Hannah

July 19, 2012  by

Inside Mike Madigan’s 22nd District Voting Machine

The following article was originally published by Illinois Review.

What’s inside Mike Madigan Democratic Party Voting Machine? I met some cogs and found some loose washers when I pollwatched in his district during this year’s Illinois primary.

140 of us volunteered in a Team 200 Project sponsored by the Illinois Election Integrity Initiative, John Reeves, and the Republican Renaissance PAC. Our goal was to ensure ballot integrity by watching the election process. As Carol Davis from the Illinois Election Integrity Initiative points out, “[I]f our vote doesn’t have integrity behind it, then what do we have in this country? That is the fountainhead from which everything else springs.”

Anyone can pollwatch if they’re registered to vote, have proper credentials, and want to sit tight for 13 hours. But it’s nice to have some idea of what you’re doing before you show up. We were trained and equipped the night before the election. One extremely helpful resource was the Chicago Judge of Election Handbook. We were encouraged to make sure the ballot scanner was zeroed, keep a vote tally throughout the day, bring home a copy of the vote tally printed at the end of the day, and as much as possible ensure that proper procedures were followed in the precinct. I couldn’t touch anything, but I could sit within eye and earshot, and ask questions.

Another useful document in this process was a list prepared by Team 200 organizers. It listed the registered voters in my precinct, and showed their age, sex, address, whether their voting status was “active” or “inactive,” and whether they were alive or dead. It turns out that there’s some delay in removing a person’s name from the registration list. If the state has a compelling reason to think the voter’s name should be removed (i.e. they moved or died), they deem them “inactive.”

If a person has been labeled “inactive,” but shows up to vote, they should be challenged by an election judge to prove their identity by showing a picture ID and answering a question about personal information such as date of birth or Social Security Number. If they cannot establish their identity, they should be issued a provisional ballot. A provisional ballot allows a person to vote, but its results aren’t added to the official tally unless the voter’s case is proved.

The final piece of information showed whether by government records each person was deceased. It was an important point: five of the people in my precinct were deceased, yet active–at least when it came to voting. My zombies didn’t show up. But then it was only the primary.

As each voter came into the room, they were asked “Republican or Democrat?” That information was first recorded on the call list of the Democrat precinct captain who checked in periodically. Blue, if the person voted Democrat, red if he voted Republican. No identification of any kind was required, beyond their signature. They were asked to sign a sheet of paper, and their signature could be compared to the signature on file in the voter registration files. From what I could see, the judges did not compare the two signatures, and no election judge challenged any voters based on their signature throughout the day.

You’d like to think that there’s at least a system of checks-and-balances, but not enough Republicans volunteer to be election judges in Chicago, so there’s some “Republican-for-a-day” activity going on. One guy who voted in my precinct voted Democrat–while wearing a “Republican Election Judge” sticker.

Election judges were also very unfamiliar with how to handle routine election practices: even though I challenged two inactive voters to the election judges, one was not asked to supply any additional information, and the second showed a picture ID but was not asked to provide any other information. Both were not issued provisional ballots, but allowed to vote with regular ballots. Chicago’s Board of Election website shows pride in the fact that over 4,000 high school and college students served as student election judges during the 2008 and 2010 elections, but I saw how student judges could easily be intimidated by seasoned political operatives.

Three of the judges in my precinct were student judges. At one point, I had slipped out to use the restroom, and when I came back into the room, the precinct captain was closely questioning the head student judge. When he asked her how things had been going, she mentioned that someone had tried to vote whose name wasn’t on the list. He asked, “But you let her vote, right?” She saw me coming up and didn’t answer the question. But you could tell she was pretty upset.

Many people that voted in the precinct where I was working showed their ID because they thought they should and were mildly surprised or even shocked when they found out they didn’t need to. I could quickly see why the confusion went on, however. Some voters who showed their IDs weren’t told that it wasn’t necessary, and thus will continue in their delusion through at least the next election cycle.

One man, when told he didn’t need to show his ID, held it higher and said solemnly it was a matter of principle. Another man came in very upset because he couldn’t find his voter ID and he was worried someone had taken it. The election judges couldn’t understand his concern: he didn’t need it, after all.

A slow but steady stream of Democrats came through all day, with a few Republicans sprinkled in. Throughout the day, the local precinct captain was back to take down the names of those who had not yet made an appearance so he could call them in. It was easy to keep track, because an election judge was marking it off for him.

While most of the hours had been relaxed, as closing time came on, the tension increased exponentially. The election judge overseeing the process was a young college student, and was unsure of what needed to happen to close the polling place. The votes from the paper and electronic ballots were collated, one tape printed the final vote tally for the precinct, but before another one could be printed, the polling place administrator accidentally turned off machine printing the tapes. Panic ensued and the election judge called the Election Board, but their instructions were to bring all the equipment to the main office—nothing more could be done at the precinct itself. Even though I couldn’t take a copy of the tape (which all pollwatchers can request), I did compare my vote tally to that listed on the tape. They were the same.

Here is what several other pollwatchers experienced during their time in the district that day:

One polling place was using the wrong ballot, and electioneering was happeningless than 100 feet from the door. After everything was said and done, leaders in this initiative gathered to discuss the outcome:

From what we could see, voter turnout was a competition among precinct captains. It lead one precinct captain to absurd heights: his precinct’s polling place was installed in his own basement, and he placed an eye-catching, two-story-tall inflatable eagle in his front yard. In case this wasn’t enough, he donned an Uncle Sam outfit to welcome voters.

Much of what I saw firsthand and heard about from the Team 200 recap boiled down to marketing or cluelessness. But the Chicago election process is a world of opportunity for those who only care about the final number tally. Plus, we saw the machine on a slow day. I hate to see what happens when it chugs up to full speed.

in Ethics / Politics 0 comments
July 18, 2012  by

Where There’s Life, There’s Hope–Even in Illinois

The following article was originally published by Illinois Review.

With his uptilted chin and elitist policies, President Obama has proved how little he understands the average American or cares to represent him. Case in point: his abortion policies.

Mr. Obama’s voting record as a state and U.S. senator proved his support for pre- and postnatal infanticide, an intentness he sometimes toned down on the campaign trail:

Rick Warren: “[A]t what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”
Barack Obama: “Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”

But such agnosticism did not keep him from shilling to Planned Parenthood or taking a definite stance on the fate of the unplanned unborn:

“I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

The social media prowess of President Obama’s campaign helped propel him into office in 2008, but it certainly did not help him understand the views of average Democrats, let alone average Americans. This May, Gallup reportedthat a majority of Americans (50%) self-identify as prolife, while only 41% self-identify as prochoice. This prolife majority is comprised not only of Republicans, but also of Democrats and Independents. Members of all three political affiliations increasingly see themselves as prolife.

Even though a majority of Americans disagree with him on abortion, President Obama shows no sign of damping his relentless abortion agenda. Instead, he lobbied for Obamacare. Before Obamacare, many Americans (myself included) had grown used to what seemed to be the abortion status quo. Roe v. Wade survived, but state and national prolife laws provided checks on particularly egregious abortion techniques and practices. It was tempting to think that abortion could be contained and eradicated slowly. That in the meantime the Hyde Amendment would prevent taxpayers from being forced to subsidize abortions. We tried not to think about the financial support we already were forced to give Planned Parenthood, and the lives claimed as the slow-motion strategy played out.

Obamacare changed all that. President Obama has destroyed the all-powerful illusion of the abortion status quo, and we begin to see there’s no emergency brake on evil. New methods of assaulting consciences are continually being revealed. “Abortion-free” health insurance is becoming an endangered species. And Obamacare is increasing the country’s prolife/proabortion divide as nothing else could.

As John-Paul Deddens, the founder and executive director of Students for Life of Illinois puts it, “Obamacare gives unprecedented power to the executive branch to use insurance requirements to buy votes. The abortion lobby has already gotten its pay-off through the contraception mandate and the abortion surcharge instituted by the HHS. These mandates will not only constitute political favoritism but also the largest expansion of abortion since Roe forcing everyone to pay for the contraception, sterilizations and abortions of others.”

As disturbing as the implications are for the prolife community, it’s even more frightening for the unborn of America. “Safe, legal, and rare” is becoming “Just as unsafe, legal, and subsidized.” Indeed, the 2008 Democratic Party’s platform, which was patterned from Obama’s campaign, dropped the word “rare” in reference to abortion entirely.

Even in Illinois, there is hope amid the heartache. This is where President Obama came of political age, and where he first voiced his support of postnatal infanticide. But it’s also where Jill Stanekbegan her political and ethical career. As a nurse in Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Mrs. Stanek saw multiple children who survived abortions but were abandoned in a soiled utility room to die. Her testimony to Congress on behalf of the unborn has been strategic in bills such as the Born Alive Infant Protections Act, and she now maintains a prolife blog that earned her the title “Worst Person in the World!” from Keith Olbermann.

Mrs. Stanek is not alone. Prolifers from across the state participate in events such as 40 Days for Life and Life Chain to pray for the end of abortion. This year, five Illinois cities participated in the spring 40 Days for Life campaign, and there are already 96 confirmed locations for Life Chain in Illinois. Meanwhile, prolife organizations such as the Illinois Family Institute are keeping Illinoisans abreast of prolife bills, news, and perspectives.

Young people in Illinois are finding ways to voice their prolife convictions. Live Action’s investigations in Illinois have complemented the work of prolife elected officials in the statehouse. Thousands of students gather in Washington, D.C. on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade for March for Life, and Illinois students are among them. (Here is a video from the 2012 March).

And four years ago, Illinoisans Mike Schaefer and Jimmy Becker combined their love for biking with their concern for unborn children, and Biking for Babies was born. This year, over the course of nine days, ten bikers rode the 1100 miles from New Orleans to Chicago, to encourage others to become involved in the prolife movement. They also raised $31,000 for eight Midwest prolife organizations, including the Living Alternatives Pregnancy Resource Center in Champaign, the Life Network in Waterloo, and Students for Life of Illinois in Champaign.

On the last day of the ride, Mike Schaefer blogged,

“I can simply say that it was a real blessing to bike with and be supported by such wonderful friends. It really isn’t a cause for which we ride. It’s because life is worth living that we ride. The linguistic, political, and social framework of that which is ‘pro-life’, in as much as it may look similar to any other social platform, only attempts to share with others the far bigger and more meaningful reality of something that we are certain of because there is something ultimately very beautiful about it–something so valuable and noble at every stage in life that we fear doing damage to our own humanity should we take it away from someone else, no matter the circumstance.”

The tenacity it takes to plan and execute such a trip is also needed on college campuses, where faculty and peers are often openly hostile to those who take a prolife stance. Students for Life of Illinois is standing in the gap, and offering encouragement and resources to students on 24 Illinois campuses.

Recently this organization recognized three students for their outstanding contributions to the prolife effort in Illinois. Christina Foreman and Pam Suresca have been outstanding leaders on their campuses (the University of Illinois at Chicago and Loyola University), and were named Passionate Leader of the Year and Outstanding Student Leader of the Year.

Videos made by others from their campuses show the contagious enthusiasm these young women have about building a prolife culture: “What stands out the most to me about Christina is the loving way in which she communicates the prolife message. Christina is utterly fearless when speaking about the prolife movement.”

The third award recipient was Anne Marie Dust, an alumna of Bradley University, was named the Courageous Student of the Year. When Miss Dust was applying for a nursing residency at Vanderbilt University, the University required her to agree to participate in abortions. Understandably shaken, she weighed her options. Objecting might limit her chances to take her nursing examinations, or even find a job. Finally, she made her choice.  “At the end of the day you have to stand up for what is most important to you,” she says. With the help of the Alliance Defense Fund, she filed a federal complaint. Here is the result of her actions:

The legacy of Illinois and this nation hangs in the balance. Each of us must decide whose vision will shape the future: the proabortion vision of Barack Obama, or the prolife vision of Jill Stanek, John-Paul, Anne Marie, Mike, Jimmy, and others. Here in President Obama’s home state, our fight to defend the unborn is just beginning. But where there’s life, there’s hope.

in Politics 0 comments
July 13, 2012  by

The Surprising History of African-American Politics

The following article was originally published by Illinois Review.

Obama’s relationship with African-American voters just got a bit more dysfunctional. This marks the third year he’s been too busy to personally address the National Association of Colored People (NAACP). The best stand-in the White House could provide was Vice President Biden, who emphasized the NAACP’s purpose: “On civil rights, your raison d’etre, the reason for our existence, I want to remind everybody of one thing: Remember, remember what this [organization], at its core, was all about… It was all about the franchise. It was about the right to vote. Because when you have the right to vote, you have the right to change things.” He then claimed that Republicans are threatening this basic right: “[Republicans] see a different future, where voting is made harder, not easier, where the Justice Department is even prohibited from challenging any of those efforts to suppress votes.”

It’s ironic that Vice President Biden would decide to level this charge, given the history of his own party. It is the Democrat party, not the Republican party, that has sought to disenfranchise voters through legal chicanery and, when that fails, outright coercion.

The Republican Party was formed in opposition to slavery. One of its co-founders was Charles Sumner, who in 1865 as a U.S. Senator gave a two-day speech against slavery and was mercilessly clubbed by a pro-slavery, Democratic representative on the Senate floor. Later, in the midst of the Civil War, it was a Republican president who signed the Emancipation Proclamation. It was a Republican Congress that passed the Thirteenth Amendment that in 1865 outlawed slavery: all 116 of the Republicans in the U.S. Congress voted for this amendment while only 19 of the 82 Democrats did (and these were the Northern Democrats). Even though the Civil War was over, intense prejudice still existed. As former slave states rejoined the union in the days of Reconstruction, many former Confederate soldiers and sympathizers were present in the Democrat party and not all were content to respect the rights of African-Americans. Congressmen required state legislatures to fully endorse the Thirteenth Amendment in order for their representatives to be reinstated in Congress.

When Southern States adopted Black Codes to intimidate African-Americans, it was a Republican Congress that passed the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It overruled the Dred Scott decision by affirming citizenship for all people born in the U.S., requiring due process in legal matters, and instituting equal protection of all citizens before the law. It was also a Republican Congress that passed the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870 that prohibits any citizen of age from being denied the right to vote, regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

Together, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments held promise of new opportunities for African-Americans. Practice, however, proved difficult. In 1870, Hiram Rhodes Revels was an African-American candidate for federal office in Mississippi. He was a Republican, and his political opponents mercilessly disputed his candidacy. Though he was an American, a free man born to free parents, and never enslaved, Mississippi Democrats claimed that he had only been a citizen for two years—from the date that the Fourteenth Amendment had been ratified in 1868—and thus did not meet the requirement that a U.S. Senator be a citizen for at least nine years before assuming office. Overcoming these objections, on February 25, 1870 Mr. Revels became the first African-American U.S. Senator and the first African-American elected to federal office. He restarted the representation of the state U.S. Senator Jefferson Davis abandoned to join the Confederacy.

The significance of this was not lost on his contemporaries. As fellow U.S. Senator, Republican James Nye from Nevada, said: “Jefferson Davis went out to establish a government whose cornerstone should be the oppression and perpetual enslavement of a race because their skin differed in color from his. Sir, what a magnificent spectacle of retributive justice is witnessed here today! In the place of that proud, defiant man, who marched out to trample under foot the Constitution and the laws of the country he had sworn to support, comes back one of that humble race whom he would have enslaved forever to take and occupy his seat upon this floor.”

Republicans had fought for the right for African-Americans to vote, and African-Americans fought for the right to be elected as Republicans. All seven of the African-Americans elected to federal office in the 41st and 42nd Congresses were Republicans.

Such “uppitiness” was not to be tolerated. If African-Americans could not be kept down through legal disputes, it could be solved in other ways. The antagonism that fueled the Civil War found other outlets–the Ku Klux Klan was born. It served as the domestic terrorist wing of the Democrat party, href=”http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/grant-kkk/” target=”_blank”>targeting Republican voters.

It took the action of former Civil War General U. S. S. Grant and legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1871 to stamp down the KKK.

Even with this action, voter intimidation continued. One thinly veiled threat in a Charleston News and Courier read, “Killing is not always murder, and violations of law are not always a crime. There is an earlier law than the statutes–the law of self-preservation. That law was the guide and master in South Carolina in 1876, and it will be appealed to whenever there is any danger of a return to the vileness of negro rule.” Appealing to the members of the U.S. House in 1882 to defend African-Americans’ right to vote, Republican U.S. Representative and former slave John Lynch said: “They were faithful and true to you then; they are no less so today. And yet they ask no special favors as a class; they ask no special protection as a race. They feel that they purchased their inheritance, when upon the battlefields of this country, they watered the tree of liberty with the precious blood that flowed from their loyal veins. They ask no favors, they desire; and must have; an equal chance in the race of life.” The Republican Party reprinted excerpts from Mr. Lynch’s speech in theirRepublican Campaign Text Book for 1882, and documented voter fraud and intimidation in Democratic strongholds.

As time went on, there were extensive efforts to repeal the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments even in 1900, and the flawed “historical” film “The Birth of a Nation” was used as a recruiting film for the KKK beginning in 1915. This was the first film shown in the White House, thanks to President Woodrow Wilson. Direct quotes from President Wilson’s book “A History of the American People,” appeared throughout the film, such as: “The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation… until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country.” President Wilson segregated the federal government and supported a bill that would have made it a felony for a white man to marry a black woman in Washington, D.C. His endorsement of “The Birth of a Nation” allowed its director to stave off onslaughts from the NAACP.

Between 1882 and 1964, 4,743 lynchings were documented in the U.S.–3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites. Many Republican party platforms condemned lynchingsand Republicans and Democrats introduced anti-lynching bills, but the bulk of the Democratic party successfully stamped out each of these bills and did not address lynchings in their party platform. In 1932, more than 75% of the African-American vote went to Herbert Hoover over FDR; FDR won, however. During his four terms in office, the Democrat party took a new stance on racial discrimination, and began to win over African-American voters. FDR’s successor, Harry S. Truman, became the first Democratic president to support pro-African-American policy, and faced intense opposition from the bulk of his own party. Some Democrats joined Eisenhower in his fight for civil rights. Finally, in the 1960s, a Republican Congress advanced civil rights legislation that a Democrat, Lyndon B. Johnson, signed into law.

From FDR’s second term to the present day, a majority of African-American voters have voted Democrat. But this trend is not inevitable. Outspoken African-American conservatives such as Allen West, Deneen Borelli, and Thomas Sowell are showing that the legacy of African-Americans such as Frederick Douglas and Booker T. Washington is alive and well.

Thomas Sowell’s advice on regaining the African-American vote is to boldly show African-Americans the alternatives open to them. This is exactly what Mitt Romney did this week in his address to the NAACP: “When it comes to education reform, candidates cannot have it both ways – talking up education reform, while indulging the same groups that are blocking reform.  You can be the voice of disadvantaged public-school students, or you can be the protector of special interests like the teachers unions, but you can’t be both.  I have made my choice: As president, I will be a champion of real education reform in America, and I won’t let any special interest get in the way.”

African-Americans have a long and powerful political history. As they become better acquainted with it, their view of the Democrat Party and their place in it may change. If African-Americans look elsewhere for a political home, we must ensure they find a viable alternative.

in History / Politics 0 comments
July 10, 2012  by

Here’s Your Chance to Thank a Soldier

The following article was originally published by Illinois Review.

When retired Navy SEAL Kevin Lacz was asked why he decided to become a SEAL, he said: “It’s an easy question. I wanted to be one of the best of the best. I knew I’d always be in good company. I wanted to serve my country, and I thought the best way I could do it was to be a SEAL. It was the best decision I could make, and I’m really proud of it, and I’m really proud of the people I was able to serve with.”

The courage of the men and women of our armed forces is inspiring. Serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, they fight a primitive yet postmodern ideology that encourages its adherents to endanger civilians, sacrifice themselves and others as homicide bombers, carry out random acts of violence using improvised explosive devices, continually indoctrinate even children religiopolitically, and engage in psychological warfare—all in the name of Allah.

Fighting such an ideology in remote and desolate regions poses a significant challenge; fighting entrenched antipathy here at home poses another. Two generations ago actors such as Jimmy Stewart ran bombing raids on and off the screen, but today the mainstream media, and Hollywood in particular often marginalize the military, reclassifying heroes as victims (“Stop Loss”), brutes (“Badland”), or both (“Brothers”). In the news media, military casualties instead of military successes are emphasized—when the wars are mentioned at all.

Our men and women in uniform deserve better. They have sacrificed security, comfort, and so much more to defend this nation, and the least we can do is to show our gratitude. Veterans Day offers one opportunity to do this, but that leaves 364 more days a year to thank the mothers, fathers, brothers, and friends serving in the armed forces.

One way to do this is by taking part in Troopathon, an annual effort to support the troops by sending care packages. The organizers of Troopathon plan to raise more $500,000 between now and July 12th—in spite of  ”hacktivist” attacks on their website. $25 sends one care package to one soldier or sailor, and $1,000 does the same for up to 60 soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen. To find out about all of the available options, see the Troopathon donation page.

Films such as Act of Valor are storming the media battlefront, and we must join in on the action. It’s up to us to show the 49,800 troops in Iraq, and 102,200 in Afghanistan that we stand with them.

As Rush Limbaugh has said, “I’ve talked with these guys in Afghanistan. The opportunity to tell them how much they’re loved and appreciated despite how they’re portrayed in the media at the time and how much they’re really respected was an opportunity I didn’t want to pass up.

“What you’re doing for them, sending these care packages, a lot of people think the government takes care of all that for them. And they don’t. It’s impossible for the military to do for everybody what you guys are doing.”

in History 0 comments
July 3, 2012  by

Guns and Brains

The following article was originally published by Illinois Review.

Forget the fact that gun-related crime has declined since 1993. Forget that 40-45% of American households own guns, and there are over 270 million guns in America. Forget that 99.87% of these guns are not used to commit crimes.[1]

Some say that just as food causes obesity, guns cause crime. That’s why both need to be strictly regulated. Forget strengthening the family, inculcating proper respect for life, teaching the proper use of firearms, or reducing the time between a crime and its punishment. These “solutions” imply that a person actually chooses to commit a crime, while we all know they’re the helpless victims of society. They can’t help it; they must be protected from themselves. Take away the gun. Problem solved.

Or is it?

Last week the Champaign-based group Guns Save Life showed the logical disconnect of a recent initiative to target guns. In the spirit of Cash for Clunkers, Cash for Fridges, and its illustrious spinoffs there emerged Cash for Firearms.

If you were a local hood strolling the Chicago streets, all you needed to do was hitch up your pants with your left hand, hand over your gun with your right hand, and collect a $100 gift card for your trouble. Every time a gun takes wing, a former owner gets some bling.

Though a total of 5,500 guns were relinquished, the number of would-be armed assailants that actually took part is unclear. They can, however, be classified as “criminals saved or created.”

After all, even if all the participants had turned out to be murderous punks, they would still have $100 apiece to put toward another weapon should a murderous rage ensnare them. And guns are readily available on the black market.

While the program designers were patently optimistic about its outcome, some citizens had their doubts. As John Boch of Guns Save Life was quoted by the Chicago Sun-Times, “If you were a criminal, you would be a fool to go there with the police presence. What criminal would turn in the tool he uses to do his trade for a $100 card?”

The effort wasn’t an entire dud, however. Members of Guns Save Life gathered and turned in 60 unusable firearms and several BB guns, netting a $6,240 payback. They then invested the money in a cause close to their hearts—equipment and proper training in the use of guns at an NRA youth camp. Finally, a program we can believe in!

 

[1] 99.87% was calculated by dividing the number of annual crimes involving a gun (340,000) by the total number of guns in the U.S. (270 million), and subtracting this from 100%.

in Politics / Sociology 0 comments
June 28, 2012  by

Kinzinger Plans to Fight Government Takeover of Health Care

The following article was originally published by Illinois Review.

Shortly after the Supreme Court released its decision on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Representative Adam Kinzinger (IL-11) weighed in on the ruling making a formal statement and then answered questions from Washington DC via a phone press conference call. Mr. Kinzinger further explained his thoughts on Obamacare to reporters from various media agencies:

Wanda Rohl this morning said, “The government already makes people buy auto insurance. The government already makes people do other things, and we are already paying for the uninsured anyway, so she’d rather have everybody covered. Could you respond to that?”

Kinzinger: “I think Wanda’s made it clear that she believes that there’s a huge role for basically a full government takeover of healthcare. It’s an area where we fundamentally disagree. State government—and keep in mind it is state—can make people buy car insurance, but they can’t force people to drive. You don’t have to have a license to simply exist as a person. In this case, it looks like the Supreme Court agreed that the Federal government does not have the power to do that. However, again, [Obamacare proponents] went and said, ‘This is actually a tax increase and the Federal government does have a right to tax.’

“So, from that perspective, this is a tax increase on the American people and it is not saying that the federal government has a right to make people buy something simply for existing.”

What is the next step?

Kinzinger: “The reality is, the Supreme Court says the healthcare law can survive today, but I think the healthcare law ends on November 6th when Obama is not reelected. We’re going to vote to repeal this once again. We’ve already voted many, many times to repeal this law, and just because the Supreme Court upheld it today doesn’t make it anymore popular. The American people are still very upset. This is the law that’s going to put us deeper into debt and reduce the quality of healthcare that people are getting, and so we are going to continue to fight to repeal this entire bill.”

What will happen if the Republicans don’t get veto-proof majority control of the Senate in November? Won’t we still have this quagmire?

Kinzinger: “That’s the reality, but the fact is, the American people are pretty upset about this law. It’s just like what you saw back when the law passed initially: there were a lot of Democrat defections because they felt the wrath of the American people. I tell you: a lot of people out here in Washington, D. C. are political folks and they understand what public pressure is. I think that if the Senate is going to stand in the way of a repeal of this very unpopular law, some of these more moderate Democrats or these Democrats in tough districts are going to understand that the American people are not happy and potentially flip. There’s no doubt that today the news of the Supreme Court’s decision was a blow to the efforts to repeal it, but that’s not going to stop us from fully repealing or making attempts to fully repeal this law.”

Is this going to be primarily what the election is about as we head into November? Do you think other issues are going to be droned out now?

KInzinger: “No, I think the election is always about unemployment, about the terrible economy we’re in, the fact that the President, when he was elected, said, ‘If I don’t turn this economy around, it’ll be a one-term proposition.’ I think that’s going to be number one. The American people are hurting. They want jobs. They want a president that actually understands that and tries to lead. Is this going to be one of the top issues? Yes, it will be. Healthcare will now be one of the top issues discussed. The number one issue is still going to be the fact that too many of our neighbors do not have the opportunity to go out and get jobs, and it’s going be a referendum, partially, on the fact that the President has not lead the American people and still refuses to lead on that issue.”

What would the Republicans replace the Obama healthcare bill with?

Kinzinger: “Well, as I mentioned in my statement, there’s a lot of it, including allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines. Portability for health insurance: you shouldn’t have to lose your health insurance when you switch jobs. That actually stems from back in the day when somebody would work for the same corporation for twenty years. Now, if you leave a company, you should be able to take your insurance plan with you. We need tort reforms, so doctors don’t have to spend [money] on unnecessary tests to practice defensively; they can practice the best for that doctor-patient relationship.

“Allowing small businesses to band together with the buying power of big businesses to dilute the pre-existing conditions that may have somebody have to pay way too much money. There’s a lot of potential things that we can do to replace this law. The fact is, we’ve got to bring the cost of healthcare down, and then we’ve got to figure out how to fully cover everybody through lower costs. But you can’t do that with just the government takeover of healthcare like we see here, and with writing a big, blank government check when the government’s out of money.”

in Ethics / Politics 0 comments
June 28, 2012  by

Nine Lives: The U.S. Supreme Court Justices

The following article was originally published by Illinois Review.

With its wide range of ideologies, the Court has heroes for progressives, libertarians, and conservatives. And in the boxing ring of the Supreme Court chambers these justices engage in some of the highest-stake intellectual fisticuffs ever carried out.

Who are the nine people that decided the fate of Obamacare? It’s worth the time to examine the lives and characteristics of the members of the highest court in the land.

Two justices (Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) greeted the world in Trenton, New Jersey, and other justices hail from as far south as Pin Point, Georgia (Clarence Thomas), and as far west as San Francisco (Stephen Breyer). Interestingly, none of the justices were born in the Midwest.

The US Supreme Court

Though some were born into humble circumstances and others enjoyed a wealthy upbringing, all justices obtained their law degrees from Ivy League institutions, with five attending Harvard, three attending Yale, and one attending Columbia.

This uniformity in choice of schools is not reflected in the justices’ ideologies, however. Given the amount of time many justices spend on the Court and the scope of cases they consider, there is a wealth of information about the political views of most of the Supreme Court justices. Two measures commonly used to compare justices’ ideologies are the Martin-Quinn score and the percent or fraction of conservative votes cast by a justice in non-unanimous decisions.

The Martin-Quinn score describes a justice’s political ideology for a given year by assigning more negative values to more liberal ideologies and more positive values to more conservative ideologies. In this way, the evolution of a given justice can be tracked over time, and justices can rapidly be compared to one another. For 2010, the court’s ideology as indicated by their Martin-Quinn scores ranged from 0.024 (Stephen Breyer) to 5.689 (Clarence Thomas). The median score was 2.071 (Anthony Kennedy’s, the most common swing vote). The justices range from casting a more conservative vote about 37.2% of the time (Stephen Breyer) to 82.2% of the time (Clarence Thomas).

How much time said heroes have spent on the Court or can expect to stay there varies widely. The average number of years the justices on this court have served is 13 years, but this disguises a bimodal distribution, with four justices having served six or less years, and five justices finishing 17-25 years on the bench. Liberal justices have spent 1-18 years on the Court, while conservative justices have spent 6-25 years there.

The fact that justices can exert their influence for a quarter century and more shows the breadth of influence a given administration can have years after the Oval Office has been redecorated. Five presidents can claim the current justices as their enduring legacy, with two current justices appointed by Ronald Reagan through Barack Obama, with the exception of H. W. Bush, who has only one appointee remaining. Notably, this appointee is Clarence Thomas, the most conservative justice currently serving on the Court.

The long-term influence of each justice explains the full vetting that each candidate should undergo, and the verbal flayings that some candidates have endured. Still, the confirmation process and final vote varies widely. Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy were unanimously confirmed (98-0 and 97-0), while the Senate was most divided on Clarence Thomas (52-48), followed closely by Samuel Alito (58-42). Of the liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg faced the least opposition (96-3), and Elena Kagan faced the most (63-37). And, of course, we’re speaking only of those candidates who survived the potential borking.

The heterogeneity of the court extends further than ideology or vetting intensity. The justices range in age from 52 to 79, with an average age of 66. The most recent addition to the Court is also the youngest of all time: Elena Kagan, who is 52 years old. The two most elderly justices are Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia, from the further ends of the ideological divide.

Another distinguishing factor are the justices’ religious views. The current justices are either Roman Catholic or Jewish, with a 6-3 split. Three of the four liberal justices are Jewish, and all of the more conservative justices in addition to Sonia Sotomayor are Roman Catholic.

All of the individual traits and choices of the justices—their upbringing, ideologies, etc.—impact their decisions in small and large ways. Hearing their interpretations of the Constitution as it pertains to some of the most pressing issues of our day is nerve-racking because we know every human, regardless of how well-educated, well-informed, or well-intentioned, is fallible.

We champion some justices and question others. We wonder just how flexible or forthright each justice will prove to be. In the midst of it all we can see the wisdom of our Founders in entrusting this power to a panel of justices instead of a single, omnipotent Supreme Court Justice. May this Court and every ensuing Court recognize and uphold the letter and the spirit of our highest law.

in Politics 0 comments
June 26, 2012  by

Illinois Review Interviews State Senate Candidate John Bambenek

The following article was originally published by Illinois Review.

Illinois Review recently interviewed John Bambenek, a conservative Republican candidate running for the 52nd State Senate district which stretches from Champaign to Danville.

Where did you grow up and what do you do for a living?

I grew up in the Chicago suburbs, in Oak Grove. I moved to the University of Illinois for college and that’s where I met my wife and never left. I’ve been in Champaign for seventeen years. Professionally I do electronic fraud prevention, so essentially I deal with Russian hackers trying to steal your credit card and bank account information.

How did you decide to run for State Senate?

I’ve been active in politics for a while, most actively since I’ve had children and seen the direction of the state in terms of its ever-increasing tax burden, debt burden, and the amount of jobs and opportunities leaving the state. I’m much more conscious as to what kind of future my children will have. With this status quo, they won’t have the kind of opportunities I’ve had, and as a father that’s not really acceptable to me. The way to change that is to change the people who are there.

Speaking of economic opportunities, I’m thinking of the number of graduates coming out from the Urbana-Champaign campus in your district. How would having you as a State Senator affect the students from that campus?

I think it would provide them the opportunities to, when they graduate, find jobs in Illinois. Right now, an overwhelming majority of U of I graduates end up in other states with their first jobs. And increasingly we see recent graduates, a higher percentage than at least in recent history, unable to find their first job after graduation. Sometimes it takes upwards of two or three years to get their first opportunity after getting a degree. All of the time the student loans are pending repayment. So first and foremost is economic opportunity.

But the state currently owes the University of Illinois about $400 million. The only reason that that is so–the only reason–is because legislators have spent more money than we’ve had. The state obviously can’t print money, so what they’ve done is delay bills. [It’s telling agencies]: “Well, the state’s out of money this fiscal year. We’re going to have to pay you in next fiscal year–and you can expect a five-month delay.”

That’s just a basic failure in budgeting, by spending more money than we have. That pressure has increased tuition fees, it’s created various problems with University employment, and I think just getting that under control will alleviate a large amount of financial pressure on the University of Illinois. At least they can be confident that the number they are budgeted is actually the number they’re going to get. And nobody has that confidence today.

On your website you talk about reducing the corruption and dysfunction in Springfield. This definitely sounds like one of the issues you care about. What are some of the other issues you want to see changed?

Obviously, in part, corruption is a fiscal issue. There are various estimates of how much money has been lost due to corruption, whether it was Blagojevich, George Ryan, or corruption that is still ongoing. There is certainly an indication that a lot of state business, how the state contracts services and how people are paid, tends to be more on who you know, so obviously that’s a big issue. The financial issues are what everybody’s focusing on right now. Between the state budget, state debt, and other bills, that feeds into the general jobs climate. Businesses see our pension debt, the continuing growth of Medicaid, the past two bills, and the income tax hike that was passed in the middle of the night last year. They’re wondering what’s next in terms of how they’re going to be hit to pay those bills, based on bad decisions made over the past few years and decades. That lack of economic certainty is the biggest prohibitor of job growth in Illinois. Businesses say, “Well, I can grow jobs here in Indiana,“ because in Indiana they know what the next five years is going to hold for the most part, as much as you can know. With Illinois, every year’s a struggle in terms of “What’s next?”

We need to create a stable economic climate in Illinois so businesses can feel free to invest here, and know what they’re getting into.

Do you think that what just happened in Wisconsin with Scott Walker has broader implications in Illinois as well?

I certainly think so. Obviously, he approached some of the problems they were facing in a particular way and some of the excesses there, and I think the first major indication you’re going to see is that Wisconsin now appears to be in play for the presidential race. A lot of resources were spent in Wisconsin and essentially the election results on election night in 2010 when Scott Walker won were about the same, percentage-wise, as the recall. So nothing really moved in terms of where the voter disposition was in Wisconsin. But I think those are the questions that will be sorted out at the ballot box, in terms of which economic and policy vision the voters in Illinois, the Midwest at large, and the voters nationally want. That’s what this November election is going to come down to.

I just saw one of your recent tweets where you’re talking about 43% of local Illinois governments ignoring Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. This is another example of a choice between visions: is this acceptable or do we need more transparency, not just a promise, but it actually being delivered on. From that tweet, what could be a change on that specific issue?

I think you mentioned it: transparency’s one thing, but the question is accountability, or probably more accurately, enforceability. The FOIA law on the books says the government must disclose acts. Well, what if they don’t? There’s no real penalties or teeth in the law. I’ll give you another example. There’s the Open Meetings Act, where governing bodies need to do their deliberations, policy decisions, and lawmaking in public. That law has criminal sanctions, that if your city council passes a budget, but does it privately and doesn’t let anyone know about it, that’s actually a criminal act and someone can go to jail. Now on the flipside of that, there hasn’t been a prosecution of that since the 70’s, as I understand it, and there’ve certainly been Open Meetings Act violations since then. The question comes as a question of enforceability. To make that be disclosed, you can go to court, spend thousands in legal fees, tell the judge to issue a court order, and that court order comes with sanctions if they don’t comply with the court order. But probably what we need to get to is where these officials who are denying these requests are held personally accountable for frivolous denials. I mean, ignoring FOIA requests is flagrant, and the fact that we have it at that level shows that we really need to put some teeth in this—some enforceability—and that the FOIA reform of two years ago didn’t go far enough.

In the idea of holding someone personally responsible, what are actions that your opponent Mike Frerichs has taken that you think he should be held personally accountable for?

Ultimately, it’s just policy decisions that voters can weigh in on at the ballot box. He was certainly a supporter of the massive income tax increase last year, and he is by-and-large a supporter of almost every tax increase that has ever come before the General Assembly, including the gross receipts tax. A couple of months ago he had a press conference, again calling for a Constitutional Amendment to make it easier to hike taxes. His policy ideas with the budget problems tend to overemphasize tax increases versus spending reductions. So I certainly think that that will be a big issue: his vote on Workers’ Compensation Reform, or I should say his lack of vote on comprehensive workers’ comp. There was a bill in front of the Senate. Essentially, if you get a workers’ comp, you have to prove your injury was actually related to your job. Whereas now, you just have to basically be injured. You can hurt your back doing handstands at a weekend BBQ and essentially you can get a comp claim now. Well, that’s obviously a problem.

He voted present when that bill came to the floor. Well, when you talk to businesses, particularly manufacturers, on why they don’t locate in Illinois, it’s always workers’ compensation costs. So this is a very big, competitive disadvantage because of our system, where you can get a worker’s comp claim and pay, but don’t actually have to prove that your injury had anything to do with your job. Well, common sense would dictate that that’s a problem. He voted present on that, and that I would hold as a failure of leadership. I mean, take a stand on the big issues. Yes or no, we can have a discussion. Voting present is just hiding.

A number of issues like that are related to jobs and taxes, and there’ll be those kinds of policy differentiations.

You’re talking about these competing visions, between taxing and spending more, or making actual cuts. You’re going door-to-door and talking with voters. As you bring up your vision of policy changes, what kind of feedback are you getting?

Well, it’s generally very positive right now. Voters are generally just angry. Usually the first question I get is, “Is this your first time running, or are you there now?” They hear I’m the challenger and then they’re supportive. They’re just angry at everybody because, in fairness, both parties have a share in the blame and that’s how the state’s where it is. We need new leadership that comes with a fresh perspective to say, “No, really, we can’t continue on the path we’re going down.” So with that particular question, sometimes we don’t even get to a policy discussion. They’re like, “You’re not there now? OK, I’ll support you.” But people are aggravated about taxes, and they get aggravated about jobs. They’re looking for somebody that will bring order to the state’s finances, get our debt paid down and paid off, and then cut taxes and do things to bring jobs back to the district and to the state.

Would you say there’s any experience you’ve had in running your own business that will play into how you will work things as a state senator?

I think there’s two things. What anybody’s who’s started a business kind of understands is that there needs to be up-front investment and up-front costs. One of my staff members, for instance, is starting a fitness business and he looked at the states where he could locate it. He ultimately decided on Texas because he could either do it in Illinois or in Texas. If he did it in Texas, he would save $35,000 a year in costs just associated with being in Illinois compared to Texas. Every three years he can start a new studio and create the according level of jobs. Looking at that, that’s a competitive disadvantage with other states. When you start a business you kind of understand you’re competing with other people and you have to have something that they don’t. The reality is, in the modern economic climate we find ourselves in, we are competing with all fifty states, and for that matter, every country in the world for the most part, for jobs and for these businesses. So we can either create a competitive package of all the resources we have, or we can not do that and watch other states win out on these companies, where we lose. And the reality is, Illinois has a lot of natural advantages, which is keeping things from being worse than what they could be. We’re an essential transportation hub for the country; we have a very vibrant transportation industry. We have good soil; we have great agriculture here. We can capitalize on those things, fix our bad policy decisions, and bring jobs back very, very quickly.

What kind of timeframe—saying you were able to address some of these policy changes—what kind of timeframe are you looking at?

Well, to be honest, if I was elected, on day one I’m going to start introducing legislation to accomplish that. There’s really no sense in waiting on some of these issues. We need to fix our budget issues now. We need to fix our backlogged bills now. We need to reduce the tax burden on our working families and small businesses now. As far as I’m concerned, if I was elected, November 6 is Election Day, November 7 I’ll rest, November 8 I’ll start getting to work on crafting those legislative packages to move the ball forward. Now I’m not going to get anything passed on Inauguration Day in January, but introducing legislation is the first step to beginning those discussions, beginning those debates, and trying to move the ball forward.

If folks are interested on hearing more on where you stand on the issues, where can they go?

My website is johnbambenek.com and for any issues that aren’t on the website, just contact us through the contact form.

in Ethics / Politics 0 comments
June 22, 2012  by

Did the Founding Fathers Care about the Unborn?

The following was originally published on the Howard County Right to Life blog.

On January 22, 2012, community members from across Howard County gathered at the courthouse in Kokomo, Indiana to remember the unborn children claimed by abortion. Mr. Bill Federer, a historian, author, and President of Amerisearch, spoke about the Christian roots of our nation and the God-given mandate to care for all humans.

Mr. Federer began with a look at the changes in America over the last three decades: “I look at the Scriptures: Deuteronomy 28. It says, ‘These are the blessings if a nation hearkens to the voice of the Lord. They will be a lender and not a debtor. And these are the curses if a nation does not hearken to the voice of the Lord: they will be a debtor and a stranger amongst them will rise up and be their ruler.’

“Do you realize in the last thirty years America has gone from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation? We are the most in-debt nation in world history. So, ladies and gentlemen, we’re on the judgement side of the page.

“What has happened in the last thirty years? Well, we have aborted millions of children. And the same thing that God told Cain [applies today]: ‘Your brother Abel’s innocent blood cries out from the ground.’ There’s a cry that’s going up to Heaven and I believe that what’s staying the hand of judgement is us: is you and me, here.”

He then looked back at the U.S. during the days of slavery, when we were also under judgement. Abraham Lincoln in his Second Inaugural Address, said:

“Fondly we hope, fervently do we pray that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsmen’s 250 years of unrequited toil should be sunk and every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be repaid by a drop of blood drawn by the sword, let it be said: The judgements of the Lord are altogether true and righteous.”

As Mr. Federer pointed out, “Here’s Lincoln. He had the audacity to connect the judgement of the war with the sin of slavery. Is anybody going to connect the dots today?”

History provides more than cautionary tales, however. Mr. Federer relates how President Lincoln lead a national day of fasting and praying, and three days later the course of the Civil War was staggeringly altered.

This course is open to us today: “You are here because you’re stirred in your heart to leave your nice, warm home and come here and stand in the cold because there’s something burning on the inside of you: a flame that’s strong that says I’ve got to do something for our country.”

“I was with Alan Keyes last week. We were talking about the Constitution and he explained that the judge that gave the Roe v. Wade decision said if it could ever be proved that the unborn are considered by our Constitution to be citizens, then this decision is void. And Alan Keyes says, ‘I found it. I found where the unborn are mentioned in our Constitution.’

“I said, ‘Wow! Where?'”

“He says, ‘In the Preamble. It says, “To secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, we establish this Constitution.”‘

“Posterity. What’s posterity? Well, those are your descendants that you’ll never meet. Well, if you’re going to care about these descendants that are generations in the future, you’re going to care about the ones that are just one generation in the future. You’re going to care about the ones that are right there in the womb about to be the next generation in the future. You’re going to care about the unborn.

“Our Founders sacrificed their prosperity for their posterity. They pledged their lives and their fortunes and their sacred honor for a generation yet unborn. Today our government is doing the opposite. We’re sacrificing our posterity for prosperity, saddling the unborn with an unpayable debt–besides killing the unborn.

“George Washington, in 1776, stands before his army and he says, “The fate of unborn millions now depends on the courage of this army. We have to resolve therefore to either conquer or die.”

Though the lives of heroes loom large above our mind’s eye, Mr. Federer reminded the crowd assembled that God has placed them here on earth at this time for a reason, and thought forward to the day when our lives are over and we’re listening to the heroes of the Bible tell their life stories.

“One by one, Gideon, the Apostle Paul, and Deborah–all of them [are going to tell their stories]–and then everybody’s going to look at you and say, ‘You: we haven’t heard from you yet! What did you do when it was your turn to be on earth? Tell us what was going on… all the courage and faith you had to stand against injustice and [stand] up for righteousness.’

“Y’know, I don’t want to squirm in my seat and say, ‘Uh, can you call on someone else for a minute and let me think about this?’

“No, I want to say, ‘Let me tell you what they were doing! They were killing babies, they were changing marriage, they were doing everything and I said I’m going to stand up. I don’t know all the stuff they know. I just have my little sling. I’m just going to let the Lord use me.’ Y’know, if anybody’s around when I die, I’ll tell them to put on my gravestone, ‘Not ability, but availability.’ Y’know, you make yourself available and the Lord’ll add the ability. So I look forward to the day that we’re all up there and you get to tell your story and we’ll remember together being here this day.”

For more information about the events at the rally, see this article by Splash!Kokomo. For more of Mr. Federer’s research into the history, see www.americanminute.com.

in Ethics / History / Politics / Sociology / Theology 0 comments
June 21, 2012  by

The Fallout of Lesbian Motherhood

The following article was originally published by Illinois Review.

One children’s book proclaims, “Heather Has Two Mommies,” but an updated edition could read, “Heather Has Two Mommies, an Increased Chance of Depending on Welfare, Being Forced to Have Sex, and Being Less than 100% Heterosexual.”

This is the legacy of lesbian motherhood as shown in the recent study “How Different are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships?” written by Dr. Mark Regnerus and published in the journal of Social Science Research on June 10.

Dr. Regnerus compiled data from over 3000 American adult children aged 18 to 39 from a variety of households and analyzed 40 major questions. While other studies on heterosexual and homosexual parents have focused on data from children, with parents answering questions, he decided to interview adults because they could speak for themselves.

The summary generated by the Washington Times is shown below:

062112-lesbian-parents-table

There are distinct differences in children raised by heterosexual parents and those raised by lesbian mothers. Not only are children of lesbians more likely to grow up dependent on public assistance, they are also more likely to continue this dependence into adulthood and be under- or unemployed. Even more seriously, such children are more likely to be abused sexually and commit adultery as adults.

Not every child raised by lesbians follows the overall pattern, but when it comes to probabilities, the study concludes that “children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day.”

Previous studies have showed either no difference between children raised in homosexual or heterosexual families, or even a benefit to children raised in homosexual families. Dr. Regnerus points out that many earlier studies suffered from small sample sizes and “convenience bias,” with respondents recruited from privileged venues such as lesbian events and women’s bookstores. Dr. Regnerus, by contrast, sampled more people from a wider swathe of the population using a method similar to that of the U.S. Census Bureau.

Organizations such as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) have been quick to take issue with Dr. Regnerus’s study, claiming that his methods were flawed because he did not account for family transitions and that his conclusions disagree with common knowledge.

The common knowledge truly challenged, however, is the carefully crafted image of a committed pair of homosexuals deciding to bring children into their home. Not every homosexual who decides to adopt is in a committed, long-term relationship. Also, there are variations in how a child comes to a homosexual family. Every monogamous homosexual couple is infertile, but can participate in artificial insemination, surrogacy, or adoption if they decide to add children to their home. These methods are becoming more common in younger homosexual families, but many of today’s adult children of homosexual parents were the products of dissolved heterosexual unions.

In a recent Daily Texan article, a lesbian mother criticizing Dr. Regnerus mentions in passing that her children were the product of a heterosexual marriage, that she had multiple lesbian relationships, and has only been in her current lesbian relationship for three years. For her children and others like them, a family transition was how they joined the family and is thus impossible to exclude from the results.

This study’s findings about children raised by lesbian parents is challenging many established notions and demonstrating the importance of moving beyond the results of a few select families to the broad-based results from average families. In the end, the fundamental question is not over Dr. Regnerus’s methodology, but over the rapidity in which lesbian adoption is being accepted. Homosexual parenting is a new social experiment with broad implications ethically, politically, and economically.

Going forward, parents and policy makers should heed Dr. Regnerus’ concluding words of caution: “Insofar as the share of intact, biological mother/father families continues to shrink in the United States, as it has, this portends growing challenges within families, but also heightened dependence on public health organizations, federal and state public assistance, psychotherapeutic resources, substance use programs, and the criminal justice system.”

in Ethics / Politics 0 comments
June 18, 2012  by

Meet IR Intern Hannah Ihms

The following article was originally published by Illinois Review.

When I read the obituary of the mainstream media, I won’t shed a tear. If you ask me, it’s high time. Even on life-support, huddled in its self-spun shroud of objectivity, the mainstream media is wheezing out lies about those it hates. Those counting on its institutionalized libel are panicking, but I’m excited.They may embalm the mainstream media, Lenin-style, but we conservatives won’t be visiting the casket. We’ve already celebrated the christening of the New Media.

Illinois Review is on this action, and I’m excited to be interning with IR this summer!

Conservatism grounded on Judeo-Christianity stands as a pillar among the intellectual ruins of its alternatives. It offers a framework to build upon, instead of scorched earth to sift through. It also liberates. Instead of teaching us to accept or even celebrate skyrocketing debt, the erosion of the family, and flammable Chevy Volts, conservatism proves that these are cruel parodies of the way things ought to be.

While I’ve been a Republican since I was in utero, it wasn’t until I read Goldwater’s book “The Conscience of a Conservative” that I realized I was a conservative. He put what I knew to be true into words, and started me on a journey to trace the roots of conservatism. Bill Buckley, Jr., Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and the Founders have been invaluable friends along the way.

This all took place while I was in graduate school at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where I joined the Illini Conservative Union, and was incredibly blessed to find other students intent on upholding the Constitution and standing up for the rights and responsibilities of every person. Through campus activism, we met Leftism head to head, and had fun doing it.

Through this internship with Illinois Review, I’m ready to continue the proud tradition of taking conservative ideas to the streets.

in Politics 0 comments
February 24, 2012  by

Sayonara, Credit Cad

Sayonara, credit cad. Yeah, you read that right: credit cad. I had no idea until today how much power you had over me. Because you were my first and only cad, I didn’t want to cut off contact with you, even after I’d cut up that momento you’d given me. (Pure plastic–I should’ve known how cheap you were, under all that swagger!)

You were gentle with me, most of the time. Just coos about “we can afford this; you deserve this.” And because I listened, you never needed to leave the charm phase. I was that much of a dope.

When you said, “I can cover this,” I felt like you really cared. Somehow, I didn’t mind getting the itemized bill at the end of the month; in that moment at the restaurant, you seemed like a gentleman.

I was the lucky one: somehow you never got me so fully under your sway that I couldn’t pay you off. You never got to turn your extortion goons on me.

But don’t think I don’t know about the others. I’ve seen their carefully treasured momentoes, tucked away in their pretty little purses.

And I’ve heard how it turns out for those who can’t pay you back.

And those “dividends”? Now that I think about where they came from, I can’t believe I ever got excited about them. Since I only had a few late payments, nearly all of those “incentives” was coming from other suckers strung out on your line. These are people: people panicked about their finances that you and your minions are milking for all they’re worth.

Of course, they–like I–gave you a hold on them. Which is why this is the last letter from me you’ll ever receive. No more monthly correspondence. No little notes with checks attached. No fevered checking on my status to make sure you’re still “cool” with me. And I’m blocking your personal ads–those pre-approved offers you keep sending me. I am not interested.

It only took me six years to catch on.

When I called just now your first hireling told me he didn’t have the authority to break everything off. I knew what that meant: he was sending for the Big Kahuna to sweet talk me into something I no longer want. Well, I’m sure you’ve heard about how that went. At some point, bringing up the years we’ve been together is the most abrasive strategy there is: it shows me how much of an idiot I’ve been for the last six years. So database that: you’ve lost your hold on me.

You’re no longer my security blanket, my soulmate, my pretend sugar daddy. ‘Cause I’ve learned that even when you go along, I’m the one who always pays.

You were all cunning: “Can’t we just work this out? Don’t you want to wait until you build up your next divided allotment?” Yeah, I know what that means: delay this indefinitely until we can get back ahold of you! Well, sir, I’m happy to give you my $43.99. Because, like I mentioned, it’s not my money anyway. Why don’t you give it back to that grandma on line 2 that you’re trying to guilt trip into payments she can’t afford?

You had all your pretty figures in a row: how long we’d been together, how much money we’d spent together, how many divided dollars you’d given me, how “savvy” I’d been to pay off my card each month. Yeah, well, if I’d been really “savvy” I never would have taken up with you in the first place!
Six years, and what did you just tell me? Forty thousand dollars; $350 dividend dollars.
Ha: shows just how “generous” you are, eh? I had to spend 40k in order to see a fraction (0.875%) of that back. And it didn’t cost you a dime!

So I stuck to my line: I was changing my spending strategy because I was taking a Dave Ramsey class, and Dave had put me to wise on how to make sense of my finances.

I can just imagine the shudder that name gives you, which is why I said it: Dave Ramsey.

I’m breaking this off… now.

You were all charm, cad. You–ever so gently–stirred a little threat in with your honey, even in your parting words. If your tone hadn’t been so sweet, your parting words about “try to get good rewards with your debit card” would have sounded oh-so bitter.

Well, I’ve got news for you, pal. I’m not switching to no debit cad. I’m done with cads. My new BFF is cash: cold, hard, and honest. You may regret me, but I certainly don’t regret you.
I just can’t believe how long I’ve let you string me along.

in Economics 0 comments
February 14, 2012  by

When Did Loving Israel Become a Crime?

When did loving Israel become a crime? When did Judaism become something to apologize for?

Dr. Mark Braverman recently gave a speech at the UIUC Center for South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies. In it, as Julie Levitt described in a February 12th Letter-to-the-Editor in the Daily Illini, Dr. Braverman equated Zionism with racism and accused Jews of secretly controlling the United States.

Dr. Braverman’s allegations are as false as they are insidious. For millennia, anti-Semites have tried to displace Jews from land that is lawfully theirs. And for millennia, anti-Semites have accused Jews of disproportionate power and influence in a nation to try and stir up hate against them. But here at a modern university shouldn’t we be learning how to expose such tactics, instead of learning how to celebrate them?

The U.S. is a land of individuals, and spitefully claiming that all influential members of a religious minority are banding together for a sinister common cause assumes a level of group-think not seen outside of totalitarianism. Additionally, Israel is home to people of many different races and histories, hailing from Ethiopia, Europe, the U.S., Iraq, etc., making it anything but “racist.”

If Zionism is racist, why did Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. support Israel, saying: “Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.”

Students cannot use such facts to repudiate anti-Semitism if they are only supplied with a steady stream of propaganda.

The people who attended this talk may have silently acquiesced to Dr. Braverman’s destructive statements, but I refuse to do so. There is too much at stake. Dr. Braverman’s ideas extend not only to the Arab-Israeli conflict happening a continent away; they extend to every Jewish person on this campus, and to everyone (Jews and non-Jews alike) who supports Israel.

He is telling Jews that that their heritage is something to be ashamed of. And he is telling everyone that affection for the Jewish state of Israel is illegitimate and destructive.

Instead of placing a megaphone in the hands of an anti-Semite, our University must invite speakers who have at least a modicum of understanding about the Arab-Israeli conflict, and who champion human dignity instead of promulgating destructive stereotypes.

in Uncategorized 0 comments
January 10, 2012  by

Am I Gossipping?

At a Bible study I was at recently, a preacher shared these questions to ask yourself before saying anything:

Is it true?

Is it necessary?

Is it beneficial?

Do I have permission?

What is my motive?

Originally published on August 10, 2012 at 21:21

in Uncategorized 0 comments
December 8, 2011  by

The Other 101

Illinois State Representatives Bill Mitchell and Adam Brown have introduced a bill to divide Illinois into two states, jettisoning Chicago. Their reasoning is that Chicago’s politics are wholly different from that of the rest of the state, and it’s time to free downstate Illinois from its burden.

As a stranger in a strange land, I can understand the sentiment. But I’d like to make a slightly more modest proposal: Illinois should establish a state electoral college.

This idea comes from one of my friends, and the more I think about it, the more sense it makes, because  federalism runs deep. The U.S. electoral college was established in the Presidential race to retain states’ rights, and an Illinois electoral college would achieve the same goal, for counties.

Each county could be assigned a number of delegates proportional to its citizens. Then, in a state-wide election, votes would be tallied by county as usual, but the candidate with the most votes in that county would secure its delegates. These delegates would assemble to vote, and their decision would be the state’s choice.

A state electoral college has two significant advantages over our current system. First, it would improve the representation by county. Currently, less densely populated counties’ voices are drowned in the cacophony from Chicago. If the President was elected by popular vote totals instead of by the electoral college, no candidate would spend much time outside of population epicenters, unless it was a photo-op to reassure smalltown voters they still mattered. This is what is currently happening on the state level. A state electoral college, by contrast, would scale back the power of any one county, and allow other counties to participate more reasonably in the political process. Knowing that these counties had more authority would require candidates to respond to the concerns of all their potential constituents, and craft policy that appealed to a broader base of people.

Secondly, it would make election fraud more difficult. Our current, centralized political environment has bred the Chicago Machine. If, however, political power was diffused to all Illinois counties, election fraud would be much more difficult logistically. Instead of only needing to sweep elections in one county to win an election, the delegates from multiple counties would need to be secured.

A state electoral college could decentralize political power in this state, and encourage people from across Illinois to participate in the political process. Because their county would again have a voice!

in Politics 0 comments
September 25, 2011  by

Non Discrimination: Lead by Example

While re-registering for this coming school year, I found myself carefully reading the statement of Non-Discrimination:

“The commitment of the University to the most fundamental principles of academic freedom, equality of opportunity, and human dignity requires that decisions involving students and employees be based on individual merit and be free from invidious discrimination in all its forms, whether or not specifically prohibited by law.

“It is the policy of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign that registered organizations shall be in full compliance with all federal and state nondiscrimination and equal opportunity laws, orders, and regulations.  Registered organizations shall not practice discrimination against a member or prospective member on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, disability, unfavorable discharge from the military, or status as a disabled veteran or veteran of the Vietnam era, except as specifically exempted by law.  Among the forms of invidious discrimination prohibited by University policy but not law is sexual orientation.  The official name of a registered organization shall not be construed or interpreted as denying open membership or prohibiting participation in any program or activity.  Each registered organization must agree to the Pledge of Nondiscrimination when applying for registered organization status.

“Registration is dependent upon the organization’s compliance with the above Article, and all conditions of the Student Code.  By signifying you agree with this document, the authorized agents of the named Registered Organization agree to abide by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Student Code, and to have the organization adhere to the Student Code.”

Student Code:  Article 2 – General Policies and Regulations

Part 3. Registered Organizations and Organization Fund

I, of course, agree with this statement and had no problem signing it. What I found striking, however, was that the University takes such pains to ensure that we as students do not discriminate, while school administrators use “positive” discrimination to ensure diversity in the classroom. It’s time to stop the absurdity. Let’s all treat students as individuals, not as members of this or that class. On non-discrimination, it’s time for the University to lead by example.

in Education / Politics 0 comments
August 16, 2011  by

My Own Debt Ceiling

All this debate about the debt ceiling has brought the topic of money up close and personal. But that’s a good thing. This summer as I’ve struggled to get my own financial house in order, I’ve learned some things I’d like to pass on to my friends in Congress.

#1) Be honest with yourself about your spending problem.
As a kid, I was a saver. My mom and dad had given me a bank with different divisions for church, bank, store, and I dutifully split my life savings and bitsy income between them. Throughout college, the little bit of money I made went into textbooks and art supplies, and I was happy. The last thing I ever thought I’d struggle with was overspending. When grad school came, for the first time in my life I had a real paycheck. My first few years I lived frugally, shopping at ALDI, spending literally nothing on clothes or decorations, donating a bit, and chiefly eating Raman noodles and bean burritos. But then I realized I had money left over. Gradually, I became accustomed to buying pretty much whatever I wanted: first small things (a nice shower curtain), later large things (a nice camera with accessories). I never looked at how my rate of spending of was increasing and my appreciation of stuff was decreasing; I just did what I wanted. Gradually, I fell into a disturbing pattern of spending binges and purges. I’d declare a “need” that took precedent over everything else, and go on a book or poster-buying spree. Then I’d “purge” as penance for overspending by subsisting on canned food instead of buying fresh groceries. Then reality began to dawn. This spring I started listening to Dave Ramsey. Based on my spending habits, I started hearing myself in the callers to his program. I wasn’t the caller yelling “We’re debt free” with my husband, five kids, and family dog; I was the caller swamped with $300,000 in credit card debt and a foreclosed home. The day I woke up to this, I realized my spending pattern wasn’t just unhealthy, it was stupid! I was no longer the saver I used to be; it was time to rein in the spender I’d become.

#2) Say yes to a budget; say yes to sanity.
When it comes to shopping, I seem to be the world’s worst combination of extremes. After endlessly vacillating between two choices, I impulse buy… both. Yeah. Not proud of that. But y’know what I’ve learned? A budget does wonders at focusing the mind. Some things got cut completely. Other things remained, but were given an explicit allotment of funds. Everything was scrutinized, and for the first time I realized how much of my money was going to completely indefensible ends. Once I recognized that there would always be more opportunities than cash, and honestly distinguished between what I needed to live and what I thought I needed to live, life became much simpler. The word “no” reentered my vocabulary, and peace was restored to its throne. I set aside a fixed amount for each activity I deemed worthy of putting money toward, and the thrill of the chase began. Shopping was no longer a paralyzing matter of finding that perfect widget at any cost. It was an energizing matter of finding an OK widget within my budgeted cost. I regained sanity.

#3) Limit the time you spend offering yourself things.
The more offers you get to buy something you don’t need, the more times you’ll have to say no. While I was getting better at saying no, I wasn’t perfect yet. And I realized that an offer to buy something often set my mind down a spending track even if I said no to the offer at hand. When clearing out my email inbox, I realized for the first time how many marketing spamlists I was on. I started to see these emails for what they were: offers I not only needed to decline, but offers I needed to stop subjecting myself to. For years I’d been reading and deleting these things. I just plain needed to unsubscribe! So I did. I thought about other temptations to spend. Instead of looking forward to the next “Dividend Dollar” check from my bank, I decided to try to keep my dollars in the bank instead of trying to “win” them back by overspending. I decided to turn my radio down whenever commercials for things I didn’t need came on. I realized that my credit card inflated my sense of wealth, and cold turkey, switched to a debit card. I relearned the joy of paying for something once, and never needing to pay another bill.

#4) Surround yourself with lifesavers.
Do your friends ever pressure you to spend more than you think you should? Or do they impress you with their feats of coupon prowess? Subtly and overtly, we are influenced by the people and media around us. As a recovering shopaholic, I’m trying to learn from people who put money and possessions on the right priority plane. That is, they’re not skinflints making their own dental floss, but they’re also not trinketjocks flaunting the latest whizbang. They show me by example that living withing their means isn’t an exercise in futility, but a series of tradeoffs that ultimately leads to contentment.

You may wonder how my list could possibly help Congress. Here’s how. Washington has become too comfortable with overspending and debt. You don’t have to be Jabba the Hutt to be obese, and instead of comparing ourselves to Greece and Ireland, Congress needs to own up to its own burgeoning spending problem. Besides, debt makes us a slave to our debt-holders, and the sooner we recognize this, the sooner we can get on the path to fiscal sanity. We’ve got to distinguish between national expenditures that are actual needs (defense) and others that are not only wants, but unconstitutional wants (welfare). Instead of avoiding even the construction of a budget for years on end, Congress must consistently make–and follow–a realistically cost-cutting budget. Instead of maxing out its federal credit card, Congress must seek to decrease its debt and reclaim the financial security only solvency ensures. Everything must be weighed against the Constitution. Strict priorities must be established, and money must be allotted according to these priorities. If the money runs out before the wants get taken care of, the wants get eliminated. Instead of debating new ways to spend money, Congressmen must try to outdo one another by advancing new ideas of cutbacks. Finally, if Congress is going to beat its spending habit, Congressmen must seek out others who value thrift. This is no time to be buddying up with spendthrift Congressmen; we’ll vote out as many of them as we can, but in the meantime, shore up your newfound fiscal sanity by listening to Dave Ramsey.
This four-point plan took a lot of pain, mirth, embarrassment, and rejoicing, but it worked for me, and I know it can work for this great country.

in Economics / Politics 0 comments
August 14, 2011  by

9/11: Ten Years Later

Where were you when the Twin Towers were attacked? I was playing music on my keyboard in my room when my mom urgently called me downstairs. My mom, sister and I watched the breaking news on TV: a building in New York City had been hit by a plane and had caught on fire. Smoke and flames were billowing from its side, and the commentators were speculating on its structural integrity and the safety of the buildings surrounding it. I was absolutely confused: what were these Twin Towers? What had caused the plane to crash?

Then the second tower was attacked. The whole dynamic changed. This was no freak accident. You could come up with a hundred explanations for how one plane could spiral out of control, but two, on the same day, in the same location? It was impossible.

Fear and uncertainty swirled in my brain. Who could possibly have done this? And why?

Then I thought about the people inside the buildings. In my naivete, I truly believed everyone was evacuating the building as we watched. After all, I lived in rural Indiana, and the largest building I’d ever been would hardly have taken more than 10 minutes to clear. The reality didn’t sink in until I saw people jumping from the buildings. In a moment my horror that these people would commit suicide instead of evacuating was replaced by the realization that they were taking the last desperate chance available to them.

Thinking back through the events of that day, I’m struck by how absolutely unprepared we were. American children today have grown up with TSA restrictions, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and most of all an awareness of the hatred many Islamists have for their country and for them. By contrast, I was born during a time of peace. When my family flew, friends and family could accompany us to the boarding gate. I never had even heard the word “terrorist” until 9/11, and I thought everyone loved America.

Our national naivete played directly into the hands of the Islamists who meant us harm. We never imagined that anyone would want to use our transportation system against us, or would be willing to brutally use planeloads of innocent men, women, and children to murder their fellows.

Yet even amid the tragedy of 9/11, the mercy of God stands in bold relief. Not every plane struck its target that day. As the Islamists lost their element of surprise, quick-thinking men such as Todd Beamer were able to subvert their plans.

Yet the loss of life is staggering. 2,996 people died that day: 19 murderers and their 2,977 victims. All the victims were civilians except for 55 Pentagon personnel. The victims on the planes were taken by surprise, and were conscripted into a plan of terror that no sane person could ever have anticipated.

As we approach the tenth anniversary of 9/11, let us remember those who lost their lives in the attacks on the Twin Towers. Let us also remember all those who have sacrificed their lives to defend our great nation in the days since 9/11.

May the God of all comfort comfort us in our time of need, and encourage us in our fight against Islamism.

in History / Politics 0 comments
August 14, 2011  by

Getting the Gerbil Out of the Wheel

Life doesn’t lend itself to finding balance. You finish one project, and another one’s waiting in the sidelights. You do something poorly, and you deride yourself for not being more conscientious. You do something well, and you find yourself slated for higher loads of work.

If you’re feeling like a gerbil in a metal wheel, take a breather. Here’s three ways to try and find some balance in life:

1) Build some free-time into your day.

Let’s face it: if you let them, work and school will take over your life. One helpful way to approach your day is to map out what your ideal day would look like. A friend of mine made having evenings at home a priority. She decided to get up around 5AM to get to school early, put in a full day, then have time leftover at night to be a homebody. Realize what’s most important to you, and budget time for it. You know what it is that restores your sense of satisfaction in life: a trip to Coldstone, a quick call to a friend, an hour-long run beneath the stars. Make time for those things: they’re the stuff life is made of. Also, be realistic about the time certain tasks take, so you’re not caught by surprise. This will increase the odds of your plans working out. Also, beyond the end-of-the-day activities, think about ways you can couple dull or demanding tasks with fun rewards during your day. As your writing a lab report, reward yourself as you complete each section. You might be surprised at how this turns an otherwise painful process into something enjoyable.

2) Make love of life, not guilt, your primary motivator.

You are more than what you do. Simple fact. There will always be times when you fall short, either because of a lack of understanding, a lack of effort, or even circumstances beyond your control. Learn from these things, but don’t dwell on them beyond their expiration date. Think about it: you don’t continue chewing a piece of gum beyond a certain point. You also shouldn’t continue chewing a circumstance beyond a certain point! I certainly have a tendency to use words like “should have, could have, and would have.” Lately, though, I’ve been trying to rework the way I look at mistakes. When I think of them as experiments, I’m able to think of them more objectively. OK, so things didn’t work out so well in that instance. Well, what were the factors that contributed to the failure? How can I avoid them in the future? What are better alternatives I can pursue? This approach uses the past constructively, with a steady focus on the present. Ultimately, (as my mom has often reminded me) life is too short to dwell on the past. You’ll be happier and everyone around you will be happier if you concentrate on living your life in the present.

3) Map out a rhythm to your life.

Jazz streaming from a nearby car. Rain beating on a window pane. The sun rising on a bright new day. Life is full of rhythms. Take advantage of that by building some rhythm into your day. Sure, all-nighters happen, but they don’t have to happen every night! If you set aside certain times of the day for certain tasks, you’ll see that over time it gets easier to get things done. It’s not your imagination that adopting a regular sleep cycle makes you feel more rested: there’s such a thing as circadian rhythms! In the same way, if you figure out a regular time for meals, laundry, cleaning and exercise, you’ll find that the other things in life will fit in much more naturally. There will always be life crises lying in wait for you, but the less self-induced crises you have, the better! For those things you want to budget time for, but always find yourself running behind on, do you know someone else you can do them with? Can you find an exercise or laundry buddy you can build a weekly schedule with? The accountability and committed time–not to mention the fun time spent together–can help keep you on task. You can even set up Google Calendar to send you reminders, if you like!

As you take on the challenge of a new semester, learn from your past mistakes, and keep looking forward! Put these three strategies to use, and good luck with all your studies!

in Health 0 comments
March 10, 2011  by

Prolife, Proactive

This interview was originally published by The Orange and Blue Observer.

Robert Black is a junior here at the U of I, and the new president of the registered student organization Illini Collegians for Life. We here at the OBO recently had the pleasure of talking with Robert about being involved on campus–especially on the prolife issue.

031011 Prolife Proactive - ICFL President Robert Black

What is the absolutely best thing about the U of I?

The amount of opportunities we have. Faculty and staff allow us to do so much with our four years here.

What are you studying?

I’m studying communications/pre-med.

So you’re planning on going on to med school?

Yes–I’m studying for the MCAT right now; I’ll be taking that in April.

What do you want to do in medicine?

I’m thinking about pediatrics or neonatology, which is especially appropriate for the club I’m now president of (Illini Collegians for Life).

Lately there’s been a lot of buzz on campus about abortion and Planned Parenthood. I know some people first hear about abortion through news coverage. How did you first hear about it?

When I was 7 or so, maybe even 6, I went with my mother and grandmother to a hospital that performed abortions. Of course, it was years later that I fully understood all of what that meant.

What are your views on abortion?

It should be illegal. It’s 100% equivalent to putting a gun to the head of my brother or sister and pulling the trigger. And the thing is, from a federal standpoint, you don’t need to cling to religion or faith to say abortion is wrong. Look at the facts. Despite the [economic or emotional] position a woman is in, it [her unborn child] is a human life. Any scientist who’s worth his lab coat can tell you that from the moment of conception that’s a human life.

What does it mean to be “prolife”?

Being adamantly opposed to abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, and any other infringement on the human being’s right to live. I think a lot of people who call themselves prolife don’t realize that to be prolife means to be proactive in defending these rights.

It doesn’t have to mean picketing, going on March for Life in Washington, D.C., but when it comes up in conversation, [being prolife means] defending it; it doesn’t mean backing down.

It really does cover all aspects: physician-assisted suicide, abortion, early abortion (contraception).

Does abortion really matter on a college campus?

Yeah, of course! I think it really matters everywhere, because it happens everywhere. The sad reality is that we have a Planned Parenthood on our campus. I don’t care what percentage of their business is abortion: they’re targeting young women who are infinitely stressed out. They have school to worry about, work to worry about; they have their whole lives ahead of them.

Here is where we need it most. Other places it matters, and yet here’s where we’re constantly bombarded with what we do with our bodies. We’re told if we want to do it, do it. It’s easy to pull from all this that abortion is OK.

It matters here very, very much, and I think it’s up to myself and others to be active on this. The future of America and the future of academia is here. Our future politicians, teachers, and engineers are all here. It’s a cultural thing, and this is where it all starts, on a college campus.

Does abortion ever come up in your classes or casual conversations? If so, how do other students or your professors view it?

To a certain extent. It came up in a class once. It was Philosophy 214–Introduction to Bioethics; it was on the syllabus. The professor seemed to have a view toward the prolife side, but was very hesitant to present his own view, possibly because of the department he was in, or the students.

It’s very polarizing to a certain extent. We have this false sense of freedom instilled in us: we think her body is hers, which is true, but it’s a unique child inside of her.

As far as casual conversations, I am an RA in Newman, the Catholic dorm on campus. It comes up pretty often. We want to know how to reason through the questions that come up. Practicing being a devil’s advocate really helps solidify my own position. A large majority of them [the other Newman students] are prolife, so we can help each other in this.

How did you decide to get involved in the prolife movement here at the U of I?

Through Newman, I have had many opportunities. John Paul Deddens, the director Students for Life of Illinois–freshman year I got to know him, and my roommate and good friend Mike Hamoy, who coordinated March for Life for the past three years. He was definitely an inspiration for getting involved in ICFL. This year they were looking for people to be officers. I decided to step up to the plate, because it’s something I’ve always held dear.

To a certain extent, being prolife means being proactive. This, to me, is about giving back.

You mentioned Illini Collegians for Life. What is it, and what kinds of things does it do?

We are the prolife group here on campus that coordinates with Students for Life of Illinois. The cornerstone of our work is putting together the March for Life every year. We also help out with Students for Life of Illinois activism days each month, and we do roundtable discussions every week. We’re prolife and we want to learn more and be able to defend it publicly.

We want to do a little bit more of pregnancy resources. Also, we have a couple events coming up: general meetings, speakers, film showings (for example, Blood Money, a documentary on the business aspect of abortion).

How can interested students learn more about this?

Definitely contact myself (illiniforlife@gmail.com), and visit us on our website (www.illiniforlife.com) or on Facebook. We also have a general meeting coming up–look for fliers around campus.

As an upperclassman and now club president, do you have any parting words of advice for freshmen and others looking to become more involved on campus?

Go to Quad Day, go around, sign up for as many clubs as you think you’d ever go to. When you get all the emails, do something you could see yourself being in for four years, something you could be an officer in during your junior or senior year. Go to meetings.

Your first year, ask the officers, “How do I get more involved?” You really want to take ownership of your passion in college. Get involved, and by your senior year, you’ll be happy.

in Ethics 0 comments
October 13, 2010  by

Our Generation’s Pearl Harbor

On October 13, 2010, Middle east scholar Dr. Daniel Pipes gave a speech entitled “Does the War on Terror Still Exist?” at Foellinger Auditorium on the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign campus. I had the honor of introducing him.

Good evening! Thank you for coming! My name is Hannah Ihms, and I’m president of the campus club the Illini Conservative Union. This club is only one of the many organizations and individuals that made this event possible, including Stand With Us, the David Project, the Jewish Community Relations Council, the Hillel Foundation at the University of Illinois, the Chabad Jewish Center at the University of Illinois & Champaign-Urbana, the American-Israeli Student Coalition, Great News Radio, and the Orange and Blue Observer. In addition, I want to especially thank Tahli Hanuka, Tali Segev, and Erez Cohen for their dedication and hard work at all stages of this event.

In a moment Dr. Daniel Pipes will share with us his insights after years of academic research. As students we all respect the freedom of speech and the right for academic freedom. Therefore we expect that Dr. Pipes will be given a stage with no interruptions. Following his formal lecture, there will be time for questions-and-answers. Every respectful question will be greeted with a respectful answer.

9/11 was our generation’s Pearl Harbor. It opened our eyes to something that our friends in Israel, Iran, and other countries had known for years. Today we can say with certainty that our lives have been altered by radical Islam. That’s why each of us has a stake in this talk tonight. There’s questions we need to raise, and answer.

Tonight, an expert on the Middle East will be joining us in answering some of these questions. Dr. Pipes has devoted his entire adult life to researching Middle Eastern issues. He studied Arabic in Cairo, and obtained his Ph.D. in Medieval Islamic History from Cambridge about the time that Ayatollah Khomeini was rising to power in Iran.

His understanding of the motives behind the headlines has helped him analyze events that others find mystifying. Dr. Pipes has addressed audiences across the world, and has taught at the Naval War College, the University of Chicago, and Harvard, as well as serving at the U.S. Institute of Peace. Today he directs the Middle East Forum, a thinktank he founded. He also oversees Campus Watch, a project that critiques work published by North American Middle East departments.

He carefully distinguishes between moderate Islam and radical Islam, and with his lifetime acquaintance with this topic, he is uniquely qualified to guide us in our pursuit of truth.

Please join me in welcoming Dr. Daniel Pipes.

in Ethics / Politics 0 comments
May 28, 2010  by

Armed and Dangerous: 2010 KASH Graduation Speech

On May 28, 2010 I was one of several homeschool alumni to address the Kokomo Area Schools at Home (KASH) graduates in Kokomo, Indiana. This was the speech I prepared.

Good evening! It’s great to be back in Kokomo. I want to extend a huge thank you to the KASH Leadership for inviting me to speak here tonight. Parents, graduates, family, and friends, it is an honor to celebrate with you!

Graduates,
the cap and gown you’re wearing tonight highlight your achievements, unite you with others in your graduating class, and make for some great graduation pictures.

Tonight in addition to your cap and gown I’m sure that many of you are also wearing…

  • A belt of truth
  • A breastplate of righteousness
  • Sandals of readiness
  • A shield of faith
  • A helmet of salvation
  • The sword of the Spirit

You’re wearing them because there’s a war happening tonight, and none of us are off-duty.

People are being imprisoned, and some are defecting to the Enemy. This war is taking place in the spiritual realm–possibly even in your mind right now. It’s the war of worldviews.

Let’s map the field of battle. It starts with a question:

What’s secular and what’s sacred?

I have a list of 10 subjects. If you would, please count the number that are secular:

  • Politics
  • History
  • Economics
  • Theology
  • Psychology
  • Sociology
  • Biology
  • Philosophy
  • Ethics
  • Law

OK. That’s the list. Were all 10 secular? No? Nine? Eight? Five? One?

If you said today that all ten of these subjects were sacred, I’d agree with you. I’ll tell you why:

“The earth is the Lord’s and all that’s in it.” (Psalm 24:1)

Everything–Politics, history, economics, theology–it’s all His.

God put it all under Jesus’ feet. In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to Him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to Him.” (Hebrews 2:6-8)

OK–so why then is there a war?

Right now the earth is being claimed by a tin-pot dicator named Satan. But Jesus Christ has a prior claim on this earth and everything in it. First, He created it. Then, He fought and died to save it from the sin we unleashed on it. Soon He’ll be coming back to claim it.

That raises a question. What’s Jesus waiting for?

Glad you asked. Consider 2 Peter 3:2-15.

“In the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.
They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” [Sound likes some good evolutionary theory!]

“But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” [AHA! That’s why He’s waiting–so people can repent!]

“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with His promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him.
Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.” [Another reminder of why we’re here.]

Jesus is patiently waiting for the final invasion because God in His mercy is allowing as many as possible to freely come to Him before the Last Judgment.

What’s our job?

As soldiers of Christ, we are reclaiming occupied ground, freeing captives from concentration camps, and inviting them to join us as we follow our Master. “

Here’s how Jesus put it:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (Luke 4:18-19)

OK–so why is there a battle?

Because Satan is claiming everything in this world as his. If we claim any ground as God’s, Satan goes into a howling frenzy.

Now, he’s shrewd. He plans his attacks systematically. Right now he’s sowing several myths into Christian circles.

Christians are stepping away from the truth and trying to compromise with the world. They’re questioning the accuracy of His Word, or the relevance of what He’s said. But the command we have from Scripture is: “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” (Romans 12:2)

Myth #1: Being a Christian means dividing your brain in half.

The Truth: Being a Christian means devoting your whole self to Christ.

Satan tells us as Christians to distinguish between what’s sacred and secular. Sure, your Christian beliefs work in your Christian ghetto, with sacred topics, but when you move out into the world, you need to think with another part of your brain.

He’s convinced many of us that most of the world is his, and there’s only a few areas of life–the church, theology–that our Christian beliefs have any relevance. We’ve accepted the boundaries he’s artificially set for us because it makes life easier. If we stray into psychology, biology, or history, we often feel the need to genuflect to the ideas of men like Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, or Karl Marx.
What’s interesting, though, is that if you follow this model, it’s easy to begin to believe there’s no area where your Christian beliefs actually apply.

Evolution is a prime example. You may wonder why so many Christians are so vocal in their opposition to evolution. One reason is that it’s the foundation for every worldview except Biblical Christianity and Islam. (Islam, as you know, has its own flaws!).

Christian ideas are often ridiculed by popular icons, and no one likes to feel alienated. Satan can reinforce our reluctance to apply our Christianity to all parts of our life by confronting us with this type of opposition:

  • If we say biology is God’s? (He cries “evolution!”)
  • Sociology is God’s? (He cries “same-sex marriage!”)
  • Ethics is God’s? (He cries “if it feels good, do it!”)
  • Law is God’s? (He cries “everything’s relative!”)
  • and so it goes.

The movement of much of the church to regard life as “sacred” or “secular” has had profound effects.

In many ways the church is morally and ethically indistinguishable from the rest of the world.

How did this happen? We gave that ground over to Satan and found ourselves taken captive.

What have we been taken captive by? Hollow philosophies.
Sure, there’s some slight differences in the lies Satan tells different groups of people (that’s why there’s five major unchristian worldviews), but what they all share is a rejection of the absolute Truth of Scripture. And when they reject the Truth of Scripture they’re rejecting the Word-Made-Flesh–Jesus Christ.

Here are the five major worldviews beside Biblical Christianity:

  • Cosmic humanism (also called “New Age”) includes things like Hinduism and Bahai;
  • secular humanism is what many atheists believe; their catchphrase is “Man is the measure of all things”;
  • Marxism-Leninism is another atheist favorite, and its adherents are socialists/communists who believe it is necessary to change the world;
  • postmodernism (the worldivew other than Christianity that we’re probably the most familiar with: it’s pop psychology, “If you feel good, do it,” there is no absolute truth); and
  • Islam (the beliefs of Muslims recorded in the Quran).

2,000 years ago the church at Colosse was facing the same dilemma, of people falling away from Christ. Paul didn’t want them to be deceived by “fine-sounding arguments,” so he wrote to them with these words:

“…[J]ust as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in Him, rooted and built up in Him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.” (Colossians 2:2-10)

What’s he saying? Jesus has already won–this is no time to be taken prisoner!!

Myth #2: Some portions of Scripture can’t be trusted.

The Truth: Scripture stands or falls as a unit.

The first recorded words out of Satan’s mouth were “Did God really say…?” And he’s still at it. He’s injecting doubt about core Christian beliefs of into many people’s lives.

If I as a Christian try to reconcile Christianity and evolution, something is going to have to give. You see, Scripture is written as a unit, and there’s an incredible number crosslinks in the book. If I decide to reject or explain away one part of Scripture, it’ll often require me to reject another part that crossreferences the original.

For example, if I decide to reject the literal creation week, I’ll need to rethink the fourth commandment, because it says the week we live out now is seven days because the first week was seven days.

If I reject the idea that death came through sin, it doesn’t make much sense to believe I need to be forgiven of my sin in order to have life.

If I decide to reject the idea of a literal First Adam, it doesn’t make much sense to believe in a literal Second Adam.

If I decide to reject the idea that “God created them male and female” and created marriage as just between one man and one woman, it doesn’t make much sense to think of Jesus coming back for a pure Bride in His church.

If I reject the idea of Jonah being swallowed by a fish for three days, it doesn’t make much sense to believe in a man who said that He’d give the sign of Jonah.
If I reject the idea that worldwide judgment once came through a flood, it doesn’t make much sense to believe God when He says there’ll be a second worldwide judgment by fire.

Talk of judgment brings us to the next myth:

Myth #3: Being a Christian means avoiding offense.

The Truth: Being a Christian means believing and living out Truth.

Let’s be honest: the concept of absolute truth is offensive.

Our culture is into custom everything.
Can’t I custom-fit my reality?
What’s true for me isn’t necessarily true for you?

We’re told that tolerance is the ultimate virtue. And the way that term is being used, it doesn’t mean “OK, so I know I’m right, but I’ll tolerate you even though you’re wrong.” It’s saying “There is no right answer. There is no ultimate, absolute truth. So your handle on reality is just as right (or just as wrong) as mine.”

Then comes Christ, with His ultimate truth claims. “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through me.” Ouch! “He who has the Son has life; He who does not have the Son does not have life.” Yikes! He’s so brutally honest!

Yes–because He knows the stakes involved. Christianity is a description of reality, and thus a description of Christ. So as postmodernism questions whether reality is knowable, it’s also questioning whether Christ is knowable.

If we go on believing that so much of this earth is “secular,” we’ve been conditioned to believe that delving into science or philosophy will cause us to separate from God.

But if we’re walking with Christ, it’s possible to see His reflection in all of these areas.

He brings continuity to the whole.

He was there at the beginning, shaping the world.
He’s here now, walking with us as our Savior and friend.
He will wrap up the world at the end of time.

Recognize then, that the current questioning of the truth of Scripture isn’t a personal attack on you or me. It’s a personal attack on Jesus Christ himself.

How can we avoid controversy when it’s controversial to say:

  • That God exists?
  • That there’s a difference between males and females? (For example, you are “just male,” or “just female,” not both?)
  • That marriage is a relationship between one (uno) man and one (uno) woman?)
  • That there’s a final exam at the end of life?

If you make it your goal to avoid controversy, I recommend that you take a vow of silence.

But remember–to God, nothing is controversial.

Myth #4: Being a Christian means going with the flow.

The Truth: Being a Christian means standing up for Christ.

Of course, as you fight the good fight, Satan’s going to pay attention. He can try to stop you by stealing your identity, either through success or failure.

You may find opposition from non-believers and other Christians.

But when the Holy Spirit asks you to take a stand, do it.

Often when we read the Bible, it’s easy to take it for granted that the hero’s going to make the right choice. But at the time, they didn’t know how the story was going to play out.

Think how different it would have been if Daniel had said: “Oh king, live forever. Can I play the zither while I bow to your idol?”

If Joshua had said: “As for me and my house, we’re gonna play it safe.”

If Noah had said: “God, I did a focus group with the neighbors and they’re all against the ark idea. Sorry, pal.”

If the Israeli midwives had said, “Pharaoh, sure we’ll help you. We’re making plans to start a Planned Parenthood in Goshen right now.

Because they didn’t say these things, but stood with God, they became heroes of the faith. Sometimes others were standing with them, but often they made individual decisions.

Our belief system is not about how we work our way to betterment (nirvana, etc.), but about how we rely on Christ for our very existence. When we come to Him, He gives us our identity. He defines us.

If you start dividing your time into what you’ll spend on God and what He has no business touching, you’ll quickly find the “God-time” shrinking. You might even start begrudging Him the time He “takes” out of your life. You’ll see God as something external to your life, a God who waltzes in at inopportune moments and demands stuff, or reminds you of things you’d rather not think of.
That’s not–to use a buzzword–sustainable. It’s all or nothing with God. Either we turn our back on Him, or we give Him everything.

It’s not just the things we like about ourselves that He’s asking for.
It’s all of us.
Complete surrender.
A living sacrifice.

You may see pronounced attacks on your mind.

You may be amazed by the perverse or anti-God thought that sometimes erupt in your mind when you try to do God’s will. Recognize that your heart is deceitful, but God is more powerful than any temptation or emotion. He will help you take that thought captive.

Jesus knew His life and our lives wouldn’t be easy

He reminds us that the point isn’t popularity:
“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.” (John 15:18-19)

The words He shared with His disciples the night He was betrayed show an awesome mix of encouragement and warning: “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart–I have overcome the world.”

So I invite you to continue putting 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. (Ephesians 6:10-18)

in Politics / Science / Theology 0 comments
March 1, 2010  by

You Have to Be Green

There was a time when being green either meant you were inexperienced, from a different planet, eaten up with envy, or about to puke.

Times have changed. Today these negative connotations have been swallowed up by the green overgrowth of environmentalism. News broadcasters and Quad-chalkers use the term and all of us are supposed to buy in, fall in line, and trill our allegiance – often without full disclosure.

But after all, it’s so fresh, so clean, so GREEN to join! The genius in using such an ambiguous term is that it makes it fairly impossible to debate whether something is green or not.

Take the current Sustainable Campus Environment Fee. We’re told that it’s green, that it’s for sustainability, but we’re not even told what “it” is! Evidently, once the $14/per student is raked in (yes, I am looking for those agricultural terms), the campus will decide what to do with it. We should rest assured that it will, in fact be green.

Somehow, I think that taking this at face value would, indeed, prove our greenness (i.e. Merriam-Webster “green” definition 9a: “inexperience”). As any experienced shopper knows, details first, greenbacks later. If the Student Sustainability Committee can’t manage to describe the specifics of what the funds will be used for now, we have nothing to hold the committee accountable to later. I would describe this as one giant slush fund, but that doesn’t seem green enough. Let’s call it a swamp fund.

Here at UIUC it’s standard for even an RSO to itemize its financial needs, justifying its claim that it needs the money and detailing its anticipated use. Is it asking too much for this green initiative to at least live up to this standard?

Yes, I’m seeing red instead of green, but let me tell you why. A blank check for $14 may not seem like much (two Subway footlongs and a Coke), but think of the total amount this initiative represents. Our university website reports that there’s currently 31,173 undergrads and 10,322 graduate and professional students traipsing about the greening Quad. If all 41,495 students paid the $14 fee, that would amount to a total of $580,930 – over half a million dollars. And this is going to what? TBD.

So far, the only proven greenness of the measure is that it requires a substantial transfer of green from the private to the public sector. I say, make it opt-in. Give us the opportunity to prove our greenness, voluntarily.

in Free Market / Politics 0 comments
March 1, 2010  by

I’m a Conservative

I’m a conservative. I don’t have to modify that noun with adjectives such as “compassionate,” “fiscal,” or “social.” I’m just a conservative. What I mean by that is that I have found certain truths that are worth conserving. Incidentally, they’re not only worth living by; they’re worth dying for. These truths guide my life and my interactions with everyone around me. The principal truth that guides my life is that God exists. He’s given me the triplicate gifts of life, liberty, and property, and He sent His Son to guide me in the best way to use these gifts – namely, so that I can be like Him.

A lot of people in a lot of different nations have discovered principles of prudential living, what some call the Tao. The reason why these principles form a coherent whole is that they flow from a common source: God. He created reality, invented the genders, the family, government, nations, and the principles that guide their peaceful relations. He embedded certain laws into His creation, to provide us with a stable, sustainable universe, and the means to trace our desire for meaning back to Him. For anyone who wants the low-down on why He set up the universe the way He did, He’s conveniently published a book on the subject.

Besides that, He’s placed a handbook of His laws in each of our hearts – something we call conscience, or the natural law. The real fun comes in seeing just how these laws play out in everyday life. The laws stay constant, but they have infinite ways of being lived out. While some may try to disregard God and attempt to redefine what a nation, government, family, or person is, I’ve found that such attempts end in failure, confusion, and tragedy. The truths that God instilled in creation remain unchanged, and as long as I keep Him and His truth in sight, life makes sense.

Yeah, that’s why I’m a conservative.

in Philosophy / Politics 0 comments
March 1, 2010  by

Biking for Babies

Spring break for many of us evokes sublime visions of palm trees or the family couch. But for three students here at UIUC, spring break will involve something entirely different. Like many of us, Mike Schaefer, Stacy Hague, and Jimmy Becker will be traveling hundreds of miles. Unlike us, they’ll be biking.

The name of their trip says it all: Biking for Babies.  Each of the three will bike 600 miles, in five days.  While we may start preparing for break soon – buying a plane ticket or clearing out the fridge – these students have already started their preparations, with intense physical conditioning.

Writing on the team’s blog at www.bikingforbabies.com, Mike recently described what’s motivating him to do this: “My mom, especially, always instilled in me the value of respecting life at every stage and growing in my faith… I’m pumped to be having all of the new riders joining the B4B ride with such determination and commitment to fight for this most serious of causes that we face today.” In another post, Stacy wrote: “Each mile we ride and each calorie we burn is really our burning desire for the freedom and right of every individual to LIVE, no matter how small. This ride is making the invisible, visible.”

Stacy, a junior majoring in nutrition and psychology, Mike, a junior majoring in crop science and minoring in Spanish, and Jimmy, majoring in materials science and engineering, are all raising funds for local crisis pregnancy centers and pro-life initiatives. Their goal is to raise a total of $25,000. All funds will benefit the babies and families who are impacted through the Champaign Pregnancy Resource Center and Students for Life of Illinois.

Last year Mike and Jimmy teamed up to travel 600 miles, and this year they’re back at it, though the enterprise has expanded. Now, instead of just one trip, the two will be leading two different teams. Both teams will be biking 600 miles, so between March 24th to April 2nd, they will cover a total of 1200 miles of long, cold asphalt. First, Team Illinois (Mike and Stacy) will bike north from Cairo to Peoria. Then Team Wisconsin (Jimmy and a trio of University of Wisconsin students) will bike south in an S-shaped curve starting in Aurora and ending in Champaign.

You can follow Team Illinois and Team Wisconsin as they train and bike! See their website at www.bikingforbabies.com to read team members’ blogs, buy a $5 t-shirt, spread the word, or support their team! Because it’s all about saving babies.

in Ethics 0 comments
March 1, 2010  by

Hail to the Chief

What you don’t know can hurt you. Upper administrators, including Renee Romano, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, and Richard Herman, former Chancellor here at UIUC did their best to block the registered student organization Students for Chief Illiniwek (SFCI) from sponsoring a “Next Dance” event featuring the former UIUC mascot.  I know that the Chief has been a divisive issue on campus, but for a minute, think about the generalities of this case, and not its specifics.

While projecting the image of an “inclusive” campus, administrators clearly showed that they do not value freedom of speech when they disagree with the message.  And that, my friends, is a sad state of affairs. You may or may not care beans about the mascot issue. But let me ask you this: have you seen the banners proclaiming “Student Affairs is Everywhere You Are?”  If that’s true, and you have a message or event that student affairs doesn’t particularly want broadcasted, you may face the type of censorship that was narrowly avoided in this case. Kudos to those who filed a freedom-of-information act in the Chief case to see exactly what was going on behind the scenes.

in Politics 0 comments
March 1, 2010  by

Stop Killing the Dream

Martin Luther King Jr. once described his dream that “my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

In direct contrast to this dream, Planned Parenthood has targeted its services to those of particular skin colors, with the result that minorities are disproportionately affected by abortion. What’s the leading cause of death among African-Americans? Heart disease? Stroke? Cancer? Abortion? If you guessed abortion, you’re correct. Abortion accounts for more deaths among African-Americans than the seven next-most common causes of death.

Students on our campus are gathering together to change this grim reality, and help increase the life expectancy of all African-Americans.

Illini Collegians for Life (ICFL), an RSO dedicated to sponsoring a culture of life on campus, recently sponsored a viewing and discussion of the film Maafa 21. This film documents the racist agenda motivating Planned Parenthood to target minorities by, among other things, overwhelmingly locating its clinics in minority neighborhoods and accepting donations earmarked for minorities.

ICFL is also sponsoring the local initiative of 40 Days for Life. Students and other community members, now through April 4th, are gathering at the local Planned Parenthood clinic to pray and fast. Some hold signs with pro-life messages, others pray the rosary, while still others provide sidewalk counseling.

Since this clinic focuses on abortion services and does not offer prenatal counseling or services, sidewalk counselors often tell those entering the clinic about other local organizations such as Living Alternatives and Birthright that provide free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, prenatal counseling, and maternal and infant clothing.

As a result of 40 Days for Life initiatives, and consistent efforts of dedicated sidewalk counselors throughout the year, numerous women have decided against abortion. One woman who several years ago decided not to go through with her abortion recently told a sidewalk counselor that whenever her little boy puts his arms around her and tells her he loves her, she knows she made the right decision.
May other children be given a chance to live out Martin Luther King’s dream.

in Ethics / Health 0 comments
February 21, 2010  by

On Margaret Sanger

My Invite to the Film Maafa 21

(6:08PM Friday, February 19, 2010)

Hi!
You’re invited to a film showing and discussion held in honor of Black History Month.  The film is Maafa 21, and it features many different speakers, including Alveda King, Martin Luther King’s niece.  It addresses the leading cause of death among African-Americans, which is not heart disease, stroke, or cancer — it’s abortion [refs 1, 2].

Maafa 21 shows how Planned Parenthood has been killing Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream.  (As Alveda says, this is the civil rights issue of our day).  It documents the racist roots and current strategies of the modern abortion industry.  From the beginning, Planned Parenthood has been targeting minority populations.  Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s founder, did not see abortion as a choice for a woman dealing with a difficult decision, but as a necessity for subjugating others.  The effects of Planned Parenthood’s marketing is seen today, in the neighborhoods that Planned Parenthood places its locations, and in the number of minority deaths that it is accountable for.  I know that it’s time to address Planned Parenthood’s aggressive agenda against minorities, and I know that it starts with raising awareness about their history.

Feel free to invite anyone who might be interested.  Here is the date, time, and place:What: Maafa 21 film showing and discussion
Where: Newman Center (St. Paul room, in the basement)
When: 6:30PM Monday, February 22
Sponsored by: Illini Collegians for LifePlease feel free to contact me with any questions.References:[1] Schuberg, Karen. “Abortion Kills More Black Americans than the Seven Leading Causes of Death Combined, Says CDC Data.”  CNSNews.com. 2009. 23 Oct 2009 <http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55956>.

[2] Gamble, Sonya, et al. “Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2005.”  Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Nov. 2008 (SS13): 1-32.. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 12 Feb. 2010 <http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5713a1.htm?s_cid=ss5713a1_e#tab9>.  See especially Table 9. Reported Legal Abortions, by Race of Women Who Obtained an Abortion and State of Occurrence – Selected States, United States, 2005.

Reply from Donald

(4:41PM Saturday, February 20, 2010)

cnsnews.com is a right-wing information machine that enjoys the support of fundamentalist, evangelical Christians and Neo-conservatives.
——
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011301736.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cybercast_News_Service#False_claim_about_Paul_Begala

http://www.campusprogress.org/features/406/right-wingers-dont-want-to-kill-me-just-lie-about-me

Reply from Cynthia

(5:56PM Saturday, February 20, 2010)

Here we go again, with the stupid abortion debate… The M1 social list is STILL not an appropriate venue for this conversation.

Hannah:
I can only assume that your email was intended to be inflammatory.
If you’re going to criticize Margaret Sanger & Planned Parenthood, at least get your facts straight.  Sanger advocated for birth control & sex education, not abortion.  She repeatedly condemned abortions, calling them “a disgrace to civilization.”    And as for planned parenthood… This is a fantastic organization that provides birth control, STD vaccination & testing, sex education, counseling  and prenatal services to people who might not otherwise have access to such things. By “Planned Parenthood’s aggressive agenda against minorities,” do you mean showering them with condoms and birth control pills?

My reply to Cynthia

(11:18PM, February 10, 2010)

Cynthia:

Thank you very much for your reply.  The film itself accurately represents Margaret Sanger’s preference for birth control, while in my email I mistakenly conflated Sanger and Planned Parenthood’s methods of subjugation.  I appreciate your correcting me.  Sanger and her organization have the same goal, it’s just that their preferred methods do not always coincide.  Their “eugenic” goal is to build a race of “thoroughbreds” by exterminating those races deemed inferior.  Sanger preferred birth control and sterilization, while abortion among other methods currently suits Planned Parenthood best.

Here’s what Sanger had to say about those in the African-American community who might object to what she called her “Negro Project”: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” As quoted in Linda Gordon, Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right (New York: Grossman, 1974, 1976) 332-333.

In 1970, then-Planned Parenthood President (and former Vice President of the American Eugenics Society) Alan Guttmacher wrote: “If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the [expletive] Yankees, but by the UN.  Because, the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide.  If the United States goes to the black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproductive rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world.  If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage.”  Article: “Dr. Guttmacher – Still Optimistic About the Population Problem.”

(Further notes on sterilization): Sanger outlined her “Plan for Peace” in the April 1932 issue of her publication The Birth Control Review.  Part d of her plan was “…to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” (p. 107)  Part f was “to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”

 

in Uncategorized 0 comments
January 1, 2010  by

Bible Lessons for a PC Audience

Good morning, class! Today I’d like to tell you about six of our shining lights, six of the most important people you’ll ever hear about in this class, six people about whom you may of heard the most bold-faced lies!

David did not throw stones at a man named Goliath! He consulted his knowledgeable older brothers who were more acquainted with the situation. A detailed appraisal of the force his own party was up against quickly convinced him that a global economy is best served by getting beyond mere nationalistic concerns. He initiated peacetalks that culminated in a joyous resolution: the “ruler” of “Israel” (both terms were later recognized as hatespeech and were rejected by all in David’s party) rejected a show of arms. Instead, he fair-mindedly gave half of “his” land—including “his nation’s capital”—over to Goliath’s party of the Philistines.

Daniel was not thrown into a den of lions! Who told you that? He championed the rights of atheists to declare a “God-free month”! He even went so far as to show his open-mindedness by taking a break from his own Puritanical prayer schedule. At the end of the month, he was so free that he never went back! (And incidentally, his three best friends were never thrown into a fiery furnace! What bosh! The hottest thing they ever entered was a sauna! After showing their undying support for their king during a multimedia recognition extravaganza, his three friends initiated a “Do Ask, Do Tell” policy to report the minutest acts of insurrection directly to the king himself. Under their watch these plots decreased to the lowest levels of any recorded period. After their first experience at a public rally, they encouraged the king to hold them monthly. It’s never so easy to unite consciousness (and incidentally pick out dissenters) than in a crowd of 3,000!).

Joseph did not get thrown into prison! He started the first successful pluralistic Free Love initiative in recorded history! While others during his time were oppressed by a patriarchal society, Joseph saw the value of a matriarchal system! He even led the way for Freudian dream analysis!

Esther did not fear for her life! She realized the unique perspective that new generations enjoy, and rejected the right-wing-fundamentalist-extremist (Fascist!) views of her uncle. She recognized the unmerited preference that her people enjoyed, and was extremely supportive of Haman and his fellow freedom fighters. She was a frequent spokesperson in the Babylonian media, speaking out against the radical claims of Jews, and seeking to bring attention to the persecuted plight of Ammonites oppressed by Jews everywhere. While not directly attacking the biased account of Jews being a peace-loving, law-abiding people who had endured a vast history of suffering, she helped to popularize the understanding which we now know is true: that any injustice that a Jew receives at any time is amplified by 10,000 before it is repeated to anyone else. With her help, Babylonians came to see the truth — that Jews were indeed money-grubbing, self-promoting radicals who had no mercy for the people groups they displaced and oppressed. As a Jew herself, she also was widely successful in her public addresses to her people. She could speak directly to the Jews and tell them their own unflagging stubbornness was the reason for their conflict with the Ammonites! If they would only soften their cultural mores and show the proper amount of deference for those over them, they could coexist in peace! She was able to relieve their misguided fears that Haman and other Ammonites were planning a merciless ethnic cleansing campaign. (Anyone who tuned into the Babylonian Broadcasting Network knew that it was the Jews, not the Ammonites that were the aggressors!) Without her support, it is entirely possible that Ammonites would not have seen the kind of political and personal success that solidified their position in history and freed them from the bondage of Jewish oppression.

John the Baptist was not beheaded! He began an astonishingly progressive “Reinvent Marriage” campaign. Under his watch, couples in his city who best demonstrated The New Morality were profiled in the Jerusalem Times. Naturally, the first couple to be profiled were Herod and Herodias. During their interview, they were even able to mention the Interpretive Dance course that Herodias’ daughter was offering! Once they “came out,” many other creative couples were more than willing to share their story.

Moses did not wander in the desert for forty years! He didn’t threaten his nation’s Pharaoh with statements from “God.” Oh no! He recognized his place as subordinate to the government, and came to realize that his schizophrenic tendencies could best be dealt with through modern Egyptian medicine (he liked frog legs anyway). He happily labored in Egypt after realizing that his people were being given the best possible education they could ask for: a worker’s education! He organized labor committee meetings with ninety-nine representatives from Pharoah’s government, and one incredibly lucky Israeli worker-representative! These successful meetings proceeded for sixty-six and one half years! And they were even supported by dues from the workers themselves! He wisely recognized the usefulness of his people, and joined the People’s Educational Council. He also was instrumental on the People’s Propaganda—ahem—Informational Bureau. Under his direction this bureau accomplished what many thought impossible: the dwarfing of its early successes in the No Straw Is Good Policy and the Midwives for Birth Control (Before or After Birth) campaigns.

I haven’t the time to go on, as I would like to. I’d like to tell you the truth about Nehemiah—that he wasn’t threatened with hate mail! That he didn’t carry out obscure construction projects for hate mongers, but hosted town hall meetings where he encouraged his people to form religion-bridging relationships with their neighbors! I’d like to tell you about Jeremiah—who was not thrown into a well, but as chief advisor to the king, always reassured him that they would be victorious! Oh, and if only I could tell you about Elijah, who did not carry out mountain-top histrionics, but quite logically started a Foundation for Pagan Religious Expression—complete with its own piercing and tattoo parlor. Noah, Gideon, Jael, Joshua, Abigail, Naboth, Stephen, Paul, Jesus—so many stories, so little time. Right wingers will try to tell you that the most notable events in their lives were when they resisted. But I assure you: these people were most notable when they assented.

The abiding lessons in these people’s lives, children, is that it is always best to bend! Recite it with me: Best to Bend, Best to Bend. Exactly! Don’t stand when everyone else is kneeling! Don’t stand when everyone else is bowing! Bend means Blend. Say it again! Yes! Bend means Blend! As you can see from the examples of David, Daniel, Joseph, Esther, John-the-Baptist, and Moses, holding to antiquated “ideals” never gets your name recorded in history. Consistency is no virtue. Recognize those in authority, and obey them, no matter what!

in Politics / Theology 0 comments
January 15, 2009  by

An Intentional God

Tonight our study group was talking about science and religion. At the outset, the gal leading the study asked us all to talk about our positions on creation/evolution. She went first, and described how she views God as involved in the world, but using evolution at the outset. Then it was my turn. I decided to talk about the continuity of Scripture, and how the six days of creation mentioned in Genesis are cited repeatedly throughout other passages. For example, in the Ten Commandments, God explains why He’s setting up a system of seven days with the seventh day being the Sabbath. It’s because He created the world in six days.

As we went around the table, everyone talked about their beliefs. It turned out that there were four people who strongly identified themselves as theistic evolutionists, three people who strongly identified themselves as creationists (two who were firmly decided on a literal six-day creation period, and one who was undecided on that point), one person who leaned toward theistic evolution, and a final person who leaned toward creationism.

Of the people who were strongly theistic evolutionists, three of the four talked about the creation story being just that—a story. One gal mentioned the Hebrews’ oral tradition; Adam and Eve did not write down what happened to them, but it was passed down orally. Another guy went so far as to say that the entire creation story was just an allegory.

What we all agreed on was that God was involved, and that humans are the pinnacle of His creation. What we disagreed upon was the method which God used.

Now that I’m out of the discussion, I’m kicking myself that I did not grasp what was really at issue here. Three of the four people who strongly believe that God used evolution diminished their view of Scripture in order to do this.

There are two things that I think are key in this area:

1) The act of substituting evolution for creation depends on a person’s view of Scripture, and of God Himself. God has not yet revealed the mechanism by which He created the world, but He has supplied a framework, an outline of how creation progressed. Evolution is in conflict with this outline, and so one must decide what he values more: the words of men, or the words of God. If I am convinced that the words of man are more reliable, then I will bend or snap God’s words in order to fit them to the words of men. If I dismiss the creation account as an oral tradition that got somewhat garbled in the translation, I am saying that God does not care enough about His word to safeguard the version that was distributed en masse.

2) God is or is not a God of intentionality. The idea of evolution was designed to take the credit of this world and lay it at the feet of an impersonal process instead of a personal God. To say that God used evolution is to defer, not answer the question of “Why is creation the way that it is?” The theistic evolutionist or the atheistic evolutionist credits (albeit to differing degrees) an impersonal process with the formation of life forms, and the function of the immune system, the eye, and the mind. The atheistic evolutionist is at least spared the tension of trying simultaneously to credit God and evolution with the same phenomenon, or to divvy up the phenomena to one or the other, personal or impersonal.

The creationist has no point of tension. Everything was created by God and for God. That the eye functions is not a testament to random, undirected processes over the course of millennia, but a testament to the thoughtfulness and intentionality of a God who created a man who, when his eyes opened for the first time, saw creation and His Creator clearly.

in Science 0 comments