that the United States is supporting the economies of Mexico and a few other nations. Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm.

14.  "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States." Verify at:
http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml <http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml>

The total cost of all this is a whopping $ 338.3 billion dollars each year.

Surely these are sobering statistics. Those who champion open borders and work to protect illegals once they arrive “seeking only a better life for themselves and their families,” must understand that these illegal aliens are violating U.S. sovereignty and breaking the laws of their new country - as their very first act in setting foot in America. That is NOT the way my grandparents, and probably yours, came to America. It cannot be tolerated any longer. We are a nation of compassionate people. In times of emergency, no country on Earth gives more aid and assistance to others. But when that compassion – and our generosity - are abused and taken advantage of (ever hear of the Reconquista Movement in southwestern United States?) we can and must take action to protect ourselves.

Some progress is being made. In the interior, according to Mr. Chertoff, “. . . we have arrested record numbers of illegal aliens, including more than 11,000 gang members, 34,000 fugitives. We also have cracked down on employers who violate immigration laws, while giving businesses better tools, such as E-Verify, to maintain a legal work force. The result has been a historical reversal of illegal immigration, with no net increase in the illegal immigrant population in our country for the first time in decades.”

What’s E-Verify? A voluntary program that allows private employers to ensure electronically that their new hires are eligible to work in the United States. In just one year it has processed more than 4 million eligible checks, and 82,000 employers have taken advantage of the free service.

The system has proven to be quite effective,” explains James Carafano of The Heritage Foundation, “and SSA and DHS continue to work to improve service, reliability, and privacy protections.”

Knowing that business is (or at least, was) driving the illegal immigration problem, recent raids on large corporations that hire numerous illegals have been conducted recently. And an end to “Catch and Release” policies followed by two Democrat Administrations in the ‘90s, whereby illegals were arrested, processed, assigned a trial date and released on their own recognizance never to be seen again, has been mandated. Also resources have been assigned to end gang violence, which is among the most difficult of criminal activity to quell. All this is good news indeed.

Other accomplishments of the Department of Homeland Security include the building of hundreds of miles of pedestrian and vehicle fencing, including an attempt at a “virtual fence” of about 128 miles, and adding new technology to prevent entry of terrorists, criminals, illegal aliens, and dangerous drugs and weapons.

With so much of its resources devoted to the southern border, what about our seaports? Radiation scanning equipment has been deployed to check almost 100% of incoming cargo for weapons of mass destruction. Before September 11, no cargo was scanned for such threats. And in an interesting innovation, U.S. inspectors have been stationed overseas to screen cargo as it leaves foreign ports.

Driving across America, one can’t help but notice large numbers of oil, gas, and chemical plants, which appear unprotected and vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Is anything being done there? Mr. Chertoff again. “We now require high risk facilities to develop security plans and harden their assets. We have implemented new regulations for chemicals traveling by rail. To guard against biological threats, we have developed early warning systems for 30 major metropolitan areas under the Bio Watch program. We have built new national facilities to characterize and respond to biological attacks. And to counter emergency threats in cyberspace, we have launched a major, multi-agency initiative to protect cyber systems and infrastructure.”

Since 2001, excluding Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorists have killed more than 20,000 innocent people and wounded more than 43,000 around the world. But not one of these has happened in the United States.  According to Mr. Chertoff, “That is a testament to the president’s [Bush’s] leadership and to the deliberate efforts of the 218,000 men and women of the Department of Homeland Security who serve our nation today.”     

Anthony Joseph Sacco, Sr., a writer, licensed private investigator, author of two novels; The China Connection, and Little Sister Lost, and a biography, Echoes in the Wind, holds degrees from Loyola University of Maryland and the University of Maryland Law School. His articles have appeared in the Washington Times, Baltimore Sun, Voices for the Unborn, the Catholic Review, WREN Magazine and the Wyoming Catholic Register. E-mail him at anthonyjsacco@hotmail.com, and visit his website at www.saccoservices.com.

          Because I think what the secularists have done with Saint Valentine's Day is deplorable, and because Christians have apparently, perhaps unknowingly, let it happen, I searched for and found a description of who these mysterious Saints were, when they lived and died, why we actually celebrate this holiday, and its religious significance to Christians worldwide.

          Saint Valentine's Day, as we know it today, contains vestiges of both Christian and ancient Roman tradition. Who was Saint Valentine and how did he become associated with this ancient rite? Today, the Christian religions recognize at least three legends about the real Saint Valentine. Musty historical vestiges from a lost age? No. The Saint Valentine legends clearly refer to heroic men who stood on principal, and who are worthy of emulation in today’s world.

            Three different Saint Valentines, all of them martyrs, appear in martyrologies under the date February 14. One is described as a priest in Rome, another as bishop of Interamna Nahars (modern Terni, capital city of Terni Province in the Umbria region of Central Italy). These two men both suffered in the second half of the third century and were buried on the Flaminian Way but at different distances from the city. In William of Malmesbury’s time, what was known to the ancients as the Flaminian Gate of Rome, and is now the Porta del Popolo, was called the Gate of Saint Valentine.  The name seems to have been taken from a small church dedicated to the saint which was in the immediate neighborhood. A third Valentine apparently lived and suffered in Africa, but little is known about him. ions, nothing further is known.

Africa a number of companions, nothing further is known.

          One legend contends that Valentine was a priest who served during the third century in Rome. When Emperor Claudius II decided that single men made better soldiers than those with wives and families, he outlawed marriage for young men — his crop of potential soldiers. Valentine, realizing the injustice of the decree, defied Claudius and continued to perform marriages for young lovers in secret. When Valentine's actions were discovered, Claudius ordered that he be put to death.

             Another story suggests that Valentine may have been killed for attempting to help Christians escape harsh Roman prisons where they were often beaten and tortured.

          According to yet another legend, Valentine actually sent the first 'valentine' greeting himself. While in prison, it is believed that Valentine fell in love with a young girl — who may have been his jailor's daughter — who visited him during his confinement. Before his death, it is alleged that he wrote her a letter, which he signed 'From your Valentine,' an expression that is still in use today.

          Although the accuracy of the Valentine legends is murky, the stories certainly emphasize their appeal as sympathetic, heroic, and romantic figures, who suffered and died for a cause. It's no surprise that by the Middle Ages, Valentine was one of the most popular saints in England and France.

            I don't know about you, but I'm tired of seeing secularist efforts like this one going unchallenged. They’ve almost completely succeeded in removing any religious meaning from this holiday, all because of the feeling in some quarters (secular media, some publishing houses, Madison Avenue advertising, to name three) that to express any religious sentiment in the public forum might offend a few. Talk about the tyranny of the minority! Their determined attack to remove Christmas from our society almost succeeded, and would have succeeded if it weren't for groups like the Alliance Defense Fund, which mounted a counter-attack in the courts and schools to stop that effort in its tracks.
 
          I think we should mount another counter-attack; this one to "take back" the St. Valentine's Day holiday. What about you?

          If you agree, the first thing you can do is to refer all your relatives and friends to the site of this article, with instructions to read it and e-mail it to everyone on their e-mail lists.
 

          The second action you might take is to write or e-mail the advertisers mentioned in Mr. Solman’s article (those who advertise on That’s So Raven, and that Vermont Teddy Bear ad might be good places to start), telling them you disapprove and urging them not to repeat their disgusting ads next year.

          At least, these actions might put a small dent in the secularist’s effort to turn a basically Christian religious holiday into yet another salacious, commercial non-event.