Originally, I was planning on continuing my discussion of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. However, two editorials in today's Peoria Journal Star have altered that plan. The first was by the Star's editorial board. They are upset because a Congressional committee has been looking into a practice dictated by Illinois's governor. He has issued an order restricting the ability of a pharmacist to refuse to fill an order for an abortion pill. Of course, the editorial does not refer to it as an abortion pill because that would convey that an unborn baby is being murdered.

The editorial basically presents two arguments. First, control over pharmacists and pharmacies should be left to the states. Second, the pharmacies exist for the benefit of the customers and therefore no pharmacist should allow his conscience to interfere with his disbursing abortion pills. Finally, they couldn't help but take a cheap shot at any Congressman who dares to disagree with them. The editorial board continues the usual practice of name calling because that is much easier than discussing facts.

Just as they did in the Terry Schiavo incident, they also try to trivialize the importance of refusing to participate in the murder of unborn babies. In the Terry Schiavo case they tried to equate the starvation death of an injured woman to the need to repair a torn rotator cuff. In this instance, they argue that if pharmacists are allowed to refuse to disburse an abortion pill then they can refuse to disburse other types of medicines as well. (Not that an abortion pill is a medicine!) Medicines that are not intended to murder an unborn baby.

Of course, they ignore the obvious. The law can place strict restrictions on which medicines they may refuse to distribute. They try to make it seem as if an abortion pill is no different than a pill that cures insomnia or removes a blemish from a woman. There is a great deal of difference between being involved in the murder of an unborn baby and dispensing other types of medicine. Duh!!!

Their first argument is let states not Congress regulate pharmacies. I've got an idea. Let states not the U.S. Supreme Court regulate abortion! It is because the Supreme Court rewrote the U.S. Constitution in relation to state abortion laws that the issue has become national in scope. In fact, the courts made abortion a national issue including all related aspects of it such as the provisions for abortion pills. By the way, the ability to even disburse an abortion pill was a national policy not an individual state policy. I wish these people would at least attempt to present the truth!

Secondly, they assert that the perceived needs of a customer are more important than the individual conscience of a pharmacist even if that pharmacist believes his action is aiding the murder of an unborn child. The fact is that some sixty years ago the U.S. and other countries tried and convicted individuals at the Nurnberg Trials for crimes against humanity who argued they were just following orders and following the rule of law as established by the German government. They killed millions under the rule of law and were punished for it. Today, the U.S. courts have allowed the murder of millions of unborn babies under the rule of court law.

The problem for Christians is that they also have to answer to GOD. Do you think GOD will accept the argument that we were forced to participate in the murder of unborn babies because of a governor's edict or a court ruling. If the victorious nations of World War II did not accept that argument, why would GOD? Personally, I would stop being a pharmacist before I would participate in the murder of unborn babies. Can this country afford to lose twenty five percent (my rough guess) of the pharmacists in this nation?

The second editorial was by William Raspberry. Normally, I don't agree with much of what he writes. This time I do! He does an excellent job of pointing out the necessity of fathers in the family. He is writing about Black families but it pertains to all families. GOD intended a family unit of father, mother, and children. When you digress from GOD's plan which HE allows us to do, you do so at your peril! We are reaping the results of that digression. "Do not be deceived: GOD cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows." (Galatians 5:7) Congratulations William. You got it right!

The first election I remember; I was in the fourth grade. I was a liberal Democrat. I consider myself to still basically be a liberal Democrat. I am not a libertine Democrat. There is a great deal of difference. The first time I ever voted for a Republican was in 2000 for President Bush. In 2004, I voted only for Republicans. I will not vote for a Democrat until the libertine Democrats no longer control the party unless a specific Democrat eschews all libertine policies.

One of the basic democratic concepts in this country is that an individual is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The libertine Democrats of today have abandoned that basic concept of government. Nothing new. They have abandoned much of the basic concepts of liberal Democrats to achieve their libertine ends. (I don't care what the Republicans believe or have done in the past in regard to this concept--one of their arguments as to why it is proper to ignore this concept. One is innnocent until proven guilty in a court of law.) Of course this means, the suspicion of guilt; the accusation of guilt; the arrest for a crime; and the trial for a crime has not determined that individual to be guilty. One is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law--only a conviction determines that individual to be guilty.

In Tucson in 1999, an University of Arizona football player was arrested for domestic violence. A segment of the university population was demanding that he be removed from the football team. I wrote the following letter to the editor to the university's newspaper. (I was attending school there that semester.)

A crime occurs on campus. I am the only witness. You are alone and in the vicinity of the crime scene. I identify you as the culprit. You are arrested, charged, and booked. Should you be suspended from school until your trial is completed?

I thought a person was supposed to be innocent until proven guilty under our legal system. Being arrested and charged with a crime is not the same as being guilty. Is it the proper procedure to punish before conviction? From what I have read in the Wildcat recently, it seems some members of this community would prefer punishment before conviction unless, of course, they were the one being accused of an illegal act.

As a side note, the football player was never indicted nor convicted of any crime. To have been punished for something he did not do according to the legal system is wrong. But even if he had been tried and convicted, to be punished before that conviction would have still been wrong!

I wrote the following unpublished letter to the editor in 2004 in response to a published letter. With the recent attacks on Great Britain, it seems a good time to repeat it.

Terrorism exists because small groups of individuals recognize that method as the only probable action available to achieve their goals. They believe they can not accomplish their desired outcome through legitimate means. The use of violence and intimidation against the innocent is justified by them as a legitimate means to an end. In an imperfect world, terrorism will always exist as new, radical causes and their supporters develop because of real or perceived injustices.

To blame George Bush for 9/11 is like blaming Franklin D. Roosevelt for Pearl Harbor. In fact, FDR would be more culpable since George Bush was in office for less than a year before 9/11 while FDR was in his ninth year as President before the attack. Furthermore, a world war was raging on for more than two years before Pearl Harbor. Neither one, as far as I know, could foretell the future.

There are basically three policies with variations on the theme available to deal with terrorism. Give the terrorists what they are demanding--appeasement. Ignore the actions of the terrorists believing in the long run the mayhem they commit is of minor importance in the scheme of things--benign neglect. In a variation of this policy, the immediate participants of an act of terror are pursued but the leaders and groups as a whole are not. The third policy position is to actively pursue the terrorists causing far more damage to them than they do to us--war. (Remember terrorism as a method of achieving one's ends will probably never stop being used until the LORD returns.)

For years the U.S. has been following the policy of dealing with the foot soldiers who actually carry out the terrorist act. I applaud President Bush for changing our policy. It's about time both sides were fighting the same war.

The news media in this area continues to disappoint and demonstrate their bias. I was listening to Peoria's CBS local news. The story was about the hot weather conditions. The reporter was interviewing children around a swimming pool. One girl started her sentence with "Oh my God". I changed the channel.

The girl is inundated with that blasphemous language all the time on television and in public. Although her parents should not allow it, it is not surprising. What is not acceptable is the CBS affiliate airing it. They didn't have any other quotes they could have used instead?

I can almost guarantee that if the girl had used an offensive slang name to refer to a group of people, it would not have been aired. Yet, it is perfectly acceptable to have a little girl blaspheme the name of the Creator of the universe. After all, it is done every five minutes on almost every television show on the air. It's the only way our "creative" writers can show excitement, surprise, and their ignorance. I will not be watching CBS news.

Meanwhile, the Peoria Journal Star published on July 26, 2005 the daily Doonesbury propaganda piece. The last frame of which presumably had the President of the United States referring to Karl Rove as a ".... Blossom".

My dictionary defines blossom as "to come into one's own: Develop". .... has two definitions. One is "a piece of excrement--sometimes considered vulgar". The other is a contemptible person--usu. considered vulgar". Now, we have the wonderful picture of Karl Rove being developed excrement. The Journal Star is responsible for what it publishes!

Now when a parent tells his child, "I don't want to hear you say that!" The child can respond, "But it was in the paper!" The paper is responsible for what it publishes! I would cancel my subscription to your paper, but I don't have one.

Here is what the New Testament says about language that is not acceptable to the LORD. Matthew 12: 36. "Men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken." (Quoting our LORD JESUS CHRIST)

Mark 7: 20-23. "He (JESUS) went on "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, LEWDNESS, envy, slander, arroance, and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'"

Ephesians 4: 29. "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs."

Ephesians 5: 4. "Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk, or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving."

Colossians 3: 8. "But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips."

Beware how you offend GOD!

Please read the last three posts in order first.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been judicially active over the last forty five years. Some of their decisions have been good and some of them have been monstrously bad. In my opinion, the decision to allow the murder of unborn babies has been monstrously bad. Many of the decisions have been reached in the name of civil rights. It seems that often the decisions have not been based upon the context of the U.S. Constitution. Rather, the justices first reach their decision based upon their own opinions of right and wrong and then try to justify that opinion based upon the provisions of the Constitution. The result, they are rewriting the Constitution by judicial fiat.

The nine members of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President when a vacancy occurs with the advise and consent of the U.S. Senate. Although the Constitution describes their term of office as a term based upon "good behavior", the actual practice in recent years has been until they retire or die. A justice has not recently been removed from office by means of impeachment and conviction.

The consequence has been that this unelected final decision maker of what is unconstitutional and what is not has been insulated from the democratic practice of following the will of the people or the provisions of the Constitution. Their decisions have a profound influence on the moral fabric of the country. Again, those nine people are deciding right from wrong. What oligarchic power!

Because of this misuse and abuse of their position, there may be no more important event in the final years of the Bush Administration than the appointment of the new Supreme Court member. The powers of evil who support the murder of unborn babies have already declared that they are opposed to the nominee. I believe that it is important for Christians if they are opposed to the immoral direction the court and others have been taking us, to continually pray for a conclusion that will be supportive of GOD based values and concepts.

It is also important for us as Christians to have our voices heard politically. When CHRIST walked this earth, HE prayed. HE also taught and preached the Word of GOD and GOD'S will for man. We need to do the same. Our silence will be taken as support for the growing immorality of the last forty five years. Do your part to support the GOD given values of moral purity or Satan will continue to push his libertine philosophy of self without GOD throughout the United States.

GOD allows people to sin but he expects and wants Christians to be a bastion of holy purity. We are victorious through CHRIST! But, how many additional souls are lost because we shirk our Christian obligations to teach, support, and live the holy life expected of all people. "Do not be deceived; GOD cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the SPIRIT, from the SPIRIT will reap eternal life." Galatians 6: 7-8.

This is the third article in a series on abortion. It is advised that you read the first two in order before reading this one. I have written about abortion before. The first one was in Tucson and was published. The rest were written in Illinois and the first two were also published. The final two were not. Here they are:

....... ....... in her letter to the editor concerning "partial birth abortions" laments "how a 'medical procedure' finds its way into legislative halls." But, in fact, government regulates medical practices continually from medical school requirements, to licensing practices, to determining what drugs can and can not be legally prescribed.

Secondly, she contends that the "right to privacy provided by the 14th Amendment should have prevented this ban from taking place." Since I didn't recall any "right to privacy" mentioned in the 14th Amendment, I reread it. It is not there! Therefore, I reread the entire Constitution from preamble to the final amendment. No where in the Constitution is a "right to privacy" mentioned let alone guaranteed.

Therefore, such a right must have been manufactured by the Supreme Court by Constitutional interpretation. "The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says." However, along with that is the concept that a law passed by a legislative body is Constitutional until ruled otherwise. Consequently, unless Ms. ....... is now on the Supreme Court, she does not yet know if it is unconstitutional. Only nine justices will ultimately know.

Finally, does this "right to privacy" mean that a child can be abused outside of the womb? If not, when does the "right to privacy" to murder a child within the womb end? If a child is partially delivered, can the mother in the name of "right to privacy" reach down and take the child's life as long as the child is not completely delivered? Scary! But, then, claiming the right to murder your child in the womb is scary too!

Let's play fill in the blank with letter writer ....... .......'s "I abhor abortion, but women should have a choice" philosophy. I abhor robberies, but people should have the choice of robbery or not. I abhor murder, but people should have the choice of committing murder or not. I abhor the murder of defenseless, unborn children; but a woman should have the choice of murdering her unborn child or not. I abhor the murder of young children, but parents should have the choice to murder their off-spring. How ludicrous!

Concerning his admonition that "we live in a society where one opinion is not supposed to be imposed on someone else with a different opinion," he obviously doesn't know the history of abortion. In 1973, five unelected men imposed their opinion collectively on the United States. Not one elected government body allowed abortion until the Supreme Court usurped its constitutional authority and in effect "wrote" the law on abortion for the entire country. Again, how ludicrous!

As a lifelong Democrat and having a master's in political science from Illinois State, I read with interest the article by George Condon Jr. about the GOP convention published Sunday the 29th (August, 2004). Since when is supporting the murder of unborn children a moderate political position? When did the support of immoral behavior as a civil right become a moderate political position? When did the protection of the country from terrorists become a right-wing position?

I guess I am now a right-wing Republican. I don't remember making the change!

Until recently, consenting adult has never been the standard for this country. Nor should it be. It leads to the lowest common denominator. It allows for sodomy, adultery, bigamy, bestiality, the murder of unborn children, and quite possibly pedophilia.

Think pedophilia can't happen? Think again. The same was said of abortion. The age of eighteen is an artificial boundary. Already the Supreme Court, that self proclaimed oligarchic final decision maker, has ruled that eleven year old children are mature enough to determine whether or not to murder their own child.

When we allow five people to be the final arbitrator and allow them to arbitrarily make law, any thing they decide is legal becomes a possibility. The absence of law is anarchy. The absence of moral controls is also anarchy. Sinful nations historically do not remain in power for very long.

"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows." Galatians 6:7. Any farmer knows that. At the rate we are going, so will the United States.

Columnist William Raspberry (January 24, 2005 Peoria Journal Star) has joined the growing list of individuals who believe they somehow have the right to deny Christians their freedom of speech and deny them the right to participate in the political process because he disagrees with our position on issues. When did it become democratic that only the irreligious can express their view and push their agenda in the public arena?

Just as outrageous, he chides Christians for refusing to compromise our principles on issues. Did the nine member United States Supreme Court compromise when they ruled in a split decision that the laws of every State in the union were unconstitutional because they did not allow the murder of unborn children? How undemocratic is that? Then, the court proceeded to write the law on baby murdering contrary to Constitutional Law. How undemocratic is that?

Now, thirty two years and millions of murdered babies later, Christians must compromise our position on the murder of the unborn for the good of the nation. Prayerfully, that will never happen. How can any Christian compromise to allow murder?

(It might be best to read the previous post before reading today's--since it is a continuation of that thought.) An Associated Press article was published today (July 22, 2005) with the following quote: "'It's such an imprtant thing, abortion is a woman's right.... What she does with her body is her right and nobody has the right to take that away from her.'" As discussed yesterday, the unborn baby within a woman is not her body. That baby is a GOD created human life (GOD created because HE determined how babies would be created when HE created everything) separate and distinct from the woman. The absolute proof of that statement is that the baby has different DNA than the mother has.

No one has the right to murder another human being including one's own child unless GOD gives that right to them. No government can give one that right. No legislative body can give one that right. No court system can give one that right. Only one entity can bestow that right onto another and that entity is GOD. It is clear that GOD has not given a mother the right to murder her unborn baby. The courts may allow its citizens to murder an unborn child but they do not have the power to give anyone that power as a right. It did not, does not now, and never will have that power.

Here are some statistics on the number of murders of unborn babies since the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed mothers to murder their unborn baby. As a disclaimer: I realize statistics are not 100% accurate, can be manipulated, and the result depends upon the definitions used by the gatherer of the information. I checked five sources and three of them had the same figures--two differed somewhat from these to be given but they also differed with each other. The statistics listed are from www.womensissues.about.com except for the 1997 year which was not listed. 1997 is from www.nrlc.org. NRLC is the National Right to Life organization. I did not check the information from Planned Murderhood since I don't trust any information they publish.

1973.......774,600 murdered unborn babies
1974.......898,600 murdered unborn babies
1975.....1,034,200 murdered unborn babies
1976.....1,179,300 murdered unborn babies
1977.....1,316,700 murdered unborn babies
.........5,203,400 murdered unborn babies over five years
1978.....1,409,600 murdered unborn babies
1979.....1,497,700 murdered unborn babies
1980.....1,553,900 murdered unborn babies
1981.....1,557,300 murdered unborn babies
1982.....1,573,900 murdered unborn babies
........12,815,800 murdered unborn babies over ten years
1983.....1,575,000 murdered unborn babies
1984.....1,577,200 murdered unborn babies
1985.....1,588,600 murdered unborn babies
1986.....1,574,000 murdered unborn babies
1987.....1,559,100 murdered unborn babies
........20,689,700 murdered unborn babies over fifteen years
1988.....1,590,800 murdered unborn babies
1989.....1,566,900 murdered unborn babies
1990.....1,608,600 murdered unborn babies
1991.....1,556,500 murdered unborn babies
1992.....1,528,900 murdered unborn babies
........28,541,400 murdered unborn babies over twenty years
1993.....1,500,000 murdered unborn babies
1994.....1,431,000 murdered unborn babies
1995.....1,363,700 murdered unborn babies
1996.....1,365,700 murdered unborn babies
1997.....1,328,000 murdered unborn babies
........35,529,800 murdered unborn babies over the first twenty five years of allowed abortions in the United States. The land that promises the pursuit of Life unless your mother murders you in the womb.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, Facts in Brief: Abortion in the United States, 2000. (this information was taken from www.mccl.org/abortion_statistics.htm. MCCL is Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life.):

"Why do women have abortions?

75% say having a baby would interfere with work, school, or other responsibilities.

66% (about) say they cannot afford to have another child.

50% say they do not want to be a single parent, or have relationship problems with husband or partner.

Less than 2% have abortions because they became pregnant as a result of rape or incest."

(Obviously, many women gave more than one reason for having an abortion.)


Even removing 5,000,000 abortions over twenty five years to have conservative statistics, the fact is that approximately 30,000,000 (thirty million) babies have been murdered by mothers over the first twenty five years of legalized abortions in this country. That is a holocaust of tremendous proportions and one that GOD must abhor. HE allows us to sin because we have been given free will. It does not mean we will not be punished for our sin. We face eternal condemnation unless we repent and turn to HIM for forgiveness. True faith must produce repentance and then obedience to GOD'S will!

Tonight's post is a prelude to the next one. I wrote a letter to the editor in January of 2005. It was published as edited. The original is as follows:

The photograph on page A11 of the Sunday, January 23, 2005 Peoria Journal Star clearly demonstrates one of the continuing lies advanced by The Murder of Unborn Babies supporters. A woman had written on her body--"MY BODY MY CHOICE MINE."

If it is true that the entity destroyed in an abortion is part of her body, then no one who supports abortions could oppose the following law. Before an abortion can be performed, a DNA sample of the entitiy within the body and of the woman must be taken. If the DNA of the entity is exactly the same as the woman's (i.e. The DNA is identified as part of the woman's DNA.), then an operation could be performed. If the DNA is different than the woman's (i.e. The DNA is that of a new life, a baby.), then an abortion can not be performed without a valid medical reason substantiated by two doctors who oppose abortion as a legal practice when it is not associated with a medical requirement.

If the entity is part of the woman, abortionists should not object to such a law. Of course they will, since they know that it is indeed a new life--a baby--that is forming in the woman's body just as God intended. Accept this change in the law or admit that abortions murder unborn babies!

I don't know if any rebuttal letters were sent to the paper, but to the best of my knowledge none were printed.

Here are three New Testament references in relation to murder and murderers. Matthew 15: 19; "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander." (spoken by Jesus, the Son of God)

Romans 1: 28-32; "Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." (Is this not a description of a libertine society? Are you a Christian and yet approve the practice of murdering unborn babies? Or, do you just call your self a Christian while you do not practice, preach, teach, and follow God's Word?

Revelation 21: 8; "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

How can anyone actually murder or support the murder of unborn babies?

More thoughts (see first post) in relation to the new policy of the American Academy of Pediatrics. As a reminder: A quote from an Associated Press article, "The new policy says that while doctors should encourage adolescents to postpone sexual activity, they also should help ensure that all teens--not just those who are sexually active--have access to birth control, including emergency contraception."

I Thessalonians 4: 1-8; "Finally, brothers, we instructed you how to live in order to please GOD, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the LORD JESUS to do this more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the LORD JESUS.

It is GOD'S will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know GOD; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The LORD will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. For GOD did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but GOD, who gives you his HOLY SPIRIT."

Sexual immorality is the sin. If between male and female, pregnancy is the possible by-product of that sin. No place in the Bible does it say that sexual intercourse outside of marriage is acceptable as long as a pregnancy does not occur. Pregnancy is not the sin; sexual immorality is.

As a former high school teacher, I can almost assuredly guarantee that this policy if put into practice will increase the amount of sexual activity among unmarried teens. Further, if life begins at conception as I believe most Christians affirm, the emergency contraception is an emergency abortion. Does it matter in God's eyes if the abortion occurs five months after conception or the same day as conception? I don't believe it does.

This new policy promotes two sins--sexual immorality and the murder of unborn babies. I don't understand how Christians can remain silent about it. Either we boldly proclaim our faith and support our Christian beliefs in the public arena or Satan momentarily pushes the U.S. further into the growing libertine society that he wants. It's our choice. We are the victors but how many souls are lost because we don't echo GOD'S will to all people.

Soon after I mailed the last two unpublished letters to the editor (last two days' entries), I wrote the opinion piece in relation to the Western Illinois history professor's opinion article. I received the article back with a "post-it" note attached signed by the editorial page editor. It said that if I reduced the editorial to 250 words or less it might be published as a letter to the editor (no guarantees, of course). I wrote back the following letter.

It can't happen. The original letter began as a letter to the editor but I couldn't adequately respond to the misinformation presented by professor Hopkins in that limited number of words. His opinion piece certainly wasn't limited to 250 words. If he is an example of an expert, The Peoria Journal Star has more problems than I can address in an opinion piece of whatever reasonable length.

"The Journal Star invites thoughtful, locally written op-ed commentary. Material submitted for publication should carry the insight of personal experience or expertise. In that way, they are distinct from Forum letters.

Op-ed pieces must present the writer's point of view on an event or issue, supported by facts, reasoning and/or anecdotes. Most are about 700 words." Peoria Journal Star Online, June 24, 2004

Are not rebuttal opinions to obviously poorly reasoned op-ed pieces acceptable? Am I not expert enough because I am not a professor? Truthfully, if professor Hopkins is an example of the professors at Western Illinois University, I would never send my child to that school.

Actually, it has been my observation after moving back to Illinois just over a year ago, that the Peoria Journal Star editorial board and columnists are not representative of the majority opinion of this area. Actually, I have had three letters rejected since the imposed two month restriction ended. I had decided that if none of the three were printed that I would begin "blogging" the Peoria Journal Star after the July 4th holiday period.

Monopolies are often a danger when it comes to journalism. "Freedom of the Press" can often lead to "Tyranny of the Press" as covering the news develops into slanting the news to your view points. Thank you for your decision not to publish this op-ed paper.

I received a two page letter in return from the editorial page editor to which I wrote the following reply.

In response to your letter responding to my letter which was in response to your note regarding my op-ed piece, isn't it amazing how these things snowball? It's your monopoly; it's your rules. It's your monopoly; it's your choice regarding what is published and what is not.

With great privileges, come great responsibilities. I believe that with free and open debate the truth will usually emerge. However, the debate must be free and open.

By definition, your rules control the degree of debate allowed. Your rules control who is considered an expert, which experts are allowed to participate in the exchange of ideas, how often others are allowed to participate, which participatory letters are allowed and which are not. It doesn't matter if you receive three or five hundred commentaries a week. You control the dissemination of opinion and information.

True or false? Publishing the commentary of George Hopkins as an expert without a contrary opinion expressed may give the impression that his opinion is also the position of the Peoria Journal Star editorial board. It's your policy and it's your control; but the policy does not adequately allow the free flow of ideas. Granted I do not have the benefit of a computer search, but I do not recall any contradictory opinion being printed in relation to this opinion piece.

However, even if there was, your own rule restricting the length of such a response prevents a fair presentation of a contrary opinion. It is similar to a debate which is the only one allowed. The rules of the debate permit the first respondent to speak for fourteen minutes. The second participant may or may not be allowed to speak. If he is, he is allowed no more than five minutes. But then, it's your monopoly; it's your rules.

Regarding your other responses. I did not complain about your failure to publish my letters. I made a statement of fact. I sent in three letters (I was including the op-ed commentary as the third letter) and none were published. I'm quite aware that you have no obligation to print my or any other letter. It's your monopoly; it's your choice.

By your own statment you published two of my letters in a very short period of time. It's not my fault that you broke your own rules. But, it does demonstrate that you will break the rules when you choose. The point of the three letter comment is that you control the debate and that control (in my opinion and that of others) slants what is printed based upon what you want disseminated.

Your reason given for not publishing my letter in relation to the issue of homosexuality was that you (the editorial board or whoever) decided it was time to end the discussion and move on. It's your monopoly; your control of the debate.

In regard to my inaccuracy on the medical marijuana letter, are you serious? First, because of you own length restrictions, I used a phrase that would be understandable to the reading public. I did not have the privilege of going into a governmental explanation of how the court functions. (I am quite capable of doing so.) Nor am I in the habit of reading Supreme Court decisions. I doubt the Court usually uses the word unconstitutional.

However, these are quotes from your own editorial on the issue. "The court majority said the commerce clause of the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate homegrown marijuana and DENIES STATES A ROLE." "The seizure followed a 3-hour standoff with local authorities defending her right to grow cannabis UNDER THE CALIFORNIA LAW PERMITTING...." "No great harm would be done the nation if CONGRESS WERE TO RESPOND BY CARVING OUT AN EXCEPTION...AS ELEVEN STATES THOUGHT THEY HAD."

Columnist Kathleen Parker on June 9th wrote, "I'm talking, of course, about Monday's Supreme Court ruling AGAINST STATE-SANCTIONED MEDICAL MARIJUANA USE...." It seems that if I incorrectly used the phrase, I got it from your newspaper.

Finally, I don't believe any misunderstanding of the term alters the point of the letter. Nor do I recall that issue being addressed by any other letter published (I need to be able to make a computer search). The point was and is that the Journal Star reversed their position on "rule of law" when their ox was gored. Not an uncommon response by individuals and editorial boards but one that needed (in my opinion) to be pointed out. But then, it's your monopoly; your control.

Thank you again. Isn't this fun?

This last comment by me was not included in the letter. The editorial page editor wrote that "We receive 30-50 essays a week and publish three, so competition is stiff." My response would have been that if the dribble written by the history professor is an example of a selected essay there is no competition. If I was still teaching and a student of mine had turned in that specific essay as a class assignment, I would have returned it to him with an F. I would have further instructed him to rewrite it using only historical accurate information and without the "name calling" tactics since they are not conducive to an intellectual debate.

Now I have a daily forum.

In respond to a letter to the editor claiming that homosexuality was natural, a woman wrote a letter saying homosexuality was sinful. At least three letters attacking her position were published in the paper. So, I wrote a letter in her defense. It was not published. It read:

(The name of the woman--I don't think it's necessary to give her name here) identifies homosexuality as a sin in a letter to the editor and the humanistic rationalists jump to attack her and her position. Nothing new. Jesus states clearly that Satan was a liar from the beginning. At least two apologists emphasized love which is certainly a Christian concept since God is love.

The question is: what is love in this context? If homosexuality is a sin, is it love to encourage people to live that life of sin or is it love to warn people that they are living in sin? Would a loving parent forbid his child from racing into a burning building to retrieve a beloved pet or would he encourage that child to risk his life in the chance that he might successfully avoid being killed in the flames?

God gave His Son to die to redeem us from our sins. One of our responsibilities in response to that love is to repent from our sins including homosexual acts.

We each have a choice. Repentance or spiritual death. We can't have both sin and life. Choose spiritual life and live eternally with God.

In late March and then again in early April, I wrote two letters to the local paper. The paper broke its own rule of only publishing a letter from the same author no more than once every two months by printing both letters.

Does the political cartoonist, if that is not an oxymoron, featured in the March 22, 2005 Journal Star really believe that being starved to death is "death with dignity"? Does the Journal Star editorial staff belief that? I pray that none of you ever experience death by starvation.

If a state legislature passed a law stating that a convicted murderer must be executed by starvation would the U.S. Supreme Court rule that law to be cruel and unusual punishment? Presently, mothers can murder their own unborn children and doctors can be ordered to starve a patient to death. What is wrong with this country?

(Mike Bailey is an editorial columnist.) Then in April, the second letter stated:

I was educated in Illinois schools. I was taught that there are three branches of government--the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Now I learn that the judicial is not a branch of the government. The years that the Terri Schiavo case was in the courts were just years of a private, family matter. Only when Congress became involved did it become a public matter.

If Mike Bailey's own child was being starved to death by court order, would he refuse to turn to Congress because that would be inappropriate? Or, would he try to save his child's life? His "torn rotator cuff" sarcasm was as inane as any comment I have read in relation to the Schiavo case. It reflects on your newspaper.

Meanwhile the paper editorialized that Congress should not get involved in the controversy. It was claimed that the courts had made their decision and under the "rule of law" nothing more should be done. Two months later the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the federal government to enforce its marijuana laws which were in conflict with the "medical marijuana" laws of some states. The editorial position of the paper was that the courts should not have reached such a conclusion and Congress needed to step in and allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes. That editorial prompted another letter from me. This one was not published.

It had to happen. Two months after the court assisted starvation of Terry Schiavo, the "rule of Law" as envisioned by the Peoria Journal Star's editorial board isn't so supreme after all.

When the Florida Supreme Court ruled she must die, her parents appealed to Congress to allow the federal court system to get involved. The federal courts had said they lacked jurisdiction. Congress gave them that jurisdiction and the Journal Star and others screamed that some how Congress was violating the "rule of law".

The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled that a state-sanctioned medical marijuana law was unconstitutional. The plea is for Congress to step in and overrule that Court decision.

What happened to the "rule of law" concept of Congress not interfering? All of a sudden Congress has a responsibility to change the Court decision.

It's not the "rule of law" you are concerned about. It's getting your own positions legalized by what ever means necessary.

On June 12th the local paper printed an opinion editorial by a college professor. It was, in my opinion, one of the most illogical opinion editorials I had ever read. I reacted by writing a letter to the editor. Since it ended up being longer than allowed by the paper, I sent it as a rebuttal opinion piece. The paper rejected it. So, here it is.

It has been a long time since I have read such obvious intellectually challenged reasoning as that put forth by a supposed educator--Western Illinois professor George Hopkins. By his reasoning, all heterosexuals who support homosexual behavior are closet homosexuals too. All individuals who are opposed to murder are closet murderers. Anyone opposed to anything secretly desires to carryout that very activity. Black is white and white is black.

His proof? A few people who oppose something are secretly involved in that specific practice. Maybe, they are opposed to it because they realize the sin involved but personally don't have the ability to control that sinful nature. By his reasoning no pedophile should be opposed to their own actions because they are personally involved in that practice.

The actual and implied lies in his opinion piece are nothing new for humanistic rationalists. If you are opposed to homosexual behavior, it must be because of hatred for homosexuals or some other irrational reason. Name calling is a long practiced method by those who have no solid reasons for the support of their position.

The fact is that homosexuality is an action. A person may have homosexual tendencies but he never has to act on those tendencies. A heterosexual never has to have intercourse. An individual who has alcoholic tendencies never has to take a drink of alcohol. An action does not have to occur.

The fact is that many people believe that living a homosexual life style is a sin. The fact is that the Bible specifically declares that homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God. (I Corinthians 6: 9-11, New International Version) The fact is that Jesus, the Son of God, proclaims that sexual immorality as well as murder comes from the heart. (Not from genetics, we are not robots. We have free will.) (Matthew 15: 19) The fact is that The New Testament has at least twenty-five distinct references in one form or another condemning homosexual immorality.

The fact is that if homosexual behavior is a sin then the real haters are those who encourage homosexual behavior not those who warn against it. The fact is that some people who are involved in a sin often encourage others to do the same in the hope that somehow that will lessen their own sin or at least they will have fellow travelers down the road to ruin.

History professor Hopkins seems to have a case of impaired memory in relation to recent American history. It was not neoconservative Republicans who began the political maneuvering in relation to homosexuality. The fact is that it was homosexual activists who demanded the end to laws against homosexuality arguing that "government should stay out of the bedroom." These laws had been passed years earlier. Were those original legislators also bashing homosexuals?

Next, those same activists demanded that government and businesses pay for their bedroom by proving health insurance to both individuals. Finally, in a complete turn of events, they are arguing that government should sanctify their bedroom by granting the privilege of marriage. What happened to "government stay out of the bedroom?"

Incrementally, homosexuals have been demanding the acceptance of their sin as a civil right. To expect people who disagree with that preposterous notion to remain silent and not to react politically is in itself preposterous.

For a history professor to refer to those reactions as homosexual bashing is ludicrous but not unusual for humanist rationalists. The "Big Lie" is part of their continuing agenda. If you disagree it must be because of hatred for those individuals. The fact is that homosexuality is not a civil right!

These letters to the editor were written on July 4th. The first one was not published; the second one was although they edited out the last five sentences and did not place a comma where it should have been. Not too bad for a newspaper.

Came home from the corporate worship of God Sunday. Thought I might watch some of the Cardinal game. Turned on the television. Since it was not yet game time, I did some channel surfing. Came across an old "Cosby Show" episode.

Theo accidentally and unknowingly brought home a marijuana cigarette placed in his book by another student. The episode was moral, funny, and didn't use any obscenties.

It didn't once take the Lord's name in vain by using the most misused phrase on television today--"Oh my God." I hear that phrase; I turn off the television. I don't watch much television.

The psychobabblers and humanistic rationalists claim we need more self-esteem. We don't need more self-esteem. We need more God esteem--the love and fear of the Lord!

Naturally, that one did not get published. This one did for the most part.

Eight years of war. Approximately one third of the adult population supported the war. Only one other major nation supported the war effort. The enemy hired fighters from other nations to fight for them.

Starvation, deprivation, desertion, and continual losses in battle. Thousands of lives lost in battle, to starvation, to the elements. Lack of clothing, uniforms, ammunition, transportation, the basic necessities of life. Homes burned, businesses lost, families destroyed. Traitors, spies hung for treason, loss of spirit. Demands that the leaders be replaced. Demands of surrender. Victory!

Thank You Lord that the patriots of the Revolutionary War did not abandon their fight for freedom against impressive odds. Thank You God that there was no public opinion poll to influence the outcome of the war. Thank You Lord that the minority did not buckle under to opposition. Thank You God that there was not a daily body count of the patriots killed and dying during the war. Thank You Lord for the unfailing leadership provided. Thank You God for Your help. Thank You Lord for victory for a new democratic nation.

Moved back to central Illinois last year from Tucson, Arizona. I've always been politically involved. After reading the local newspaper and sending in a few letters to the editor, I was dissatisfied with the news coverage and the editorial content. I had a few letters published and a few that were not. I thought the paper was biased in its presentations.

In political science terms, a gunslinger is someone who comes in and cleans up or operates a political campaign that isn't going well. That's what I hope to do. Give the local news an alternative voice from a Christian prespective. I don't mind debating. If alternative sides to an issue are discussed, usually the truth comes out.

In the beginning I'm going to start with some letters to the editor that weren't published. Hopefully after this gets started and I get a handle on doing this, it will be more of a give and take debate over the current issues of the day. I'm starting with a letter I wrote after the fourth of July weekend in reaction to an article in the local paper. I had sent three letters in that week. One was published. This one was not.

Actually, I've sent it to half a dozen papers so far. It was published by at least one. Hopefully, in the coming weeks I'll send it to every paper that has a state chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. As a Chrsitian, I believe they are making a terrible mistake by advancing a policy of providing birth control products to teens. Also, the so called morning after pill (emergency contraception) is an abortion by a pill although abortionists try to deny it. The letter said:

The doctors of the American Academy of Pediatrics must be smoking medical marijuana. A quote from an Associated Press article, "The new policy says that while doctors should encourage adolescents to postpone sexual activity, they also should help ensure that all teens--not just those who are sexually active--have access to birth control, including emergency contraception."

Who gave doctors the authority to overrule the parent! If I had a minor teen child and a doctor gave, encouraged, or suggested the use of any birth control without my permission, I would file criminal charges for contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

I would also file a civil suit for corrupting the morals of a minor and sexual harassment. Why would any doctor suggest such nonsense? I'm guessing that a few hundred such law suits would end the arrogance of these doctors.

Imagine the new doctor office scenario. You take your thirteen year old to the doctor. The doctor walks in with the child's chart. He/she says, "I see you just turned thirteen. Here are six dozen condoms. When you run out, just let me know."

Meanwhile at a local home, a thirteen year old argues with his mother, "Jimmy's doctor gave him condoms. She told him to be careful, but enjoy himself. He will only live once. Why can't I have some?"

In the back of his mind, he's thinking that he can always get some from Jimmy if his mother doesn't relent. If he doesn't share, no problem. He's got a new line. Doctor approved intercourse at thirteen.

Doctors, you are not the parent!

If you agree that this is a really bad decision by this organization, you need to speak out. If no opposition occurs, they will proceed with this ridiculous policy. Their website has the address of the national organization which is in Illinois. They also list state chapter addresses. Contact them! Write to the local papers. Let them know that this is a dangerous policy. Sue them if they do it to your children. They will change it if they know it will cost them!