This is the third of three posts, the first was posted 8/29/05

The editorial board did not give their definition of love. My dictionary has nine definitions of love as a noun with subdivisions within some of those nine definitions. They include "attraction based on sexual desire" to "the score of zero (as in tennis)." I imagine these are not the definition of love that the editorial is referring to. (I'm not sure though.) I am going to guess that the love they mean is "unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another." (all dictionary definitions are from Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth edition; Merriam-Webster, Incorporated; Springfield, Massachusetts; 1995.)

The New Testament is replete with passages referring to love. Some selected quotes include: "the commandments, 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet,' and what ever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fullfillment of the law." (Romans 13: 9-10)

I've said this before. If you murder your unborn baby are you doing harm? Yes. If you encourage or support someone to murder her unborn baby, are you doing harm? Yes. If you plead with someone not to murder her unborn baby, are you doing harm? No! If you try to prevent the legal system in a legal manner from allowing the murder of unborn babies, are you doing harm? No! Trying to prevent sin is not doing harm. It is doing exactly what Christians should be doing.

If you don't know that an action is a sin, how can you repent from doing that action or refrain from doing that action? You can't. However, if you do not repent you will be condemned. Therefore, Christians have a responsibility to identify sin, to help prevent sin from occurring, and to help the sinner to repent as each Christian did and continues to do. That is one of our duties in serving GOD.

I Corinthians Chapter 13 is known as the love chapter and was quoted by the editorial board to chastise Christians for their actions--"But the greatest of these is love." However, the editorial board did not quote the whole verse. "And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love." In a comparison of faith, hope, and love; the greatest is love. (I Corinthians 13: 13) It is not a comparison of truth and love and can not be since GOD = JESUS =love = truth. Also, the editorial board did not quote I Corinthians 13: 6. "Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth." (Christians aren't afraid of truth since GOD, JESUS are truth.) The truth: Is it evil to murder your unborn baby? Yes! Is it evil to live a homosexual lifestyle? Yes! Is it evil to support sin and encourage people to sin? Yes! Yes! Yes!

"This is love for GOD: to obey HIS commandments. And HIS commandments are not burdensome," If you love GOD, you will be obedient to HIS will. Does GOD command you to do things that are harmful? No! Does GOD command you to do things that are evil? No! Does GOD command you not to do things that are evil? Yes! Why? Because evil can not be in GOD'S presence. Therefore, if you do evil and do not repent, you can not be in GOD'S presence. HE wants you to repent and stop doing evil so that you can be with HIM. HE loves us so much HE allowed HIS SON to die for our sins. However, we must repent and receive HIS SON as our LORD and SAVIOR. No repentance; no presence with GOD!

The editorial specifically refers to Christians as hateful, self-righteous, and invloved in cruel and bitter arguments over the murder of unborn babies and homosexual marriage. (I'm hurt by their name calling.) In fact, some of those who call themselves Christian may be doing some of the above. However, I don't place much stock in such criticisms when it comes from an editorial board who believes that women should be able to murder their unborn babies, who believe abortion pills should be available over the counter to anyone who desires to purchase them, who believes that homosexuality is a civil right.

I John 4: 5-6 says "They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from GOD, and whoever knows GOD listens to us; but whoever is not from GOD does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the SPIRIT of truth and the spirit of falsehood." Do you think John wrote this with the editorial board specifically in mind? Okay, I don't. However, it does clearly state that in the world two voices are speaking. One is the voice of GOD'S people and the other is the voice of the (selfish) world. When it comes to the murder of unborn children and recognizing homosexuality as a civil right, which voice is from GOD and which voice is from the world? Which voice is speaking in love--"benevolent concern for the good of another"--and which voice is speaking for the world encouraging selfish sin and disobedience to GOD'S will?

Continuing from yesterday's post: part 2

Here is the main quote by the editorial board. "But hateful, self-righteous claimants to GOD'S true mind are found in any faith, Christianity being no exception. Pat Robertson, who called the other day for the assassination of the Venezuelan president, comes quickly to mind, of course, but he is an easy target. One can't listen long to the cruel and bitter arguments among Christians over gay (homosexual, my addition) marriage or abortion (murder of unborn babies, also my addition) or the Iraq war to think they have missed the point--'and the greatest of these is love.'"

First, let me say that neither I, nor the editorial board, nor anyone else can proclaim who is Christian and who is not. GOD alone know's a man's heart. It is not for us to claim someone is Christian and some one is not. However, we do know that a Christian by definition will obey GOD'S word. We do know that the Bible is GOD'S word revealed by the HOLY SPIRIT. The editorial board may not know that but Christians do. Therefore, we can compare the word of GOD with how a person is living his life publicly and know whether or not he is saying that which is Biblical and living publicly as directed by the word of GOD through the Bible.

We also know that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian. The Bible warns against false teachers who will attempt to lead others astray and do lead others astray. Just as not everyone who claims to be a Democrat is a Democrat, not everyone who claims to be a genius is a genius; not everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian.

That said: Christians are not yet perfect. We are to strive to be perfect through CHRIST but we will not achieve that in this sinful world. We do sin. However, we also repent and accept GOD'S forgiveness. We do not live in sin.

The difference between Christians and the rest of the world are numerous and I certainly will not cover all of them. However, they include among others: that by faith we accept GOD's free gift of salvation through HIS grace, we accept that GOD is the ONE and only true GOD, that GOD (three in one) created the universe and all that is within, that JESUS HIS SON died on the cross for our sins, that HE was buried, that HE was resurrected as a man and then went into heaven to come again to bring HIS people (Christians) into GOD's presence.

We have confessed to the world that JESUS is the SON of GOD and we can only have redemption through JESUS'S shed blood. WE have repented of our sins. We have been baptized into CHRIST. We have received the gift of the HOLY SPIRIT. We strive to be obedient to HIS holy word. We can not be saved through good works, but we do good works in response to HIS love for us. We confess our sins and accept HIS forgiveness. We teach and preach HIS word to the lost world hoping that all will repent and turn to the one true GOD. We pray. If we are active in our faith, we expect to be persecuted for our faith (and we are). We rejoice at the repentance of any sinner who has come to the LORD. We forgive others. We hate the sin but love the sinner. We place or hope, faith, and love in GOD the FATHER, JESUS the SON, and the HOLY SPIRIT. (The conclusion tomorrow; the LORD willing.)

The Peoria Journal Star editorial staff wrote an editorial today about an individual who recently died. I didn't know the individual. I had never met him. I had never heard of him. If all the editorial board desired to do was pay tribute to the man, they failed. The writers could not seem to resist the preceived opportunity to take a potshot at Christians. In doing so, they made statements that need to be responded to.

But first without trying to be too critical of the individual, the editorial board emphasized this quote which they claim was spoken by him shortly before his death. "'Religoin is great so long as it is about love instead of trying to be about truth. At its best, religion is about love.'" I'm sorry to disagree with an individual who is not able to defend his comments if indeed they are from him. However, one can not have love without truth. Here is the Biblical reason why. I John 4: 16 says "And so we know and rely on the love GOD has for us. GOD is love. Whoever lives in love lives in GOD, and GOD in him." The first truth we know from this passage is "GOD is love." An equation (and I thought I would never use all the math I was taught) of that statement would be: GOD = love.

(John 8: 54-56) "JESUS replied, 'If I glorify MYSELF, MY glory means nothing. MY FATHER whom you claim as your GOD, is the ONE WHO glorifies ME. Though you do not know HIM, I know HIM. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know HIM and keep HIS word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing MY day; he saw it and was glad.'" If JESUS is the SON of GOD as HE claims and if GOD consists of GOD the FATHER, GOD the SON, and GOD the HOLY SPIRIT as most Christians believe and accept (here is where faith comes in), then to continue our equation; JESUS = GOD and JESUS = love.

(John 14: 6-7) "JESUS answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the FATHER except through ME. If you really knew ME, you would know MY FATHER as well. From now on, you do know HIM and have seen HIM.'" JESUS said HE is the truth. Thus, we have another equation: JESUS = truth. The conclusion mathmatically is JESUS = GOD = love = truth. The only logical conclusion if all statements are true (and they must be if JESUS is GOD) is that love and truth are inseparable because love = truth. You can not have love without truth. You can not have truth without love. You can not have love or truth without GOD and JESUS!

Here is another quote from the editorial in relation to truth. "Or will he (the deceased individual) think there are as many precious truths in the heavens as there are birds in the sky?" The Biblical answer is no! There is only one truth! GOD = JESUS = love = truth. I don't know what the deceased thought as far as that question is concerned. It seems likely that the editorial staff believes that there are many truths. The only true answer Biblically is that there is only one truth! The editorial board may not like that answer. The editorial board may not accept that answer. It is the only true answer! (I've got more to say. It's taking longer than I thought it would. Part 2 will be posted tomorrow. The LORD willing.)

The Peoria City Council had been considering the purchase of the local, privately owned water company. It had been an issue for a period of time. Earlier this year an advisory referendum had about 80% of the people voting vote against the buy-out. This vote occurred during the regularly scheduled local council election.

A letter to the editor was published on 8/23/05 (The day the council was to vote on whether or not to proceed with the possible purchase.) The writer claimed that the council members who supported the purchase of the water company have little or no respect for democracy since they were proceeding with the process even though the advisory referendum was overwhelmingly opposed to the purchase.

My writing about this has nothing to do with that specific issue. I don't live in Peoria. I don't know the details of the purchase; I don't know if it would be wise to purchase the company or not. Either decision will not directly impact my life. However, I respectfully disagree with the conclusion of the writer. If the referendum was binding, of course it should be followed. (I don't believe Illinois allows binding referendums; the state of Arizona does under certain circumstances.)

First, let's consider the types of democracies. One is the direct (or pure) democracy. The other is the indirect (or republic) democracy. In a direct democracy all the eligible voters gather together and decide an issue (or issues). If the referendum had been binding, that would be an example of a pure democracy. In an indirect democracy all the eligible voters select representatives who then have the responsibility to make the decision on an issue (or issues). The elected Peoria City Council is an example of an indirect democracy. In the U.S. today, most governmental decisions are made using the indirect democracy approach.

The real issue is: "What is the role of an elected government official?" Of course there are variations on this and no elected official follows either one completely. However, in general an elected official can follow two paths in reaching decisions. 1) They can try to gauge what the majority of citizens desire and vote accordingly. In this instance, the nonbinding referendum would probably be a good gauge of the wishes of the voting public. 2) They could study the facts of the issue and try to reach a decision that they consider to be in the best interest of the community. (This, of course, is the ideal. We all know that some officials do not base decisions upon the best interest of the community but use other standards such as what is best for a special interest group(s), what is best for themselves, and other criteria instead of best for the community.)

I personally tried to base my decisions on what was best for the community. I believe that is one reason why we elect the representatives we do or at least it should be. The total community simply does not have the time or inclination to study the whole gamut of issues to know what choice would be best for the community. This practice also calls for leadership ability on the part of the elected officials. And yes, it could well be that he may be voted out of office if he ignores or does not consider the wishes of the people.

Books have been written on the pros and cons of each position. I do not intend to go beyond these few, brief comments. However, consider this. If the elected officials in the South (And I don't mean to pick on the South but this is a relevant example, in other issues it would certainly be other parts of the country.) had declared that segregation was wrong; we may have been able to avoid years of conflict and could have integrated the nation sooner and with less turmoil. (Yes, I know we are not finished.) If elected officials had demanded that the Supreme Court follow the Constitution instead of writing law, we may not have murdered 35,000,000 unborn babies.

Of course, the opposite can be true as well. Elected officials could lead (and have led) use into areas that we should not go. The solution in that case is to vote them out of office. The real answer is that we as a voting public must be ever vigilant. Leadership can do great things for the country. Leadership can do great harm to the country. It is our responsibility to hold elected officials accoutable for the decisions they reach.

However, my position as an elected official was that I would not support a policy that I believed was wrong. If it meant I was not going to be elected or reelected then so be it.

The latest murder of unborn babies controversy has made the newspaper. On August 24, 2005 the Peoria Journal Star published an article written by an Associated Press reporter who was identified as a medical writer. (What a medical writer is was not explained. Is the reporter a doctor who writes for the AP? What are the reporter's medical credentials? We don't know other than medical writer. If I wrote about heart surgery am I a heart surgery writer. I believe I am.)

The headline was: "Prenatal bliss? Review: Fetuses don't feel pain until late in pregnancy." The authors of the study were referred to as researchers associated with the University of California at San Francisco. The study was a review of other studies. The conclusion by the reviewers was that unborn babies don't feel pain until the last months of the pregnancy.

Two days later a second article written by the same AP reporter was printed. The headline was "Abortion foes criticize article." Actually, the story only contained three paragraphs that dealt with criticisms of the review study. The other ten paragraphs dealt with defending the original study, the editor-in-chief of the magazine that printed the original study (Dr. Catherine DeAngelis), and some of the content of e-mails sent to her. The e-mails were described as "'horrible,vindictive.'" The ones printed did not seem to be horrible or vindictive in my opinion. In short, instead of presenting the criticisms of the original review, most of the article defended the review.

Here is a quote from the article, "Dr. Catherine DeAngelis ... says she strongly opposes abortion even though she also supports women's right to choose." I believe she means women being able to murder their unborn babies. I have discussed several times that there is not now and never can be a right to murder given to anyone unless GOD gives that right. GOD has not given women the right to murder their unborn babies. Let's also examine the illogical statement quoted. Substitute one word for two words used in the quote. It now reads, "Dr. Catherine DeAngelis ... says she strongly opposes sin even though she also supports women's right to sin." One can't have it both ways. One can't oppose sin and then argue there is a right to sin. One can't oppose sin and support sin at the same time. You would think a doctor would realize this obvious truth.

None of the articles reviewed by the reviewing researchers were identified or discussed in either of the two articles. However, I believe it is safe to make the following three observations. (I am certain others can add to this list.) First and most importantly, I doubt if any of the articles dealt with interviews with the unborn babies. I don't beleive any of the actual subjects of the study confirmed that they do not feel pain. Consequently, all conclusions at best are second hand. That means that the conclusion of the review is at best third hand. The farther you get away from the subject the more difficult it is to reach valid conclusions.

Also, most of the conclusions of most studies are general in nature. For example, most sleep researchers have been quoted as saying that adults should get eight hours of sleep a night. However, in my own specific example, I function best on five to six hours of sleep a night--over seven hours and my functioning levels fall drastically. Eight hours is an average; certainly not every single individual in the world needs to get eight hours of sleep a night and some may need more than eight hours a night. Now, even if the vast majority of unborn babies do not feel pain until late in the pregnancy (and that is a huge assumption in my opinion), that can not possibly mean that all babies do not feel pain until late in a pregnancy. That is not how GOD created us. It is not valid to suggest pain can't start until the seventh month of pregnancy, as an example since they don't actually define what late in the pregnancy means. It would be like saying all males die at 72 years of age.

Furthermore, the same reporter (at least, the name is the same) wrote a third article that was published in the Journal Star on July 13, 2005. For this article the reporter is not identified as a medical writer. It just says "of the Associated Press." The headline for the article was "Is it good or bad? Contradiction is common in medical studies." Here is a quote attributed to our same Dr. Catherine DeAngelis. "'The crazy part about science and yet the exciting part about science is you almost never have something that's black and white.'" Here is another quote from the article. "That means nearly one-third of the original results did not hold up, according to the study in today's Journal of the American Medical Association." Wow. If original studies can be proven wrong and a study of other studies is being done, doesn't that increase the possibility of that study being wrong? First, the original studies could be inaccurate and then the review of the possibly inaccurate studies could be inaccurate. It's a lot of possible inaccuracies to try to make a definitive scientific statement about pain in unborn babies. Error, error, error; error everywhere and no one to blame.

Finally, the ultimate conclusion regardless of the accuracy of the study is that unborn babies are being murdered. Personally, I hope and pray that they don't feel pain. (I'm afraid that they do.) They are already being murdered. If an adult is murdered in his sleep, he may not feel pain. Yet, he has still been murdered. The sin is the murder. You may have an adittional sin of inflicting pain, but you still have sin. We still must end the murder of unborn babies in this country.

In this morning's paper was a story about a PETA protest that occurred in Peoria, Illinois Wednesday. The two protesters were arrested and taken to be booked. Interestingly, one was from Virginia and one from California. Don't these people have anything better to do? Let's travel the country and get arrested.

However, it jogged my memory about an incident I witnessed a couple of years ago. I was living in Tucson where protests seem to be rather common. They were protesting something "federal" but I can't remember what it was. Downtown Tucson has a federal office building on one corner of a major street. It houses the local IRS office among other agencies. Diagonally, across the street is the new federal court house.

Professionally, I am a tax consultant. I was walking to the IRS office when I saw this scene about 2:00p.m. one afternoon. About six adults were standing and sitting together (outdoor chairs) talking to each other. One was playing a guitar. Four or five yards away, a larger group of police officers were standing together talking to each other. A couple of officers were from the bike patrol and had their bikes with them. A camera crew was no where in sight. No reporters were visibly present. The only ones present other than me were the two groups mentioned talking in each group and seemingly unaware of the other group.

That evening I was watching the local 5:00 o'clock news. A news flash! A fast breaking news report from the reporter(s) on the scene! At that very intersection where I was three plus hours earlier, about 20 protesters had walked into the street and stopped rush hour traffic. Policemen were arresting protesters and in some instances literally carrying them off to jail.

Do you think those protesters would walk into a busy intersection in the middle of rush hour if reporters and cameramen weren't there? Do you think this was all staged for the benefit of the cameras and the evening news? Of course, it was. It was a media event.

What would happen to the protest camp along the road to President Bush's home if the media covered the protest the first day and then said "We gave this protest all the attention it deserves; now let's go cover some important news." How long would those 100+- protesters remain camped out on a lonely country road if it wasn't covered by the media? Talk about a media event! Talk about the media creating and giving life to an event. An event that isn't really news worthy! A group of 100 people out of our entire population is miniscule.

As I asked in an earlier post, would the media give the same devotion to the story if the same number of people were protesting the murder of innocent unborn babies in front of a Supreme Court Justice's home? I doubt it. Media created news. Media created personalities. As I've said before, you can look for a book and/or movie coming soon to your local bookstore or theater (or TV channel). Maybe even a run for political office. Oh, the power of media created news.

I wrote the following letter to the editor in 2004 in response to a letter printed in the paper. Basically, the writer stated that Christians should not bring their values into play in politics because of the separation of church and state. A view that has been expressed by others both before and after this letter. I also bring up homosexuality which is another area of law where the courts including the Supreme Court have rewritten the Constitution to suit their values rather than following the provisions of the Constitution. The letter was not published. Here is that letter.

What rubbish! The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee the separation of church and state! It states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Letter writer .... ...... would have you believe that a person can not use religious values to reach political decisions. Not even the ACLU has claimed such nonsense! There are only religious and nonreligious values. If one can only use nonreligious values to reach political decisions then a large portion of the electorate would be disenfranchised. If one can not use religious values to reach political decisions, then murder and stealing should not be against the law since both are condemned in the Ten Commandments. How ridiculous!

In the history of the United States, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is not a civil rights issue! It is a moral issue. Homosexuality historically has been viewed as immoral behavior and still is by most of the people in this country. Originally, the cry was "government stay out of our bedroom." Then, the message was government pay for our bedroom through group health insurance benefits. Now, it is "government sanctify our bedroom." This is a complete reversal in government involvement in homosexuality.

"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) If the same is true for nations (and it is), we dare not sow immorality in the name of civil rights. As citizens of this country we have as much right to support our views as homosexuals have to push their agenda. That is democracy!

The United States Constitution says that there should be a "separation of church and state." Wrong!!! If one actually reads the Constitution that phrase is not used anywhere. Yet, many people believe that phrase is the essence of the First Amendment in relation to religion and government. The First Amendment in total actually states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That is it in total!

It is the U.S. Supreme Court who has declared that a separation of church and state is required by this amendment. That is historically incorrect. The intent of the first section was to prevent the establishment of a state church. Some of the colonists who came here from Europe did so to escape religious persecution because their religious beliefs were different from the state church, for example different than the teachings of the Church of England. They never intended to remove religion from the political life of the nation.

Congress opened its sessions with prayer. The Declaration of Independence refers to a Supreme Being at least three times--"Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," (men are) "endowed by their Creator," and "Divine Providence." The Supreme Court called upon GOD to bless their proceedings. Early public schools taught reading using the Bible as the main and sometimes the only reading source. The military has military chaplains. Public buildings have carvings in stone of Moses and the Ten Commandments. The list goes on and on.

This is another example of the Supreme Court misapplying constitutional provisions based upon their personal opinion rather than what the Constitution actuallly says. We now have the absurd example that government officials can not hang the Ten Commandments on an office wall or in a court room while hundreds of public buildings including court houses have carved into stone scenes of Moses with the Ten Commandments.

How is hanging the Ten Commandments on a wall establishing a religion? It is not! Not to any reasonable thinking individual. The Courtocracy continues to push its libertine agenda in the name of Constitutional Law. How absurd!

Two weeks ago Sunday, the Peoria Journal Star printed an op/ed article written by a law professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder. In the article he argues that Supreme Court Justices should be appointed for eighteen year terms with one new justice appointed every two years. A quote from the article includes, "Combine these two factors and our present system of life tenure for federal judges in general, and Supreme Court justices in particular, makes no sense."

I taught American government for a couple of years and have a master's degree in political science. The Constitution does not provide for "life tenure" for members of the federal court system. Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states the following in relation to the term of office for all judges in the federal court system; (they) "shall hold their office during good behavior." Note the term is "during good behavior;" it says nothing about life tenure. (I don't know what is being taught in schools today but I specifically emphasized that there is no guaranteed life tenure.)

Furthermore, the Constitution does not define what good behavior is. Who then determines good behavior? Congress does because they have the authority to impeach and convict(remove from office) any member of the federal judiciary. In fact, Congress in the past through the impeachment process has impeached and convicted members of the federal court system.

To change the Constitution (other than by judicial fiat) to provide for a set term of office for court members, it takes a 2/3rds vote of members voting in each House. It then must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states usually by the General Assembly of each state. To impeach, it takes a majority vote in the House of Representatives of those voting and a 2/3rds vote in the Senate of those voting.

The point is that it would be easier to remove a judge by impeachment and conviction that it would be to amend the Constitution. The problem is in recent years the Congress has not availed itself of this method to remove judges who violate their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The result is that judges reach decisions based upon their own opinions rather than the clear provisions of the Constitution. The process is in place to remove senile judges and to remove judges who violate their oath of office. It needs to be used!

I would suggest one of the first justices who should be impeached is the justice (he will remain nameless) who believes that international law is the same as Constitutional law. It is not! I actually don't think a large number of impeachments would be necessary. Once judges realized Congress intends to follow its constitutionally given authority to impeach and convict judges who are not acting under the "good behavior" provisions, they will quickly begin to follow the Constitution as their guide in reaching decisions rather than their own personal opinions. Wouldn't that be different?

It certainly can't hurt to actually follow the document that we consider to be the supreme law of the land!

I wasn't going to write about it. I considered it to be an unimportant story that was given much more media attention than it deserved. I changed my mind when Friday morning and this morning the local radio station I listen to used the following two phrases to introduce short news reports. Friday, "The mother who was made famous." Saturday, "He (President Bush) would not meet with." The individual referred to in each instance, of course, is the mother whose son had been killed in Iraq (doing his duty) who has been picketing outside of President Bush's home demanding that the President personally meet with her so that she can tell him what policy he should follow.

My first reaction to all this is that she has been made famous because the media has made her famous. The power they have to determine what is news and what is not news is staggering. Do you trust them to be unbiased? I don't.

My second reaction is "what arrogance!" Does she think she is the only person who has lost a loved one in war? When did she get elected to the Presidency that she has a right to make American policy?

She does have the right to voice her beliefs and opinions. She does have the right to peacefully protest as long as it is done legally. Just as we all do. She does not have the right or responsibility to make policy! She does not have the right to a personal audience with the President! Imagine if the President granted her request. Everyone who has a grievance against administration policy could demand to personally meet with the President to air his grievance. That is not guaranteed in the Constitution. The President would not have time to make policy. He would be spending every waking hour meeting with people who disagree with him. What arrogance on her part!

I don't know her motives. They may be as pure as a new snowfall. They may not be. Don't be surprised if one or more of three things happen. She writes a book. A made for television movie or similar event occurs. She runs for political office. People who have learned how to use and manipulate the press (the press does some manipulating here too) usually profit from it in one way or another. We might even get two books out of this. One by her and one by the divorcing husband. Won't that be exciting?

Then, I got to thinking (almost always a dangerous event). I started writing this blog, in part, because I disagree with the biases of the Peoria Journal Star and the editorial policy of that paper. Maybe I should start picketing in front of the newspaper demanding that they personally meet with me so that I can tell them how to operate their newspaper. I certainly can do a better job than they are doing.

Maybe, everyone who disagrees with the paper's policies should join me and demand separate meetings with the editorial board. Didn't the editorial board favor the President having a personal meeting with the protesting mother? If they did, they certainly can't deny my request to meet with me and be told how to operate their paper, can they? They can't deny any other request of a meeting, can they? Even better, since I've already started this blog, I should demand that they print my blog address daily so that people know there is another point of view that can be read. Do you think they will agree to that?

But, let's not stop there. The Supreme Court has ruled that mothers can murder their unborn babies. Fathers, even though they are equally involved in the creation of that new life, have no legal say in the matter. Every father or potential grandparent of a murdered unborn baby should picket in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and demand that the justices met individually with each one of them so that they can tell the court of their personal loss.

The court may not change their murderous ruling but they won't have much time to do any more damage to the moral fabric of the country. I like this idea. We have lost 35,000,000 babies. That is a lot of meetings. Do you think the media will give a protest like that as much attention as they are doing for this one mother?

Two more brief items. I also heard this first item on the radio today. The Democrats response to President Bush's weekly radio address included the following, "It is time to have a strategy to win or a strategy to get out (of Iraq)...."

News flash! There is now and always has been a strategy to win in Iraq. To believe otherwise is to believe our military is totally incompetent. Who goes to war without a battle plan? Anyone with any sense knows that battle plans are not rigid in design. They have to be modified to meet the changing situation. There is another side who is also trying to be victorious! These people seem to think that going to war is similar to going on a Sunday picnic.

Secondly, you don't tell the enemy your plans! Duh!!! Thirdly, given the intelligence that Democrats are portraying these days, you also don't tell them your plans because the enemy will soon know too. War is usually not easy especially when it is a war against terrorism. My advice to Democrats; stop complaining and work to bring a victorious conclusion to the conflict! We have already deposed a dictator, captured him, and liberated a country enough to have a democratic election. Join the effort to end this victoriously!
_____________________________________________________________________________________

In the last post, I discussed methods editors can use to slant the news. One of which was using misleading headlines. Today's paper had at least two examples of a misleading headline. The first example, "Roberts scoffed at promoting Justice O'Connor." Without reading the story, someone might believe that Judge Roberts (the present nominee by President Bush to the U.S. Supreme Court) scoffed at her possible appointment as Chief Justice (that was the issue, some reading the headline might not even realize the issue) because he thought her unqualified for the position or worse because she was a woman.

Reading the story, neither of those possibilities were the reason. He was instead trying to protect the appointment. A prominent Republican had suggested Justice O'Connor be appointed for a political reason--to increase the support of women for the administration. Mr. Roberts rejected that course of action arguing that a political basis should not be the basis for appointment to the position. He was right on that issue. (Today, some Democrats are trying to prevent Judge Roberts' appointment for political reasons. That is not a valid reason to prevent an appointment.)

The second headline: $253 million in Vioxx suit." The headline would lead any reasonable person to believe that the plaintiff in the case will receive $253 million minus expenses and lawyers. Reading the article changes that belief. According to the story, Texas has a cap on punitive damage awards. The amount that will probably be awarded in punitive damages according to the reporter will be $1.65 million not the $229 million awarded by the jury. That's a difference of $227.35 million. Would you say the headline is misleading or is it just technically wrong?

The power of editors to mislead as well as to inform. How many misleading headlines can you find today?

Last year, I wrote the following letter to the editor. It was not published. I post it now because I want to address the methods used by newspapers to influence public opinion. Here is that letter:

Every news organization is bias to one extent or another. Among other ways, one can recognize their biases by the headline used and/or the emphasis of the material in the story as well as what material is actually used.

Recently, I wrote a letter to the editor. The headline read "Moderate politics confusing." Moderate politics are not confusing; political labels as used today are wrong. Support of the murder of unborn children and homosexuality as a civil right are not liberal (the actual news story used the word moderate but that is so asinine I refuse to use that term); they are libertine. Belief in the right to life and marriage as a compact between a man and a woman are not neoconservative; they are moderate.

On 9/24/04 the Journal Star carried a front page story by the Associated Press dealing with the Iraqi Prime Minister coming to the United States. Thirteen paragraphs into the story, below the fold, on the eighth page; the article told of the Prime Minister's speech before Congress as he said "thank you" to the American people for saving Iraq. Powerful! Did Charles de Gaulle appear before Congress and thank us for saving France? Was it hidden on the eighth page below the fold?

I moved to Morton about three and one half months ago. I can already recognize the political biases of the staff of the Journal Star.

This is a brief synopsis of the process used by newspapers. (It has been a while since I learned this so it may not be 100% accurate but in general it is correct.) Every day literally hundreds of stories are or could be available for a newspaper to print. The Peoria Journal Star seems to get a majority of their national and international stories from the Associated Press. Every day the Associated Press offers the Journal Star hundreds of stories to choose from. Every day the Associated Press does not write about hundreds of stories that could have been written. Here is the first editing of what is news. If it is not offered by the Associated Press, the Journal Star is not going to print it as a general rule.

Furthermore, the Journal Star is not going to print every story offered by the Associated Press. They select the ones they have determined to be news worthy. (More of the disqualification process.) Thus, we had the selection a few days ago of an eating contest being a nationally selected story. They also select the local and state stories that will be printed; not every story available will make the news. How many stories have you read about the good being done in Iraq because U.S. troops have liberated the country?

Continuing the process, the original reporter edits the material and influences the direction of the story he is writing since seldom can all the material gathered be printed. Then, most stories get edited by an editor to fill the appropriate space and sometimes to provide the selected facts that the editors want to be presented. Then, people in the newspaper business know that other variables come into play in the actual printing of the paper.

Recently I asked a college educated, intelligent person this question. "If you were the subject of a news story would you want it printed above the fold of the paper or below the fold?" She said she didn't know. The answer is above the fold. It is more likely to be read. She said she thought that was the answer but she hadn't been sure. You can be certain that newspaper people know this.

Examples of variables that influence the news presented include the headline itself. Editors know that sometimes people only read the headline. A misleading headline that could have been clarified in the body of the story isn't because the reader stopped at the headline. Also, the facts of the story most likely to be read are in the first paragraph (or first few paragraphs). People stop reading a story before the conclusion of that story. Material can be buried toward the end of the story and some people will never read that far. As said above, material above the fold will more likely be read than below the fold. And on it goes.

The importance of all this is the influence a paper can have in a community when the paper has a monopoly or near monopoly in the distribution of the printed news and therefore control of the distribution of information. They determine what is news and what is not news. They determie the facts presented and the facts not presented. They determine what are the facts. They have some control over your flow of information and the information you have to make informed decisions.

A case in point was in today's newspaper. The headline was "Group praises ruling on pill." The story was about the decision in Illinois on how to regulate the distribution of an abortion pill. Of course, it is not referred to as an abortion pill but as an emergency contraception pill. If you repeat a lie often enough, some people start to believe it. Their impeccable source for this story and the group referred to in the story is Planned Murderhood. The article even lists telephone numbers where one can receive abortion pills if necessary.

Our fine newspaper in action continuing its support for the murder of unborn babies!

I believe the first time I heard this was several months ago in a commercial. Some television program, I think it was "60 Minutes" but I'm not sure, was going to do a segment on it. This evening I heard another brief story about it during the 6 o'clock news on NBC's affiliate. A major organization (I don't recall hearing the name, maybe it wasn't given) was quoted as saying that parents were doing a major service for their teen children when the parents allowed teens to drink alcohol at parties in the home--controlled drinking parties. Are you serious! What rot!

Have people totally lost their minds! I guess I really shouldn't be surprised. After all, the libertines and humanistic rationalists have been doing this for years in relation to teen intercourse. They argue (incorrectly) that teens are going to have intercourse anyway. Therefore, they should be encouraged to have safe sex. Give them all the birth control products and abortion pills that they want. (Are you listening American Academy of Pediatrics?) That is a horrendous idea and having parent controlled drinking parties for teens is too.

I was a school board member for four years. The worse drug problem we had was teenage drinking. I'm willing to guess that is probably true for almost every high school in the country. Do these ignorant people really think teens will only drink at these controlled parties? Get real. What it will do is lead teens to believe they have a green light to drink. And they do. MADD in the news story called this concept terrible. They are absolutely correct!

Plus, furnishing alcohol to minors is illegal. (Probably in every state in the union.) These parents are not only helping to possibly destroy their own children and others; they are violating the law. I would suspect that some police departments will not enforce the laws. They should! These parents should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

When are people going to learn that trying to cushion the negative effects of sin to supposedly protect someone does not work? Sin is sin. It's just another example of the "me first" generation. The problem is it doesn't work.

I've got an idea. Some teens like to play Russian roulette. Let's hold controlled Russian roulette events so that innocent by-standers are not hit by a stray bullet. We can even charge to enter the event and make a little money on the side. You can not placate sin! Wake up! Open your eyes! Open your ears! Open your mind! You can not placate sin!

Another communication from the American Center for Law and Justice. Repeated here because one of the most important issues of the Bush Administration will be the appointment of Supreme Court Justices who will follow the Constitution instead of rewriting the Constitution based upon personal agendas.

"You're a person of religious faith? You're disqualified. You won't commit to supporting abortion rights? You're disqualified.

This is the message coming loud and clear from left-wing groups and politicians responding to the President's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court of the United States.

This kind of discrimination is disgraceful.

. It's unconstitutional to impose a religious test for any federal office.

. It's wrong to demand a judicial nominee to declare how he or she would rule in a future case.

. It's unethical to force a former attorney to release confidential files from previous client relationships.

Yet every one of these outrages has been strongly promoted by pro-abortion groups desperate to derail Judge John Roberts's nomination to the high court.

(One Senator has actually declared that he will vote against Judge Roberts unless he agrees to support Roe (v.) Wade--effectively repudiating the constitutional principal of "separation of powers"!)

We knew the left wing would come out fighting, and we knew it would be intense. Our Washington team and I have been working with members of Congress on this literally every day, almost every hour. And with the help of tens of thousands of ACLJ members, we have already petitioned the Senate Judiciary Committee to clear the eminently qualified John G. Roberts, Jr., for a vote in the full Senate. I am deeply grateful to everyone who participated in that petition drive!

But the extent of the attacks has been appalling--and today, it's clear--we must petition the full Senate. The pressure is so great--the attacks on Judge Roberts are so fierce--that every member of the United States Senate is being bombarded by pro-abortion propaganda from the National Abortion Federation, People For the American Way, and others.

It's imperative that every Senator--not just members of the Judicial Committee-- recognizes the importance of confirming Judge Roberts. Ultimately, the full Senate will vote on him--not just the Committee.

And the Senate will be back in session soon, so it is crucial that your two Senators understand your position--and realize that you stand with thousands of ACLJ members in support of a speedy, straightforward up-or-down vote for Judge Roberts: no filibuster, no stalling, no maneuvering, no compromise.

Timing is also vital, because the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin hearings on September 6, and the Supreme Court will open its new session on the first Monday in October. Only if the Senate moves ahead at a constitutionally appropriate pace will Judge Roberts be seated in time.

I have known him for years. Because Judge Roberts is so highly qualified, the opposition is panicky. They cannot deny his credentials, so they must find ways to drag the process down.

The latest round of attacks has been the most vicious....

Some in the Senate, as well as public interest groups, have increased the call for scrutiny over Judge Roberts because of his Catholic faith. The idea that there would be a religious litmus test to serve on the Supreme Court is not only repugnant, it is also unconstitutional.

Now some Senators are even demanding that Judge Roberts release confidential files from his previous work as Associate White House Counsel and Deputy Solicitor General--which would be an unconscionable breach of attorney-client privilege and the rule of ethics.

(Rather than threatening a nominee who would refuse such a demand, the Senate should reject anyone who would agree to it!)

So the battle is enormous, and it is enormously important.

But by GOD'S grace, we are perfectly positioned, with our headquarters directly across the street from the Supreme Court building, only minutes from the U.S. Capitol.

Our legislative and legal teams are fully engaged--we're in 'overdrive'--meeting with Senators, conducting legal research, distributing legal memoranda--because it's imperative that Judge Roberts be confirmed.

We will continue to serve as your voice in the halls of Congress, but we need your help today in order to win this crucial battle. The Senate will be returning from summer recess shortly, so please immediately sign the enclosed petitions to your U.S. Senators and send them...to the ACLJ.

....

Our work on crucial pro-life Supreme Court cases can't be put 'on hold' during this confirmation process.

So please..., ... return your signed petitions without delay--the Senate will be back in session very soon. Thank you for responding to this urgent situation!

Yours for freedom,

Jay Alan Sekulow
Chief Counsel

P.S. We cannot afford any complacency in this pivotal moment. We are calling upon every member of ACLJ to participate in this nationwide petition drive. It is of paramount importance to the future of our nation that Judge Roberts be confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States....

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Petition to the Full Senate

In care of United States Senator Barack Obama, Il.
(also a petition addressed to Senator Richard Durbin, Il.)

As the Judiciary Committee releases the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., to the full Senate, you will be called upon to vote on the nomination. Judge Roberts is eminently qualified to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States with a stellar legal and judicial record. He will respect the Constitution of the United States and preserve the rights and freedoms of our nation's people. We strongly urge you to use your influence in the Senate to ensure that an up-or-down vote by the full Senate occurs in a timely manner, and we even more strongly urge you to vote in favor of confirmation for Judge Roberts.


Signed: ___________________________________________________

Thank you.

I just finished watching "Remember the Titans" on television. It's probably the first movie I have watched from start to end in at least ten years. (Some people say I don't get out much.) For those who aren't familiar with the movie. It's Hollywood's version of the first football season of a newly integrated high school in Virginia. I have said for years that I don't get my history from Hollywood. I don't get my theology from Hollywood. (That's why I never watched Mel Gibson's movie about CHRIST'S crucifixion.)

However, when you think about it; none of us has any choice before birth about our skin color, our size, our natural abilities, our looks, or anything else. Yet, to GOD that is not what is important. The Bible confirms that JESUS the CHRIST died on the cross for each and everyone of us.

I find it amazing that we can reject that love for us. We think that we know better than the CREATOR of the universe. No sane father allows his child to do whatever the child wants. Yet, we think we can sin and ignore GOD'S truth and not suffer the consequences even though the Bible clearly states that some will be condemned because they refuse to repent and turn to GOD in obedience to HIM. How catastrophic!

We don't have any choices before birth, we do afterwards. GOD has given us free will. Ultimately, we can not blame our genetics for what we believe, for our faith (or lack thereof), or how we live our life. We alone are responsible for the choices we make. When we are on our faces before the judgment seat of GOD, do you really think HE will accept any of our excuses for not accepting HIS SON as our LORD and SAVIOR?

"JESUS answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the FATHER except through ME.'" (John 14:6) JESUS says, "What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?" (Matthew 16:26)

Two new entries today. I think it was back in 1997 that I started writing a book. I didn't finish it until 1999. I had not really planned on publishing although I did check into it briefly. Then the silly "runaway bride" episode occurred. She thinks she has a story. She has no idea what a story is. I offered the book to a local newspaper to print as a serial. I heard from them initially and then nothing. To post a page a day (no Sundays, maybe no holidays) until the end of the year, I need to start today. Today being the 13th is also appropriate for starting now. I refer to it as a historical novel. (Judge for yourself.) Its background is the Vietnam Conflict. Since the Conflict officially ended thirty years ago, it seems like a good time to make it public.

The second item is an e-mail I received from an organization I belong to--the American Center for Law and Justice. I'm basically posting the e-mail. Here is that e-mail:

From: Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice

(American Center for Law and Justice is a tax-exempt, not-for-profit, religious corporation as defined under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, specifically dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable, God-given rights. The Center's purpose is to educate, promulgate, concilliate, and where necessary, litigate to ensure that those rights are protected under the law. The organization has participated in numerous cases before the Supreme Court, Federal Court of Appeals, Federal District Courts, and various state courts regarding freedom of religion and freedom of speech.)

Subject: NARAL ad is untrue!

Should activist groups be allowed to fabricate complete deceptions--and broadcast them across America--in order to try to derail the nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr., to the Supreme Court of the United States?

NO!

And yet, that is exactly what is happening.

In another misguided attempt to "smear" this worthy candidate, NARAL: Pro-Choice America is running a national ad campaign on television and radio that claims Judge Roberts advocates violent abortion protests because of his involvement in a certain abortion-related case (Bray (v.) Alexandria Women's Health Clinic).

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The very case in question is one that I argued twice before the Supreme Court on behalf of the pro-life demonstrators, and John Roberts argued on behalf of the United States in support of our legal position. I know what happened. I know what didn't. And today, I am writing to SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT!

Please read and then forward this message to your entire address book...America needs to know the TRUTH.

The NARAL: Pro-Choice America ad is an outrageous distortion of the facts.

The claim: In the Bray case, John Roberts argued in defense of a violent protestor who bombed a clinic "seven years ago."

The truth: The protests that were the subject of the Bray case were nonviolent sit-ins, reminiscent of the sit-ins of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. The activities that led up to the case were not violent activities at all. In fact, the protests took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s, almost ten years before a clinic bombing in Birmingham, Alabama. Eric Rudolph was recently convicted of that offense, which had absolutely NOTHING to do with the demonstrators involved in the Bray case. We had nothing to do with any acts of violence on any abortion clinics.

John Roberts and I argued before the Supreme Court (not once, but twice) that the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 did not apply to nonviolent protestors because opposition to abortion did not constitute discrimination against women. We won our case both times with a 6-3 vote. In fact, the Court went out of its way to say that to put a pro-life protestor in the same category as a racist was, in Justice Scalia's own words, "ridiculous."

NARAL: Pro-Choice America's ad is a complete fabrication...a compilation of random facts that have been cleverly edited but have nothing to do with Judge Roberts or me.

They should be called on the carpet for this. Their ad should be banned! Instead, CNN and others are continuing to run it.

CNN, or any respectable news organization, should not run this ad.

Integrity has been tossed out the window with this ad.

This is why I wanted you to know the truth. It is why you must share this truth with everyone in your address book.

The ACLJ is committed to doing all we can to fight for John Roberts. As I have said before, he is a man of great character. He will rightly interpret the Constitution. He will return the rule of law to our country.

We will continue to alert you to the deception and propaganda being spewed over the airwaves against John G. Roberts, Jr.

Thank you for your continued support as a member of the ACLJ.

Two items. The first is a short letter to the editor in the paper today--twenty four lines almost every one of which is incorrect or misleading. First, 1) George Bush lost the popular vote 2) He was elected by a conservative Supreme Court 3) The voting was "botched" in Florida

The answer to these incorrect and misleading statements:
...1) The popular vote is irrelevant to the election of the President. The President has never been elected by popular vote and constitutionally it has never been intended that the President be elected by popular vote. To change the procedure, it takes a Constitutional amendment unless the Supreme Court tries to rule a portion of the Constitution to be unconstitutional. That would not surprise me but it has not happened yet.
...2) Any court that thinks the murder of unborn babies is legal, who believes that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" translates into a "wall separating church and state," or considers international law to be the same as Constitutional law is not a conservative court. One day prayerfully we may actually get a court that follows the Constitution instead of what they want.
...3) Does the author of the letter know something that no one lese knows? As far as I know, Al Gore accepted the decision that George Bush won in Florida and therefore won the majority vote of the Electoral College which is the vote needed to be elected President.

Paragraph Two: 1) George Bush is a leader 2) President Bush led us into a war we cannot win 3) most of the world is now alienated against us.

The answers to these incorrect and misleading statements:
...1) Okay, so he is right on one item. George Bush is a leader.
...2) So far, we have captured and jailed a tyrant who was involved in one war in the 1980's and started a second war in the early 1990's. We have liberated a group of people who have been held captive, been tortured, and been murdered for a generation. (Of course, some claim that they are not capable of handling democracy. How arrogant on their part!) I don't know his definition of win, but so far we have done pretty well unless we as a nation capitulate to the nay sayers. I also don't know how he has the ability to foretell the future. I sure wish I had that gift.
...3) Most of the world allowed Hitler to take territory after territory in the late 1930's and to kill millions of people. Most of the world should not make U.S. foreign policy. We should. If we are successful, they will get over it. If we are not successful, they will get over it. (If not, too bad. They don't make our policy nor should they.) However, the people of Iraq will probably continue to suffer at the hands of tyranny and terror. If we leave, do you actually believe the terrorists will also stop?

Paragraph Three: 1) President Bush appointed John Bolton without Senate approval 2) John Bolton equals anti-diplomacy

The problems with these statements:
...1) President Bush did indeed appoint Mr. Bolton without Senate approval. What he did was perfectly constitutional. He did send the appointment to the Senate and the Senate refused to vote on it because a minority prevented a vote. It was the Senate who refused to vote on the nomination. In the meantime, the U.S. needed an ambassador to the United Nations.
...2) The President of the U.S. is the one who is responsible for appointing ambassadors not the letter writer. If he thinks he can do better, he ought to run for the Presidency. Obviously, the President does not believe he is anti-diplomacy (unless that is what he wanted) and a majority of the Senate was never given the opportunity by the obstructing minority to voice their opinion of the nomination by voting on it.

Paragraph Four: 1) He sent men to die in a stupid war 2) He is against stem-cell research which could and probably save.

The problems with these statements:
...1) Because he thinks the conflict is stupid does not make it stupid. People die in wars; that is the nature of war. As leader of the country, George Bush has to make difficult decisions on a daily basis. Everyone who has fought in the war selected to serve in the military or in some other capacity. One of the purposes of a military is to possibly fight in a war. It is their choice.
...2) Again, the letter writer thinks he has some ability to foretell the future that most of us don't possess. He does qualify his statement with could ( which also means that it might not) and probably (probably also means that we don't know for sure unless he has more ability to forecast the future than the rest of us.) He conveniently ignores the reasons why President Bush is not willing to rush headlong into this research. My guess is that the letter writer has no problem with the continuing murder of unborn babies. However, that is just a guess based upon the rest of his letter.

I am thankful for George Bush's democracy as we pull back from the libertine policies of the Supreme Court and the Clinton administration. Ask me if I would ever vote for Hilary Clinton--"We are the President."
>>>>>
There was a story about the closing of military bases. Before moving to Illinois, I lived in Tucson, Arizona. Tucson has an air force base. Every time, it was the same thing. Don't close our base, close bases any where but here.

Just once I would like to see or read of the leaders of a community saying something like this. "The government wants to close our military facility. We are honored that we were chosen. We know that closing unnecessary bases will save money and be of benefit to the nation. We are sorry to lose the service personnel but we understand. We have an educated, energetic, well trained workforce and plan to grow and prosper as a community. We wish the best to the country, the military, and its service personnel." Wouldn't that be something!

Some brief comments on recent news stories. The first one was a news report from ABC radio news this morning. Summarizing the short report, retail sales last month increased by 2%. Auto sales were the highest they have been in four years. Other than auto sales, retail sales were sluggish. My response to the report: Duh! Money doesn't grow on trees. If money is being spent on cars, it can't be be used on other retail items. It almost seems as if the report was trying to turn a positive situation into a negative or am I being too skeptical. It's difficult to trust the motives behind many news reports these days; so many seem to have hidden agendas.

The next one was in the Peoria Journal Star August 8, 2005. This brief story was the first story listed in the "morning report"--nation section of the paper, above the fold, first column, on page two of the first section of the paper. It seems that a 99 pound woman won a competitive eating contest over the weekend. My question: Who cares? Is this the most important national news they have? Maybe this story is worth mentioning in the entertainment section of the paper. National news? Not in my humble opinion.

On August 9, 2005 the Peoria Journal Star ran a story about the annual "Kids Count" survey in relation to infant mortality rates and low birth weight babies in Illinois. The story included statistics from 1990 through 2002 for infant mortality rates and low birth weight babies in Illinois. The listing of the statistics got me to thinking.

I don't recall in the year and one half I have lived in Illinois seeing a similar listing of the statistics for the number of abortions that have occurred both in Illinois and the United States since the Supreme Court illegally ( illegal because there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that would prevent states from preventing abortions--absolutely nothing. The court members used their own values [or lack thereof] to reach that decision.) allowed abortions in 1973. Do you think a listing of the number of murdered unborn babies over the last thirty two years might trigger righteous indignation in some people and therefore the paper has squelched that important information? How would the public react to approximately 35,000,000 (thirty five million) murders (Give or take a few million.) in 32 years? In the view of unborn baby murderers, better to be out of sight and therefore out of mind.

I have never subscribed to Time magazine as far as I can remember. In approximately 1997, I began to receive a weekly copy by an anonymous benefactor. I received the August 15, 2005 copy today. The cover story was "Evolution Wars: The push to teach 'intelligent design' raises a question: Does God have a place in science class?"

I did not bother to read the article. Time has already stated in a one page article earlier this year that Darwin got his evolution theory right. Time, of course, is wrong but with that position I didn't have a reason to read the article.

However, I think Time missed the real issue. If GOD created the universe, why isn't true science being taught in the classroom? Is it better to teach a lie than to teach the truth because it includes GOD? Science is supposed to be based upon truth. GOD is truth. One can not teach the truth and keep GOD out of the classroom.

Throughout the Bible, the WORD of GOD declares that GOD created the universe and all that is within it. "In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) "Pray that this will not take place in winter, because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when GOD created the world, until now--and never to be equaled again." (Spoken by JESUS--Mark 13:18-19) "HE (JESUS) is the image of the invisible GOD, the firstborn over all creation. For by HIM all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by HIM and for HIM." (Colossians 1:15-16) "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at GOD'S command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." (Hebrews 11:3) "YOU are worthy, our LORD and GOD, to receive glory and honor and power, for YOU created all things, and by YOUR will they were created and have their being." (Revelation 4:11)

In 2004, I watched approximately half of a PBS "Nova" program and then turned it off because of the lies being told. I wrote the following op/ed letter. Of course, it was not published.

How can anyone believe what is being pushed upon us as the scientific explanation for the creation of the universe? I watched the first half hour of "Nova" Wednesday night September 29, 2004. Putting it into terms I and most everyone else can understand, the program declared that billions of years ago, there were billions of letters. (How these letters came about no one can explain. Some claim the explosion itself created them.) One day an explosion ("Big Bang") or tremendous burst of energy occurred. (How that happened no one can explain either. Maybe someone lit a match. Wait. No matches!) The burst of energy threw all of the letters into space and gravity somehow, in one try, eventually turned all those letters into a Nobel Prize winning novel. Isn't that ludicrous? Yet that is what some within our scientific community want us to believe.

A basic scientific law is that one can not get something from nothing. Yet, the universe consists of more mass than we can calculate. Where did it come from? Either it was there before the explosion or it had to be created by the explosion. If it was there before the explosion, where did it come from? How was it created? Who created it? If it was created by the explosion or burst of energy, how was it created? How did all that mass get created from nothing? Give just one example where an explosion or burst of enery created anything new let alone the amount of mass that exists in the universe.

Another basic scientific principle is that a one time phenomenon generally doesn't occur. If it occurred once it should occur again. Yet, we have a one time major instance of creation and for continuing billions of years, nothing. Why not? Why was that one time so unique? Why hasn't the same process that created the first explosion, burst of energy occurred at least once more in all these billions of years? How did that one time explosion, burst of energy occur? What force existed to create it? Another creation problem. Even a burst of energy or an explosion needs a source. What was the source? Where did the energy come from? Now we have two creation problems. How was the explosion, burst of energy created? How was all that mass created? It can't just happen. Not scientifically.

A third basic scientific law is that processes are repeatable and testable. Has anyone at any time ever exploded some thing and as a result something was created (rather than a pile of junk). Test the theory. Blow up a bunch of junk and see if a house is created. Blow up a car and see if a car results. Maybe, instead of a car we will get two motorcycles. Maybe, a bike with left over parts. A house, a car, two motorcycles, a bike; all are less complex than our universe. An explosion, burst of energy has never created one of the above or anything else. Explosions destroy; they don't create. Yet some scientists expect us to accept that one explosion, burst of energy created (accidentally, by chance--no creative thought process involved) the vast, marvelously complex universe we have today.

Get real! Get honest! Stop trying to pass off a denial of GOD and HIS creation as science. GOD is the greatest scientist ever. None of man's efforts even come close. "For the foolishness of GOD is wiser than man's wisdom...." (I Corinthians 1:25a) To me, it takes more faith to believe the foolishness proposed in the name of science than it does to believe that this marvelously complex universe, that man still hasn't come close to understanding or explaining, was created by a SUPREME GOD. As an old story goes, man had finally discovered how to clone a man and in his arrogance challenged GOD to a "man creation" contest. GOD created a new man and began to leave with all HIS creations except for the first man. Man yelled for HIM to wait. Man claimed HE wasn't being fair. GOD responded, "Get your own dirt!" Man can't create without using that which GOD created. That which is created is done by a creator. An explosion, burst of energy created the universe. Ludicrous!!!

When scientists can answer truthfully and scientifically the questions asked, I'll reexamine the explosion, burst of energy theory. Until then, stop lying to us!!!

The August 8, 2005 Peoria Journal Star printed a column by two political reporters entitled "word on the street." The first article was one of the most inane pieces of political journalism I have read in a long time. The point of the article seemed to be that the amount of money spent in the campaign was not very important in determining the winner of the campaign. The example given was that an incumbent councilman spent less than $10,000 on his campaign and won while two other council members who lost spent about $25,000 while both of their challengers spent less and still won. The writers also gave examples of the personal contact the winners had with the electorate especially the winning councilman. No empirical evidence was given!

Certainly, personal contact is important. It may have been the reason why that councilman won while the other two lost. Unfortunately, that conclusion can not be drawn from the information given in the article. First of all, although the article gives how much the councilman spent and how much was spent by each of the four candidates in the other two races, it glaringly does not give how much was spent by the losing challenger. Did he spend less than $1,000 while the councilman spent $8,000? Did the challenger spend $100,000 and still lose the election. We don't know; the article didn't say! Incredible!!!

The article did not give information in relation to other important aspects of the campaign. Did the challenger actually spend more time and effort on personal contacts and still lose? We don't know. No information was given. The article said the winners in the other two races were strong challengers to the incumbents. It said nothing about the strength of the candidate who challenged the councilman who won. Was he an unknown who did not have the qualifications possessed by the incumbent? We don't know; nothing was said in that area. We do know that the incumbent had sufficient qualifications to win a previous election. The only information given about the challenger was his name and that the incumbent received 53% of the vote. From the article, we can't even be sure the challenger received 47% of the vote.

Were there other variables that may have influenced the outcome of the election? We don't know because the article totally ignores the possibility of any other influence. It even ignores the possibility of policy differences being a factor in the election. Can you believe that policy differences were not even considered! John Kerry could have personally visited me fifteen times. He could have had me spend the weekend at his house as his personal guest. I may have changed my opinion of him as a person and his qualifications to be President. However, I still would have voted for President Bush. Policy positions do make a difference in an election. I wish the Journal Star would at least attempt to be creditable!

The editorial staff of the Peoria Journal Star continues to amaze me. Unfortunately, it is an amazement based upon the proposition that they continue to support the unsupportable. I guess it should not be a surprise. They support the murder of unborn babies so why wouldn't they support any method to continue that murderous behavior. On August 4, 2005; an editorial was printed in support of selling abortion pills over the counter with almost the same ease as buying aspirin.

Here is a quote from the editorial. "Two months later Barr Laboratories proposed a solution so easy you'd think even the feds could have thunk it: Require pharmacies to limit sales to those 17 and older. That was in July of 2004." Either the editorial writers are terribly naive or they think we are!

A few reasons why such a policy should not be enacted include the following. Some pharmacists are now objecting to dispensing the abortion pill with a prescription. Does the editorial board believe they will change their position if it is now sold over the counter? It is just as likely that a small town owner who is opposed to the abortion pill will not carry it at all. They certainly have the right to carry the over the counter medicine they choose to carry. Do they plan on forcing all pharmacies by legislation, executive fiat as in Illinois, or by judicial tyranny to stock over the counter abortion pills? I love their concept of choice. Some want the choice to murder the unborn while trying to deny anyone who opposes such murder any choice in the matter. The only choice that is proper is their choice!

Next, you have the problem of pharmacies policing the sell of over the counter medicine--checking to insure that the buyer is 17 or older. We have already started that process in relation to some cold medicines; let's continue it with abortion pills. Soon, store workers will be spending more time policing the distribution of products than serving the customer.

Another quote from the editorial is "Presently it requires a prescription, which isn't always easy to come by in emergencies, particularly those which occur on weekends, and more so when the woman or teen needing help (what an obscene use of the word!) has no doctor to call." What happens if, in this great emergency need for an abortion pill, the customer doesn't have proper identification? Deny that poor person the opportunity to possibly murder an unborn baby? Another question, why is someone who has no doctor having unprotected intercourse? I'm sure Planned Murderhood would not hesitate to provide a prescription. Their goal in life seems to be to murder as many unborn babies as possible. Do you think caring adult males will stock up on abortions pills to help his partner out of her predicament? Will women select the abortion pill as their "birth control" method of choice since she only has to pop one pill as needed? No need; no pill!

What is the legal age to become an adult in this country? To our editorial writers it must be 17. If anyone sold or provided my minor child abortion pills without my permission, I would sue them in civil court and file criminal charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Why is it that this editorial board, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the United States Supreme Court think they have the right to replace the decisions of a parent with their own warped opinion of right and wrong?

Finally, probably the most egregious problem with this ludicrous proposal is the obvious one--obvious to any one who gives it two seconds of thought. At the present time, age restrictions apply to both the purchase of cigarettes and alcohol. Yet, any 16 year old can get cigarettes if he wants them and the most prevalent drug problem in high school is the illegal use of alcohol. No one can really expect that a law restricting the use of abortion pills that are purchased over the counter is going to prevent the use of them by those who are too young. Nobody!!!

The fact is that the unborn baby murderers have been worried for thirty two years that the people of the United States would regain their senses and the Supreme Court decision that allows the murder of unborn babies will be reversed. The fact is that the country is finally moving in that direction and the libertines are scared to death. The fact is that they want to flood the country with nonprescription abortion pills so that abortions can continue even after the 1973 decision is trashed by a court that doesn't rewrite the Constitution with their decisions. The fact is that they fear the power of the American people to overturn the decision of nine men. Prayerfully that will happen!

A short nine line news article appeared in the paper August 2, 2005. According to the story, the California Supreme Court ruled that country clubs must allow homosexual members who register as domestic partners the same discounts that they give to married heterosexual couples. The courts in this country continue to be out of control thinking that they rather than the legislatures or the people should determine the moral (or lack thereof) climate in this country. They continue to promote the courtocracy that has been developing for at least the last forty five years in this nation.

The spell check in this computer, underlined courtocracy in red which indicates that it was a misspelled word. Checking it, it had no suggestion on how to correct the spelling. We have not yet developed a word for the rule by courts that is growing yearly in the United States. Courtocracy is as good as any other.

Since all court members at the national level are appointed to their position by the President of the United States with the majority approval of the Senate, it is imperative that we continue to support appointments to the court that will uphold the Constitution of the United States and not rewrite it based upon their own opinions. That should be the primary basis for selection of judges and justices.

People in support of the courtocracy (They support it because they support most of the decisions of the courts.) have already declared that their criteria is decision based. If the appointee supports the libertine positions of the court, then he is qualified to serve on the court. If he does not support the libertine positions of the present court, then he is not qualified to serve on the court. They have no desire to return to the practice of actually using the provisions of the Constitution to reach judicial decisions since doing so would void much of the last forty five years of court decisions.

The Democrats have lost the Presidency and Congress. They do not want to lose control of the libertine courts. My question is this. Would you trust or respect any court system that thinks murdering unborn babies is perfectly legal? Would you trust or respect any court system that has ruled that immoral behavior is a civil right protected and promoted by the United States Constitution?

The Constitution with amendments has been around for more than two hundred years. Yet, it is only in the last forty five years that these libertine decisions have occurred. For some unknown reason, the people who wrote the Constitution and its amendments didn't realize that the provisions within allowed the murder of unborn babies or promoted immorality. How could they have not known what they were writing when they originally wrote them? According to today's court, they understand those earlier written provisions of the Constitution better than did the original authors.

Demand that we actually follow the intended meaning of the Constitution as written and amended. Demand that the courts stop rewriting the Constitution without following the procedure for amending the Constitution. Stop courtocracy! Stop court tyranny!

Yesterday, I wrote about the appointment of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. Today, the Peoria Journal Star published an editorial about that same appointment. I had not planned on giving more space to the appointment. Yet, I've got to respond to the Journal Star editorial.

First, this is a quote from an article printed in the Journal Star yesterday (August 2, 2005) by William Douglas of Knight Ridder Newspapers, "Foreign affairs analysts said the political beating Bolton took at the hands of opponents--Republican majorities in the Senate twice were unable to muster enough votes to stop debate on the appointment--might cost him influence at the United Nations." Note: by Senate rule (not constitutional provision) it takes 60 votes [it was at one time 67 votes] to stop Senate debate on an issue. To approve a nomination it takes a majority vote of those Senators voting. If all 100 Senators voted--the Vice President votes in case of a tie vote, it would take 51 votes to approve John Bolton's nomination. Consequently, according to the article published yesterday in the Journal Star, the vote did not occur because the opponents (almost all Democrats) did not allow it to take place!

Today, the Journal Star editorial laments the recess appointment of John Bolton. Here are some quotes from that editorial. 1) "John Bolton was a poor choice for United Nations ambassador made worse by the fact that he does not have congressional backing." 2) "For a number of reasons, the Senate had refused to call Bolton's nomination to a vote in the six months since it was made." 3) "Unfortunately, the increasing use of recess appointments to dodge the constitutional requirement for Senate approval (Bush has made more than 100) has no such limitation."

The first major problem with all of this has nothing to do with President Bush's action. The Constitution provides for "advice and consent" of the Senate on Presidential appointments. It provides for "advice and consent"; not "advice and obstruction". If the Senate would vote on his nominations, he would not have to use the constitutionally provided method of making recess appointments! The fault lies with the Senate--not with the President!

Concerning the first quoted point of the editorial, John Bolton never needed congressional backing because Congress is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Senate is the only legislative body that votes on Presidential nominations. The editorial board either does not know the constitutional procedures required or does not know what Congress is. Furthermore, the editorial staff can not possibly know if John Bolton had Senatorial backing or not because no vote was allowed to be taken. The lack of a vote was caused primarily by a minority of opposition Democrats. Allow a vote and determine the will of the Senate. Deny a vote by parliamentary procedures and you can not claim he did not have the backing of a majority of the Senate. In fact, the opposite is probably true otherwise there would be no need to block a vote. Duh!!!

Furthermore, the Senate did not refuse to call Bolton's nomination to a vote. A minority of Senators prevented a vote. That information is a direct quote from the previous day's article published in the same newspaper. Don't they read their own articles? The only true reason for not having a vote was Senatorial obstructionism by a minority of Senators. Concerning recess appointments, these are indeed provided for in the Constitution. They were used by other Presidents before President Bush. He did not invent the use of them and if he uses it more than other Presidents (the editorial did not give a comparison) it is because a minority of Senators are trying to obstruct his appointments. They know that a vote of the Senate would almost certainly result in a loss in the Senate. Vote the nomination or don't complain when the President uses constitutional means to have nominees serve the country.

Finally, this whole editorial is an awkward attempt to rewrite history. Does the Journal Star editorial staff really think that the public is so stupid that they don't recognize this blatant attempt to rewrite history that is only six months old? I think they do!

President Bush nominated John Bolton to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Many Democrats in the Senate disapprove of the nomination. Using Senate rules to delay the proceedings, no vote is taken by the Senate. During the summer recess, President Bush appoints Mr. Bolton as ambassador to the U.N. as he has the constitutional right to do and as he had said he would. The two Senators from Illinois complain that the President by-passed the Senate and appointed the wrong person to the position. What is wrong with this picture?

If the Democrats had enough votes to prevent the appointment, they would have supported a vote on the question. They delayed the vote because they were rather certain they would lose. Then, they complain when the President uses his constitutional authority to fill the vacancy. When are they going to realize that they have lost control of the government because the majority of the voting people in this country disapprove of their policies and are now in the process of correcting thirty plus years of the murder of the unborn, giving civil rights to immoral behavior, and trying to remove GOD from all aspects of the government?

It's like children playing a game of football. One rule allows a team to withhold the ball to prevent the game from being played. The team does so because the team members are fearful that they will lose. However, another rule allows the other team to use its own football if one is not available from the first team. Then, the original team complains because the game was played anyway. When are they going to grow up? Either have a vote (play the game) or don't complain when you lose anyway.

The July 27 post is the introduction to today's post.

Last week G.B. Trudeau in his Doonesbury strip clearly states that Karl Rove leaked the name of a CIA agent. He has declared himself judge and jury. Other similar minded Democrats have demanded that Mr. Rove either resign or be fired. None of them seem to understand or want to follow the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Even if five different reporters claim that Mr. Rove was the tipster, does that make him guilty? No, not until he is convicted in a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is the basis of our legal system! Is there any libertine Democrat out there who understands this basic concept?

We all know that reporters have been known to lie! Consider this. If all it takes is an accusation from a reporter to get an administrative official fired, all a reporter has to do is falsely claim that illegal information came from that particular individual. Do you really want our government to operate under these circumstances?

I've got another concern. I have not seen this addressed in the media although it may have been. If it is illegal for a government official to give the name of a CIA agent and it should be, doesn't the reporter and the newspaper or magazine have a moral obligation NOT to publish that information? Doesn't the publishing of that name for the world to see endanger the life of the agent just as much if not more than telling that name to a reporter? Freedom of the press is not and never has been unfettered--it is not an absolute freedom.

Yet, I have not seen or heard of any demand that any reporter resign for risking the life of the agent. I have not seen or heard of any demand that any newspaper, magazine, or its staff be punished for printing the story. They morally have to be culpable just as the administrative or other individual who originally gave the name to the reporter is culpable. They could and should have decided not to print the name of the agent. They did not. Where is the moral outrage?

Finally, we need to stop placing such undeserved value on the anonymous source or the ubiquitous "high placed official." If an individual is not willing to be publicly named, how do we know he is even in the position to know the given information? How do we judge the reliability of the information? How do we know that the information hasn't been fabricated by the reporter? We can't!