Record high temperatures for July


The record high temperatures for July:

On July 6th, 2007, I posted for the first time on my blog the record high temperature for Peoria, Illinois for each day of the month of July with the year the record occurred. I began the post with this paragraph:

Anyone ever ask you, “Hot enough for you?” It seems like I hear that every summer. I was at a funeral recently. I can’t remember the age of the person but I think she was around 90 years of age. One of the individuals who talked about her life mentioned that she often talked about how hot it was in 1936. 1936? But global warming is a new phenomenon! How could it be hot in 1936?

I had a post for each month from July of 2007 through June of 2008. I stopped at June because I did not have the new figures for the second half of the year. I now have the figures for January through December. Therefore, I thought I would begin the process again.

First, here are the conclusions for January, February, March, April, May, and June:

For January:

01) The record high temperatures for January ranged from 71° to a low of 56°.
02) There were two highs in the 70’s, three in the 50’s, and twenty-six in the 60’s.
03) The most record high temperatures for a decade occurred in the 1890’s and 1950’s with 5 each.
04) The decade of the 1880’s was the only decade with no record high dates.
05) The decade of the 1930’s had 2 record high temperature dates.
06) Four dates in the 2000’s had record high temperatures.
07) The highest record high temperature of 71° occurred on January 23, 1909.
08) The lowest record high temperature of 56° occurred on January 30, 1988.

For February:

01) The record high temperatures for February ranged from 74° to a low of 54°.
02) There were nine highs in the 70’s, two in the 50’s, and eighteen in the 60’s.
03) The most record high temperatures for a decade occurred in the 1930’s with 8.
04) The decades of the 1880’s, 1960’s, and 1980’s had no record high dates.
05) One date in the 2000’s had record high temperatures.
07) The highest record high temperature of 74° occurred on February 10, 1932.
08) The lowest record high temperature of 54° occurred on February 2, 1920.
09) The year of 1930 had five of six straight days with record high temperatures.

For March:

01) The record high temperatures for March ranged from 87° to a low of 70°.
02) There were fourteen highs in the 80’s, and seventeen in the 70’s.
03) The most record high temperatures for a decade occurred in 4 different decades—the 1900’s, 1980’s, 1990’s, and 2000’s—with four in each decade.
04) The decade of the 1880’s had no record high dates.
05) One date in the 1930’s had record high temperatures.
06) The highest record high temperature of 87° occurred on March 21, 1907.
07) The lowest record high temperature of 70° occurred on March 5, 1945.

For April:

01) The record high temperatures for April ranged from 92° to a low of 82°.
02) There were nine highs in the 90’s, and twenty-one in the 80’s.
03) The most record high temperatures for a decade occurred in the 1980’s with seven in the decade.
04) The decades of the 1910’s, 1950’s, and 1960’s had no record high dates.
05) The 1930’s had four record high temperatures.
06) The 2000’s had four record high temperatures.
07) The highest record high temperature of 92° occurred on April 10, 1930 and April 25, 1986.
08) The lowest record high temperature of 82° occurred on April 3, 1978.
09) There were seven record high temperatures in the 1880’s and 1890’s.

For May:

01) The record high temperatures for May ranged from 104° to a low of 89°.
02) There was one high in the 80’s, twenty-nine highs in the 90’s and one high in the 100’s.
03) The most record high temperatures for a decade occurred in the 1890’s with ten in the decade.
04) The decades of the 1940’s, 1960’s, and 1990’s had no record high dates.
05) The 1930’s had five record high temperatures including four in 1934.
06) The 2000’s had one record high temperature.
07) The highest record high temperature of 104° occurred on May 31, 1934.
08) The lowest record high temperature of 89° occurred on May 1, 1901.
09) There were 18 record high temperatures from the 1880’s through the 1910’s and 28 record high temperatures from the 1880’s through the 1950’s.

For June:

01) The record high temperatures for June ranged from 105° (three times with two of the three in the 1930’s) to a low of 96° (twice).
02) There were fourteen highs in the 90’s and sixteen highs in the 100’s.
03) The most record high temperatures for a decade occurred in the 1930’s with fifteen in the decade—half of the total record highs for the month.
04) The decades of the 1900’s, 1920’s, 1940’s, 1950’s, 1960’s, 1990’s, 2000’s (seven decades) had no record high dates.
05) The 1930’s had nine record high temperatures in 1934, two in 1933, and one each in four other years.
06) The 2000’s had no record high temperature.
07) The last record high temperature occurred in 1988 (105°) with none since.
08) Since 1937, there have been six record high temperatures—two in the 1970’s and four in the 1980’s.
09) There have been six record high temperatures in the 1880’s (two) and 1890’s (four).

Here are the July record high temperatures for Peoria.

The Peoria Journal Star on June 14, 2009, page S2 published “The Weather Month by Month.” According to the Peoria Journal Star, here are the record highs for Peoria for the month of July with the year of that record high.

“July 1 102 ……. 1931*
July 2 100 ……. 1925
July 3 100 ……. 1911
July 4 106 ……. 1936*
July 5 105 ……. 1936*
July 6 106 ……. 1936*
July 7 106 ……. 1936*
July 8 105 ……. 1936*
July 9 103 ……. 1936*
July 10 106 ……. 1936*
July 11 108 ……. 1936*
July 12 107 ……. 1936*
July 13 109 ……. 1936*
July 14 110 ……. 1936*
July 15 113 ……. 1936*
July 16 104 ……. 1887
July 17 106 ……. 1887
July 18 101 ……. 1930*
July 19 103 ……. 1930*
July 20 102 ……. 1930*
July 21 105 ……. 1901
July 22 105 ……. 1901
July 23 105 ……. 1934*
July 24 106 ……. 1901
July 25 104 ……. 1940
July 26 105 ……. 1936*
July 27 107 ……. 1930*
July 28 102 ……. 1983
July 29 104 ……. 1887
July 30 103 ……. 1913
July 31 102 ……. 1988”

For July:

01) The high temperature for every day in July was 100° or more.
02) There were 12 straight days of record high temperatures in 1936.
03) The first day of record temperatures in 1936 was on Independence Day—July 4th.
04) During those twelve days, the lowest record high was 103° on July 9th.
05) During those twelve days, the highest record high was 113° on July 15th, the last day of those record twelve straight days. Do you think that the people living in 1936 were beginning to think that the record heat would never end? Do you think they blamed the 12 days of record heat on global warming?
06) 1936 had another record high during the month on July 26th when the temperature reached 105°.
07) 13 of the record highs for July occurred in 1936.
08) Almost half of the record highs for July occurred in 1936.
09) There were 6 other days in July where record highs were recorded in the 1930’s.
10) 19 of the 31 record highs for July occurred in the 1930’s.
11) The 1990’s and the 2000’s have no record highs in July.
12) The most recent record high in July occurred in 1988 at 102° on July 31st.
13) There were two record highs in the 1980’s—1983 and 1988.

The 1930’s has increased its lead by an additional 19 days! In January, the 2000’s led the 1930’s by a 2 to 1 margin. The 1930’s from January through February had 10 record high temperatures. The 2000’s had five. The 1930’s had one more record high temperature in March giving the 1930’s a total of 11 for the first three months of the year. The 2000’s added four more record high temperatures to its previous total of five increasing its three month total to nine just two less than the eleven of the 1930’s. Both the 1930’s and the 2000’s had four more record high temperatures in April. With the addition of five record highs in May, the 1930’s has 20 record high temperatures through May while the 2000’s, with only one additional, has 14 highs. June has shut out the 2000’s while adding 15 more for the 1930’s. The 1930’s has now more than doubled the 2000’s having a comfortable lead of 35 to 14. July has again shut out the 2000’s while adding 19 more for the 1930’s. The 1930’s has almost four times the number of record high days as the 2000’s having a very comfortable lead of 54 to 14. The 1930’s is pulling farther away!

What happened to the 2000’s? Who will win out? It must be “Al Gore’s” global warming—or not!

This is what the Bible says about our climate: “Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: ‘Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.’” Genesis 8: 20-22 (NIV)

As I’ve said before, no human can accurately predict what the weather is going to be like 50 years from today. We have difficulty predicting with 100% accuracy what the weather is going to be like seven days from now. This I do know. If GOD wants global warming as predicted by the “Al Gore gang” to occur, there is NOTHING man can do to stop it. If GOD doesn’t want global warming to occur, it won’t, no matter what man does. Of course, GOD could always let man proceed as they choose without HIS hand in it either way. I don’t know what will occur 50 years from now and NEITHER DOES any other human on this planet!

This I also know. If I were living a life of SIN, I’d be more concerned about what GOD will do today and tomorrow or what will happen to me after my death (none of us has a guarantee that we will live another fifty years) than what is going to occur in another 50 years!!!

Animal rights in Great Britain


Update: On my June 27, 2009 post dealing with the Illinois General Assembly and a proposed income tax increase, I wrote “From the Peoria Journal, June 26, 2009, page A4—‘Letters to the editor,’ ‘If anyone wants to see what state employees are paid go online to www.herald-review.com/datacentral/salaries.php.’ (I have not checked out this site but provide it for you if you wish to check it—my addition.)” I have since checked out the site. To get the information desired, the following information is needed:

1) First name of an individual (although the site states that an initial is sufficient)
2) Last name of an individual (although the site states that an initial is sufficient)
3) The name of the county (were employed—I believe)
4) The name of the agency (were employed—I believe)
5) The position title

Since I didn’t know any of this information, I could not do a specific search. The information is supposed to be for 2008 salaries and is from a Freedom of Information search by the organization.

Since it is the last day of the month and since I’m planning my regular two posts (or more) on “global warming,” I thought I would post a one issue article tonight. I received this earlier this year and am posting it without comment since it is needs no comment, in my opinion. The author is English so some of the wording is unusual for Americans. (I wish the English would learn English.) The article:

“Even A Cockroach Has Rights
by James Delingpole
01/14/2009

My bunny-hugging antagonist’s embarrassed silence on the BBC radio phone-in told me all I needed to know.

Yes, it really is now a criminal offense in Britain to abuse an ant, a worm, a slug, cockroach, a scorpion, a stick insect or whatever creature you care to name. The moment you decide to keep it as a pet you are obliged by our Animal Welfare Act to take full account of its welfare needs—or face a $30,000 fine or a twelve-month prison sentence.

And if you think cockroach rights sound crazy, wait till you hear how the law applies to the way you keep your dog or cat. The Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)—one of the numerous busybody branches of our socialist New Labour administration—recently issued guidelines to pet owners clarifying the law.

You risk prosecution if:

—You fail to groom your long-haired dog or cat once a day.

—You feed your dog from the table.

—You use your hands or feet when playing with your cat (as this may encourage aggressive behavior).

—You fail to provide every cat in your household with its own litter tray (even if the cat has access to a garden).

—You try to make your cat vegetarian by denying it meat.
None of these provisions is in itself a criminal offense, a DEFRA spokesman has explained helpfully. But failure to comply with several of them ‘may be used in evidence to support a prosecution for animal cruelty.’

Well, that’s me done for then. In the last few years, I have contravened every one of these pet care laws (apart from the last one: encouraging feline vegetarianism—indeed, encouraging any form of vegetarianism—really should, I believe, be punishable by imprisonment and torture at the very least), especially the one regarding cat litter trays.

Our ageing cat, Beetle, doesn’t have a litter tray at all. Why? Well, for one thing, he’s a cat, and, from what I’ve observed of the feline species, they’re quite intelligent enough to do their business outside and don’t need the option of indoor facilities. And, for another, I’m the human. I pay the mortgage. I buy the cat food. We’re the master species (or at least we used to be). So it seems to me only fair that I should be the one who gets to decide whether or not to keep a tray of gravel in my kitchen ….”

But the bunny-huggers disagree. Not only do they disagree, but they now have the full force of the UK (United Kingdom or Great Britain—my addition) law behind them. And—in the form of our chief animal welfare charity the Royal Society For The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (RSPCA)—they even have an army of uniformed enforcers ready to knock on your door at the merest whiff of an infringement.

It was a run-in with the RSPCA which got me into that BBC radio phone-in in the first place. I’d written a magazine article about an unfortunate incident involving two hamsters we’d bought from the pet shop, one to keep for our family, one as a replacement for the hamster which had accidentally been killed while we were looking after it.

Unfortunately, while one of the two hamsters was docile and friendly, the other one was an evil biter which kept drawing blood. First we tried asking the pet store to take it back, but they wouldn’t. Then we tried palming Devil Hamster off on the school, but they said: ‘We can’t have this one! He keeps biting our children.’ So finally, as the man of the household (and thus the chief vermin exterminator), I was given the job of getting rid of it. Which I did, in a typically cowardly way, by releasing it into our local park.

A few days later, I received a letter from the RSPCA informing me that there had been a complaint and that I had been guilty of a criminal act which rendered me liable for a fine or imprisonment. On this occasion they were minded not to prosecute. But next time…

I was surprised and not a little disturbed. Since when did the sort of animal welfare charities one used to associate with cute little kittens with bandaged paws suddenly have the right to go round threatening free citizens? Since the 2006 Animal Welfare Act, I learned. This came into force in 2007 but—as with so many of the laws New Labour has introduced, at the rate of one imprisonable offense every FOUR days during its twelve years in power—it has sat on the statute books almost unnoticed.

Only in the last month, with DEFRA’s new guidelines (and the publicity given to my ‘I am a hamster murderer’ story) has the British public become fully aware of its manifest absurdities.

Why, for example, is it still perfectly legal for me to poison the colony of mice in my skirting boards, but an imprisonable offence to cause them any harm the moment I capture them and make them my pets?

How low in the biological chain do you have to go before an animal becomes ineligible for protection? Suppose I kept a pet amoeba: could I be imprisoned for being cruel to one of those? Sadly, the law does not specify.

Meanwhile, it—currently at least—remains perfectly legal in Britain for sportsmen to shoot game birds like pheasants and grouse; to stalk stag; and even to hunt foxes on horseback (provided someone is holding a falcon or other bird of prey and the fox is not killed by the hounds but driven towards a gun).

Such are the messy compromises and idiocies which result when a government gets into bed with the lunatics of the animal rights lobby. Such are the pleasures, I fear, that await you in the U.S. when your new president and his rag-bag of socialist hangers-on and politically correct bleeding hearts start getting properly into their stride

James Delingpole is an English journalist, writer and broadcaster. His books include ‘Welcome To Obamaland’ (Regnery) and ‘Coward on the Beach’ (Bloomsbury) the first in a series of adventure novels set in World War II.”

Environmental Protection Agency update


About ten days ago, I posted a link from The Heritage Foundation to the Environmental Protection Agency concerning environmental regulations being considered. I received the following on June 24th and thought you might be interested in the results. Thanks to all who sent an e-mail. There is also a link if you would like to receive regular informational e-mails from The Heritage Foundation.

“Thank you for telling the Environmental Protection Agency not to implement invasive regulations that will cripple our economy while only slightly cooling our earth.Nearly 30,000 people used our website to notify the EPA—more than twice as many as our campaign last year. We appreciate your help getting us to that number. Together, we can make a difference and protect our economy from harmful regulations.

I hope you’ll keep in touch by signing up for The Heritage Foundation’s free email newsletters, including our daily Morning Bell, your first source for the conservative perspective on the day’s top news. Please click here and take a moment and sign up.

If you have questions about The Heritage Foundation or any feedback, please don’t hesitate to reply to this message. We’ll be including a removal link in every email we send you, so you can leave our list any time that suits you.

Sincerely,
Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.
PresidentThe Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation—214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington, DC
Call us at (202) 546-4400”

Illinois General Assembly—income tax increase supported by whom?


Yesterday, in relation to the proposed income tax increase, I wrote “The Governor’s (Governor Pat Quinn—my addition) threat to cut such programs generated the results he had hoped for. Groups, who benefit from such programs, including those who work for the programs, immediately began lobbying for an income tax increase. The Peoria Journal Star’s “letters to the editor” has been filled every day with people opposed to the cuts and supporting a tax increase to “save” the programs. Rallies have been held at the Capitol in support of the services provided. The Governor, himself, declared that the people of the State were a charitable people and would not let such services be cut. (By the way, it is NOT charity if you are forced by law to pay for it!)”

Later that day, I went through the newspapers that had accumulated. Here are some quotes from articles discussing the situation.

From the Peoria Journal Star, June 24, 2009, page A1, “‘There’s not a human service provider that has gone untouched in the state, so to find a lawmaker who has not received a call from a human service provider, from Cairo to Rockford, would be unimaginable,’ said David Ormsby, the Illinois Alcoholism and Drug Dependence Association spokesman.”

A human service provider, of course, is an employee of the State of Illinois, or an employee of a local unit of government that receives money from the State of Illinois, or an employee of a for profit business or of a non-profit organization that receives money from the State of Illinois to provide a “service” to select people and groups within the State of Illinois. Want to receive help from the State of Illinois? Then, just become an alcoholic or become drug dependent and you will receive help from the State through human service providers who often belong to the Illinois Alcoholism and Drug Dependence Association whose members either directly or indirectly are paid through the budget of the State of Illinois. Thus, you have employees of the State, either directly or indirectly, lobbying legislators of the State of Illinois to increase the income taxes of everyone in the State of Illinois to pay their wages so that they can provide services to select people and groups within the State. They are lobbying to keep their jobs at the expense of all the people of the State of Illinois!

From the same paper on the same date, page A5, “The state’s largest employee union also is helping organize the fight against the threatened budget cuts.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has put up a Web site, encouraging members to send e-mails to local lawmakers and helped organize rallies, said local union council spokesman Anders Lindall. Besides state employees, the union’s members include 5,000 people who work for community nonprofit agencies that serve the developmentally disabled and have been notified about potentially drastic state funding cuts.

At Tuesday’s rally, Paula LeRoy of Paris (a town in Illinois—my addition), who works for Human Resources Center of Edgar and Clark Counties (an employee paid indirectly through the State budget—my addition) said her organization gets multiple daily e-mails from state agencies warning of budget cuts and asking the organization to contact lawmakers. (Did you catch that! State agencies that are financed with State tax money are asking local agencies to lobby State legislators to NOT cut State agency budgets and, ipso facto, to increase the State income tax to pay for the new budget. If not illegal, is it unethical for State employees, who benefit from the continued funding of their agencies, to ask other agencies to lobby State legislators to continue the State’s overspending?) The Human Resources Center in turn tells clients (people and groups who are being “served” with State money—my addition.) to contact officials in Springfield.”

So, here is the chain of communication:

1) The Governor declares that a 50% increase in the State income tax must be approved or drastic cuts will have to occur in human services programs.

2) The State’s agencies, which are part of the executive branch, tell local agencies to lobby State legislators to increase the State income tax.

3) Local agencies tell their clients to lobby State legislators to increase the State income tax.

4) Clients tell their friends and families to lobby State legislators to increase the State income tax. (Not stated but an obvious progression from the above—the more who are lobbying; the more the likelihood of success)

5) The governor, State employees, local employees who are paid indirectly by the State, the clients, their friends, and families of all these groups are all lobbying State legislators to increase the State income tax so that the State can go on spending more and more money without ever establishing priorities or cutting overall spending. (By the way, I will state confidently, without ever having seen either budget, that the Governor’s proposed budget for this fiscal year is greater than the budget for the previous year when including new program add-ons and increases in the budget approved by the State General Assembly.)

From the Peoria Journal, June 21, 2009, page A7—“Web Words scrapings from pjstar.com on a variety of topics,” “hunt wrote: ‘So why should state employees be exempt from layoffs? The government always looks to raise taxes first when a shortfall exists. Cut some services that are probably not needed and then evaluate. You might find that we can get along just fine without all the current state employees.’

avoter wrote: ‘Nobody wants to see people lose their livelihood, but desperate times require drastic measures. Poor economic conditions, lack of competent management, and fiscal irresponsibility have led companies nationwide to endure closings, restructuring, bankruptcies, and layoffs. Our government representatives have failed to responsibly administer our funds and answer our primary concerns. The response for this failure should be the same as any other failed endeavor: closings, restructuring, bankruptcies, and layoffs. Don’t dare starve the people while the banquet continues for the government elite.’”

By the way, the theory taught in Economics 101, when I was in college which was advanced by a liberal economist, was that during good times the government should decrease spending and/or increase taxes to provide for a surplus budget—actually having more money than was spent. This is sometimes known as saving money for a rainy day. Meanwhile, during bad economic times, the government should spend more money and/or decrease taxes to increase the circulation of money within the society.

The problem has always been that most governments don’t seem capable of actually spending less money than they receive. They can always find something “good” to spend the money on. Consequently, when times are bad, their first reaction is to increase taxes to make up for the revenue lost so that they can continue spending more money. Do you recognize the State of Illinois?

From the Peoria Journal, June 26, 2009, page A4—“Letters to the editor,” “If anyone wants to see what state employees are paid go online to www.herald-review.com/datacentral/salaries.php.” (I have not checked out this site but provide it for you if you wish to check it—my addition.)

The State of Illinois will NOT get government spending under control by giving government more money. Giving the State more money is like giving a drunk more alcohol so that he can drink himself sober. It won’t happen!

As I wrote in yesterday’s post, the only real and permanent solution is the solution that every one of us has available. Spend only the money we have after setting the appropriate priorities and save some of that for the inevitable “rainy day.” Set priorities and don’t create new programs that can’t be paid for and don’t expand programs that aren’t working and can’t be paid for. Wait! There can’t possibly be programs that don’t work, can there?

As I’ve said before, NO tax increase should be passed until and unless the General Assembly and the Governor DEMONSTRATES that they are fiscally responsible in handling the money already provided. This has NOT been demonstrated to this point!

Illinois General Assembly—income tax increase update


Governor Pat Quinn, who replaced ousted Governor Blagojevich, has proposed an income tax increase of 50% to pay for the programs of the State of Illinois. He called the General Assembly back into special session on Tuesday of this week to pass an acceptable budget which he hoped would include a tax increase.

If the income tax increase is not passed, he has suggested that cuts up to 50% might occur particularly in the area of social services—such as cutting day care assistance. According to news stories, this is a threat that has been leveled by past governors.

And in fact, while I was a member of a school board in Arizona, I said that if the district did not have sufficient income to cover its expenses, I would push to cut extra-curricular programs, such as sports, before cutting core educational areas. It is known as setting priorities. I have never been a proponent of across the board percentage cuts. Such cuts would mean that every program has the same priority and that should not be the case. Some program ARE more important than others. Some programs ARE more essential than others.

(Unfortunately, there seems to be many programs that are neither important nor essential and they still get funded. Once a program begins, it is almost impossible to end it!)

The Governor’s threat to cut such programs generated the results he had hoped for. Groups, who benefit from such programs, including those who work for the programs, immediately began lobbying for an income tax increase. The Peoria Journal Star’s “letters to the editor” has been filled every day with people opposed to the cuts and supporting a tax increase to “save” the programs. Rallies have been held at the Capitol in support of the services provided. The Governor, himself, declared that the people of the State were a charitable people and would not let such services be cut. (By the way, it is NOT charity if you are forced by law to pay for it!)

And yet, the special session has ended and no significant progress was achieved. A new special session is planned for next Monday—the 29th of June. The new budget year begins on July 1, 2009. Time is getting short although the State has not passed a final budget by the July 1st deadline for at least the last two years.

As the Peoria Journal Star reported on June 25, 2009, page B3, “New programs, expenses and a drop in revenues have left the state unable to cover costs for the fiscal year that starts July 1.

Quinn put the shortfall at $11.6 billion and says he and legislators have agreed on measures to trim the deficit to $9.2 billion. He wants to use higher income taxes, spending cuts, federal aid (Is this stimulus money?—my addition) and financial maneuvers. Many legislators are balking at raising income taxes.”

Here is a major part of the problem. Since I moved to Illinois, balancing the budget has been a recurring theme. The State has been very good at increasing more and more programs and automatically increasing expenditures for existing programs. It seemed the powers that be have never met a program that they didn’t like and that was absolutely necessary for the improvement of the State. It’s the same old story; it’s easier to spend money than it is to have the money necessary to cover the new programs and cover the increasing costs of existing programs. They have used financial maneuvers which did not solve the cost problems but just postponed the day of reckoning. In my opinion, they have been reckless and irresponsible with the people’s money.

Answer this question: Why would any government body propose and pass any new program that costs additional money when the people who support the new program realize that the State does not have sufficient revenue to pay for the programs already in existence? Does that make financial sense? The State somehow has survived all these years WITHOUT the new program. We don’t have enough money to cover what we are already doing. And yet, WE are spending MORE money for NEW programs! Explain to me how that is fiscally responsible. The FIRST step in fiscal responsibility is NO NEW program that COSTS money unless an existing program is cut proportionally to the new cost! Therefore, every new program passed by the legislature that costs additional money should be vetoed unless a corresponding CUT occurs. That is fiscally responsible!

The day of reckoning has arrived and what is the solution? To raise the income tax by 50%! Meanwhile, will they stop spending money they don’t have? From past experience, the answer is NO! Consequently, at some future day of reckoning, the solution will be the same—raise TAXES! We can’t “harm” the people being served by government!

The only real and permanent solution is the solution that every one of us has available. Spend only the money we have after setting the appropriate priorities and save some of that for the inevitable “rainy day.” Set priorities and don’t create new programs that can’t be paid for and don’t expand programs that aren’t working and can’t be paid for. Wait! There can’t possibly be programs that don’t work, can there?

As I’ve said before, NO tax increase should be passed until and unless the General Assembly and the Governor DEMONSTRATES that they are fiscally responsible in handling the money already provided. This has NOT been demonstrated to this point!

Government Health Care—winners, losers, and break even


Although this will be posted Thursday morning, I am writing it before ABC’s propaganda broadcast on healthcare. As I said in the previous post, I don’t plan on watching. However, a few general observations at this time are in order. I intend to discuss healthcare more thoroughly at a later time.

1) Government involvement in healthcare whether through healthcare insurance and/or direct government participation in providing healthcare will no doubt cost more than estimated. This phenomenon is universal. At the present time, estimates are over a trillion dollars. It no doubt will end up costing more and probably much more. (Yes, I know. Much is a subjective word.)

2) In a free enterprise system, government can not and should not interfere with supply and demand. Of necessity, supply and demand will be manipulated in a government system directed healthcare program whether the final program is through government insurance or direct government delivery of healthcare services. Any such government directed program is a movement away from free enterprise and toward government control and ownership of the means of production. The government already owns an automobile company. Should government also own healthcare?

3) The taxpayer will pay for this cost—government gets its money from us.

4) Government bureaucracy will grow substantially and this bureaucracy will increase the cost of healthcare.

5) Controversy will be created as behaviors and the consequences of those behaviors will or will not be covered by the program even though a sizeable number of taxpayers will not approve of the decision. Will the government pay for the MURDER of unborn children, which is “legal” according to Supreme Court fiat, even though considered immoral by a sizable number of taxpayers?

6) The system will work less efficiently than predicted or anticipated. Fraud will be greater than predicted or anticipated.

7) There can only be three possible results for each individual within the system. Some people will be winners—they will receive more care cost-wise than they pay for. Some people will break even—their costs will be the same as the benefits received. (This will probably be a very small number.) Some people will inevitably be losers—they will receive less care cost-wise than they pay for. And in some cases, they will probably receive much less care than they pay for.

Who will be the winners? Who will be the losers?

1) According to many experts, over fifty percent of the adult population is either significantly overweight or obese. Will most overweight/obese citizens be winners or losers? According to a recent news story, 20% of 4-year-olds are obese. Will these 4-year-olds be winners or losers?

2) About 20% of the adult population smoke. Will most of these smokers be winners or losers?

3) Drug addictions are a recognized problem in our society—most being self induced. Will most of these drug addicts be winners or losers?

4) Approximately 20% of adults, according to some experts, have sexually transmitted diseases—most of which were transmitted through what many voters consider immoral activities. Will most of these individuals be winners or losers?

5) Drug addicts and individuals involved in homosexual behaviors as well as heterosexuals involved in immoral sexual relations have a statistically higher incidence of HIV/AIDS. Will most of these individuals be winners or losers?

6) Alcoholism results because people choose to drink alcohol. No one, who has never drunk alcohol, has ever been an alcoholic—this “disease” has a zero probability for individuals who do not drink alcohol. Will most alcoholics be winners or losers?

7) Some people shun vices, exercise regularly, eat sensibly and nutritiously, and don’t take unnecessary risks. Will most of these individuals be winners or losers?

Do you get the picture? Pick your own categories. In general, it seems likely that those who practice and live a healthy lifestyle will more likely be the losers in any government program. Meanwhile, those who live and practice an unhealthy lifestyle will more likely be winners in such a program. Should those who live a healthy lifestyle be FORCED to subsidize those who do NOT?

How much of the above was even mentioned in the ABC propaganda program last night? How much of the above was adequately discussed from an opposition point of view in the ABC propaganda program last night?

ABC News—propagandist for the Barack Hussein Obama Administration


I could not connect with my internet provider Monday or Tuesday. I’m trying again! The following is occurring today—Wednesday. I’m sorry I couldn’t post sooner!

I'm sorry. I just checked the link. It requests a contribution in order to send the e-mail. I don't do that. It's your choice, however. The material is still valid though. DLV

As those of you who read my blog regularly should know, I don’t watch much TV. After attending a birthday party Saturday, I decided I didn’t want to do any work, so I turned on the TV to see what was on. Flipping through the channels, I came across a program on ABC entitled “Castle,” if I remember correctly. It was a new program to me and was about a mystery book writer as he solved a murder for the police—sort of a modern “Murder She Wrote.” Since I’m a writer—one published book so far—and since I enjoy mysteries, I decided to watch the program.

Then, I saw the commercial promoting the propaganda special to be aired Wednesday night by ABC Entertainment. Oops! I mean ABC News. On June 3rd of this year, I had written an article entitled “Political Pawns” in which I commented on TV programs aired by ABC and NBC promoting Barack Hussein Obama’s political agenda. Outside of war time (World War II and The Korean Conflict being the last two examples), never before has the mass media been so blatantly willing to propagandize for a sitting President. It is almost as if the mass media is an extension of the Obama White House.

Consequently, I have once again changed what I planned to post today. Comments on the Illinois General Assembly will be postponed temporarily.

I received the following Saturday morning. I did some slight editing and put the e-mail into my format. I have NOT checked the link as provided. I will do so after I post.

As a follow-up, I have sent a comment to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) using the link provided with my Friday post. It worked well and is easy to do. Comments to the EPA must be provided by the 23rd. Therefore, if you wish to send an e-mail to the EPA, you need to hurry.

The e-mail received Saturday with a couple of comments:

“Dear American Conservative Union Friends,

I am sure you have now heard about the President’s latest attempt to vastly increase the size and cost of government. Obama calls it health care reform—we know it is one giant leap toward government-run health care.

Do we want government-run health care? Do we want to wait in days-long lines for urgent care? Do we want the government telling us what treatments we can and cannot have? Do we want to enter a DMV-style government office just to take a number and sit there while we bleed waiting for treatment?

These questions should be answered. I believe we know how most Americans would answer them.

However, ABC News is planning an all-day long bonanza of coverage on Obama’s health care plan next Wednesday, June 24 in Washington and they refused to include opposition voices.

That’s right; a national television news network has told Republicans and conservatives that ‘you are not invited.’ To date, they have shut us out.

We must demand fairness in media coverage of this critical issue.

Send A Message To ABC News President David Westin And ABC Television President Anne Sweeney Here And Now That Americans Demand Fairness...Conservatives Should Be Heard In The Health Care Debate! Do Not Give Obama Free Television Time To Sell Government Run Health Care.

When you sign the petition we are also going to give you the direct phone number to ABC’s New York offices so you [can—my addition] phone in your concerns, if you wish, as well.

Their planned coverage of Obama is exhaustive.As the DAILY NEWS from New York City reported today, on Wednesday, ABC will air an interview with President Obama and the First Lady on ‘Good Morning America.’ It will also have Charles Gibson anchor ‘World News’ from the White House and will air a prime-time, hour-long town-hall-type special with the President fielding questions on health care from Gibson, Diane Sawyer and a panel of guests.

ABC News officials have said the special will be balanced, with opinions and pointed questions from all sides on the issue. (I seriously doubt that this will be true. I will NOT be watching to find out. I DO NOT base my position on issues on mass media “NEWS” specials. Read Bernard Goldberg’s Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News to understand why—my addition.)However they have refused to allow conservative voices to be heard.President Obama has been so gracious in opening the doors of the White House to ABC. Why? We believe because they refused to allow conservatives or Republicans on the air.

It has been reported that ABC News has out right rejected requests to allow conservatives to be part of the debate. In fact there will be no debate as he will only answer questions that have been supposedly screened only by the executives of ABC News.

In response to requests that conservatives be part of their coverage, ABC issued a letter in essence saying no and adding, ‘ABC NEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the President.’ (Softball lob questions?—my addition)

We need to demand inclusion of conservative viewpoints. This issue is too big to surrender to the far-left political forces within the White House.

Send A Message To ABC News President David Westin And ABC Television President Anne Sweeney Here And Now That Americans Demand Fairness...Conservatives Should Be Heard In The Health Care Debate! Do Not Give Obama Free Television Time To Sell Government Run Health Care.

When you sign the petition we are also going to give you the phone number to ABC’s New York offices to directly voice your concerns, if you wish, as well.

Yesterday, in response to ABC’s refusal to allow Obama opponents to speak, the Republican National Committee took the step of offering free television studio and satellite time to any Republican Member of Congress who wanted to send a message back home about their concerns over his plans. To their credit they are at least trying to get the word out.

So while ABC News is giving free time to Obama to promote government run health care, his opposition is required to beg local stations to give them equal time.

A democracy where the people only hear from one side is a democracy that will not survive.

This may not be Iran where radio stations and cell phone towers are being shut down to stop dissent—but it is now becoming a nation where nationwide news organizations are shutting out dissent by denying access to our airways.

We have one week to change this decision. We must speak up. We need your help.

Send A Message To ABC News President David Westin And ABC Television President Anne Sweeney Here And Now That Americans Demand Fairness...Conservatives Should Be Heard In The Health Care Debate! Do Not Give Obama Free Television Time To Sell Government Run Health Care.

When you sign the petition we are also going to give you the phone number to ABC’s New York offices so you [can—my addition] phone in your concerns, if you wish, as well.

Estimates are that Obama-Care, his health care program, will cost us taxpayers up to, if not over, $1 trillion in government funds. (In the end, it will end up costing more than that, in my opinion. Members of the Obama Administration and Democrats, in general, have either never heard of supply and demand principles, don’t understand supply and demand principles, or erroneously believe they can control supply and demand principles because of their superior intellect [very similar to the viewpoint of the old, now non-existent Soviet Union]. They will discover that supply and demand principles can not be ignored without cost—my addition.)

Who is going to pay that $1 trillion?

The simple answer is you and me. (The only answer is taxpayers! I hope to write much more about the folly of “health care reform” which isn’t health care reform at all but rather government ownership and control of health care. In the end, it may be more control than ownership but, either way, it will end up doing more harm than good. Ultimately, government is ill equipped to control supply and demand—my addition.)

However, it hasn’t happened yet and now is the time to make sure the American people understand the costs and the poor benefits of a government run health care system.

The American people deserve to hear all sides of the story.

Send A Message To ABC News President David Westin And ABC Television President Anne Sweeney Here And Now That Americans Demand Fairness...Conservatives Should Be Heard In The Health Care Debate! Do Not Give Obama Free Television Time To Sell Government Run Health Care.

When you sign the petition we are also going to give you the phone number to ABC’s New York offices so you can call them if you wish, as well.

Please join ACU and support our efforts to ensure conservative voices are heard.

ABC News needs to get this message.

Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

Dennis Whitfield
Executive Vice President

P.S. ABC News doesn’t seem to realize that almost half, 46%, of Americans voted against Barack Obama last November. Many more according to polls no longer support all of the massive government expansion and spending that has followed.

Send A Message To ABC News President David Westin And ABC Television President Anne Sweeney Here And Now That Americans Demand Fairness...Conservatives Should Be Heard In The Health Care Debate! Do Not Give Obama Free Television Time To Sell Government Run Health Care.

ACU
conservative.org”

Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas also wrote an article dealing with this issue which was published in the Peoria Journal Star on June 21, 2009, page A4. It was titled “A one-sided debate isn’t news, it’s advertising.” I don’t know if that was his title or one provided by the Journal Star. Of course, that title, written by whoever, was being generous. It’s NOT advertising; it’s PROPAGANDA.

I don’t intend to discuss the entire column but want to quote the last four paragraphs. The paragraphs:

“By doing these programs from the White House, ABC will throw its remaining credibility to the wind and become an appendage of their advertisers, the Obama worshippers and the Democratic Party.

Try to imagine this happening in a Republican administration. You can’t because it would never happen.

By the way, guess who’s the new director of communications for the White House Office of Health Reform. It’s former ABC News correspondent Linda Douglass, who left journalism last year to join the Obama campaign. (Is this a surprise? Lobbying through a former employer is acceptable to the White House if it is done by the White House!—my addition)

This should settle, once and for all, the matter of big media bias. Only those in complete denial could argue there will be anything ‘fair and balanced’ about the ABC programs. And the public, on an Obama high right now (NOT all of us!—my addition), is going to be the big loser in the end, when it awakens to the erosion of our hard-earned freedoms. But by then it will be too late. (LET’S PRAY NOT! LET’S ACT NOW TO STOP THIS!—my addition)

Call centers


I received the following Friday morning. I’m posting it tonight for what it is worth. I don’t know if it is true or not—might be worth a try though. I don’t use call centers. I try to do everything I can in person. Have called my “@” provider about three or four times in the five+ years I had the service. All calls, but one, were immediately after moving here to get the system operating correctly. It has always been successful with some effect. Most were hard to understand though and it was hard for them to understand me since I didn’t and don’t know the technical language.

I did some editing and put the e-mail into my format. I don’t know the source. The e-mail:

“Try to remember this EVERY TIME you have to talk to a customer service representative and you cannot understand them. I did not know that we could do this, but I sure am going to try it. Help bring jobs back to the U.S.A. Ask for an American!How to save some American jobs and we can help!Hi EveryoneI want to share with you some great information that I found out purely by accident. I believe it can also save and create jobs in America while giving people better customer service.So how many times have you called a companies service phone line and found that the representative can barely speak English? Once with a major mortgage company it was so bad I demanded to speak with someone who spoke English. Right at that moment I broke the code—the secret password for customer service.Came to find out that every American company using overseas operators must transfer you to an American representative by saying—‘I want to speak to a representative in America.’ (Don’t take no for an answer on this.)

This was confirmed by the American representative that they must transfer you after that request. I’ve tried it on a half a dozen major companies including cable, bank, phone and mortgage companies. It works every time and I actually get my issues taken care of.Last thing to help save even more jobs:

Don’t use the automated check out lanes they are pushing at the big box stores. Once again I found out that if we use those check outs rather than cashiers—people loose their jobs. I’ve refused to use the automated check outs and have had two cashiers already thank me for help saving their job.”

I’m a throw-back to an earlier age. I don’t use automated check outs, drive through windows, ATM machines, pay bills by electronic transfer or over the internet, or much of anything else that doesn’t have a person involved.

I called Verizon recently because I didn’t receive the phone bill. Of course, I got the automated system. I finally got most of the information I needed but, of course, it was frustrating. I would much rather deal with a real person. Somewhere, in all the material I’ve accumulated, I have an e-mail on how to get a real person. Maybe, I’ll try to hunt it up and post it sometime. Give me someone to talk with! Even someone from another country is better than the recordings we now deal with.

Ah, progress. Oh well! Soon we’ll all be working for the government or on the government dole.

Next week, the Illinois General Assembly has been called back into session. I plan on several posts in that regard starting Monday.

“Global warming madness”—the Obama Administration wants to control us through the EPA


This post was delayed one day because of an electrical storm when I normally post.

I only recently was added to the Heritage Foundation’s e-mail list. I received an e-mail yesterday dealing with numerous subjects. The one of immediate concern is the need to commit to the Environment Protection Agency NOT to impose ridiculous regulations to unnecessarily regulate that which does NOT pose any significant danger to the well-being of Americans. I have not checked out the link but will do so after I’ve posted it. I’ve also included other links on other topics that the Obama Administration is wrong on—which seem to be just about everything!

“One week left: Submit a commit to EPA (Environment Protection Agency)

The Obama administration has ruled that global warming poses a serious threat to public health and safety. This “endangerment finding” gives the Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate almost anything that emits carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases—from cars to power plants to apartment buildings.

Help us speak out against this harmful ruling. Last year, 14,461 people submitted a comment through The Heritage Foundation’s website asking the EPA not to move forward with carbon dioxide regulations. We need your help again.

» Visit StopEPAAgain.com to voice your concern to the EPA about these regulations.

President Obama’s 2010 budget proposal doesn’t simply shift defense funding, it cuts essential programs, write Heritage experts Jim Talent and Mackenzie Eaglen. Their analysis reveals how these cuts will hurt America's capabilities in strategic defense, control of the seas, air superiority, space control, counterterrorism, counterinsurgency and more. Crucially, these dangerous proposed changes all precede any formal strategic review of defense and foreign policy.

‘The conversion of General Motors to Government Motors should be a grave concern to all Americans,’ writes Heritage expert Brian Darling. Fortunately, some legislators, such as Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE), are working to curb the President’s ‘all-out assault’ against capitalism. They’re calling for Congressional approval before any government takeover of a private enterprise. Darling also highlights other Congressional proposals to defend free enterprise and limited government.

President Obama pitched his health care plan to a skeptical audience at the American Medical Association's annual meeting yesterday. The organization has come out against the big-government proposal.

According to a Gallup survey, 40 percent of all Americans questioned identify themselves as conservative, making it the most popular political philosophy. 35 percent of those surveyed identify as moderate, while only 21 percent claim to be liberal.

An alarmist new White House report blames recent weather on "climate change" and predicts extreme weather in the future.”

Republican Party—an open letter to the National and State of Illinois Republican Party

The maneuvering for those who desire or may desire to run for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate in 2010 has begun. An article that recently appeared in the Peoria Journal Star (June 9, 2009, page B3) was about a Democratic member of the Illinois House of Representatives who was thinking about running for the U.S. Senate but who decided not to run—rather she is planning to seek reelection to the House.

I have no concern on whether or not she runs for the Senate and normally would not deal with this article. However, one paragraph in the article is significant and that paragraph I will address.

The paragraph declared that “Republicans have yet to offer a candidate, but U.S. Representative Mark Kirk is mulling a run. National Republicans say they are optimistic he could make the race competitive.”

My response: Are they crazy? When the Republican Party moved away from “values” issues in 2006 and 2008, they lost elections! The Republicans in 2006 nominated a “RINO”—Republican In Name Only—for governor in Illinois and lost badly to a governor who has since been removed from office.

She supported the immoral homosexual agenda including “civil unions” and an increased reliance on gambling for revenue and lost the necessary support of conservative Republicans from downstate. Democrats are not going to support a RINO and conservative Republicans will NOT support a RINO in sufficient numbers to offset the Democratic Chicago area. It was an invitation for another unnecessary loss at the polls.

Earlier, I was involved in the first attempt by conservatives to place an amendment into the Illinois Constitution to define marriage as between only a man and a woman. According to reports I read, black Christians in the Chicago area were actively involved in gathering signatures to encourage the General Assembly to place the amendment on the ballot even though these same black Christians tend to overwhelming support Democratic candidates. Where was the Republican Party? NOWHERE to be found. The Party was conspicuous in its absence.

By ignoring this major “values” issue, the Republican Party missed an opportunity to increase the number of conservative voters going to the polls for the general election and an opportunity to work with Black Christians who, in reality, have much more in common with conservative Republicans than with libertine Democrats. Quite simply, the Republican Party squandered an opportunity to reverse their fortunes in Illinois. They blew it!

By nominating Mark Kirk as the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate seat in 2010, the Party will again demonstrate that they just don’t get it! A Republican will NOT win in Illinois by acting like a Democrat.

Is Mark Kirk acting like a Democrat? He is as far as I’m concerned. Before the 2008 Presidential election, I said that the three major issues were 1) the MURDER of unborn babies, 2) the sin of homosexual behavior and specifically granting homosexual behavior special “rights” such as the ability to marry, and 3) appointments to the U.S. courts. All three of those issues are just as relevant and just as important today.

I don’t know where Mark Kirk stands on two of those three issues but I do know his stance on the third. I WILL NOT support any Republican who does NOT agree on ALL three and I believe that the same is true for many other conservative voters.

Mark Kirk voted for legislation in the House of Representatives to include homosexual behavior as a protected status in the “hate crimes” bill that passed the House. (See my post of May 9th—“Hate crimes,” part 5 and “Hate crimes” and the vote of Illinois’ members of the House of Representatives, part 6 posted on May 11th.) In fact, Mark Kirk was a co-sponsor of the legislation.

Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R)—YEA
HR 1913 Co-sponsor
10th Congressional Dist.Washington
Phone: 202-225-4835
District Phone: 847-940-0202
Webform

That one action is sufficient to tell me he does NOT understand or accept the immorality involved in homosexual behavior. Or he does and he doesn’t care! Either way he will neither get my support nor vote and I, along with others, will work for his defeat. A RINO Republican is NO better than a libertine Democrat. Just examine the history of Arlen Specter—Pennsylvania U.S. Senator—who was a Democrat, who turned to the Republican Party, who is now again a Democrat although elected to the Senate as a Republican to understand the impropriety of supporting RINO’S.

NO RINO’S in State government and certainly NO RINO’S in Congress. It just doesn’t work.

Barack Hussein Obama ice cream?


I received the following e-mail Monday morning I post it tonight without comment for your consideration. Take it for what it is worth. I neither endorse it nor condemn it. I don’t know the original source. I did make some changes—I changed a specific ice cream company to “a major ice cream company” and changed the name of the ice cream. I also put it into my format and put in some commas. The e-mail as changed:

“In honor of the 44th President of the United States, [a major ice cream company—my change] has introduced a new flavor: [‘Barocky H. O. Roadie.’—my change] [Barocky H. O. Roadie—my change] is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes. The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient.

The nuts and flakes are all very bitter and hard to swallow.

The cost is $100.00 per scoop.

When purchased, it will be presented to you in a large, beautiful cone. At this point, the ice cream is removed and given to the person in line behind you. You are left with an empty wallet, no change, and holding an empty cone with no hope of having ice cream.

Do you feel stimulated now?”

Is this libelous toward ice cream?

Illinois tax increase—e-mail to officials


I received the following e-mail from Illinois Family Institute on the 11th. I post it tonight because it calls for immediate action on the part of the voters of Illinois. The e-mail with some minor adjustments, some comments, and putting it into my format:

Received 06/11/09
“IFI Reminder: Three Items...
Illinois Family Institute

1) [Personal information for me—I need not repeat it here]

2.) There are two gambling bills on Governor Patrick Quinn’s desk. Please take a moment to call his office at (800) 642-3112 and ask him to VETO any expansion of gambling in Illinois and keep his promise to voters.
(These bills have been passed by the General Assembly and are waiting for the Governor to act. Although he has said that he supports them, he also is trying to hold at least one of them hostage to force the General Assembly to pass his proposed income tax increase. I plan to discuss House Bill 0255 this week.)

3.) Illinois lawmakers still have not agreed on a budget, so a battle still looms for our state. A tax hike is still being promoted by Gov. Quinn. Click HERE to ask the governor and your state lawmakers to vote against any legislative proposal that would increase any tax burden for Illinois citizens.

I “Clicked HERE” Saturday morning and sent e-mails to the two Democratic members of the House of Representatives for the Peoria area (I believe the Republicans in this area will not vote to approve a tax increase), House Majority Leader Madigan, and the Governor. It seems to me that the House is the body least likely to support this increase since the Senate has already passed a bill supporting an income tax increase, if I remember correctly.

As I’ve said before, NO tax increase should be passed until and unless the General Assembly and the Governor DEMONSTRATES that they are fiscally responsible in handling the money already provided. This has NOT been demonstrated to this point!

Thank you for your attention to these items. I hope you and your family have a great weekend!

Sincerely,

David E. SmithExecutive Director”

Homosexual agenda—threat to religious freedom


‘I have posted watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest….’” Isaiah 62: 6 (NIV)

The homosexual agenda which proudly trumpets its sinful behavior is a threat to the religious freedom of Christians who identify homosexual behavior as sinful because they are by definition mutually exclusive. One CAN NOT be obedient to CHRIST and the TRUTH and support and/or be involved in homosexual behavior or allow it to flourish without taking a stand. Tonight, a short article that points out this obvious TRUTH as it discusses the two issues I have covered, since they are presently before the Legislature in Illinois and before Congress, as well as a third issue of “employment protections” which will be actively promoted by some members of Congress if the “hate crimes” legislation passes. The article with some comments:

“The Radical Homosexual Agenda and the Threat to Religious Liberty

5/29/2009 7:59:00 AM By Barrett Duke, Ph.D., Vice President for Public Policy and Research—The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

People of faith are on a collision course with the radical homosexual agenda. It is inevitable. In order for the radical homosexual agenda to be fully implemented, people of faith are going to have to be silenced and marginalized. The radical homosexual community will have to violate our religious liberty and our consciences in order to achieve this.

At this very moment, three issues move us closer to what I believe is an eventual clash. These issues affect our religious liberty in unique and distressing ways. I will mention two related to each.

Same-sex marriage

First, same-sex marriage will lead to the violation of our children’s consciences. Many of us send our children to government-run schools armed with our convictions and the Bible’s teachings about homosexuality. (If homosexual “marriage” or its counterfeit twin “civil unions” becomes law in Illinois, or in any State for that matter, my advice to ALL Christian parents is to get your children out of government schools NOW. Home educate them as we should—my addition.) Yet our children are already getting a much different message in some of them. Imagine what will happen if the government feels compelled to indoctrinate our children about the new civil right of same-sex marriage. We can expect government to look for ways to achieve this. The ‘struggle for same-sex marriage’ will be detailed as a civil rights triumph in their history and civics textbooks. Our children will be exposed to speakers who will ‘help’ them understand and accept same-sex marriage. Doubtless, many more insidious means will be deployed to indoctrinate our children and undermine their faith convictions about homosexuality.

Second, our freedom to choose our associations based on our religious convictions will be trampled. Legalization of same-sex marriage will create a situation in which the government will prohibit religious groups from using convictions about homosexuality as a determining factor in membership. This will extend to our participation in activities and access to religiously based accommodations, like church camps or retreats. What we have been seeing on this front lately is just the beginning. Imagine if we get to the place where same-sex marriage is treated as a civil right and all of the power of the United States government is brought to bear on making sure that no one involved in a same-sex marriage has his or her civil rights violated. It will not be possible for the government to secure the civil rights of those who are in a homosexual marriage and simultaneously accommodate our religiously held beliefs about homosexuality. (Reread this last sentence. That statement is absolutely true! Homosexual activists know this and CAN NOT WAIT for the day when they achieve their goals and homosexual sin becomes the accepted position of the government—government sanctify our behavior! Diametrically opposed views CAN NOT exist together as one. One will eventually be trampled on. And if homosexual marriage is legalized, guess which of the two conflicting viewpoints will be dismissed because that viewpoint is perceived as being a form of “discrimination”—my addition.)

Employment protections

The Employment Non-discrimination Act (ENDA) is a perfect example of the coming conflict. This bill is alive today in Congress and it threatens religious liberty. First of all, our ability to hire people who share our values will be taken away. A version of this bill provides an exemption for religious groups, but not all of their religious activities. The provision defines what is to be considered an exempt religious activity. So a church may be exempted from the requirement to extend employment to homosexuals, but this same exemption will not be available to other faith-based activities, like bookstores, daycare centers, or retreats. (And eventually churches themselves will also lose this exemption because, after all, it is “discriminatory!”—my addition) ENDA will prevent churches from applying their faith convictions about homosexuality to all of their hiring decisions.

Second, our faith will lead to accusations of discrimination in the workplace. These non-discrimination laws will treat as bigots all who communicate any kind of negative conviction about homosexuality in the workplace. Part of the current bill reads: ‘It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to adversely affect the status of the individual as an employee (What in the world does that mean!—my addition) because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation.’ (A poor job performance review by a Christian given to a homosexual could be argued to be based upon the homosexuality of the employee! A homosexual could never get a negative review from a Christian without a question being raised about a homosexual “bias.” How many thousands of cases might end up in court?—my addition) This language is so broad in its scope that a homosexual would have legal grounds to sue an employer who keeps a Bible on his desk. He can simply argue that by displaying a Bible, the employer is publicly identifying with its condemnation of homosexual behavior and thereby ‘adversely affecting’ his status as an employee. (Isn’t that something! Now, some homosexual activists argue that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior, although it DOES! If they are momentarily victorious in this world though, you can rest assured they will make this very argument—if you believe the Bible, you are automatically discriminating against us!—my addition)

Hate crimes

Hate crimes bills also threaten our religious liberty. First, our faith conviction about homosexuality could lead to federal prosecution for hate crimes. Under hate crimes statutes a Christian who happens to engage in an act of violence against a homosexual could be charged with a hate crime simply because he believes the Bible’s teachings about homosexuality, regardless of whether that has anything to do with the crime. No one should engage in acts of violence against a homosexual simply because he is a homosexual. But neither should someone’s religiously held beliefs about homosexuality be the cause of his prosecution.
Second, hate crimes legislation could have a chilling effect on religious speech that is critical of homosexuality. A precedent already exists. Today some pastors are reluctant to speak about political issues because they fear the loss of their tax exempt status. (And some churches are afraid to speak out against the sin of homosexual behavior for the same reason!—my addition) To assure compliance with the law, they even shy away from political speech that is still permissible. We can expect a similar response from some pastors if they begin to fear being charged with a hate crime for potentially inciting violence against homosexuals through their preaching or teaching or if they fear endangering their tax exempt status.

These are all serious issues. They must be addressed. Our faith and the radical homosexual agenda are on track for a cataclysmic conflict. (Maybe not, churches and Christians may just acquiesce to the homosexual agenda. Some who claim to be Christian HAVE already—protecting their non-profit status is more important than proclaiming the WORD of GOD!—my addition) If the radical homosexual agenda is codified into law, our own government will be arrayed against us and our struggle to protect our religious freedom. We can fight this battle now or we can fight it later, but we are going to fight this battle. (OR SURRENDER—my addition.) We must stand up and protect our freedom to believe and to practice our faith according to God’s leading, not governments.” (WILL we? And if so, WHEN? WILL it be too late? Some homosexual activists already believe it is too late and some who claim to be Christian have already SURRENDERED!—my addition)

“He then said to me: ‘Son of man, go now to the house of Israel and speak my words to them.’” Ezekiel 3: 4 (NIV)

“‘But the house of Israel is not willing to listen to you because they are not willing to listen to me, for the whole house of Israel is hardened and obstinate. But I will make you as unyielding and hardened as they are. I will make your forehead like the hardest stone, harder than flint. Do not be afraid of them or terrified of them, though they are a rebellious house.’” Ezekiel 3: 7-9 (NIV)

“At the end of seven days the word of the Lord came to me: ‘Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to a wicked man, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself.

Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the righteous man not to sin and he does not sin, he will surely live because he took warning, and you will have saved yourself.’” Ezekiel 3: 16-21 (NIV)

“‘Now I (spoken by the apostle Paul—my addition) know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again. Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. (Spoken specifically to the elders of the church in Ephesus.—my addition) Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.’” Acts 20: 25-31 (NIV)

(Spoken by JESUS) “‘He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.’” Luke 11: 23 (NIV)

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

“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)

Alliance Defense Fund’s response to the Iowa Supreme Court decision to require homosexual “marriage”


“‘I have posted watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest….’” Isaiah 62: 6 (NIV)

Yesterday, I posted an article about the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to require homosexual “marriage.” Tonight, the response by the Alliance Defense Fund to that erroneous decision. The article:

“Stakes Are Rising in States Falling for Homosexual Political Agenda
Inside the issues with Alan Sears

ADF attorneys: Judge erroneously dismissed expert testimony in Iowa marriage case
Inside the Issues with Alan Sears
April 21, 2009

It wouldn’t surprise Professor Harold Hill to learn they’ve got Trouble in Iowa—but the problem’s now considerably worse than pool tables and ‘dime novels hidden in a corn crib.’

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Iowa—where same-sex couples (by their own count) represent only 0.2 percent of the total population—struck down the state’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), declaring it to be in conflict with the state constitution. That is, to say the least, a curious conclusion—and a flagrant demonstration of judicial activism—given that marriage has been a strictly one-man, one-woman proposition in Iowa for as long as the state’s been a state.

That’s also how the state’s DOMA defines marriage, and the DOMA was passed by a nearly unanimous vote in 1998 by the people of Iowa, as represented by their state legislators. ADF attorneys represented several of those legislators in the recent case, filing a friend-of-the-court brief with the high court on their behalf in defense of the DOMA.

But ‘in one stroke, seven unelected justices of the court turned 170 years of Iowa public policy on its head,’ says long-time Iowa attorney and ADF Senior Legal Counsel Douglas Napier. ‘The Iowa marriage law was simple, settled, and overwhelmingly supported by Iowans. The Defense of Marriage Act was nearly unanimously supported by the legislature when it was passed. It was supported by the governor and a majority of Iowans.

‘There was simply no legitimate reason for the court to redefine marriage,’ he says. ‘The court stepped outside of its proper role of interpreting the law and has instead overruled the will of the people and created new law. Now it’s time for the Iowa Legislature to allow the people to vote on marriage as one man and one woman by placing a marriage amendment on the ballot. Let Iowans be heard. The legal definition of marriage should be in their hands, not the hands of unelected judges.’

Meanwhile, in Vermont—the first state ordered by its Supreme Court to implement ‘civil unions’ a few years ago—a group of activist legislators, building on that earlier court order, trumped the will of the people. On April 7, the state legislature overrode Gov. Jim Douglas's veto of legislation that fabricates same-sex ‘marriage’ in Vermont. So much for the idea that ‘civil unions’ (court-mandated or otherwise) can serve as a legal compromise to protect marriage.

‘This move demonstrates without question that ‘civil unions’ are never acceptable middle ground,’ says ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks. ‘They are the groundwork used to pave the way toward redefining, and even abolishing, marriage. Other states should not be naïve.’

Meanwhile, Washington, D.C., officials announced that same-sex ‘marriages’ from other jurisdictions will now be legally recognized within the district—indicating their willingness, like that of Iowa judges and Vermont legislators, to clear the legal path for homes where children will not have the benefit of a mother and father.

‘The state should do everything necessary to ensure that children aren’t denied their most important birthright: a mom and a dad,’ Nimocks says. ‘All non-partisan research and plain common sense tells us that when children are denied a mom and a dad, it leads to far more drug use, early sexual activity, criminal activity, mental depression, suicide, and problems in school.

‘The issue is bigger than a ‘personal relationship,’ he says. ‘How can we justify hurting an untold number of children for the possible emotional benefit of a very small number of adults?’

(According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, same-sex couples represent only 0.6 percent of the total population of Vermont and no more than 1.2 percent of the total population of the District of Columbia.)

No, it hasn’t been a good month for marriage in America—and we’re still awaiting the judgment of the California Supreme Court on the fate of same-sex ‘marriage’ in that state. (Of course, now we know that the California Supreme Court upheld the will of the people and the vote of the people and ended the judicially mandated “marriage” of homosexuals. However, the court did ERROR in allowing those “marriages” that were conducted during the interval, when the court tyrannically ruled “marriage” must be allowed and the vote of the people preempted that decision, to remain “valid”—my addition.) But don’t be discouraged by reports that ‘the battle is over.’ God’s still on His throne, the biblical directives on marriage are clear, and the Alliance Defense Fund legal team is working tirelessly to defend that truth in courts all over America. (And if the whole nation allows homosexual marriage, GOD is still victorious and it is the people of the nation who will eventually be the losers! GOD CAN NOT LOSE! HE allows people to sin but eventually HE is victorious and HIS WILL will be done!—my addition)

What’s more, the vast majority of the American people want marriage protected. In 30 out of 30 states where voters were given an opportunity to define marriage, one-man/one-woman marriage won strongly every time. In addition, national polls show that nearly two-thirds of Americans believe marriage should be the union of one man and one woman.

So, we pray. There are good people in the Iowa and Vermont legislatures, working tirelessly to counteract, circumvent, and redress these bad votes. There are wise judges who recognize the truth and elevate it over personal and political agendas—including the temptation to expand their role. And there are hundreds of thousands of courageous Americans standing for the Truth in their communities.

May God bless all of their efforts, and those of ADF, to accomplish His purpose in our nation.”

“He then said to me: ‘Son of man, go now to the house of Israel and speak my words to them.’” Ezekiel 3: 4 (NIV)

“‘But the house of Israel is not willing to listen to you because they are not willing to listen to me, for the whole house of Israel is hardened and obstinate. But I will make you as unyielding and hardened as they are. I will make your forehead like the hardest stone, harder than flint. Do not be afraid of them or terrified of them, though they are a rebellious house.’” Ezekiel 3: 7-9 (NIV)

“At the end of seven days the word of the Lord came to me: ‘Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to a wicked man, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself.

Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the righteous man not to sin and he does not sin, he will surely live because he took warning, and you will have saved yourself.’” Ezekiel 3: 16-21 (NIV)

“‘Now I (spoken by the apostle Paul—my addition) know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again. Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. (Spoken specifically to the elders of the church in Ephesus.—my addition) Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.’” Acts 20: 25-31 (NIV)

(Spoken by JESUS) “‘He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.’” Luke 11: 23 (NIV)

Iowa’s Supreme Court sanctions immoral behavior


“‘I have posted watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest….’” Isaiah 62: 6 (NIV)

Although I am finished, for the time being, with my series on “hate crimes” at the federal level and “civil union” legislation proposed in Illinois, there were a couple of articles I’ve downloaded that I intend to post in relation to one or both of these topics. The first is an article that was posted when Iowa’s Supreme Court, through judicial fiat, rewrote Iowa law. Tonight, that post:

“Iowa Same-sex ‘Marriage’ Ruling an Assault on Midwestern Values, says AFTAH’s LaBarbera

News Release

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
Contact: Peter LaBarbera: (630) 717-7631
April 3, 2009

Chicago—Today’s Iowa Supreme Court decision imposing ‘same-sex marriage’ as a constitutional ‘right’ is an assault on not just the Judeo-Christian moral foundations of that state, but also on the God we ask to ‘Bless America’—and the common-sense, pro-family values of the Midwest, said Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality.

LaBarbera, who is also on the board of Protect Marriage Illinois, issued the following statement regarding the court’s reckless decision:

‘Today Iowa becomes the first state not on either of the nation’s two liberal coasts to impose counterfeit, homosexual ‘marriage’ or its mischievous twin, ‘civil unions,’ on its citizens through judicial tyranny. To call this decision bankrupt is to understate its perniciousness. The evil genius of the pro-sodomy movement is that it targets noble institutions like marriage and adoption in the name of ‘rights,’ and then perverts and uses them to normalize aberrant and destructive behaviors.

‘Homosexual ‘marriage is wrong because homosexual behavior itself is wrong (Absolutely correct!—my addition) and destructive—as proved by its role in the needless, early deaths of countless ‘gay’ men. We must shake loose of the secularists’ and libertarians’ amoral nonchalance regarding ‘same-sex marriage’ by asking questions like this: how exactly would two men consummate their ‘gay marriage?’ Answer: by engaging in what one Founding Father, Noah Webster, writing in saner times, rightly defined as a ‘crime against nature.’

‘Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,’ said abolitionist Wendell Phillips, and the evidence keeps pouring in that the entire homosexual agenda is at war—not just with our nation’s Biblical heritage—but with the freedoms that made the United States of America great and blessed among nations. When the courts order society to effectively pretend that changeable sexual misbehavior is a ‘civil right,’ the law itself becomes perverted by punishing people of faith for their proper opposition toward deviant sex. The battle between ‘gay rights’ and religious freedom is a ‘zero-sum’ game—as even lesbian Georgetown law professor Chai Feldblum admits.’

‘I’m afraid that the pro-family movement—eager to provide secular, public-policy arguments against ‘gay marriage’—has failed to convey the monstrous evil of expanding, state-sanctioned homosexualism in our midst. Our Creator is pure, perfect and holy, and homosexual behavior is diametrically opposed to His will for people’s lives and His purpose for sex within the healthy boundaries of marriage, for the procreation of children. This same God graciously provides a way out of this sinful lifestyle through His son Jesus Christ, a path many former homosexuals have taken—including those now living in real (man-woman) marriages.

It is high time for pastors, in Iowa and across the land, to shake off their stifling, politically correct timidity and again become the prophetic voices for Truth they were called to be: by boldly warning Americans—Christian and non-Christian alike—about the perils of our growing accommodation with the sins of proud homosexuality, and sex outside marriage in general.’ (This, of course, was one of my basic points in my concluding post on “hate crimes.” However, it is NOT just pastors who must boldly warn Americans—Christians and non-Christians alike. All Christians must talk the walk and walk the talk of the TRUTH, including the truth about homosexual behavior, through JESUS, the CHRIST—my addition.)

Americans for truth about homosexuality
http://www.americansfortruth.com/”

Iowa Supreme Court decision

Virus alert


I received the following Tuesday morning (the 9th). I did not check it out but the source is usually very reliable. I did not make any changes except to but it into my format. The e-mail:

“This is a real virus guys/gals

The newest virus circulating is the UPS/Fed Ex Delivery Failure. You will receive an email from UPS/Fed Ex Service along with a packet number. It will say that they were unable to deliver a package sent to you on such-and-such a date. It then asks you to print out the invoice copy attached. DON’T TRY TO PRINT THIS. IT LAUNCHES THE VIRUS! Pass this warning on to all your PC operators at work and home. This virus has caused millions of dollars in damage in the past few days.

Snopes confirms that it is real.

http://www.snopes.com/computer/virus/ups.asp”

“Hate crimes”—concluding thoughts, part 15


Tonight, I am concluding my series on “hate crimes” legislation presenting being considered by the U.S. Senate after already being passed by the U.S. House.

“‘I have posted watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest….’” Isaiah 62: 6 (NIV)

What response would you give if fellow Christians made the following statements?

1) “As a church, we have certain restrictions placed on us in order to protect our non-profit status. One of those restrictions is to not become involved in such projects as trying to stop the passage of “hate crimes” legislation in Congress. Including a flier, or even mentioning this in the bulletin could be construed as our congregation supporting this effort.”

2) “If someone in a position of power, perhaps a pulpit, advocates violence against any group of people, including homosexuals, I would argue this exceeds the bounds of free speech.”

My response would be as follows:

1) “As a church, we have certain restrictions placed on us in order to protect our non-profit status. One of those restrictions is to not become involved in such projects as trying to stop the passage of “hate crimes” legislation in Congress. Including a flier, or even mentioning this in the bulletin could be construed as our congregation supporting this effort.”

Respectfully, I disagree with this assessment. It is used, however, by the forces of evil to attempt to SILENCE Christian opposition to their sinful plans and schemes. And yet, I have seen pictures—both in news print and on TV—of Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 while campaigning for the Presidency standing in a church pulpit speaking to the congregation. By definition, when a political candidate including a Presidential candidate is speaking to an audience he is campaigning for that office. I don’t think he is telling the audience to vote for the other guy!

However, even if true, so what? What is the purpose of the body? Is it to placate man in order to protect a non-profit status or to serve GOD and teach and preach his unadulterated WORD!

Imagine Peter and the other apostles in the 1st century, standing before the Sanhedrin—the same Sanhedrin who earlier was, in a large measure, responsible for their CHRIST’S MURDER. “Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. ‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,’ he said. ‘Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.’

Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We profusely apologize! We did not mean to violate your orders! We do not want to lose our place in Jewish society or lose our non-profit status. Forgive us this wrong!’”

NO! Instead, “Peter and the other apostles replied, ‘We must OBEY (My capitalization—my addition) God rather than men!’” What a difference the second declaration made instead of the appeasement demonstrated in the first example. What has happened to the church and its will to obey GOD rather than men?

2) “If someone in a position of power, perhaps a pulpit, advocates violence against any group of people, including homosexuals, I would argue this exceeds the bounds of free speech.”

Are there already laws on the book to prosecute any individual who advocates violence against any group of people, including homosexuals? The problem, as I see it, is that we as Christians have abdicated our responsibility to be obedient to GOD in all areas of our life. We have separated spheres of activities into our own separate boxes and have placed politics—the affairs of government—into a separate box which is not our concern as a Christian.

But, in fact, there are only two groups in any society—those who are Christians and those who are not; those who are trying to be obedient to GOD, and those who are not. If we have indeed abdicated politics to others, then only those who are not Christians are making vital decisions which greatly influence the affairs of the society and the morality or immorality of the society. Those who have evil intents are aware of this and that is why they have pushed so long and hard for the Supreme Court’s illegal, incorrect, and immoral decision that the First Amendment requires a “separation of church and State.” No such provision exists in the Constitution and no such provision was intended at the adoption of the First Amendment. In fact, the writers of the Declaration of Independence, including Jefferson, recognized and acknowledged that our rights come from the CREATOR. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

And yet, we as Christians have allowed and remained basically silent when 9 unelected lawyers dictated that the “separation of church and State” is the “law of the land.” We as Christians have allowed and remained basically silent when 9 unelected lawyers dictated that there is a “right of privacy” within the Constitution, although the word is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, and therefore this “right to privacy” is the “law of the land.” We as Christians have allowed and remained basically silent when 9 unelected lawyers dictated that this “right of privacy” established that mothers have the “right” to MURDER their unborn children and, therefore, these Court sanctioned MURDERS are the “law of the land.” We as Christians have allowed and remained basically silent when 9 unelected lawyers dictated that the people involved in immoral and sinful homosexual behavior can not be held accountable in a court of law and, therefore, homosexual behavior is the “law of the land.”

All of these immoral and sinful behaviors were sanctioned by a 9 member, unelected Court because the advocates of these positions could not convince Congress, whose members are, to some extent, held accountable by the people, the “correctness” of their position. However, now both Houses of Congress and the Presidency are occupied by a majority of members of one Party and that Party, as a Party, advocates the same immoral positions. The “hate crimes” bill is a test case for that Party to determine if they have the political strength to pass their immoral positions legislatively rather than through judicial fiat.

If the “hate crimes” bill is passed and signed into law, waiting in the wings is a proposed bill to repeal the “Defense of Marriage Law” which specifically states that States do not have to accept the “marriage” of homosexuals approved by other States. At the present time, there are five States that accept “marriage” between homosexuals all of which have originally been initiated in each State by the respective court of that State. The Constitution is clear: “Article IV, Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

If the “Defense of Marriage Law” is repealed, then every State, including the thirty who have currently specifically and constitutionally declared that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, MUST accept the “marriage” of a homosexual “couple” in their State or be in violation of constitutional law. Consequently, a couple can live in Massachusetts for the required period of time, get “married,” and move to Arizona and that “marriage” MUST be recognized in Arizona even though Arizona passed an initiative defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. This is a Constitutional FACT!

If the “hate crimes” bill is passed and signed into law, waiting in the wings in Congress is a proposed bill to legalize through Congressional law the MURDER of unborn babies including the use of the so-called method of “partial birth abortion” which has been banned by Congress and this ban has been ruled constitutional by the United States Supreme Court. In a “partial birth abortion,” the doctor delivers the head of the baby, rams a pointed spike into the base of the baby’s brain, and then sucks out the baby’s brain in the name of a mother’s “right” to MURDER her unborn baby. It is speculated by some (yes, I know it has not been proven) that this method was developed so that the unborn babies’ organs could be harvested (and yes, it has been proven to my satisfaction that unborn, aborted babies’ organs have been harvested).

If the “hate crimes” bill is passed and signed into law, waiting in the wings in Congress is a proposed bill to define as an act of discrimination the refusal of any non-profit organization to hire a practicing homosexual because of that individual’s “sexual orientation.” That means that any church could be held, in a civil federal court, to be in violation of the law for refusing to hire a homosexual because of his homosexual orientation as determined by the COURT and forced to hire that individual. The Boy Scouts of America was sued to force them to hire practicing homosexuals and barely escaped that result on a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court. Be prepared to hire homosexuals!

Cancers are more easily eradicated if detected early and treated early. We, as a church, have eschewed our moral responsibility to teach the sin of homosexual behavior and to work to prevent its growth. Consequently, it has become more visible, been supported as a “right” by more people, and is growing as the sin cancer it is. When are we going to draw a line in the sand and say “No more!” Every day that this sin increases is a day when more and more people may be lost eternally because they refuse to repent.

“The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood—idols that cannot see or hear or walk. NOR did they REPENT of their MURDERS, their magic arts, their SEXUAL IMMORALITY (my capitalization for all capitalized words—my addition) or their thefts.” Revelation 9: 20-21 (NIV)

In I Timothy, chapter 1, the apostle Paul gives the best definition I have seen for the purpose of laws. Although he probably was referring to the law of GOD, it also holds true for the law of man. Law is for those who violate the law. He lists some groups that need to be governed by law including murderers and perverts—other translations translate perverts as homosexual offenders. We know that in relation to any given law (i.e. the law against murdering your unborn baby and the law against homosexual behavior), in our consideration, three things will happen. There are some that will never commit the act because it is against their nature whether or not it is the law. There are some who will commit the act whether or not it is the law because they don’t accept that particular regulation. And then, there are those who will commit the act if it is not against the law and will NOT commit the act if it is against the law. Thus, we have women who will and have murdered their unborn baby since it is NOT illegal and we have people who have given into the temptation of homosexual behavior because it is NOT against the law. The lack of any law is similar to sanctioning the act.

So, how many baptized Christians and other non-Christians will be lost, perhaps for eternity, for eternity if they do not repent before we begin to once again boldly proclaim the entire truth of Christ including the sin of homosexuality without being concerned about protecting our non-profit status? Do we continue to placate man or do we boldly please God by preaching and teaching the whole of HIS gospel? Jesus proclaimed that the society of his day was a wicked and adulterous generation. Is not our society, when it MURDERS its unborn children and accepts and supports sexual immorality including homosexual behavior, also a wicked and adulterous generation? In my opinion, the body of Christ will not be the SPIRIT led force of righteousness that GOD intended and wants unless we again boldly proclaim the full truth of CHRIST.

We are at war with evil. The forces of evil realize that fact and act accordingly. When are we going to do the same? Paul realized this fact! “Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, 1) with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, 2) with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 3) and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, 4) take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 5) Take the helmet of salvation and the 6) sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 7) And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.” (My numbering—my addition) Ephesians 6: 10-18 (NIV)

“Love” is an action verb. “Go” is an action verb. “Preach” is an action verse. “Teach” is an action verb. Is “to protect our non-profit status” an action verb? Is it the action that GOD commanded us to do?

Look at the actual bill that passed the House of Representatives (“Hate crimes” part 3):
1) “In this Act—(1) …; (2) the term ‘‘hate crime’’ has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note)” There has been NO NEW definition of a “hate crime.”

2) “(1) IN GENERAL.—At the request of a State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that—(A) constitutes a crime of violence; (B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or tribal laws; and (C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws. (Sexual orientation—i.e. homosexual—and, I believe also, gender identity are new in the classification of a “hate crime” at the federal level—my addition)” What is new is that the federal government will be helping States and local governments with State and local government crime and providing money for said help.

3) ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person—‘‘(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and ‘‘(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—‘‘(I) death results from the offense; or ‘‘(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.” The punishments for such crimes have been increased. Consequently, the same act done to you and punished would be punished more severely if a “hate crime” has been determined to have occurred. You are not protected to the same level as is someone who is a victim of a “hate crime” even though the offense is the same.

4) ‘‘(b) CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.—No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that—‘‘(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and ‘‘(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that—‘‘(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction; ‘‘(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction; ‘‘(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or ‘‘(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.” Crime that historically have always been State and local crimes may now be classified as a federal crime also.

Consider this scenario:

You cut a big, burly guy off for a parking space. There are no witnesses. He angrily races to your car, pulls you out, and beats you unconscious without saying a word. Before losing consciousness, you memorize his license plate number and report it to the police. He is arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to five years in prison.

A homosexual cuts a big, burly guy off for a parking space. There are no witnesses. He angrily races to the homosexual’s car, pulls him out, and beats him unconscious without saying a word. Before losing consciousness, he memorizes his license plate number and reports it to the police. He is arrested and tried.

However, the homosexual knows about this newly passed law. To get even with the defendant, the homosexual claims the attack was motivated by “hate” since the defendant repeatedly called him inappropriate homosexual names. The defendant is convicted and sentenced to five years in prison because the jury did not believe the testimony of the victim about the homosexually motivated action.

“the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.” The federal prosecutor, after pressure from homosexual groups and the media, decides that this provision of the new law occurred. He disagrees with the State’s jury decision.

Federal law and State law are two distinct jurisdictions. Double jeopardy does NOT apply. A person can be convicted in both a State court and a federal court for the exact same crime if both jurisdictions have laws against that crime. The case is tried in federal court. The prosecutor convinces this jury that the crime was a “hate crime.” The defendant is convicted and sentenced to ten years in jail to occur after the five years are served at the State level.

The exact same crime but two different sentences because one crime was determined to be a “hate crime” by one of the two courts. Think it can’t happen. Ask the people who have been sent to jail in Illinois for a crime they did not commit. Ask all the MURDERED unborn babies. Wait! You can’t ask them since they have been MURDERED by a government sanctioned action!

5) “Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the Constitution.” This section is the argument that freedom of speech will be protected. Yet, we know that Courts don’t always rule the way laws are written or intended. Again, Ask all the MURDERED unborn babies. Wait! You can’t ask them since they have been MURDERED by a government sanctioned action!

There is nothing in this law that is necessary to prevent crime! It is intended to provide special protection for an immoral behavior. And it is a TEST law to see how much Congress can immorally pass before the voters rise up in opposition, if ever! STOP the cancer NOW before it spreads so far it becomes too difficult to stop.

Finally, if the courts do allow Christians to be arrested and convicted for speaking out against homosexuality, will that then be the time when we draw the line in the sand? Or, will we, as Christians, simply acquiesce and say so be it—that is the “law of the land.” Therefore, we will not say that homosexual behavior is a sin. We don’t want to lose our non-profit status.

I’m just asking. When should we stand up against immorality?

I would rather be united with the body in our fight against evil. However, united or not, I will continue to fight this war against evil regardless of the possible persecution, the LORD willing!

WE ARE AT WAR! BE BOLD in the LORD!