My mistake

I made a mistake. Monday night on the blog I wrote “not surprisingly the Peoria Journal Star has not published my letter.”
I was wrong. The Peoria Journal Star published their edited version of the letter Monday morning—October 30, 2006, page A4. Unfortunately, I didn’t read section A of the paper until today—Tuesday, October 31, 2006.

Therefore, I didn’t see the published letter until today. Consequently, tonight I’m posting the original section of State Senate candidate David Koehler’s letter that I reacted to initially, my complete letter to the editor, and the edited account as published Monday. (My complete response was posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2006. It is entitled “Mass Murder?” and I recommend reading the complete article since I was not restricted by the length requirement of a letter to the editor.)


David Koehler’s letter declared:

“Abortion: No one I know is pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. Government interference into such a personal area is not the answer. I will work to ensure that we do a better job of preventing unintended pregnancies, thereby reducing the need for abortion.” (Peoria Journal Star, October 21, 2006, page A5.)

My original letter to the editor declared:

“What nonsense! State Senate candidate David Koehler is not pro-abortion; he’s pro-choice. And what are the two choices? To murder your unborn baby or not to murder your unborn baby.

I have a neighbor whose dog keeps me awake all night. We all know that sleep deprivation is a form of torture. I’m pro-choice. My choice is to murder my neighbor for torturing me. No harm in being pro-choice!

Mr. Koehler! No one has the moral right to murder another human. No one! Not a mother! Not a father! Not you! Not me!

When you are bowed down before GOD, do you really believe HE will accept your asinine distinction between being pro-choice and pro-abortion? Are you or are you not an accessory to mass murder? The murder of innocent unborn children.”

The Peoria Journal Star published the following version of my letter:

“No abortion choices

What nonsense. State Senate candidate David Koehler says he is not pro-abortion; he’s pro-choice. And what are the two choices? To murder your unborn baby or not to.

No one has the moral right to murder another human. No one. Not a mother. Not a father. Not you. Not me.

When people are bowed down before God, do they really believe He will accept the asinine distinction between being pro-choice and pro-abortion?

>>> > >>>>>
Morton”

Notice what the Peoria Journal Star staff left out. Notice that the emphasis on Mr. Koehler’s personal position on the murder of unborn babies was changed to the position of the general public. Isn’t the ability to edit wonderful?

PRO-CHOICE; PRO-MURDER

I posted a blog dealing with a letter to the editor written by State Senatorial candidate David Koehler on Wednesday, October 25, 2006.  I also posted a letter to the editor I had written plus other comments in response to the Koehler letter.  Tonight, I’m posting the first portion of that original post plus a letter to the editor that was published by the Peoria Journal Star and a letter I wrote to Mr. Koehler.

“On October 21, 2006 the Peoria Journal Star published a letter to the editor written by State Senate Democratic candidate David Koehler.  It was published on page A5.  Quoting a portion of that letter:

‘Abortion: No one I know is pro-abortion.  I am pro-choice.  Government interference into such a personal area is not the answer.  I will work to ensure that we do a better job of preventing unintended pregnancies, thereby reducing the need for abortion.’

I wrote and sent a letter to the editor in response to his letter.  Because of restrictions on letters to the editor, I did not respond fully.  I will add additional information not included in the original response.  Of course, I don’t know if the Peoria Journal Star will publish my letter or how they will edit it.  The letter, as I wrote it, is as follows:    

“What nonsense!  State Senate candidate David Koehler is not pro-abortion; he’s pro-choice.  And what are the two choices?  To murder your unborn baby or not to murder your unborn baby.

I have a neighbor whose dog keeps me awake all night.  We all know that sleep deprivation is a form of torture.  I’m pro-choice.  My choice is to murder my neighbor for torturing me.  No harm in being pro-choice!  

Mr. Koehler!  No one has the moral right to murder another human.  No one!  Not a mother!  Not a father!  Not you!  Not me!

When you are bowed down before GOD, do you really believe HE will accept your asinine distinction between being pro-choice and pro-abortion?  Are you or are you not an accessory to mass murder?  The murder of innocent unborn children.”

Not surprisingly the Peoria Journal Star has not published my letter.  I don’t expect them to do so.  We do know that at least two letters were written in response to the original Koehler letter.  The one I wrote that was not published and the one that was published.  Only Peoria Journal Star staff knows with certainty if any others were written and not published.  I am posting the letter that was published in its entirety.  We do not know what was edited out by the Peoria Journal Star staff.  The letter to the editor was published on October 28, 2006 on page A5.

“Abortion euphemism

In his Oct. 21 letter (“Countering negative ads about the death penalty, taxes, abortion”), David Koehler claims not to be pro-abortion, but rather pro-choice.

So long as he continues to hide behind that euphemism, while asserting that killing an innocent unborn child is an acceptable way to end an inconvenient or unintended pregnancy, he is pro-abortion in my book.

>>>>> >>>>>
Chillicothe”

Somewhat softer than what I wrote but certainly reaching the same obvious conclusion.  Being “pro-choice” is supporting the murder of unborn babies.  No irrational rationalization process will change that fact.

On the Wednesday that I posted my original comments about Mr. Koehler’s letter, I also mailed the following letter to him.

“Mr. Koehler:

As a life long Democrat, I am appalled that the Democratic Party supports the murder of unborn babies.  I read your letter to the editor in relation to the same.  As a supposed minister of the WORD of GOD, you should be ashamed.  Having your name associated with the murder of unborn babies and trying to rationalize your support for such sin is to condone the evil of murder.  Perhaps you should reread the episodes of David and Bathsheba, the attempted murder of Moses, and the attempted murder of our LORD by King Herod.  

I wrote a response to your immoral, rationalized, humanistic letter and sent it to the newspaper.  I also write a blog and will post a longer comment tonight.  I pray that you will publicly repent and stop supporting the murder of unborn babies.  My blog is at:   www.christiangunslinger.blogspot.com.  

I will post on my blog any response you have as well as my response to what information you provide.  Please repent now.  If you don’t respond, I will probably post this letter before the election.  May GOD have mercy upon your soul if you refuse to repent.  Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.”

Not unexpectedly, I have not yet received a response from Mr. Koehler.  Nor do I expect to receive one.  It is difficult for those who champion the murder of unborn babies to defend the indefensible.  If he does response, I will post it that day.  However, don’t hold your breath.  Politically, he probably should not have written the original letter.  

Why would any Christian vote for someone who believes it is acceptable to murder an unborn, innocent baby.  It sickens me!!!  We must speak out against such blatant evil!!!  We must not support such evil by voting for those who desire to continue the murder of unborn babies!!!

PRO-CHOICE
PRO-MURDER

“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
(NIV)    

Judicial tyranny

Friday night I wrote a post giving some of the dissenting arguments of Justice Scalia in the 2003 Supreme Court case of Lawrence v. Texas.  In that case, the Supreme Court ruled illegally and immorally that States could not have laws criminalizing homosexual behavior.  In his dissent, Justice Scalia wrote “… the Court has taken sides in the cultural war.”  He further proclaimed that legalizing homosexual behavior would quite probably, in the future, lead the Court to permit homosexual marriage.  I summed up his argument this way:

In short, if homosexual behavior is protected by the Constitution and is a perceived Constitutional right, how can anyone logically deny homosexuals the right to marry?  Only an irrational person would proclaim that one is legal but the other can not occur.

Of course, the United States Supreme Court is not the only Court that is rewriting Constitutions to suit the opinions of the court members and thus disregarding the Constitutional intent of a particular Constitution.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has recently decided that the members of the court are more qualified to make policy that is their State legislature.  The Peoria Journal Star published an article dealing with the New Jersey court decision on 10/26/06 page A3.  However, the article did not include some information included in the more complete article that I found on the Internet.  Therefore, I will be quoting from the Internet article.  The article was from The Associated Press and I got it from www.enewsearthlink.net, Main news, October 25, 2006.

Quoting from the article:

“New Jersey’s highest court opened the door Wednesday to making the state the second in the nation to allow gay marriage, ruling that lawmakers must offer same-sex couples either marriage or something like it, such as civil unions.”

“The justices gave law lawmakers 180 days to rewrite the laws.”

“The ruling is similar to the 1999 high-court ruling in Vermont that led the state to create civil unions, which confer all of the rights and benefits available to married couples under state law.”

(The decision was a 4-3 decision.)  “The three dissenters argued that the majority did not go far enough.  They demanded full marriage for gays.”

“GOP Assemblyman Richard Merkt said he would seek to have all seven justices impeached.  ‘Neither the framers of New Jersey’s 1947 constitution, nor the voters who ratified it, ever remotely contemplated the possibility of same-sex marriage,’ Merkt said”

“Supporters pushing for full gay marriage have had a two-year losing streak in state courts, including those in New York, Washington, state, and both Nebraska and Georgia, where voter-approved bans on gay marriage were reinstated.

They also suffered at the ballot boxes in 20 states where constitutions have been amended to ban same-sex unions.

Cases similar to the one ruled on Wednesday, which was filed by seven gay New Jersey couples, are pending in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland.”

Here is the situation.  Throughout the nation homosexual activists who a few short years ago were screaming “Government stay out of our bedroom” are now screaming “Government sanctify our bedroom” by granting us a “right” that we have NEVER had in this nation—the “right” to legally marry.  Since they are not successful at the ballot box and almost never successful at the legislature, which is suppose to be the policy making body in our system, they have turned to the courts.  And, lo and behold, every once in awhile they can convince a few judges that there is a state constitutional requirement that homosexuals must be allowed to marry.

Note that the newest New Jersey Constitution was written in 1947.  Note that the plain language of that Constitution did NOT allow homosexuals to marry or there would be no question about it now.  Note that for 59 years after that Constitution was written, New Jersey’s highest court did NOT find that the Constitution allowed homosexuals to marry.  Note that now, miraculously, New Jersey’s high court discovered a hidden “right” that had never been discovered before.  Note that the New Jersey court ordered the legislature to write a new law to allow homosexuals to marry or the equivalent.  Note that writing law is a policy making power.  

So, when did our courts become the policy making branch of governments?  If the courts now make policy and can order the same, why do we need state legislatures?  Indeed all seven of the court members should be impeached and convicted for usurping their authority and violating the very Constitution they have sworn to uphold.

If the court in New Jersey can rule that homosexuals must be allowed to marry or similar, what is to prevent the court in Illinois from reaching the same conclusion?  First, we need a Illinois Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.  However, that is not sufficient.  The fact of the matter is that the United States Supreme Court can at anytime, once a case is brought before it, rule that such State Constitutional Amendments, state laws, and even our federal laws are unconstitutional according to the federal Constitution.  The Supreme Court has already ruled that State laws criminalizing homosexual acts are not permissible.  

As Justice Scalia observed in the Lawrence v. Texas travesty, the next logical step is to require States to allow marriage between homosexuals.  The only way to insure that does not happen is a federal Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.  Not even the United States Supreme Court has yet dared to rule that a Constitutional Amendment is unconstitutional.

As I’ve said before, I am a lifelong Democrat.  I ran for the Arizona House of Representatives twice as a Democrat.  I promised GOD that I would not vote for another Democrat unless he/she loudly and publicly proclaimed his opposition to the murder of unborn babies and promised to vote accordingly.  I promised GOD that I would not vote for another Democrat unless he/she loudly and publicly proclaimed his support for a Protect Marriage Constitutional Amendment and promised to vote accordingly.

Obviously, the Republican Party is not perfect.  However, the members of the Republican Party are the only choice in our two party system to reestablish the GOD defined morality that the libertine Democrats have been trying to fling over a cliff.  Unfortunately, they have been way too successful.  Why would any Christian vote for the party that has made it their goal to promote sin?  We need more Republicans in both the House and the Senate at both the State and federal levels until the Democrats come to their senses.  The Democrats are the party of the sinful nature much more than the Republican Party with all of its faults.

“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: 7-9 (NIV)                      

Lawrence v. Texas dissent

I wrote about the death of Tyron Garner on my blog on October 26, 2006.  He was involved in the Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Supreme Court majority incorrectly and immorally ruled that laws against homosexual behavior are unconstitutional.  Tonight, I am going to quote a portion of the dissent (disagreement with the majority opinion) of Justice Antonin Scalia.  He was one of the three Justices who actually understood the Constitution in this instance and did not rely upon their own opinion to reach a judicial decision.

“Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.  I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct.

One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is ‘an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.’  It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war (my underline), departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.  Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home.  They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.  The Court views it as ‘discrimination’ which it is the function of our judgments to deter.  So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously ‘mainstream’; that in most States what the Court calls ‘discrimination’ against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such ‘discrimination’ under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress … that in some cases such ‘discrimination’ is mandated by federal statue, see 10 U.S.C.   654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such ‘discrimination’ is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, (2000).

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means.  Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best.  That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts.  But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else.  (This statement is extremely important and is part of the reason why the Supreme Court has become unconstitutional in approach since the Court is trying to become THE power source for our system.  Nine people are NOT supposes to be the policy making body for our society.  THEY ARE NOT DEMOCRATIC NOR ARE THEY ELECTED—IT IS A COURTOCRACY!!!  It is so important I will repeat it since at least one Justice seems to understand the true role of the Court: “imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else.”  As the saying goes, the majority of the Supreme Court in the past just doesn’t get it—my addition)  I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts—or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them—than I would forbid it to do so.  What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new ‘constitutional right’ by a Court that is impatient of democratic change.  It is indeed true that ‘later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,’; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws.  But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.  (To repeat that important statement: ‘BUT IT IS THE PREMISE OF OUR SYSTEM (i.e. a democracy—my addition) THAT THOSE JUDGMENTS ARE TO BE MADE BY THE PEOPLE, AND NOT IMPOSED BY A GOVERNING CASTE THAT KNOWS BEST.’  I would add: not imposed by a governing caste (i.e. the Court) that THINKS it knows best.)

(THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IN RELATION TO WHAT MAY HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE!!!—my addition)

One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion.  The people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough to disallow homosexual marriage, but not strong enough to criminalize private homosexual acts—and may legislate accordingly.  The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar freedom of action, so that that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada (in a decision that the Canadian Government has chosen not to appeal)….  At the end of its opinion—after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence—the Court says that the present case ‘does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.’  Do not believe it.  (Repeating:  ‘DO NOT BELIEVE IT.’—my addition)  More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court’s opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to ‘personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relations, child rearing, and education,’ and then declares that ‘[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.’ (emphasis added).  Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.  If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct,; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), ‘[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring’; what justification could their possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,’ ibid.?  (In short, if homosexual behavior is protected by the Constitution and is a perceived Constitutional right, how can anyone logically deny homosexuals the right to marry?  Only an irrational person would proclaim that one is legal but the other can not occur.—my addition)  Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.  This case ‘does not involve’ the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.  Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.

The matters appropriate for this Court’s resolution are only three: Texas’s prohibition of sodomy neither infringes a ‘fundamental right’ (which the Court does not dispute), nor is unsupported by a rational relation to what the Constitution considers a legitimate state interest, nor denies the equal protection of the laws.  I dissent.” (“Lawrence v. Texas,” Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft Corporation, 2006.)

MY CONCLUSION:  THE SUPREME COURT MUST BE STOPPED IN ITS CONTINUED ATTEMPT AT SOCIAL ENGINEERING.  THEY ARE NOT THE POLICY MAKING BODY OF THIS NATION!!!  

“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 (NIV)

Do not be deceived by the libertines in our society.  The same GODLY principle of sowing for individuals also applies to a nation.  If the United States sows according to our sinful nature, we will ultimately reap destruction.  IT IS A GOD ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE.  WE REAP WHAT WE SOW!!!            

Premature death?

I’m changing what I had planned to write about tonight.  On 9/14/06 a short article appeared in the Peoria Journal Star on page B4.  Tyron Garner had died at the age of 39.  

Who was Tyron Garner?  He was one of the two individuals convicted in a Texas Court who were involved in a landmark Supreme Court case—Lawrence v. Texas.  In that 2003 case, the U.S. Supreme Court again overstepped its Constitutional authority and rewrote the Constitution by Judicial fiat ruling that laws against sodomy (homosexual acts) were unconstitutional.  Mr. Garner had been convicted of homosexual acts with another man.  The Court said homosexual acts could not be regulated by the governments of the United States.  

The article in the Peoria Journal Star did not give the cause of death.  Searching the Internet, I found the following information: “Tyron Garner one of two plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case in 2003 that overruled a Texas sodomy law in the broadest possible terms, effectively making homosexual relations a basic civil right, died Monday in Houston.  He was 39.

The cause was complications of meningitis, said his brother Darrell.” (The New York Times, www.nytimes.com, September 14, 2006.)

“Tyron Garner, a plaintiff in a landmark US Supreme Court case that ended with justices striking down all laws that made sex between gay adults a crime, died Monday in a Houston hospital.  He was 39.

The cause of death was not clear, but Mr. Garner had suffered from meningitis, said his brother Darrell.” (www.boston.com, from the Los Angeles Times, September 15, 2006)

According to Microsoft’s Encarta, “Meningitis, inflammation of the meninges, the membranes that surround the brain and spinal cord.  Meningitis may be caused by a physical injury, a reaction to certain drugs, or more commonly, infection (my underline) by certain viruses, bacteria, fungi, or parasites.  This article focuses on meningitis caused by viral or bacterial infection.  In the United States viral meningitis is the most common form of the disease, while bacterial meningitis, which affects an estimated 17,500 people each year, is the most serious form of the disease.  Most cases of both viral and bacterial meningitis occur in the first five years of life.”

“Although the viruses and bacteria that cause meningitis are contagious, not everyone who comes in contact with someone with meningitis will develop the disease.  In fact, meningitis typically occurs in isolated cases.  Occasionally outbreaks of meningitis caused By Neisseria meningitidis, also known as meningococcal meningitis, occur in group living situations, such as day-care centers, college dormitories, or military barracks.  A child whose immune system (my underline) is weakened—due to disease or genetic disorder, for instance—is at increased risk of developing meningitis.  In general, however, scientists do not know why microorganisms that are usually harmless are able to cross into the CSF and cause meningitis in some people but not others.” (“Meningitis,” Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft Corporation, 2006.)

I don’t know the cause of death nor do I know the factors that led to the cause of death.  However, it seems apparent that Mr. Garner was involved in homosexual behavior.  Do you think that he might have had AIDS?  I don’t know this.  I do know this though.   If he was a relative of mine and people knew he was involved in homosexual activities and he did not have AIDS, I would state that to be the case to stop any speculation.  Sometimes, silence can provide the answer just as clearly as a declaration.

According to Microsoft’s Encarta, “Human Immunodeficiency Virus, infectious agent that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), a disease that leaves a person vulnerable to life-threatening infections. (my underline)  Scientists have identified two types of this virus.  HIV-1 is the primary cause of AIDS worldwide.  HIV-2 is found mostly in West Africa.”

“HIV transmission occurs when a person is exposed to body fluids infected with the virus, such as blood, semen, vaginal secretions, and breast milk.  The primary modes of HIV transmissions are (1) sexual relations with an infected person [my underline] (see Sexually Transmitted Infections); (2) sharing hypodermic needles or accidental pricking by a needle contaminated with infected blood; and (3) transfer of the virus from an infected mother to her baby during pregnancy, childbirth, or through breast-feeding.” (“Human Immunodeficiency Virus,” Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft Corporation, 2006.)

This we do know.  Mr. Garner died at an early age—39.  He did not die because of an accident.  The possible cause of death was an infectious disease.  Mr. Garner had been involved in homosexual behavior.  Homosexual behavior in many instances results in AIDS.
AIDS involves the weakening of a person’s immune system which makes him more vulnerable to infectious diseases.  According to the reports I read, his family did not confirm or deny that Mr. Garner had AIDS.  What do you think?  Was Mr. Garner’s death AIDS related?  Did his sin of homosexual behavior lead to his premature death?  Was that behavior worth paying the ultimate price on earth and, if he did not repent and turn to GOD, paying the ultimate price after death?      

“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: 7-9 (NIV)

This I do know.  We are responsible for our actions.  Our actions, if sinful, will result in negative consequences and ultimately destruction at some point in time—usually both during our lifetime and certainly, if we don’t repent and turn to the one and only true GOD and HIS SON, after our death.  Is a short period of time pleasing our sinful nature worth an eternity of suffering?  I don’t think so!!!              

Mass Murder?

Mass Murder?

On October 21, 2006 the Peoria Journal Star published a letter to the editor written by State Senate Democratic candidate David Koehler.  It was published on page A5.  Quoting a portion of that letter:

“Abortion: No one I know is pro-abortion.  I am pro-choice.  Government interference into such a personal area is not the answer.  I will work to ensure that we do a better job of preventing unintended pregnancies, thereby reducing the need for abortion.”

I wrote and sent a letter to the editor in response to his letter.  Because of restrictions on letters to the editor, I did not respond fully.  I will add additional information not included in the original response.  Of course, I don’t know if the Peoria Journal Star will publish my letter or how they will edit it.  The letter, as I wrote it, is as follows:    

“What nonsense!  State Senate candidate David Koehler is not pro-abortion; he’s pro-choice.  And what are the two choices?  To murder your unborn baby or not to murder your unborn baby.

I have a neighbor whose dog keeps me awake all night.  We all know that sleep deprivation is a form of torture.  I’m pro-choice.  My choice is to murder my neighbor for torturing me.  No harm in being pro-choice!  

Mr. Koehler!  No one has the moral right to murder another human.  No one!  Not a mother!  Not a father!  Not you!  Not me!

When you are bowed down before GOD, do you really believe HE will accept your asinine distinction between being pro-choice and pro-abortion?  Are you or are you not an accessory to mass murder?  The murder of innocent unborn children.”

Looking at other aspects of Mr. Koehler’s comments about the murder of unborn babies, he states “I will work to ensure that we do a better job of preventing unintended pregnancies, thereby reducing the need for abortion.”  First question: When did the murder of an unborn baby become a need?  It may be something that is desired by someone.  However, it certainly is not something that is required by most of those who murder an unborn baby.  Quite frankly, the murder of an unborn baby is not now nor will it ever be a need!!!  

Understandably in a letter to the editor, he does not explain how he “will work to ensure that we do a better job of preventing unintended pregnancies….”  However, as far as I know, he has not explained that on the campaign trail either.  Shouldn’t we know how he intends to accomplish this since it has not been accomplished in the past?  I’ve got another question along this line.  If the murdering of one’s unborn baby is a personal area where government should not interfere, why is the personal matter of having sexual intercourse an area where the government can interfere?

Let’s make believe that Mr. Koehler actual does have a magic bullet that will help prevent unintended pregnancies.  (I do wish he would have explained what he means by “unintended.”  Does he mean that women who have intercourse don’t realize that they might possibly become pregnant because of that intercourse?)  Let’s say that because of Mr. Koehler’s efforts, fewer pregnancies occur in central Illinois.  Let’s say that ten abortions (either clinical or by pill) occur next year.  Does that mean that those ten abortions are not the murder of ten innocent unborn babies?  THE ANSWER: NO!!!  Ten murders will still occur and ten murders are ten too many.  

Is Mr. Koehler still an accessory to mass murders?  How many murders are too many murders!  My answer is one.  I believe GOD’S answer is one!  “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

Mr. Koehler admits through his letter that he knows that an abortion is the murder of an unborn baby.  He admits it when he tries to rationalize the perceived difference between being pro-abortion and being pro-choice.  If an abortion is not the murder of an unborn baby, it does not matter if he is pro-abortion or pro-choice.  Therefore, he knows that every abortion is the murder of an unborn baby.

According to Microsoft’s Encarta, this is the definition of murder.  “Murder, in criminal law, intentionally causing the death (homicide) of any person. (“Murder”, Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft Corporation, 2006.)  Notice that murder is the intentional death of a person.  Every woman that walks into an abortion clinic demanding an abortion or takes an abortion pill is intentional causing the death of a person—that woman’s unborn baby.

According to Microsoft’s Encarta, this is the definition of accessory in a legal sense.  “Accessory (law), in criminal law, accomplice in the commission of an offense as distinguished from the chief offender.  An accessory before the fact is one who deliberately encourages others to commit an offense, but who does not take a direct part in the offense.  …The tendency of modern legislation has been to convert accessories before the fact into principals, and an accessory before the fact is often subject to a punishment as severe as that imposed upon a principal.” (“Accessory” (law), Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft Corporation, 2006.)  In other words, if an abortion is murder and it is, then encouraging a woman to have an abortion by supporting the legalization of that murder is also encouraging an individual who is committing a crime against society.  If humans know this, you can be sure that GOD knows this.  Mr. Koehler seems to be guilty of being an accessory before the fact in the murder of unborn babies.  Yet, he tries to defend and justify his indefensible position.

Note how little Mr. Koehler understands the function and purpose of government.  He declares “Government interference into such a personal area is not the answer.”  INTERFERENCE?  PERSONAL AREA?  When did it become personal to murder a human?  When did it become interference to STOP the murder of a human?  The truth is that the basic, fundamental function of government is to
PROTECT the life of its citizens.  All of its citizens!  This is not the interference of government.  It is the fulfillment of its basic mandate.  What is more relevant than to PROTECT the lives of the government’s most innocent citizens?  Citizens who have done absolutely nothing wrong.        

If David Koehler does not understand this basic principle, he should NOT be running for public office!  If David Koehler does not understand this basic principle, does he deserve your vote?

“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 (NIV)







      

I’m not responsible!

Monday, I posted a blog entitled “Our cheating nation.” It was based on an article in Parade magazine published on 10/15/06. Two other articles were published that day in the Peoria Journal Star. The first one was short and I’ll quote it in its entirety. It was published on page A2.

“Pregnant with her fifth child, Chytoria Graham often walked the streets of her working-class neighborhood, happily pushing her 1-year-old in a stroller while the other children walked alongside her.

‘I’ve never seen her without her kids,’ said Loretta Richie, who lives near Graham. ‘She always kept the girls’ hair combed, dressed real pretty.’ (Is the quote from Loretta Richie relevant? I guess it must be because the reporter, who is unnamed, put it in an extremely short article [or the editor left it in while editing out other information in the story].—my addition)

But now Graham’s children have been taken from her by authorities—except for 4-week-old Jarron. He is in the hospital in serious but stable condition after a horrific event that stunned police and prosecutors: Authorities say she grabbed the infant by his feet and swung him, hitting her boyfriend and fracturing the baby’s skull.

Police say Graham told them she had been drinking and ‘snapped.’ Her attorneys say Graham, who is unemployed and lives with her boyfriend, Deangelo Troop, 20, could be suffering from post-partum depression, and possibly battered-woman syndrome.”

First, she like everyone else who is accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. However, it seems the lawyers are already working to prove that it’s not her fault even if she carried out the actions.

Here we have a woman whose age is not given but who has five children and is living with a 20 year old man. She is unemployed although she has five children. She supposedly admitted to police that she had been drinking. She has at least two lawyers—it must be nice to have more than one. The lawyers are already throwing forth the possibility of either/or or both post-partum depression and battered-woman syndrome. And what is the apparent conclusion according to both her and her lawyers? Why, naturally, SHE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR HER ACTIONS. She is not responsible for taking a 4-week-old child and using the child as a weapon. SHE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE. Oh, our cheating nation.

The second article is an opinion piece published on page A5. It is longer so I won’t quote the entire article just a couple of sentences from it. The opinion piece was written by Dr. Richard L. Grant. “Dr. Richard L. Grant of Peoria is a clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria. He has been a faculty member at the medical school since 1983.”

The headline reads “Symptoms can be smokescreens for mental illness.” The sub-headline reads “Frank Picl case helps illuminate argument that alcoholism, gambling addiction hint at underlying psychiatric disorder.” (Frank Picl is an attorney who was recently convicted of stealing from one of his clients—my addition.)

“The symptoms of alcoholism and gambling act like a locomotive’s headlights, blinding those looking at them to the rest of the train. The underlying serious mental disorders that set the stage for these symptoms are woefully under-recognized by the laity, the law and health professionals alike. The publicized plea of Peoria attorney Frank Picl is the most recent case in point.”

“In different people, like Picl, the unique combination of brain disorders in each individual led down a path to illegal behaviors which in their “right mind,” they would not have committed. (I’m not sure how he knows this. But then, he claims to be an expert.—my addition) Now many reside in prison.”

What seems to be the conclusion of this article. Many people who commit crimes are NOT RESPOSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. In Picl’s case, he had a drinking problem; he had a gambling problem. Last time I knew, most people are not forced to either drink or gamble. Those are personal choices. Many people have chosen not to drink and not to gamble. But, of course, we must have a Constitutional right to do these things. Just because we choose to do them doesn’t mean we are responsible for what occurs later. Because as we all know, the trend today is to exclaim:
I’M NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR MY ACTIONS. SOMEONE OR SOMETHING ELSE MUST BE RESPONSIBLE. I’M NOT RESPONSIBLE! Oh, our cheating nation.

What is GOD’S position on our responsibilities? Just maybe, our earlier choices make us responsible for what we do today.

“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 (NIV)

What, GOD declares that our earlier actions will reap consequences that may not be to our liking. Is that possible? How can the evil that we do come back to harm us? Is that fair? IT IS ACCORDING TO GOD! “A MAN REAPS WHAT HE SOWS” Galatians 6: 7b (NIV) WOW, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR ACTIONS!!!

Our Cheating Nation

Here is a shocking story! It was in Parade magazine on 10/15/06, page 16. The headline is “Cheating Nation.” The entire story states: “From Enron to Tyco, we’ve heard a lot about dishonesty in the workplace. Don’t expect that to change soon, says Michael Josephson, president of the Josephson Institute of Ethics—a nonprofit organization that conducts training in business ethics and character education. According to the institute’s survey of 36,122 U.S. high school students, released today:

• 61% have cheated on an exam in the past year.

• 28% have stolen from a store.

• 23% have stolen from a parent or relative.

• 39% have lied to save money.

‘What makes us think these kids won’t cheat and steal at work?’ asks Josephson, noting that fewer than 2% of cheaters are caught and only half of those are punished. He insists that adults need to take responsibility. ‘It puts huge pressure on the workplace to retrain these kids.’”

And why shouldn’t these children do these things and worse? It is exactly what we teach them.

We teach them that there is nothing more important than self; and we call it esteem.

We teach them that situation ethics is the rule of the day.

We teach them that all things are relative.

We teach them that there are no absolute values.

We teach them that there are no absolute morals.

We teach them that there are no absolute truths.

We teach them that there are many truths and each of us can pick and choose the truths that are relevant and/or convenient for us.

We teach them that man is no different than any other animal.

We teach them that man evolved from the slim of the earth—from slim to slim!

We teach them that the lie of evolution must be taught while the truth of GOD CREATED can not be taught.

We teach them that an unborn baby is no different than a blob of paint. If the unborn baby is an inconvenience, just remove the unborn child or take a pill removing the unborn child.

We teach them that it is not murder if the Courts allow it and the unborn baby is not yet delivered.

We teach them that the perversion of homosexuality is a civil right.

We glorify sexual activity before marriage, outside of marriage, and without marriage.

We teach them that a video tape of a 20 year old having intercourse will make you a star.

We teach them that a President who has sexual activities with a 20+ intern and lies about it before the nation is a hero and his wife is in line to run for the Presidency herself.

We teach them that there is no responsibility for one’s actions.

We teach them that our actions are the fault of our genes.

We teach them that our actions are the fault of our addictions.

We teach them that we have a civil right to have addictions.

We teach them that our actions are the fault of mental illness.

We teach them that our actions are the fault of our environment.

We teach them that our actions are the fault of others.

We teach them that our actions are because we don’t know any better.

We teach them that our actions are the fault of anyone and every thing except ourselves.

We teach them that there is no GOD.

We teach them that if there may be a GOD, then there are many gods and you can pick and choose the god you are most comfortable with.

We teach them that if there is a GOD, then we will all go to Heaven regardless on any action on our part.

We teach them that if there is a GOD, HE must be removed from the public arena because our Constitution requires a separation from GOD and the state.

We teach them that the one with the most “toys” at the end of his life wins because there is nothing after death.

We teach them to do exactly what they are doing.

What we don’t teach them is the truth!

And the truth is: “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 (NIV)

Judiciary Committee members vote

Wednesday night (10/11/06) I wrote about a letter I sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee members. As I was writing the blog, I thought it might be interesting to check the voting record of the members on key issues. Most politically active organizations have some method of categorizinbg the votes of members of Congress. I checked the ACLU and Planned Murderhood to see how they rank the eighteen members of the Judiciary Committee. The Republicans, as the majority party in the Senate, has ten members on the committee. The Democrats, as the minority party, has eight members. The Senators, I believe, are listed based upon how long they have been on the Judiciary Committee for their political party.

Planned Murderhood (www.plannedparenthood.org) lists each Senator: whether they are Pro-choice 100%, Mixed 99% - 50%, or Anti-choice 49% - 0%; and then gives their percentage. The Website I was on did not list the issues considered or how many issues were considered. The results were not surprising.

Democrats:

Patrick Leahy >>>>>> Vermont >>>>>>>>> 92%
Edward Kennedy >>>>> Massachusetts >> 100%
Joseph Biden, Jr. >> Delaware >>>>>>> 100%
Herbert Kohl >>>>>>> Wisconsin >>>>>>> 93%
Dianne Feinstein >>> Clifornia >>>>>> 100%
Russell Feingold >>> Wisconsin >>>>>> 100%
Charles Schumer >>>> New York >>>>>>> 100%
Richard Durbin >>>>> Illinois >>>>>>> 100%

In contrast the scorecard for the

Republicans:

Arlen Specter >>>>>> Pennsylvania >>>> 71%
Orrin Hatch >>>>>>>> Utah >>>>>>>>>>>>> 0%
Charles Grassley >>> Iowa >>>>>>>>>>>>> 0%
Jon Kyl >>>>>>>>>>>> Arizona >>>>>>>>>> 0%
Mike DeWine >>>>>>>> Ohio >>>>>>>>>>>>> 7%
Jeff Sessions >>>>>> Alabama >>>>>>>>>> 0%
Lindsey Graham >>>>> South Carolina >>> 0%
John Coryn >>>>>>>>> Texas >>>>>>>>>>>> 0%
Sam Brownback >>>>>> Kansas >>>>>>>>>>> 0%
Tom Coburn >>>>>>>>> Oklahoma >>>>>>>>> 0%

If you detest the murder of unborn babies by Supreme Court fiat, which political party do you want controlling the Senate Judiciary Committee which approves or disapproves Court nominees before they are ever voted on by the full Senate? The majority party in the Senate controls the majority of seats on the Judiciary Committtee. Every vote for a Republican candidate for the Senate is a vote to STOP the murder of unborn babies.

The ACLU (www.aclu.org) uses a somewhat different system. The organization identified twelve key votes and listed the vote of the Senator on each of those twelve issues and then gave a percentage based upon how often the Senator supported the ACLU position. The twelve key issues were:

1) Federal Marriage Amendment--Cloture Vote
2) Flag Desecration Amendment
3) Judicial Review of Torture
4) Military Commissions
5) Patriot Act--Cloture Vote
6) Patriot Act Conference Report
7) Privacy Protection in New Worker Database
8) Removing Judicial Protections from Detainees
9) Reproductive Rights for Minors
10) Samuel Alito Supreme Court Confirmation
11) Torture Prevention
12) Voting Rights Act Reauthorization

All members of the Judiciary Committee voted for the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization. Almost all members voted for the Torture Prevention Act. A 17% rating means the Senator voted for 2 of the 12 issues according to the desires of the ACLU. The differences were in the other ten issues voted upon. Although the Website listed each Senator's vote on the twelve issues, I will list only their percentage of "correct" votes according to the ACLU.

Democrats:

Patrick Leahy >>>>>> Vermont >>>>>>>> 100%
Edward Kennedy >>>>> Massachusetts >>> 92%
Joseph Biden, Jr. >> Delaware >>>>>>>> 92%
Herbert Kohl >>>>>>> Wisconsin >>>>>>> 75%
Dianne Feinstein >>> California >>>>>> 73%
Russell Feingold >>> Wisconsin >>>>>> 100%
Charles Schumer >>>> New York >>>>>>>> 83%
Richard Durbin >>>>> Illinois >>>>>>>> 92%

Republicans:

Arlen Specter >>>>>> Pennsylvania >>>> 58%
Orrin Hatch >>>>>>>> Utah >>>>>>>>>>>> 17%
Charles Grassley >>> Iowa >>>>>>>>>>>> 25%
Jon Kyl >>>>>>>>>>>> Arizona >>>>>>>>> 17%
Mike DeWine >>>>>>>> Ohio >>>>>>>>>>>> 25%
Jeff Sessions >>>>>> Alabama >>>>>>>>>> 8%
Lindsey Graham >>>>> South Carolina >> 25%
John Cornyn >>>>>>>> Texas >>>>>>>>>>>> 8%
Sam Brownback >>>>>> Kansas >>>>>>>>>> 25%
Tom Coburn >>>>>>>>> Oklahoma >>>>>>>>> 8%

Again, there is a vast difference in the approval rating by the ACLU between Republicans and Democrats. The lowest rated Democrat (73%) is higher than the highest rated Republican (58%). Only one Republican voted for more than three of the twelve issues. If you disagree with the issues supported by the ACLU, why would you vote for any Democratic Senate candidate?

Conclusion: There seems to be a wide gap between the voting patterns of the Democratic and Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee as perceived by the ACLU and Planned Murderhood!

Judiciary Committee letter

I am sending a letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The letter is tonight’s post.

To the Honorable Senator

I write a political blog: www.christiangunslinger.blogspot.com.  On October 10, 2006 I wrote about an article that appeared in our local paper that morning.  It stated that the Judiciary Committee was considering a shield law to allow reporters to withhold the source of stories that are published.  The example given in the article was the disclosure of secret grand-jury testimony by two reporters that has now resulted in their being given jail time for refusing to reveal their source of that secret testimony.  The purpose of my commentary was to refute the arguments given in the original news story.  I have enclosed the material which incorporates both the original article and my comments.

I have these two basis questions for the Judiciary Committee members.  Why would the Senate want to permit anyone who has violated a federal law to be protected from prosecution for that violation?  Why would the Senate want to allow individuals who are purposely withholding vital information for that prosecution to decide for themselves what can be withheld and what can not be withheld?  If the federal law dealing with grand-jury testimony (or any similar law) is not valid, change the law!  If it is valid, why would the Senate want to allow select individuals (i.e., reporters) to decide for themselves when a valid law should be ignored and when it should be enforced.  It does not make sense to me!  Why should media personnel have that kind of discretionary choice and power?  I would appreciate an answer because I’m sure others have the same concern.  

I will post on my blog any and all replies I receive.  I will, no doubt, comment on each reply sent.  I will also note on my blog those who have not responded.  (As with a Supreme Court decision, if members wish to sign off on a position presented by another member, I will identify that action as having occurred.)  I would suggest that at the minimum, the two basis questions be answered.  Please don’t attempt to skirt the questions.  I will point out the techniques employed in your response(s).  An example of my comments to a letter from a Senator, my own Senator Durbin, can be found on my blog (www.christiangunslinger.blogspot.com).  It was posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 and is entitled “Senator Durbin Responses.”  (It may be listed on the blog as Sunday the 11th—the blog does not give the time and date as I actually physically do the posting.)  

I realize we are nearing the end of the current election cycle.  Therefore, I will begin posting on November 13, 2006.  Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,    

Journalistic saviors?

One day I will get back to the series I have been writing about.  Another news story was published today that was so one sided, so misguided, so filled with half-truths, so filled with misinformation that I have to respond.  Surprisingly, this story was printed on the sports pages—Peoria Journal Star, 10/10/06, page D6.  It is tucked away on the last page of the sports section at the bottom below the fold—perhaps because the editors know how utterly ridiculous the story is.  But then, they published it so they must believe it.

It is obstinately a sports story.  It is labeled as a commentary about steroids.  It is not.  It is an attack on the judicial system and the Bush administration and an attempt to show that reporters should be above the law.  The writer failed in that attempt.  The writer is identified as “Steve Kelley OF THE SEATTLE TIMES.”  Do you know who Steve Kelley is?  I don’t.  Is he a sports reporter?  It is in the sports section.  Is he a legal reporter writing for the sports section?  Does he have any qualifications to demonstrate that he knows what he is talking about in relation to our legal system?  The concepts he gives in the story tend to demonstrate that he doesn’t have a clue although other reporters have stated the same erroneous hogwash.  They must have these lies feed to them in journalism classes.  They all tend to parrot the same nonsense!    

Even though the article is rather long, I’m going to quote the entire article to insure nothing is left out.  The article also has two small pictures of the two reporters talked about in the story.  Of course, my comments will also be included.

“Reporters who broke BALCO news aren’t criminals

BY STEVE KELLY
OF THE SEATTLE TIMES

Once upon a time, the Bush administration seemed serious about finding and punishing the cheaters in baseball.

In a State of the Union address, President Bush even sandwiched his concerns about the abuse of steroids in the game inside all of his optimistic fluff (Notice the choice of words.  Already the writer demonstrates his bias and then mentions the Iraq war which I don’t think has a lot to do with the article but it does demonstrate the prejudiced mindset of the author.  It is a greater indictment of his lack of partiality than the President’s abandonment of his position.—my addition) about the Iraq war.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft was so proud of the 42-count indictment against individuals tied to San Francisco Bay-area laboratory BALCO that he made the announcement of those indictments on television.  (As I’ve said over and over again and yet reporters don’t seem to get it; an indictment is not a conviction.  Convictions are much more difficult to achieve than an indictment.  An indictment does not mean guilt!—my addition)

Yes, this was the administration that was serious about bringing down the heavy hitters and heavy users who were sullying the good name of this great game.  (Give me a break.  At this point of time no one was guilty legally of anything!  Does he not know this or does he just not care.—my addition)

Catching the steroid abusers was a big deal in the Bush administration.  But then again catching Osama bin Laden was important to this administration.  (Note the inference.  The Bush administration wasn’t really concerned about the steroid problem.  The Bush administration isn’t really concerned about finding Osama bin Laden.  What trash.  I wonder.  Is this guy a mind reader?  Bill Clinton claims that he seriously tried to catch Osama bin Laden for eight years and couldn’t.  Does he hold the same opinion about Clinton’s efforts?—my addition)  And just as bin Laden remains at large, Jason Giambi was in uniform Saturday as the New York Yankees’ designated hitter in the American League Division Series against Detroit.  (Obviously this libertine believes in guilt by accusation rather than the American concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  Nothing new.  My questions are: why is he allowed to spout this nonsense and why did the Peoria Journal Star publish it?  The Peoria Journal Star editorial writers, at least, claim to believe in the rule of law.  Obviously not!!!—my addition)

And his teammate Gary Sheffield, who like Giambi was mentioned in the grand-jury testimony against BALCO, played first base for the Yankees.  (There it is!!!  Be mentioned in grand-jury testimony and you are guilty of taking steroids.  Nothing like not needing proof or a trial!!!—my addition)

And San Francisco left fielder Barry Bonds just finished a season where he moved only 21 home runs behind career record-holder Hank Aaron.  (And Barry Bonds has not been convicted of anything.  Accusation does not equal guilty in a court of law.  Being mentioned in grand-jury testimony does not mean being guilty in a court of law!!!  Being thought guilty by this writer does not mean being guilty in a court of law.  Does he care about the legal process?  I am afraid that the answer is no.—my addition)

But there is news to report in the war on steroids.  A judge Bush nominated (Is he implying that Bush now controls this judge while he sits on the bench?  Is he implying that the Bush administration decided this judge should hear the case [the prosecution does not control this] so that no criminal indictments would occur?—my addition) has bagged Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada, the San Francisco Chronicle reporters who broke the story on BALCO, then properly refused to name their sources.  (Who besides him thinks it was properly?  The judge obviously did not since they were sentenced to jail based upon their refusal to answer.  Of course, I forgot, the Bush administration controls this judge because Bush nominated him for that position.  Silly me.  I should have remembered the total control and power Bush has to have things happen the way he wants them to happen!  Does this guy write truth too or does he just write fiction?—my addition)

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White has sentenced them to 18 months in jail because they have refused to divulge the name of the person (or persons) who leaked the grand-jury testimony in the BALCO investigation.  (Of course, giving information (leaking it) that occurs during grand-jury testimony is Illegal!!!  It seems that little “technicality” doesn’t matter to the writer.  Reporters can do anything they want to do and not disclose the source who did violate the law.—my addition)

If a Circuit Court of Appeals upholds White’s ruling [Let’s hope that the Appeals Court does!—my addition] (the deadline for filing their appeal is Oct. 25) Williams and Fainaru-Wada will serve up to 18 months in jail, more time than all the drug makers, pushers and users in the BALCO case.  (Maybe they should tell the judge what he wants to know!  They do have that choice!  Isn’t it amazing that we have choices, but people think we should not be held responsible for the choices we make.  They may be going to jail because that is their choice!—my addition)

White is upholding the letter of the law, a law that says it is a crime to reveal grand-jury testimony.  (What a surprise!!!  As a judge, isn’t that what he is supposed to do!!!—my addition)  But historically the federal government hasn’t gone after journalists unless it’s a national-security issue.  (Here is the writer’s argument in a nutshell, the government in the past has not enforced the law; therefore the judge should not enforce the law now.  Remember this, this is the decision of a judge not of the Bush administration.  The Bush administration can not hold anyone in contempt of court.  Only a judge can!!!  Oh, I forgot, the Bush administration controls the judge because he was appointed by Bush.  I forgot that small piece of illogical logic.  Silly me.—my addition)

Instead of catching steroid cheats, this story has morphed into plugging leaks.  (That was the judge’s decision not the Bush administration’s.—my addition)

This case should be about the public’s right to know.  (What nonsense!  Here I thought cases were about justice.  Now I’m informed that cases are about the public’s right to know.  What exactly is the public’s right to know?  Who decides what is the public’s right to know?  Two reporters by themselves?  The law says the public does not have the right to know about grand-jury testimony.  It is suppose to be secret.  And surprise, surprise; there are reasons why the law requires grand-jury testimony to be secret.  Something the two reporters don’t seem to care about!—my addition)  Not about the whistle-blowers.  (Who ever leaked the grand-jury testimony is not a whistleblower.  He/she violated the law.  We are suppose to be a nation of laws.  We are suppose to follow the rule of law—not the rule of the whistle blower!!!  Duh!!!—my addition)  Who cares who the sources were?  (That is a ridiculous question.  Obviously, at least one person does—the judge!!!—my addition)

But while the BALCO ballplayers play on, the messengers face jail time.  (This might just be one reason why grand-jury testimony is to be kept secret.  The ballplayers have not been indicted.  They have not been convicted of anything.  And this writer has already declared them guilty based upon [gasp, gasp, gasp] secret grand-jury testimony that was leaked!!!—my addition)

A non-partisan issue—the obvious abuse of steroids in baseball—has been turned into an attack on the First Amendment.  (Simply not a true statement.  It is an attempt by a judge to protect the rule of law.—my addition)  Instead of jumping on the cheaters who have slimed the game, the administration has jumped on the only people it could get.  (Again, simply not true.  The administration did not rule against the two reporters.  The judge did.  Does this guy not understand the process???—my addition)

Like the old hidden-ball trick (Wow, another actual baseball related phrase.—my addition), the focus of this case has switched from BALCO and the athletes it has illegally aided to another attempt at tightening control of the press and eroding more media freedoms.  (And this is the Bush administration’s fault.  The Bush administration did not leak the grand-jury testimony.  The Bush administration did not sentence the two reporters to jail.  And, who gave reporters the right to help an individual violate the law?  Reporters are required to obey the law just as other mortals are.  There is not now and never has been any Constitutional protection to violate the laws of the land.  These reporters could probably be charged with obstruction of justice.  They are getting off lucky with just a judge’s ruling.  Is it past the time to rein in the violation of law by reporters?  They are not the law, they do not determine the law. But, we do know that they sometimes do lie and fabricate information.—my addition)    

The work done by Williams and Fainaru-Wada was heroic.  (Even if they did aid someone in violating the law.—my addition)  They legally obtained information that exposed the fraud in baseball.  (And they also reported illegally obtained information and are refusing to respond to a judicial request—my addition)  They let us know some of the record breakers also are law breakers.  (Really, when were they convicted of this—innocent until proven guilty in a court of law—my addition)  They exposed the BALCO bad guys.  (And what are they being sent to jail for by a sitting judge???-my addition)

They should be celebrated in every civics class in America.  (This is such an ridiculously irrational statement that I’m not going to even bother making further comment on it except for—see above.—my addition)  This is what an aggressive free press can do.  (Help someone break the law?—my addition)  They did what Bush said he wanted to do.  (No they didn’t.  They can’t convict anyone!—my addition)  They put BALCO’s Victor Conte in jail.  (No they didn’t.  At least, I hope he was tried and convicted by a jury or a judge; not by them because that is not their responsibility.—my addition.)  They put Bonds’ personal trainer, Greg Anderson in jail; he was released on a technicality Thursday.  (No they didn’t.  In fact, if I remember correctly, he hasn’t been convicted of anything.  He was sent to jail by the judge for refusing to testify in front of the grand-jury.  In fact, it may have been because of the two reporters’ actions that he refused to testify.  He may have been afraid that his testimony too may be leaked to the public before it was presented in court.—my addition)  

If Williams and Fainaru-Wada go to jail, other reporters will be less inclined to tackle these stories.  They’ll be less likely to promise confidentiality to their sources, and those sources will dry up like dirt around home plate.  (And that’s a bad thing?  What he is saying is that reporters will be less likely to use illegal material.  And I say—good; it is about time!!!  Confidentiality to an individual who has violated a law is asinine!!!—my addition)

Stories will go unreported.  Government secrecy will continue.  Corruption will thrive.  (And the media is the savior of our country?  But wait.  Isn’t he being illogical?  By his earlier statement, reporters have not been held accountable for hiding their sources and yet we have corruption.  We have stories reported incorrectly.  Go back and check the Karl Rove “scandal” fiasco where people were demanding Rove resign for leaking the name of a CIA operative that he, in fact, did not leak!!!  We have reporters who lie.  We have anonymous sources that lie.  As I’ve said before in other blogs, if the individual is not willing to identify himself, how do we know that he is a creditable source and/or knows what he is talking about?  It’s like me calling a police station anonymously and saying you are molesting your daughter.  Anyone can claim anything under the cloak of anonymity.  That is one reason why the Constitution requires an open court system and gives the defendant the right to confront his accuser(s).  The grand-jury system does not provide that protection.  That is one reason why it proceedings are to be secret—to protect the innocent.  We are all innocent until proven guilty in a court of law!!!—my addition)

A bipartisan shield law is before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  It would allow reporters to keep the confidentiality of their sources.  Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia already have such shield laws.

Reporters need this federal protection so Williams and Fainaru-Wada can continue doing their brave work, exposing the riff-raff that is threatening baseball.

And reporters need this shield to protect themselves and their sources from an administration with a very different agenda.  (This statement has no basis based on the information he has presented.  Did he just pull this out of left field?  Oh, look!  I can use a baseball reference too.—my addition)  One that wants to leash the watchdogs.”  (This guy has a higher opinion of reporters than the vast majority of the public has.  Reporters are not the savior of our society.  Nor is the anonymous source.—my addition)

He has gone from point A to point Z instantaneously.  His conclusion—if two reporters who reported leaked grand-jury material are sent to jail for refusing to tell a judge their source, our society is doomed!!!  What nonsense.

Answer this question.  Why is it against the law to leak information presented to the grand-jury?  Could it be to help insure that all of us receive a fair trial?  That we are indeed perceived to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  Is the grand-jury a court of law?  Does the accused have the right to present evidence to the grand-jury?  Does the accused have the right to question the validity of the testimony to a grand-jury?  Can people lie to the grand-jury?  Can people give false information to the grand-jury?  Could leaking information from a grand-jury make it more difficult to get a conviction because that information leaked can taint the evidence that can be presented in an open court?  Is a grand-jury indictment now the same as being found guilty in a court of law?  You had better hope not!!!

These two reporters are NOT HEROES!!!  They helped an individual violate the laws of this nation.  They, not the Bush administration, made it more difficult not less difficult for the work of that grand-jury to lead to convictions.  Guilt by accusation is not a legal principle in this country.  This article is one of the most corrupt pieces of so called journalism that I have ever read.  No wonder it is located in the sports section!!!  
          
  


        






        

libertine rights?

I’m changing what I had planned to write tonight.  I was irritated by an article that was printed in the Peoria Journal Star on 10/9/06, page C5.  I’m quoting the article in its entirety.

“New York (AP)—Keith Olbermann’s tipping point came on a tarmac in Los Angeles six weeks ago.  While waiting for his plane to take off he read an account of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s speech before the American Legion equating Iraq War opponents to pre-World War II appeasers.

The next night, on Aug. 30, Olbermann ended his MSNBC “Countdown” show with a blistering report, questioning both the interpretation of history and Rumsfeld’s very understanding of what it means to be an American.  (Who says the media isn’t impartial???—my addition)

It was the first of now five extraordinarily harsh anti-Bush commentaries that have made Olbermann the latest media point-person in the nation’s political divide.  (Again, another fine example of an impartial media!!!—my addition)

‘As a critic of the Administration, I will be (expletive deleted—my deletion) [although he may be absolutely correct in his use of the word—my addition] if you can get away with calling me the equivalent of a Nazi appeaser,’ Olbermann told The Associated Press.  ‘No one has the right to say that about any free-speaking American in this country.’

Since that first commentary, Olbermann’s nightly audience has increased 69 percent, according to Nielsen Media Research.  This past Monday 834,000 people tuned in, virtually double his season average.”

Olbermann is quoted as declaring, “No one has the right to say that about any free-speaking American in this country.”  Olbermann is absolutely, 100% wrong!!!  For a journalist, he should know that!!!  However, his comment is an excellent example of the rationale of the libertines in this nation.  “I can say anything I want to—I have free speech.  However, no one can say or do anything I equate as negative in response to my free speech comment.”

Therefore, he can criticize the war, but no one can criticize him for criticizing the war.  What utter nonsense.  Unfortunately, that seems to be the mindset of the libertines.

Thus, homosexual activists can demand that homosexuality be given the status of a civil right.  However, if anyone declares that homosexual behavior is a sin and morally a perversion, that person is labeled a homophobic and/or a HATER.  Libertines can convince an ignorant Supreme Court that the murder of unborn children is a Constitutional right.  However, if sane individuals picket the murder factories (abortion clinics), the Clinton Administration used a law designed to be used against organized mobsters to arrest and convict the picketers.  (Even the Supreme Court recognized that practice as an illegal use of the law.)  The “Dixie Chicks” can criticize President Bush publicly.  However, the buying public should not be able to response to that criticism by not buying their albums.  Illinois Senator Dick Durbin can compare the actions of a very small segment of the U.S. military to the actions of the Nazi’s of World War II and the atrocities of the Stalin era.  However, no one should criticize him for such a statement.  

Why is it that the libertines believe that they have the right to make their point (and they do), but no one has the right to make a counter point!!!  Why do only the libertines have freedom of speech???  Does Mr. Olbermann understand what it means to be an American?  I don’t think so, if he thinks only he can criticize something without the opposition being able to respond in kind.  But then, who has the right to criticize a libertine?  It seems only they have Constitutional rights!!!