The last two posts, I have been discussing some of the statements advanced by the Peoria Journal Star’s editorial staff in their commentary entitled “A common goal for both sides of abortion debate.” Continuing that tonight, the editorial writers proclaim “If anything, Illinois’ statistics prove that abortion can stay legal yet be an infrequent procedure.”
Remember, the number of reported abortions in Illinois last year was 41,577! Is that the actual concept of the editorial writers of infrequent? 41,577 murders in one year are more than 113 murders every day of the year! It is almost 5 (4.746) murders every hour of every day of the year! Imagine if we were having 4 murders every hour of every day in the streets of Illinois cities. They would be screaming for a halt to the blood shed and rightly so.
But, the 41,577 murders of innocent unborn babies are identified as infrequent and insanely given as a justification to continue the slaughter! “Why, the death of over 4 unborn children every hour of every day isn’t too bad at all.” “We are improving on our massacre of the innocent!” “So by all means let us continue to murder them!” How horribly insane that reasoning is!
Here is the final insult to the intelligence of every reader reading this perverted, revolting, warped, immoral essay; “… and if pro-life groups realize that pro-choice doesn’t mean ‘anti-life’….” WHAT!!! That is exactly what pro-choice means!!! Every time an abortion occurs a life is destroyed! Every time!!! The very definition of abortion is the terminated death of the unborn baby. No way can these writers redefine the meaning of abortion to remove the death of the baby. Every abortion results in death!!! If that is not “anti-life” then up is down, black is white, women are men, men are women, and every one of these writers has won the Nobel Peace prize a dozen times each.
If I had not read the statement I don’t think I would have believed that even these writers could proclaim such nonsense. Unfortunately, they can. Do you believe them??? Can you believe anything they write???
Yesterday, I wrote about the editorial on abortions written by the editorial staff of the Peoria Journal Star on 12/28/05, page A4. Today, I want to continue to point out more problems with that editorial.
The following is another quote from the editorial, “Perhaps no other issue has polarized Americans in the past 30 years as much as abortion, primarily because the vitriol has centered around its original legality.” There is no question that the method and reasoning used to allow the murder of unborn babies was wrong. Nine unelected Justices decided that all States must permit the murder of the unborn. They reached this decision by their own rewriting of the U.S. Constitution since nothing within the Constitution remotely provided for such lunacy.
However, the question of its legality is not why the decision is so abhorrent. The decision its self is what is so vehemently condemned. The whole concept that a mother somehow has a legal “right” to murder her unborn child is so repugnant that it must be condemned, repudiated, and changed. If the editorial staff does not realize that simple fact, they are living in a dream world that is totally removed from reality. NO ONE has the “right” to murder their own child!!! NO ONE!!!
Another quote from the article declares “It’s time—past time—to shift the focus off Roe v. Wade. Criminalizing abortion would merely drive it underground and make it unsafe, period.” Who in the world gave this editorial board the power to declare that we should no longer be opposed to the murder of the unborn? Then, the same tired, irrational, felonious argument is repeated. If the nation does not allow the murder of the unborn, it will occur anyway and not only will the baby be murdered but the murderer’s life might be endangered also. Yes, some mothers will continue to try to have an illegal abortion. However, no one seriously believes that that number was in the past, is today, or in the future will be in the same horrifically high range as occurs now because it is allowed.
More importantly, do these people realize the ramifications of such reasoning? By that argument, no law should ever be enacted since no law can possibly prevent all instances of violating that law. The law against murder does not prevent all murders. Their real argument is that the murder of the unborn should be allowed because some unborn will be murdered anyway. How totally ridiculous!!! Their real justification is that the life of the unborn baby is of far less value than the life of the murdering mother. Actually, their real argument is that the life of the unborn has no value!!!
The editorial staff wrote another editorial on abortion published on 12/28/05 page A4. It was titled “A common goal for both sides of the abortion debate.” The common goal according to the essay is to lower the number of abortions that occur each year. The editorial writers seem pleased that the number of reported murders of unborn babies in Illinois in 2004 was 41,577—that’s 41,577 murdered, innocent, unborn babies destroyed by abortions. The essay is riddled with inaccuracies including that a common goal is to lower the number of murders of the unborn.
The editorial writers seem oblivious to the fact that if one’s goal truly is to lower the number of abortions it is an admission that abortion is wrong. The truth is that if an abortion is not the murder of an unborn baby; then there would be no reason or need to lower the number of abortions. If it is indeed “MY BODY,” then the destruction of that part of a woman’s body would not be of concern to the state as far as preventing the action. But, of course, it is not the woman’s body but a new life created exactly as provided by GOD, the creator of the universe. Secondly, I don’t believe the editorial board is qualified to determine the goal of those of us who know that an abortion is murder. Our goal is not to lower the number of babies murdered each year although the lower the murder rate the better. Our goal is to end the murder of innocent unborn babies. Anything less continues the repugnant practice of murdering the unborn.
They propose once again that abortion pills should be sold over the counter. Of course as always, they deny that it really is an abortion pill. Of course, they also believe that the murder of unborn babies should remain legal so who can possibly trust their judgment on this issue. I certainly do not. They also ridicule the attempt by some pharmacists to challenge the governor’s edict that they must dispense said abortion pill even if it violates their religious beliefs. The fact is that if the “emergency conception pill” is in fact an abortion pill which it is, then the number of abortions reported in Illinois will never be accurate. It is impossible to know how many pregnancies (pregnancies begin at conception just as human life begins at conception) have been ended (how many murders of unborn babies have occurred) by means of the abortion pills taken by women. This is a quote from a Peoria Journal Star article published on 12/29/05, page B5. “”However, some pharmacists oppose the rule on religious grounds since they believe Plan B (the so called “emergency contraception pill”—my addition) acts as a chemical abortion.” Consequently, the very assumption by the editorial writers that this pill is no more than a form of contraception and should therefore be accepted by all is both misleading to the reader and wrong in its conclusion.
I love this arrogant statement by the editorial staff. “For anyone interested in common sense (According to their view, you only have common sense if you agree with the editorial writers—my edition.), here’s a dream strategy:
1. ….
2. …. Make Plan B, the ‘morning-after’ pill, available over the counter.” These people are delusional. First, they have demonstrated over an over again that their concept of common sense is anything but common sense. It will never be common sense to make a contraception pill which is really an abortion pill available over the counter because it would be far too easy for young people of 10, 11, 12 years of age to get and use a murderous pill contrary to the wishes of their parents. These writers seem to not have a clue to what common sense is!!!
In my December 26th post I wrote that the Chairman of The Copley Press Inc. had an article published on Christmas day (Peoria Journal Star). Another quote from that article from page A1 is this, “Christmas is a time to focus on achievement and generosity.”
Meanwhile, the editorial staff on the paper decided not to write the normal, daily editorial(s). Instead as part of their introduction to eight political cartoons printed on page A4 of the editorial page (12/25/05) they wrote this “At any rate, we were looking for a reason,…, to explain why we are again communicating the spirit of the season through illustration, with as few words as possible, with no other goal than to elicit a grin and perhaps a thought or two.”
As I said, this “grin and perhaps a thought or two” came in the form of eight political cartoons. One cartoon featured the birth of JESUS, the CHRIST; one pictured carolers; and the other six made reference to Santa Claus in one way or another. All eight of the cartoons were negative in scope. Seven of the eight were liberal to libertine in the political philosophy being expressed or that was attempted to be expressed. Only one did not have a political emphasis—Santa was delivering books instead of a new X Box 360. (Personally I prefer books. However, I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with receiving an X Box 360 or both.) The birth of JESUS political cartoon in an obvious dig at Christians had two “wise men” fighting on the ground like animals because one wanted “Merry Christmas” to be the preferred greeting and the other wanted “Happy Holidays”.
In retrospect, I think the editorial staff may have missed the memo that “Christmas is a time to focus on achievement and generosity.” Certainly, none of the eight political cartoons printed were remotely concerned with a “focus on achievement and generosity.” I must admit that I did not take a public opinion poll on this; however my guess is that there probably wasn’t a lot of grinning being done by those who are not liberal to libertine and probably a number of people whose thoughts were more negative than positive. Finally, do they really believe that the eight editorial cartoons represent the spirit of the Christmas season? I sure hope not! Will there ever be a time when the editorial staff will just leave the political philosophy behind for one day and “focus on achievement and generosity”?
P.S. I was channel surfing the other day. I came across the Christmas program performed by Morton High School students. The portion I saw had the orchestra play and a singer sing four Christmas songs in a row—“Joy to the World,” “Come All Ye Faithful,” “Hark, the Herald Angel Sing,” and “Silent Night, Holy Night.” Guess what? No religion was established and no catastrophe occurred. Isn’t that amazing! And it was perfectly constitutional!
David C. Copley, chairman of The Copley Press Inc., which owns the Peoria Journal Star wrote a short article published December 25, 2005. (page A1) In the essay he mentions Christmas, religion, and church. He makes no reference to GOD; JESUS, the CHRIST; or the HOLY SPIRIT. He does allude to the ability of people to make a difference—it seems with or without GOD, the creator of the universe. He further declares “By almost any measure the world we live in this morning is a better place than the one my Grandfather experienced.”
Granted, he does not define what he means by better place. My questions are:
Is it a better place to have murdered between 33-45 million innocent unborn babies over the last thirty three years?
Is it a better place to have the recognized sin of homosexuality being forced upon the nation as some kind of civil right?
Is it a better place to deny the existence of sin as the psycho babblers and libertines are attempting to do?
Is it a better place when the ACLU and similar groups are trying to exclude GOD from all public life?
Is it a better place when any computer literate 10 year old using the internet can access graphic videos of men and women having intercourse, women and women performing sexual acts upon each other, and/or men and men doing the same all in the name of freedom of speech?
Is it a better place when the America Academy of Pediatrics can proclaim a policy that “they (the doctors in the Academy) also should help ensure that all teens—not just those who are sexually active—have access to birth control, including emergency contraception.”? (7/5/05, A5, Peoria Journal Star)
Is it a better place when groups like Planned Murderhood are demanding that abortion pills be purchased over the counter which will ensure that girls of all ages will have access to them?
Is it a better place when an unelected group of nine lawyers are allowed to rewrite the Constitution to suit their own concepts of how things should be?
I’m sure that each of you can add to this list. We each must make our own decision on whether or not it is a better place. However, there is hope. But, it is not based upon what man can achieve or can not achieve. It is the hope given to us by GOD in the form of HIS SON—JESUS. JESUS died for our transgressions—or sins. JESUS was buried. JESUS was resurrected from the grave. JESUS through GOD the FATHER defeated death! No matter how long man is or has been on this planet, man can not now, never has been able to, and never will be able to—save himself. We all need the GOD of the universe to spend eternity with HIM. That is either a true or a false statement.
JESUS, the CHRIST, is quoted as declaring “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14: 6b) So, where do we place our hope? On man to save himself or on JESUS the SON of GOD. I know where my hope is and it is not on man!
I think I’m back on track. The computer is still giving me problems. However, I did manage to post the back pages to the Black Sword. Of course, not perfectly. I posted the December 22nd page twice. Still, not too bad for not being able to get onto the internet for almost a week. I’ve got another letter to the editor that was originally printed in the paper but I’m also going to post. Here it is:
There is considerable Democrat complaining (Reid, Biden, etc.), with media support, about the appointment of judges, an Ambassador to the UN, President Bush’s agenda, etc.
The whining is reminiscent of the 1950’s when the Democrats (Senator Symington (Montana), Senator Lucas (Illinois) etc.), were attacking Senator Joe McCarthy as he identified numerous Communist in the Democratic Administration.
The pattern has not changed. The truth is not relevant when the Democrats make accusations that have no foundation and the media is quick in their attempt to vouch for their fabrications.
It is really disappointing when you hear Members of Congress railing against the efforts of The Administration to make our Country a safer and more just place to live.
Frank Sarver
The Black Sword is alive and well! Or a remnant of the Black Sword, or a Sword member, or maybe it was just a coincidence.
The other day I lost control of my computer. I think I know how, I think I know when, I’m not sure about the who.
I have a brother who says “Just because you’re paranoid, that doesn’t mean there isn’t someone out to get you!” I keep a record of when I get on the internet, how long I’m on the internet, and when I get off of the internet. I think I lost control of my computer on Tuesday, December the 13th. On the 14th, I had difficulty getting onto my blog site and even more difficulty posting it. I finally got it posted and then I got “kicked off” of the internet before I could check my e-mail which I usually do after a post. I got “kicked off” thirteen minutes after I got on. I see a pattern here. A Black Sword pattern.
I use a password to get into my computer. From Thursday until Monday, I couldn’t get into the computer. Monday I finally did and have been trying to clean up the computer since then.
If I was doing this to someone else, I would make it look like a computer attack from someone else. I think they did that. However, I think they couldn’t resist telling me it was them by the conspicuousness of the use of thirteen for the date of the original attack and the time I got “kicked off” of the internet. But then, maybe it was all a coincidence. Then again, maybe not.
If there are any Black Sword members reading this, I put a clue in the book that any Sword member from my two year period should recognize. If you do, let me know what it is and what it means and I’ll know that you really are Black Sword.
Today is the 21st. I will try to post the original post of the 15th tonight. If I am successful, I will catch up on the posts—the 16th through the 22nd—tomorrow night. We’ll see what happens.
When I started this blog in August of 2005, I said I would publish comments sent to me. This is the first one received. It actually is two separate letters sent to the Peoria Journal Star. The first one was not published. As I understand it, the second one was. I am posting both of them. If anyone else would like to have a comment posted, you may send it to:
Christian Gunslinger
P.O. Box 481
Morton, Illinois 61550
I always reserve the right to make comments and to edit if needed. The following two letters have not been edited.
CONGRATULATIONS ILLINOIS!
We now have Senator Durbin as the “poster boy” for the Terrorist media worldwide.
Therefore, he is an embarrassment to The State of Illinois, The United States of America, and The Free World.
Because of the errors in some of the statements he made, the speech writer must have flunked history, graduated from a public school or both.
His speech is a direct dishonor to the U.S. Military and the Veterans that have kept this country safe and made it the greatest country in the world.
His statements do nothing to keep this a free country. I realize that politics is most important to the Democrat leadership, however, if we lose this war, will the Democrats lose too?
God Bless America.
Frank Sarver
If John Bolton is as mean and half the man that your colleagues have said he is, then John Bolton is exactly the person the United States of America needs as Ambassador in the United Nations.
Unfortunately, many people do not know that the United Nations is the number one corrupt political organization located in this country. It functions similar to a third-world despot with equal efficiency and financial responsibility. Not only are these people getting rich at the expense of the world, they are attempting to take freedom away from those who have freedom. Think about it—that’s the United States of America for one.
The United Nations is continually attempting to expand their charter to take over the world. That must be stopped. Abuses of all description take place in the world and they are focused inwardly, searching for ways to get more authority in our lives.
Hopefully, John Bolton will make some change in the focus and activity of the United Nations. Much is needed.
The statement by some that the President was deceptive in this appointment is borderline slander. The President was exercising the constitutional authority and duty of a President to protect the national interest.
Frank Sarver
I had also written two posts on John Bolton and two on Senator Durbin. The John Bolton posts were on August 2nd and August 3rd.
The posts on Senator Durbin were on October 7th and October 12th. Thank you Frank for giving me the two letters to post.
I probably could not have definitively told anyone what a Grammy Award was until I read the article in the Peoria Journal Star (12/09/05, page B5) today and my memory was refreshed. It seems that Barack Obama, the junior senator from Illinois who was first elected in 2004, has been nominated for one for “Best Spoken Word Album.” The article also listed the other nominees. The only other political name I recognized was libertine Al Franken who is not an elected official but a libertine personality.
The story further stated that two other politicians have previously own a Grammy Award for “Best Spoken Word Album.” Any guess as to who those two previous winners are? Here is a real surprise. The first is Hillary “We are the President” Clinton in 1997. And the second political winner? Another shocking selection! Why, it was former President Clinton. Talent must run in the family. Do you think maybe the liberal bias of the entertainment world might be apparent in the selection of the nominees and the winners?
Today, (12/08/05, page B1) Peoria Journal Star writer Phil Luciano laments that the Chicago City Council passed an ordinance to prohibit smoking in Chicago public places including taverns. In the normal Journal Star fashion, he manages to call Chicago by five (my count) derogatory names and a reporter by one.
He ends his article by declaring “Put out your smokes. Put out your rights.” His conclusion of course is that to prevent smoking in public places is a violation of smokers’ rights. My question is: What about the rights of non smokers to be in public places without their air being polluted by a substance that is known according to accepted medical research to cause cancer and other diseases? Don’t we have any rights? Is it only smokers who have the right to do what they wish in public places? Does Mr. Luciano understand the meaning of public? Or, in his world does public only include smokers?
He suggests that free enterprise should determine where smoking occurs. Should free enterprise also determine who operates on you medically and where? Should free enterprise also determine who owns a gun and who does not? Should free enterprise determine who gets arrested for a crime and who does not?
One of the purposes of government is to provide safety for the public good. If elected government officials decide that banning smoking in public places is a public safety concern, why should free enterprise be the determining factor? At one time, free enterprise determined that slaughterhouses should not be inspected for health reasons because to do so would interfere with the right of businesses to conduct their business? Should we go back to those good old days of free enterprise?
He argues further that smoking is legal. And it is indeed. However, if cigarettes were to be regulated strictly on the basis of a health issue and a science issue (an erroneous argument used by the Star’s editorial staff to allow over the counter abortion pills), they would not be legal! They are legal for purely political reasons—not for health reasons. The general public has a right to a healthy environment in all public places! And politically, governments are beginning to accept that. That Mr. Luciano is the basis of democracy!
One final question: is it child abuse to smoke in an enclosed vehicle with young children in that vehicle?
I stopped watching the evening TV news a long time ago. I considered it biased before Bernard Goldberg wrote his book Bias.
I normally watch the local six o’clock news and 10p.m. news. Yesterday, I was watching the 5p.m. local news because I was going to the Morton High School basketball game that night and would miss the 6p.m. segment. I got involved in something and the news carried over into the evening news (NBC news).
The program had a “sound bite” news segment about a Congressional investigative committee dealing with the hurricane and New Orleans. The NBC news segment showed two black women testifying before the committee. The segment showed the following being said by the two women (These are not actual direct quotes since I wasn’t taking notes but they are correct in the substance of what was being said.): “I believe”, “I think”, “I represent”, “If the residents of New Orleans were not poor, black people the government would have had a plan.” The reporter also said a public opinion poll of poor black residents of New Orleans (We know how reporters love public opinion polls when the polls support their viewpoint.) said that six out of ten poor black residents polled thought the government response was slow because they were poor black people.
The problem with the news story, of course, is that not one single shred of evidence was relayed to support the opinions expressed. The witnesses presented in the newscast “thought” something was true. The witnesses “believed” something was true. The poll was based upon the perceived opinions of the people polled. It may have made for good liberal “sound bite” news but it said absolutely nothing to support the opinions expressed. Because someone believes something to be true; that does not make it true. You would think even liberal news reporters would know that!
Today, the Peoria Journal Star printed a column (12/7/05, page A4) by national columnist Kathleen Parker—a generally conservative to moderate columnist in comparison to the other columnists published by the Star). I’m going to quote the beginning and the end of the column and let you draw your own conclusions. The headline is “All the news that’s fit to ignore.”
“Murtha, Murtha, Murtha, Murtha, Murtha, Murtha, (Lieberman), Murtha, Murtha, Murtha.
That’s about how news coverage has gone the past several weeks concerning Rep. John Murtha’s call to withdraw from Iraq versus Sen. Joe Lieberman’s call to stand fast. And the media wonder why newspaper circulations are dropping and why Fox News dominates television ratings.
It’s not that Murtha doesn’t deserve airtime to voice a point of view many Americans share. It’s that Lieberman surely deserves at least equal time for a point of view that other Americans, as well as most Iraqis, share.
Those who rely on traditional news sources other than The Wall Street Journal, which published an op-ed by the Connecticut senator, may not even have known that Lieberman recently returned from Iraq. Or that his conclusions were that the U.S. has to keep fighting the insurgency, and that two-thirds of Iraq is in ‘pretty good shape.’”
(The concluding two paragraphs.) “And why, we might wonder, have the media, always so insistent in denying liberal bias, been so willing to play one story and not the other?
I’m just asking.”
December 7, 1941. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Tomorrow is Pearl Harbor Day in commemoration of that day. President Roosevelt referred to it as a day that “will live in infamy.” “Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.” (War message delivered to Congress on December 8, 1941)
(“Yesterday, September 11, 2001—a date which will live in infamy—the United Sates of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by commandeered air planes by the Empire of Terrorists.”)
World War II was one of the deadliest wars in our history. It took four years and thousands upon thousands of deaths to achieve victory. Millions of people sacrificed for the good of the nation to achieve that ultimate victory. Although not everyone supported the war effort, the war probably had greater support than any other in our history.
(My, how times have changed. Now it is our fault we were attacked.)
Remember the day. Give honor where honor is due. GOD bless America; may we always be obedient to HIS will! And yes, it is not unconstitutional to pray in JESUS’S name!
Did I miss it? I thought I had heard on a radio news program that a federal judge had ruled that the Indiana State Legislature, I think it was the Indiana Legislature, could not legally mention JESUS in its opening prayer. (I know I watched the beginning of the Army/Navy football game Saturday and the individual who gave the invocation did not mention JESUS’S name.) I have been looking for the news story in the Peoria Journal Star since the day I heard the radio report and can’t find it. Did I miss it?
If there is anyone who reads the Journal Star and read the news story, I would appreciate it if you would let me know where I could find it. Please give me the day the story was published and the section of the paper. Thanks. I appreciate any help you could provide.
I’m sure they must have run the story. The “letters to the editor” section of the paper has had several letters dealing with the establishment clause. This new decision would be one more decision to help us understand the meaning of that provision of the Constitution. Again, if you would help me find the Star’s story, I’d appreciate it. Meanwhile, I’ll do my own investigation and try to find it myself. Maybe I’ll write to the paper and ask for their assistance.
In the mean time, a new record low temperature of zero degrees was recorded in Peoria today surpassing the previous low of three degrees. I have been missing the warm days of Tucson. I talked to a friend recently who said Tucson’s high that day was 74. I’m sort of glad global warming is making it warmer in Illinois in the wintertime. From what the Peoria Journal Star reported earlier this year, we can look forward to temperatures in the 60’s and 70’s in the winter time in another fifty years. Personally, I like those winter temperatures. It will be like being back home in Tucson.
Let me make this perfectly clear. I am opposed to the death penalty. I am today, I have been as long as I can recall, and I am confident that I will be as long as I live on this earth. I am because I know that every life is precious. I am because there are other methods that the government can use to punish for capital crimes. I am because there will not be a time that the government will not make mistakes in executing an innocent person. The government will inevitably execute an innocent person. I know this because GOD’S SON—JESUS the CHRIST was executed unjustly by man. Granted it had to happen, granted it was GOD’S perfect plan. But, the government still executed a perfect, innocent man.
That said, I want to comment on a column written by national columnist Leonard Pitts and published in the Peoria Journal Star on 12/2/05, page A4. He writes, “Moral courage would require us to look the thing straight on, to acknowledge how flawed and capricious is this custom of killing people we judge guilty of crime.” Leonard Pitts is opposed to capital punishment. So am I. Leonard Pitts supports the murder of unborn babies by their mothers. I do not and, the LORD willing, never will. The libertines who support the murder of unborn babies tend to oppose capital punishment. They also tend to cry “hypocrite” when people who oppose the murder of unborn babies also support the execution of criminals convicted for government imposed capital crimes. However, aren’t they just as hypocritical? In fact, I would argue that the libertines are even more hypocritical than are those who are pro-life and yet support capital punishment.
Here are some of the differences between capital punishment and the murder of the unborn. Every person who has been executed by the government has been accused of a crime. Every person has had a public trial. Every person has had the opportunity to have a lawyer represent him in open court. After the conviction, every person has had a punishment phase of the public trial process. Every person, who has been convicted, has had the opportunity to appeal that conviction. Every person, who has been convicted, has had a time period between conviction and the actual execution. This time period in some cases has been for years. As Leonard Pitts has pointed out in the article, the total number of executions since they have resumed is at one thousand total executions.
In the murder of the unborn, there is no accusation of a crime. There is no public trial. There is no opportunity to allow the victim to be represented by counsel in a public court. There is no punishment phase to the proceedings because there have been no proceedings. There is never an appeal by the victim. There is no real time before the execution because none of the previous mentioned procedures are ever required. By definition, any wait will not be for more than about nine months.
In the murder of the unborn, all parties involved are not required to be involved in the process. The victim never has a voice in the proceedings. The father is not required to be involved in the proceeding and in fact the mother has absolute veto power over the desires of the father who is as equally involved in the creation of that life as is the mother. The doctor has no medical say in the matter if the mother desires to murder the unborn child. She can walk into a Planned Murderhood Clinic, demand a murder, and receive it as requested. The murder has been sanctioned before hand by an unconstitutional decision of an unelected, small body of appointed members who made a murderous decision for the entire nation. Since the murder of the unborn has been allowed by Supreme Court fiat thirty two plus years ago between 32-45 million unborn babies have been murdered. Many more unborn babies have been murdered in any one month than the combined total of capital punishment executions since they have resumed.
So, my questions are: “Where is the admission of error by the libertines in the calculated, government sanctioned murder of our unborn?” “Where is the moral courage to repent from the murder of so many unborn children?” “Where is the acknowledgement of how flawed and capricious the murder of innocent, unborn children is?” “Where is the outrage over the murder of so many innocent victims of a murderous Supreme Court and their cohorts?” “Where is the real hypocrisy?”
I have been reading Bias by Bernard Goldberg (Regnery Publishing, Inc; One Massachusetts Avenue, NW; Washington, D.C. 20001; 2001.)
The major premise of the book is that the mass media in general and TV news in particular has a strong liberal bias (not a surprise to anyone who actually does any critical thinking). He was a CBS news correspondent and identifies himself as a liberal Democrat.
We know how the media loves to use public opinion polls and surveys especially ones that support their own biases. Mr. Goldberg identifies some opinion poll results that I don’t think you will find too many reporters reporting on the air or in newspapers. Of course, they select what is news worthy and what is not news worthy. Here are some selected quotes from his book.
“In 1985 the Los Angeles Times conducted a nationwide survey of about three thousand journalists and the same number of people in the general public to see how each group felt about the major issues of the day:
23 percent of the public said they were liberal; 55 percent of the journalists described themselves as liberal.
56 percent of the public favored Ronald Reagan; 30 percent of the journalists favored Reagan.
49 percent of the public was for a woman’s right to have an abortion; 82 percent of the journalists were pro-choice.
74 percent of the public was for prayer in public schools; 25 percent of the journalists surveyed were for prayer in the public schools.
56 percent of nonjournalists were for affirmative action; 81 percent of the journalists were for affirmative action.” (page 126)
“… in 1996, the Freedom Forum and the Roper Center released the results of a now famous survey of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents.” (page 123)
“What these two groups found was that Washington journalists are far more liberal and far more Democratic than the typical American voter:
89 percent of the journalists said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, compared with just 43 percent of nonjournalist voters.
7 percent of the journalists voted for George Bush; 37 percent of the voters did.
2 percent of the news people voted for Ross Perot while 19 percent of the electorate did.” (page 123)
“What party do journalists identify with?
50 percent said they were Democrats.
4 percent said they were Republicans.
When they were asked, ‘How do you characterize your political orientation?’
61 percent said ‘liberal’ or ‘moderate to liberal.’
Only 9 percent said they were ‘conservative’ or ‘moderate to conservative.’” (page 124)
“A poll back in 1972 showed that of those reporters who voted, 70 percent went for McGovern, the most liberal presidential nominee in recent memory, while 25 percent went for Nixon—the same Richard Nixon who carried every single state in the union except Massachusetts.” (page 125)
If you have bothered to read the editorials written by employees of the Peoria Journal Star (I generally don’t unless they deal with the murder of unborn babies, religion, homosexuality, or similar value, moral related issues), I ask this question. How would you identify their political philosophy? Conservative, conservative to moderate, moderate, moderate to liberal, liberal.
Do the views represented in the editorials reflect the views of the majority of the voters in central Illinois? Do they represent your views?
