Dear Friend, In today's edition of InfoQuest*, we'll look at how little words make a HUGE difference in law and in our culture. It can be a matter of Life and Death. Two pre-written letters are enclosed for you to copy/edit for your federal congressional representatives regarding H.R. 946 and S. 188. You'll be filled with "shock and awe" when you learn who removed some important language from his faith-based initiative bill; language that would have protected religious nonprofit groups from anti-discrimination laws! And, a solution is provided! CONTENTS: (1) Words Matter? (2) Letters to Your Congressional Reps H.R. 946 - Mass Immigration Reduction Act S. 188 - Data-Mining Moratorium Act (3) Ricky? (4) Solution! & Harrisburg Meeting Note ==================== ==================== (1) Words Matter? Dear Friend, I've attached a PDF of my latest letter to Pennsylvania congressional representatives, imploring them to strike the unconstitutional wording in the unconstitutional hate crimes law that passed in 2002. To read the history of my fight (and to see my friends who fought along with me), go here: http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/hate_crime_bill.htm I prove, purely through the use of the laws of English grammar, that the Pennsylvania hate crimes law violates Article 1 Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (Freedom of Press and Speech). Anyone with an elementary school education, who has been taught dependant clauses and coordinating conjunctions, can read bills and perform the same analysis. I beseech you to do this with bills (and existing bad laws) in your state. Do little words really matter? As I wrote in my letter, "Although the person with whom I spoke said that 'and' and 'or' mean the same thing in HB1493, they do not! Sophie's choice would have been an easy decision, no choice required, if the Nazis told her that she could choose to keep her first daughter 'and' her second daughter; however, the Nazis told Sophie that she could choose to keep her first daughter 'or' her second daughter." Hence, there's a BIG difference in meaning between these two little words! So, Erich, you may be thinking, what's the big deal if our laws are written with a couple of grammatical errors? Well, as I wrote in the letter, "The fact that HB1493 is a grammatical atrocity further compounds the problem of this legislation's lack of clarity, opening the door to judicial courts being forced to 'interpret' this legislation on their own, thus allowing them to 'create new law' from poorly-written law." This takes the law-creating power away from us through our elected representatives and gives this power over to an oligarchy - a small group of individuals in the court system! To learn about the growing oligarchy in the U.S.A., go to: http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/Civics_in_Seconds.htm We have to understand and teach our children and grandchildren that English grammar is a science, like code used for computer software. If the code is wrong, the system crashes, which is identical to legislation and our legal system. Why is our legal system crashing? It's poorly written, thus enabling law to be interpreted/created by a select few individuals. Here's a law lesson! I sent my attached letter to my lawyer friend in the Constitution Party. Here's his reply: "Your analysis on the construction is correct and your conclusion is most certainly right on. However I think there is an even clearer reason why the exclusion only applies to section 3307. It is because section 3503 and 5504 ARE NOT IN CHAPTER 33. What it says is that the offense applies when 'he commits an offense under any other provision of this article' - this article is Article B and includes chapters 23 through 31 - 'or under chapter 33.' Then it excludes section 3307, so it applies to every section in chapter 33 except 3307. Then it goes on to list sections 3503 and 5504 as other sections that specifically DO apply. They are in chapter 35 and chapter 55 respectively, so the exclusion could not be applied to them. Chapters 35 and 55 were never INCLUDED to begin with except for the two sections specifically listed for inclusion." CULTURE? Can the changing meaning of words actually affect our culture? I've added my report, "Changing Dictionary Definitions - An Accurate Reflection of Society or An Agenda?" to the InfoQuest* website here: http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/education.htm#Changing_Dictionary_Defini tions The report shows differing word definitions from two dictionaries, "The American Heritage Dictionary," 1995, and "Webster's NewWorld Dictionary," 1986. I document how the more modern American Heritage Dictionary defines the words "liberal," "conservative," and "pedophilia" in a non-conservative tone, whereas the older Webster's NewWorld dictionary defines these words in the more traditional and conservative tone. As I wrote in my report, I've heard of textbooks being rewritten to exclude faith-based facts and facts regarding minorities, but I was shocked to make this connection with our dictionaries; the books that define the ideas behind our words. The different meanings that individuals apply to words can result in miscommunication and misunderstanding, especially when children learn certain meanings of words - the meanings of which we do not agree. I feel that both people with children and those without children will want to know the messages that are being sent through the new meanings and ideas behind the words that are being taught in the schools that use certain, or maybe all, modern dictionaries. Do words matter? http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/education.htm#Changing_Dictionary_Defini tions ==================== ==================== (2) Letters to Your Congressional Reps H.R. 946 - Mass Immigration Reduction Act S. 188 - Data-Mining Moratorium Act You can find out more about these laws here: http://thomas.loc.gov/ You can find your representative's contact information here: http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/government.htm#CONGRESS ----- H.R. 946 - Mass Immigration Reduction Act Dear [Enter Your Federal House Rep's Name Here], Please support the Mass Immigration Reduction Act of 2003. I strongly favor the immigration moratorium contained in this bill because it has become obvious to a large majority of Americans that both legal and illegal immigration rates are dangerously high. This bill has a number of very tough restrictions on immigration. Most importantly, it imposes a "timeout" on legal immigration that would last from 2003 to 2008. After 2008, the immigration moratorium would continue until "the President submits a report to Congress, which is approved by a joint resolution of Congress, that the flow of illegal immigration has been reduced to less than 10,000 aliens per year." I look forward to receiving your written response regarding how you intend to vote specifically on H.R. 946. Sincerely, [Enter Your Name and Address Here] ----- S. 188 - Data-Mining Moratorium Act Dear [Enter Your Federal Senator's Name Here], Please support the Data-Mining Moratorium Act of 2003 (S. 188). S. 188 would impose a moratorium on the development and implementation of computerized data-mining programs, such as the Total Information Awareness Program) by the Defense and Homeland Security departments. When you took your Oath of Office, you swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The Fourth Amendment is being destroyed by federally-sponsored programs such as the Total Awareness Program. I look forward to receiving your written response regarding how you intend to vote specifically on S. 188. Sincerely, [Enter Your Name and Address Here] ----- To learn about the data-mining programs, go to: http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/Support_Police.htm#IAO_Terror ==================== ==================== (3) Ricky? Sponsor Weakens Faith-Based Bill By Steve Jordahl, correspondent http://www.family.org/citizenaction SUMMARY: A Senate bill to provide government help to faith-based groups has had some important language removed by the sponsor. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., has removed some important language from his faith-based initiative bill -- language that would have protected religious nonprofit groups from anti-discrimination laws. Without those safeguards, organizations might not be able to insist their employees agree with the their values and vision. While that may be the only way to get the legislation passed, it is an issue close to the heart of organizations like the Springs Rescue Mission in Colorado Springs, Colo. - organizations that help people like Zach Ramsey. Washing up after painting a wall at the mission, Ramsey reflected on where he would be if it weren't for the help he has gotten at the mission. "In prison, to be honest with you, that's exactly where I'd be," Ramsey said. What happens at the mission is exactly the kind of help President Bush had in mind when he created the White House Faith-based and Community Initiative, according to Jim Towey, who heads up the effort. He said Santorum's decision to pull the language from the bill is regrettable, but not fatal to the president's plan. "What we have found over the course of his presidency is that progress here is going to be made incrementally," Towey said. The changes shouldn't have much of a practical effect, either. According to Towey, what Santorum took out is already on the books through executive orders. "The president already took these 'equal treatment' measures and made them federal regulations, so what was in the bill was an effort to put that into federal statute," Towey said. Nonetheless, the compromise signals that the Democrats have successfully fought the president's agenda, according to Joe Loconte of the Heritage Foundation. "Yes, it is regrettable that the radical left despises the values and beliefs of religious charities," Loconte said. "That's why these religious liberty protections were stripped from this initiative." The House version of this bill has not been introduced yet. Reports say the legislation working its way through the House has more protections than the Senate bill. The House version is expected to pass without major amendments. If both bills pass the two versions will have to be reconciled in committee before going to the president for his signature. ==================== ==================== (4) Solution! So, a Senate bill to provide government help to faith-based groups has had some important language removed by the sponsor. Please take a deep breath, pray for discernment, and read on. Here's a true statement ----- Bush's "Compassion Fascism" http://thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/02-26-2001/insider/vo17no05_ins_faith.htm "Compassion is the work of a nation, not just a government," declared President Bush as he announced the creation of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Prior to the announcement Bush signed an executive order creating the office and appointing Democrat John J. DiIulio Jr., a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania, to head it. A second executive order created "faith-based centers" in five federal departments - Justice, Education, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, and Health and Human Services - "to ensure greater cooperation between the government and the private sector" in providing drug treatment programs, after-school care, job training, and other welfare services. Such public-private "cooperation" is the basis of what Mussolini called the "corporate state," and what is more commonly known as "fascism." Il Duce's famous formula for totalitarian rule is, "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, and nothing against the state." By encouraging religious organizations to compete for federal approval to distribute billions of dollars in welfare largesse, Bush's "faith-based" plan for welfare programs will result in many of them being subject to federal regulation. ----- This article is another must-read! The Voucher Trap: What Government Subsidizes It Controls! http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no15/vo13no15_voucher.htm ----- Either way you look at it, Rick Santorum is endorsing "compassion fascism." Rick's always been touted as one of the most "conservative" Republicans in the U.S.A. Well, seeing how he took away the safeguards for religious organizations should make us think. Seeing how he condones "compassion fascism" should make us think. Now, Rick's good on a lot of points, but this action is a serious one. One that we should study. The meeting in Harrisburg was great! I met many dedicated Christians who will now work together in a new network to bring Truth and Christ-centered action back into Pennsylvania and into our world. Getting back to Rick's action, as a representation of the Republican Party (the actions of an individual is a reflection of his party), led me to remember something that one of the speakers shared with us. He said, "the Democratic Party despises the name of Jesus Christ. The Republican Party is embarrassed by the name of Jesus Christ." If you disagree with this statement, please go to the Republican Party's official website and let me know where they give tribute to Jesus Christ, the ultimate law maker to whom the Founding Fathers gave tribute. I raised my hand and said that the Constitution Party gives tribute to Jesus Christ on their national website! See: http://www.constitutionparty.com/ustp-99p1.html#Preamble Dear Friend, please tell me, to which party's leadership will Jesus Christ give His blessing? Let us pray for all of our civil leaders, in every political party. Instead of voting for the "lesser of two evils," let us vote for the best person/party, regardless of "popularity" or "chance of winning." For, if we do the right thing, Jesus will bless our actions. And let us remember. We are not to seek success here on earth, but we are to act 100% according to what Jesus desires of us here on earth, and we will be rewarded, if not here on earth, then most certainly in Heaven! The Founding Fathers of the United States of America boldly gave tribute to our God. The U.S.A. was blessed and protected by Him! Let us return to boldly giving tribute to Jesus Christ in everything that we do!