Dear Friend, In today's edition of InfoQuest*, I'm sending a second invitation for you to join me at a historical event in Pennsylvania, we'll take a hard look at the pro-life status of the U.S.A. and provide solutions for it, and I'm sharing my correspondence (my letters and her letter) with a Pennsylvania rep who voted for the unconstitutional Pennsylvania Hate Crimes Bill (now law). CONTENTS: (1) Invitation to Pro-Judeo-Christian-Values/Constitution Event (2) Solutions to Pro-Life USA Issue (3) My Correspondence with Rep. on Hate Crimes Law ==================== ==================== (1) Invitation to Pennsylvania Pro-Family/Life/Constitution Event Saturday, March 29, 2003 in Harrisburg, Pa. 10:00 a.m. till 4:00 p.m. at the New Love in Christ Church, Harrisburg (Further directions and accommodation information will be included with your registration confirmation.) "COMING TOGETHER TO WORK TOGETHER" A Historic Meeting of Pennsylvania Pro-Family/Life/Constitution Groups and Individuals The main purpose of this meeting is to become better networked to defend the family in Pennsylvania. The planned meeting is in direct response to the passage and subsequent signing of H.B. 1493, the hate crimes bill. See: http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/activism.htm for this history. The idea is "Coming Together to Work Together." Confirmed Speakers* Stephen Bennett -Stephen Bennett Ministries, Huntington, CT. Stephen is a Christian song artist and former homosexual. A true testimony of how God answers prayer and can change a person. Stephen will be informing us of how homosexual activists target our children - even in the public schools - and why. What are the real reasons behind the push to get so-called hate crimes laws passed? Check out his website at http://www.sbministries.org Betty Jean Wolfe -- Urban Family Council - Philadelphia Large cities in PA such as Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, and to a smaller extend Erie used to have problems that were "their own." In this technological age this is no longer the case. Problems that used to be uniquely urban - we now share. Laura Merriott - Erie Updating us on her efforts to force abortion clinics, family planning/health clinics to report rape when underage girls come in for treatment and to pursue parental notification legislation for birth control and condom distribution to minors. Dorn Checkley - Pittsburgh Coalition Against Pornography Update on the PA Supreme Court overturning the Erie Ordinance banning nude dancing and the ramifications. What other options do municipalities have to regulate sexually oriented businesses? * Please check this web page regularly for updates: http://www.afanwpa.org/AFA%20Registration.htm Access the PDF registration form directly by clicking here: http://www.afanwpa.org/AFA_Meeting_Registration.pdf You can type into the PDF and print it for mailing! ==================== ==================== (2) Solutions to Pro-Life USA Issue Dear Friend, Before you read this section, please pray for peace and discernment, take a deep breath, and read on. I've pledged to send you Truth, regardless of comfort level. Solutions follow this article by Rev. Chuck Baldwin. Bush Betrayed Pro-Lifers Again, But Did They Even Notice? By Chuck Baldwin March 4, 2003 Once again, President G. W. Bush has betrayed the pro-life cause. According to Knox News, "In a major policy shift, President Bush has decided to allow social service agencies in Africa and the Caribbean to receive U.S. funds under his $15 billion emergency AIDS relief plan even if they promote family planning and provide abortions, White House officials said." The Washington Times added, "The new plan grows out of the 'Mexico City' policy-first declared by President Reagan at a 1984 U.N. conference in that city-which bars U.S. taxpayer money from going to groups that fund or promote abortion overseas." Bush's initial decision to continue Reagan's policy to not provide funds for overseas abortion providers was about the only substantive pro-life decision so far in his administration. Now that he has reversed the policy, the sum total of Bush's commitment to the life issue is his carefully crafted, but meaningless, rhetoric! However, what is more disheartening is the fact that most "pro-lifers" won't even notice. Because Bush talks pro-life, very few people bother to examine his record on the subject. We are living in a day and age in which the sum total of a politicians' accountability is reduced to thirty second sound bites on television news. President Bush is a living example of the old adage, "The man who has the reputation of rising early can sleep 'till noon." Obviously, a few pro-lifers are paying attention. The Times quotes Connie Mackay from the Family Research Council as saying, "This is not acceptable to us." However, for the most part, pro-lifers seem oblivious to Bush's most recent betrayal. Those who believe that President Bush is going to do anything to reverse the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion on demand are living in a dream world! They are also dreaming if they believe the Republican Party as a whole has any intention of making abortion illegal. Until pro-lifers come to understand that at the national level neither the Republican nor the Democratic party represents them and begin mustering their forces behind genuine pro-life candidates from outside the establishment parties, there will be no end to legal abortions. Then again, that requires that people actually start paying more attention to what politicians do than what they say, and that doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon, either. http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com *** IQ* Solutions 1. Help put a Truly Pro-Life Pro-Constitution leader in the White House. Federal Congressional Representative Dr. Ron Paul (medical doctor - delivered over 3,000 babies) of Texas needs to hear from you to support him to run for President of the U.S.A. http://www.paul2004.com/ 2. Tools that you can use to make abortion illegal in the U.S.A., and to educate others on the terror of abortion, can be found here: http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/Abortion.htm ==================== ==================== (3) My Correspondence with Rep. on Hate Crimes Law Dear Friend, If you are a new member of the InfoQuest* family, then you can learn about my recent trip to Harrisburg here (picture included): http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/activism.htm The following is the text and/or URL links to PDFs of three letters comprising my communication with Pa. Rep. Kathy Watson on her vote to pass the unconstitutional Pennsylvania Hate Crimes Bill. Kathy's letter to me is only available in PDF. *** December 18, 2002 Hon. Katharine M. Watson 1410 West Street Road Warminster, PA 18974 Dear Hon. Watson: It is with great sorrow that I write you this letter. It has come to my attention that you brought into law that clearly unconstitutional Pa. HB1493. I even faxed you ((717) 783-8934) my Pennsylvania constitutional analysis of the bill the Friday before the House vote on the bill (enclosed). This new law clearly violates Article 1 Sections 3, 7, 25, and 26 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania. Am I mistaken, or did you swear to uphold the Constitution of Pennsylvania in your Oath of Office? Have you studied the Constitution of Pennsylvania? Does your word mean anything to you or to your constituents? Now I, and any Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc., who speaks publicly against things admonished in our different Holy Books, can be prosecuted by the Law, which is enforced, as all laws, by Force (police, the judicial courts, fines, confiscations, etc.). I beg you, please, please study the Constitution of Pennsylvania and uphold your Oath of Office now and in the future. I sent you my enclosure once before, and I ask again, I beg again, for you to actually read all four short tables of information in "Civics in Seconds." Please read my letter to the editor (enclosed). I may be jailed, as my friend Randall Terry (enclosed), simply for my thoughts, speech, and communication. I may be taken from my wife, son, and pre-born child simply for my thoughts, speech, and communication. Please introduce an amendment to strike the unconstitutional language from this new law. Please protect us from the tyrants who are taking away our freedom of religion, speech, thought, and communication. I implore you, as do all who cherished our previous freedoms. Most sincerely, Erich Lukas *** URL to PDF of Kathy Watson's reply letter to me: http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/20030218_Rep_Watson_Reply.pdf Note: if this URL breaks because of formatting, copy it in its entirety and past it into your Internet browser address bar. *** February 21, 2003 Hon. Katherine M. Watson 1410 West Street Road Warminster, PA 18974 Dear Representative Watson: Thank you for replying to my letter to you regarding my concern over your vote for Pennsylvania House Bill 1493. I write to address some of the items in your reply and to clarify the main points in my original letter to you. I appreciate the "homework" that you executed in order for you to make a decision on your vote. Contacting local district attorneys (i.e., Bucks County District Attorney Gibbons) and other local government officials is laudable; however, the actions that local county government will take from their "interpretation" of a state law does not bind those identical actions on law-enforcing government officials in every other county of Pennsylvania. You mention being handed statistics on crimes against people of various sexual preferences. When I visited Governor Schweiker's senior policy officers (Julia Morton, Schweiker's Senior Policy Manager, and David Kerr, Director of the Governor's Policy Office), they also mentioned being given arguments based on statistics and on religious points of view. Do religion, feelings, and statistics trump the Constitution of Pennsylvania? Is not the Constitution of Pennsylvania the ultimate law of Pennsylvania, by which all bills are to be tested for passing or termination? The Constitution of Pennsylvania, like most founding documents, is a short document, written in language that is easily understood. I thought that my Pennsylvania Constitutional Analysis, which I faxed to your Harrisburg office a week before the vote, was quite clear and easy to understand; those who have read it think so. I write this not as an insult, but as evidence. In your letter to me, you wrote, "The attorneys I consulted assured me that the language does not preclude the right to free speech, otherwise the law would be judged unconstitutional." Why is it, more and more, that attorneys, legislators, and government executives throw up their hands when voting or signing bills into law, saying that it's up to the courts to decide, or in this case, "the law would be judged unconstitutional." Isn't it the oath and job of legislators to ensure that a bill to be voted/signed into law is constitutional, beyond a reasonable doubt, so that a judicial court would not even waste time on a case based on such passed legislation? The attorneys with whom you consulted are wrong. This explanation, taken from my analysis, uses quotes taken directly from both the Constitution of Pennsylvania and HB1493: "HB1493 could be used against people of the Christian and Jewish faith who 'worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences' through public 'communication or address' that admonishes sodomy, lesbianism, pedophilia, bestiality, and other lifestyles when this communication is 'perceived' to be 'harassment by communication' 'toward the actual or perceived... sexual orientation, gender or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals.' By enforcing such legislation, police officers or other employees of the state, being 'human authority,' would be controlling and interfering with the rights of the conscience of Christians and Jews who are citizens of Pennsylvania." You wrote, "There is a great difference, in my opinion, between preaching one's beliefs and actually physically harming someone because of them." Your statement is true; however, it does not relate to the topic at hand, being the wording of HB1493, which states that the offense defined can be based solely ("or", as used in HB1493, is a coordinating conjunction used to join independent clauses, any of which, according to the laws of English grammar, can be held as the sole entity on which to base prosecution) on "harassment by communication or address," which is verbal and not physical; verbal, as, from a pulpit, over the phone, in a public forum, etc. Here is the excerpt from HB1493 (Printer's No. 4156) (emphasis *** added): "Offense defined. - A person commits the offense of ethnic intimidation if, with malicious intention toward the actual or perceived... sexual orientation, gender or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals, he commits an offense under any other provision of this article or under Chapter 33 (relating to arson, criminal mischief and other property destruction) exclusive of Section 3307 (relating to institutional vandalism) or under Section 3503 (relating to criminal trespass) ***or under Section 5504 (relating to harassment by communication or address)*** with respect to such individual or his or her property or with respect to one or more members of such group or to their property." This wording clearly violates, not only Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, but also Article 1 Sections 7, 25, and 26: Article I Section 3 All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship. Article I Section 7 The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. Article I Section 25 To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate. Article I Section 26 Neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right. In response to your admission, "Quite honestly, I am offended at your insinuation that I have broken my word to myself or the residents of the 114th District," for my statement that you took an Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution of Pennsylvania first and foremost, I must write that it was not my intention to induce any feelings whatsoever in you, be it offense or joy. When it comes to law, I simply compare the wording and meaning of oaths, legislation, and constitutions with the end results. In this case, my careful analysis showed that, had you studied and compared the entire Constitution of Pennsylvania against HB1493, I believe in good faith that, without ever having to consult with anyone else, you would have clearly seen the unconstitutional wording put forth in HB1493 and would have done everything in your power to defend our once-protected civil rights of Pennsylvania. I know what it's like to be misled by others who hold titles of academic mastery, influence, and power. If there's one thing that I've learned over the past nine years, it's that we must seek and understand the truth on our own, going to the original writings and documents of original authors, without leaning on the opinions of others. Back in '94, I discovered that I had been basing my actions on the opinions of others, and, after looking at the sources from which these people claimed their truths, I discovered that their opinions differed greatly from their supposed opinion-originating texts, thus beginning my personal search for truth in all areas of life, law, and culture. If you're interested in seeing my nine years of research, please visit the InfoQuest* for Truth website at http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest Most sincerely, Erich G. Lukas *** IQ* Note: A great lesson that I've come to realize, is that, when you speak with legislators, stick to the Constitution (state/fed) first, nailing down those arguments. Reason being: our fed and state constitutions were written, based on the Bible. If we go back to the basics (the constitutions), we're already covering most of our values. Once you've proved the constitutional or unconstitutional issues with legislation, THEN introduce other arguments for/against the legislation. As in my online report, sad to say, our elected reps are blatantly ignoring our constitutions. So, we must fire them. We must work together to put those we trust into office. We must pray/think on changing careers and running for office. I'm looking into it for myself (your prayers are much appreciated, for guidance and discernment over options). That's right. I've learned that, if you want to do it right, you have to do it yourself (with God's blessing, of course). Let's jump in! I'd love to see you in Harrisburg. Together, with Jesus, everything is possible. http://www.afanwpa.org/AFA%20Registration.htm Erich <><