Vol. 1 No. 6

Virginia must put the death penalty on hold. There is no evidence, that I am aware of, of any mistakes in putting to death its most heinous of criminals. Moreover, justice demands that certain crimes be punished by the "ultimate penalty." Then why deny justice to the victims of such crimes as well as to the entire community?

Come on, Smith, you say? Only liberals oppose the death penalty. Are you now a (gasp!) liberal? No, I no longer trust the secularized state to carry out justice fairly and accurately. Nor does such a debased, Godless, culture as ours even deserve justice.

Justice has never been perfect, but our system always said "better to let a hundred go free rather than hang one innocent man." Unfortunately Virginia has never really lived up to this belief, and today is in even greater danger of violating it. How?

There is no equality before the bar of justice. Virginia, like all states that I am aware of, pays defending attorneys a pittance. This does not guarantee to most defendants an adequate defense. Imagine O.J. Simpson "getting off" with a public defender attorney.

Liberalism in school and society has "dumbed down" education making it difficult to find jurors with enough common sense to examine evidence accurately. Feelings are now more important than fact and jurors too easily manipulated by well paid attorneys.

Law schools long ago abandoned truth and principle for "fairness" and social justice, and graduate lawyers and judges who cannot be trusted to stick to the law and fact.

The entire nation, having abandoned God and the reality of eternal truths, no longer can be trusted to carry out the ultimate penalty, nor does a secularized culture even deserve justice. No nation that has killed 30 or 40 millions of its unborn can be trusted.

With so many now so dependent upon government, it is not so great a stretch to see government worship becoming official policy as it did in ancient Rome. To test this theory watch the reaction to the suggestion that a popular "entitlement" be cut back.

Soon the instruments of justice will be systematically turned on the good by the wicked: Future Janet Renos will employ the death penalty against Christians who refuse to worship the government and the "ultimate solution" to the useless and misfit. And they would make it all "legal" as they did in ancient Rome and modern Germany. Now truth is what the judges say it is, knowledge is subordinated to "political correctness," and justice is all too often dealt out at the whim of the strongest leader -- currently Clinton and his gang.

Only after deep reflection, prayer and penance, can this nation once again trust to itself and its government the ultimate power over human lives. History may soon give us that opportunity.

At one point during World War II, when the German onslaught appeared to be stopped, Winston Churchill stated essentially "this may not be the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning". So too with the junk science of the evolution belief. It was initiated and perpetuated by atheists and their anti-Christian lackeys and was so persuasive it even caused many Christians to compromise and question their Biblical beliefs. But evolution is certainly nearing the end of its influence.

More and more books are coming out that prove life could not have started by chance, that mutations could not create new species, and all examples of survival of the fittest refer only to changes within a species. Presently all biology books approved for use in Virginia treat

evolution as an established fact and many discussions are based on this false belief. A local affiliate of the American Family Association is taking the lead in exposing the fraudulent evolution belief.

A rough draft of a proposed textbook insert for all biology books follows. Local school boards will be asked to support this effort and if not supportive, the insert will be made available to students on a voluntary basis. Any open discussion of the issue will soon destroy the present evolution stranglehold on the students.

This textbook discusses various phases of evolution as if it is an accepted and proven fact. The "amoeba to man" concept of evolutionists, which denies any possibility of creation, is the belief system primarily of Secular Humanism. The creation concept is the belief system of Christianity and several other faiths. Whichever happened to start life, evolution or creation, happened at least thousands of years before recorded history. It is probable that neither can ever be proven nor disproved.

Evolutionists claim evolution has been proven over and over again and doesn't need to be proven again. Creationists claim evolution has never been proven. Who is right ? In a sense, they both are. The evolutionist, when thinking of all the proven examples, is actually thinking of MICRO evolution. This consists of minor changes or differences within a species which everyone knows is true. Thousands of examples are available. The creationist is thinking of MACRO evolution which would require a new species with genetic intelligence not available in either parent. No examples of this have ever been proven and examples of micro evolution cannot logically nor scientifically be extrapolated to include macro evolution.

When discussing evolution be sure to identify whether micro evolution or macro evolution is intended. It is also important to remember that when discussing origins of life we are referring to historic events that occurred long before recorded history. All phases of present day biology, including genetics, the cell theory, biogenesis, and all other details concerning existing plant and animal life would be exactly the same regardless of ancient origins. Don't let the historic argument concerning the origins of life detract from your present day learning process.

Learn to distinguish facts from assumptions or beliefs. Statements such as "most scientists agree", are not facts but merely the politically correct belief of the day. Statements such as "reptiles evolved from amphibians 300 million years ago" cannot possibly be factual since we obviously can never determine what happened 300 million years ago.

In a recent news broadcast discussing the selection of Dick Cheney as a Vice Presidential running mate for George Bush, there was a suggestion that GW was listening to his father, Past President George Bush. This suggestion was made with a lift of the lip, an obvious sneer at such an unreasonable idea. The very thought that one would seek the guidance of not only a respected father, but a father that once held the position of President of the United States appeared ludicrous to the youthful news commentator.

Yet it did not seem the least be preposterous to this same commentator to discuss the upcoming rejection of a participant of Survival, a mere television program consisting of people paid to perform such acts as sitting around nude while being televised to the world, or eating disgusting things in the quest of winning a million dollars.

A prior newscast discussing the questionable historic value in the movie Patriot did not raise a single sneer or objectionable facial tic. Not one question was deemed necessary as to why a movie made solely for entertainment purposes was expected to be historically correct or a mention of the hundreds of prior films that bore no resemblance to fact. And yet, when a candidate like George W. Bush has the good sense to use lessons learned from past experience, it causes considerable disdain and eye rolling commentary. It seems in the news media only the absurd is considered acceptable and real. For thinking people, this should be at the very least questionable, if not downright frightening.

Too many people believe everything they see and hear during news broadcasts are factual and not to be questioned. This same lip raising media influences the thoughts and actions of surface voters (those that vote without evaluating the depth of the candidate) and cause elections like Bill Clinton and his ilk.

Men like George W. Bush with intelligence enough to study past practice, who have the common sense to listen to one who learned first hand from prior decisions, and humility enough to know that a good president must have more than just his own wisdom to run a country effectively, is the exact kind of man to have as President of the United States.

Now, when one thinks of gleaning information from the experience of men like Bill Clinton, that thought should bring not sneers, but abject terror in the hearts of people everywhere.