Illinois Family Institute has written a number of columns over the years about the liberal bias of the news media — especially the media in Chicago. This left-wing, anti-Christian bias was never more apparent to me than on Monday as our well-publicized press conference was snubbed by all but one major news outlet. Any doubt about the Chicago media’s lack of journalistic integrity and fairness has been removed.

More than 40 African-American religious and political leaders gathered on Monday, January 17, 2010, Martin Luther King Day, to decry the misrepresentation of King’s legacy and the noble civil rights cause. With the recent passage of the “civil unions” bill in Springfield, one would think that this was a fairly big story. We do, and that is why IFI hired a videographer to record the entire event.

Click HERE to watch the video segment of Pastor Al Cleveland of Rehoboth Empowerment Christian Church in Bensenville. Pastor Al also serves on IFI’s Pastoral Advisory Council.

Sadly, the only major secular news outlet in Chicago that covered this important event was WBBM radio and television (CBS). While Univision and WGN News attended the press conference, apparently the producers decided it didn’t fit their messaging on the issue of so-called “gay rights.”

None of Chicagoland’s major newspapers covered the event:

Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Daily Herald, and the Southtown Star

Neither did the following local television news networks:

NBC, ABC and Fox Chicago

We should not be surprised by this mainstream media blackout, after all, most of these same corporations participate in Chicago’s annual “gay pride” parade — as debauched a public event as there is in the city — so it is no secret which side they are on in this contentious issue.

While their profession exhorts them to journalistic integrity, their political, social and emotional inclinations pull them in the opposite direction, and it is the people of Chicago and Illinois who have suffered from this media irresponsibility. The Chicago media have become part of the homosexual lobby through their servile pandering to this immoral and medically dangerous agenda.

We’ve known for years how dismissively the Chicago media covers conservatives — especially Christian conservatives — and the moral issues that concern and motivate us. Their bias when covering the issues of abortion, homosexuality, decency, and true Christian faith is painfully clear and consistent. Despite the fact that the state and nation are clearly divided on these controversial issues and that a large percentage of news consumers hold conservative opinions, the media smugly continue to operate as if there is only one credible side to report: the liberal side.

The lack of objectivity and fairness is oppressive, and we must not allow ourselves to become victims to the media’s leftist agenda. That’s why I’ll be asking for your help to disseminate this wonderful event and the message it proclaims to all corners of the state.

Even when the media do squeeze in a few seconds or a few sentences that present the conservative, pro-life or pro-family side of a debate, negative adjectives and descriptors are often used to describe our position. Words like “anti-abortion” and “anti-gay” negatively frame our side of the debate while those on the other side are regularly referred to as “pro-choice” and advocates of “gay rights.” A few weeks ago, political reporter Mike Flannery went so far as to call those of us who opposed SB 1716 “foes of civil unions.” (How about proponents of natural marriage, Mike.)

One of our post-press conference speakers was my good friend Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, who said:

Monday’s Martin Luther King day press conference — which was more of a pastor’s rally affirming God’s design for marriage and family — was one of the most uplifting and heartwarming events I have ever attended. To hear truth affirmed so passionately by so many pastors — who are sick and tired of politicians bending to the demands of homosexual activists — was good for the soul!

I heartily commend Dave Smith and Illinois Family Institute for putting together this wonderful event. And I hope and pray that it will bear fruit for years to come. To that end, I’m going to do all I can to make sure as many of my fellow Illinois citizens see the tape of this pastors’ event — because I’ve had it with the secular liberal media deciding for us what is news and what’s not!

I hope you will join Peter and me in circumventing the media by getting this information out far and wide.  Please stay tuned as we finalize the editing of the event.

I can’t say I was surprised by Rex Huppke’s Dec. 1, 2010 front-page Chicago Tribune story on the passage of the “civil union” bill, but I was certainly disappointed by its lack of objectivity. His sources were exclusively pro-homosexual, and there was nary a word about opposition to this bill. He evidently didn’t solicit so much as a comment from anyone who finds this bill troubling.

Not only was there no discussion of the controversial nature of the bill or its potentially harmful implications, but there was also no mention of any strong arm tactics that may have been responsible for conservative lawmakers reversing their commitments to oppose the bill.

Huppke more than once introduced the hospital visit red herring, without once mentioning President Obama’sApril 15 executive order mandating that any hospital that receives Medicaid or Medicare funds allow hospital visits for same-sex partners.

And there was a curious discussion at the end of this article regarding the economic impact of this bill. Huppke quotes Brad Sears who claims that any increase in health care costs will be negligible “because the LGBT population is small and the same-sex couple population is even smaller.” And yet, this very small population of same sex couples will potentially save “tens of millions” of state dollars because once same-sex partners are joined in a civil union, their combined income may make them ineligible for social services.

Doesn’t it seem odd that due to its teeny tiny size this segment of the population will not noticeably increase health care costs, but this same teeny tiny group may potentially save social services tens of millions of dollars? I guess if the entirety of this teeny tiny group of same sex couples is on Medicaid, it could account for this huge savings.

On Dec. 3, Huppke’s next advertisement for civil unions appeared in the Trib.

Advocate Huppke gave one paragraph to homosexual activist Rick Garcia, three paragraphs to attorneyCamilla Taylor who works for the homosexual advocacy law firm Lambda Legal, three paragraphs to pro-homosexual law professor Andrew Koppelman, and only one to Catholic Conference director Robert Gilligan.

It was especially troubling that Huppke chose to showcase these ignorant and smug words from Koppelman in the concluding paragraph:

The big picture is that the people that think homosexual conduct is intrinsically immoral have been spectacularly unsuccessful at passing on their views to their children….I got news for you. You’re already on the slippery slope.

It would have been both fair and illuminating to solicit a response from a conservative scholar on the issue of the apparent increasing support among the nation’s youth for all things homosexual. Koppelman (and perhaps Huppke) is either deceitful or spectacularly ignorant of the reasons for such apparent increasing support.

Might the exploitation of public education have something to do with the transmogrification of children’s moral and political views? There is absolute censorship of all writing by conservative scholars in public schools even as students are exposed to essays, articles, plays, novels, films, speakers, and “enumerated” anti-bullying resources that espouse unproven, non-factual “progressive” beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality. Public school libraries carry anywhere from 50-150 resources that affirm “progressive” assumptions about homosexuality and 0 that affirm conservative views. Why doesn’t Huppke do a story on that astonishing manifestation of censorship–censorship that should trouble all educators, civil libertarians, and defenders of diversity?

I am on occasion interviewed by high school and college students. I have learned that many are spectacularly ignorant:

• They believe without evidence that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to race. They and anyone else who employs arguments based on the flawed analogy between homosexuality and race should be asked to provide justifications for this analogy. For example, all public educators who use such an analogy should be required to explain the ways they believe homosexuality is like race and that they explain to students the weaknesses of and challenges to this analogy.
• They believe that laws prohibiting same-sex “marriage” are analogous to laws prohibiting interracial marriage. This reveals that they don’t understand the difference between homosexuality and race/skin color. They don’t understand that anti-miscegenation laws were based on the erroneous belief that black men and white men are ontologically different, whereas laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are based on the true belief that men and women are ontologically different. These young people also don’t understand that when a black man seeks to marry a white woman, he is seeking to do the same thing that a white man is doing, so the discrimination inherent in anti-miscegenation laws is discrimination based on race or skin color. In the case of same sex “marriage,” however, the discrimination is based on behavior, which is legitimate. In the case of same sex “marriage,” a man is seeking to marry a man, which is an utterly different act that a man marrying a woman. Laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are not discriminating between people based on immutable, morally neutral conditions; these laws make rational distinctions between behaviors or acts.
• They believe that marriage is solely a private relationship.
• They have no understanding of the reasons why the government is involved with marriage.
• They believe that disapproval of homosexual acts constitutes hatred of persons, and yet curiously they don’t apply that principle consistently. They don’t assert that their moral disapproval of particular beliefs or volitional acts constitutes hatred of persons.
• They believe that to demonstrate love, one has to affirm all beliefs and all behavioral choices of others, and yet they don’t apply that principle consistently. They believe that it’s possible for them to love those whose moral beliefs and behavioral choices they do not affirm.
• They have no idea that until the late 20th Century, there were no Catholic or Protestant theologians who embraced “gay” theology.
• They believe that homosexuals constitute 10% of the population (a long-discredited figure).
• They believe that science has proved that homosexuality is 100% heritable even though they can’t produce even one study to support that claim.
• They have no idea that “Queer Theory” argues that homosexuality is mutable and fluid.
• They have no understanding of church-state relations. They would be stunned to read what Martin Luther King Jr. said about law in “Letter From Birmingham Jail.” I’m often asked if my opposition to legalized same-sex marriage violates the Constitution. Because students have such a lousy understanding of the First Amendment, they have trouble answering this question: If someone attends a church that affirms homosexuality, should they be prohibited from imposing their religious beliefs in law through support for legalized same-sex marriage?

Perhaps their ignorance is facilitated by the failure of public schools to have students study the work of the best scholars on both sides of the debates surrounding homosexuality. Perhaps their ignorance is facilitated by biased reporting like that of Huppke. And perhaps their ignorance contributes to their adoption of myopic, specious Leftist assumptions.

Now factor in the entertainment and advertising industries that promote through language and images the same unproven Leftist assumptions. Finally, throw into this toxic mix the use of invective to scorn and humiliate anyone who dares to publicly assert the belief that homosexual acts are immoral, and even Koppelman might be able to understand why the younger generation appears to be embracing the ontological and moral views of the Left.

I have been called “c**t,” “b**ch,” and “a****le”–multiple times. I have been told that I’m a “f***ing idiot” who should die–multiple times. I was recently threatened with “schoolyard” violence. And the Southern Poverty Law Center has added IFI to their “hate groups” list. Might this kind of vitriolic bullying contribute to the transformation of the moral views of young people or at least to their silence?

Neither I nor anyone affiliated with IFI has ever advocated hatred or violence. In fact, we have advocated against both. We neither express hatred nor feel hatred, but that’s irrelevant to the contemporary promoters of diversity and tolerance. If anyone dares to express his conservative moral claims with as much boldness and conviction as “progressives” do theirs, he will be on the receiving end of shocking hostility, lies, and invective.

It might have served both the cause of journalistic integrity and enlightened discourse if Huppke had bothered to explore the propagandistic tools that are shaping the public debate on homosexuality.

I have a question for the powers-that-be at the Chicago Tribune: Do you believe that Rex Huppke is covering the homosexual issue in general and the civil unions issue in particular fairly and objectively?

Perhaps Mr. Huppke could be reassigned to the editorial page and leave reporting to someone with the professional integrity to write objectively.

Story link: MyFoxCHICAGO.com (The video has been moved to Fox’s archives)

This “news” report from Chicago Fox News is typical of how the bias of the dominant media trumps journalistic objectivity and balance. While I think Fox’s Political Editor, Mike Flannery has some good political insights and I am sure he is a nice enough fellow personally, the segment above is indicative of how the media play to one side of a debate instead of remaining neutral.

To his credit, Flannery interviews our good friend and pro-family attorney Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society. But notice that Flannery challenges Breen to clarify his objection to the pending “civil unions” bill in Springfield.

Next, Flannery interviewed three pro-gay politicians (four if you add Gov. Quinn’s sound bite), including the sponsor of the same-sex “civil unions” bill — openly gay State Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago). Harris argues that homosexual partners should not be denied hospital visitation rights for sick or dying loved ones. Where was Flannery’s challenge on this one? While I personally believe this to be a straw-man argument, the fact is earlier this year (April 15th to be exact), President Barack Obama issued an executive order mandating that nearly all hospitals extend visitation rights to the partners of gay men and lesbians and respect patients’ choices about who may make critical health-care decisions for them. It is a non-issue.

So why didn’t Flannery challenge Rep. Harris on this highly emotional and specious appeal?

Lastly, you will note that Flannery refers to religious and pro-family opposition to this legislation as “foes.” This choice of language is purposeful and intended to communicate a negative connotation about our opposition to this radical political agenda. We are the enemy? Ironically, this label could be used to describe the pro-gay side of this debate — but I doubt that you will hear a main street media type refer to homosexual activists as “foes” of traditional marriage and morality anytime soon.

Wouldn’t it be nice if there was at least one dominate news outlet that would uphold true journalistic standards?

The flap over the firing of Juan Williams as a news analyst for National Public Radio (NPR) has created a firestorm of controversy. Williams supposedly violated NPR’s policy regarding interjecting personal commentary while reporting on the news. As a political commentator to the FOX News Channel (FNC), Williams, in essence, stated he gets nervous when he sees individuals wearing “Muslim garb” present in an airplane he is traveling on. Though Williams’ comments might have been politically incorrect, he was simply stating how he feels and how other Americans react in a similar situation.

NPR’s CEO, Vivian Schiller, fired Williams during a phone call and later went on to make public statements questioning Williams’ sanity, suggesting the commentator see a psychiatrist. Schiller later publicly apologized for how she handled the firing of Williams, including her statement questioning Williams’ mental health. However, the situation has thrown gasoline on an issue regarding whether NPR and its sister entity PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) should be on the public dole.

I rarely agree with the political views held by Mr. Williams. He is a staunch advocate for liberalism, including support of abortion on demand, homosexual “marriage” and other political views which are contrary to the pro-family agenda. However, even those on the far left agree that Williams was a victim of political correctness run amuck. Clearly, other NPR contributing journalists, including Nina Totenberg, NPR’s legal affairs correspondent and Cokie Roberts, NPR’s senior news analyst, frequently voice their opinions on political and social issues during appearances on networks other than NPR.

But here is what most reasonable Americans agree on: Juan Williams is also employed by what is perceived as the mortal enemy of the progressive movement in the United States…FOX News. Therefore, NPR’s Schiller applied a double standard in the firing of Williams and did so by interpreting what served her agenda regarding a technical aspect of Williams’ contract.

More important, the Williams’ controversy has brought to the forefront whether National Public Radio or PBS should receive any taxpayer dollars. Only 2% of NPR’s operating costs derive from taxpayers. The combined budget of PBS and NPR is not chump change. The revenue they receive for radio and television from American taxpayers each year totals nearly $420 million. To put this figure into perspective, the new health care law cuts the Medicare budget by $500 million over the next ten years. The annual budget for Medicare is $500 million. The operative question is: What is more important to the majority of the American people, the support of NPR and PBS or the health care for seniors, disabled, widows, widowers and their dependents?

NPR and PBS do not reflect the values of all Americans. NPR and PBS do not report in a fair and balanced manner. Their journalists report the news from a liberal perspective. The commentaries on NPR and PBS never reflect the pro-family viewpoint, but many are led to believe that without the support of taxpayer dollars, NPR and PBS would no longer exist.

Besides being on the public dole, NPR and PBS receive huge amounts of cash from liberal foundations and individuals, including billionaire George Soros who recently contributed $1.8 million to hire 100 reporters (two for each of the fifty state capitols in the United States). These reporters would be assigned to cover state legislatures for NPR. Soros is a major contributor to many far left radical causes. He is the Founder and primary funder of groups like MoveOn.org and Media Matters, two Internet websites which advance the far left political agenda in America. Soros’ political agenda includes the eventual move to socialized health care in America and he believes the United States is not served well by its free market economy and capitalism in general. Anyone who believes there would not be strings attached to Soros’ contribution to public broadcasting is, at best, naive.

But there is a little known fact regarding NPR and PBS which is connected with its programming. Many conservatives have long argued that NPR and PBS should not receive taxpayer dollars. The response from supporters of public television and public radio argue that programming like Sesame Street would disappear without taxpayer money. Nothing could be further from the truth. Go into any store that sells toys this Christmas and check out how many products are licensed by PBS. There is literally an army of high-priced lawyers who protect the licensing rights of Sesame Street products alone–which include Elmo, Ernie, Big Bird, Abby Cadabby, Zoe and Cookie Monster, to mention just some of the merchandizing which generates hundreds of millions of dollars for public television annually.

Subsequently, the firing of Juan Williams provided a service to the nation by exposing NPR and PBS to further scrutiny, not only concerning their liberal political content from a journalistic perspective, but whether nearly a half billion dollars of taxpayer money can be better spent.

In the Saturday Sept. 11 edition of the Chicago Tribune , reporter Jennifer Weigel recommended five ways to “stay spiritual,” epiphanies she apparently experienced while researching her new book I’m Spiritual, Dammit. Here are four of her five recommendations followed by Bible verses on the same topics:

1. Weigel says “Treat yourself….It’s not selfish-it’s self first.”

The Bible says:

“Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it” (Luke 9:23).

“The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me” (John 12: 25-26).

“But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” (2 Tim. 3:1-7).

2. Weigel says, “Talk to dead people….enlist those dead loved ones with specific tasks and keep track of the results.”

The Bible says:

“Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God” (Lev. 19:31).

Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the LORD your God” (Deut. 18:10-13).

3. Weigel says, “Look for signs.”

The Bible says:

“For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect” (Matt. 24:24).

“The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 0and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved” (2 Thess. 2:9-10).

4. Weigel says, Develop your intuition.”

The Bible says:

“Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding,” (Prov. 3:5).

“Thus says the Lord: ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart departs from the Lord. For he shall be like a shrub in the desert, and shall not see when good comes, but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land which is not inhabited'” (Jer. 17:5).

On Sunday, June 27th, one of the largest “Gay” Pride Parades in the country took place in the city of Chicago. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, supposedly 450,000 people lined the streets in the city’s Lakeview neighborhood for the 41st annual parade. The Chicago Tribune in its hard news section wrote, “While maintaining its reputation as a lively, often flashy event, the parade has also come to reflect broader acceptance of gays and lesbians. Marching politicians were followed by dancers from gay nightclubs and floats filled with employees of major corporations.” See complete article HERE.

The Tribune comments were more appropriate as commentary because the failing newspaper suggests the homosexual lifestyle is receiving “broader acceptance” from the general public. In reality, homosexuality and the alternative lifestyle represented by those who participated in and supported the parade is not a demonstration of wider support by the American people.

The truth of the matter is, if the establishment media, including the Chicago Tribune, related all the facts concerning homosexuality’s impact on our culture, the public would look at this behavior from a perspective other than something seen through rose-colored glasses.

For example, one of the major issues facing Illinois in 2010 concerns the $13 billion budget shortfall. Homosexuality is a very unhealthy lifestyle which costs taxpayers literally hundreds of millions of dollars in added health care costs. Yet you would be hard-pressed to find a story in the mainstream media in any major metropolitan area and especially Chicago which provides information on how homosexuality is taxing our economic system in a time of deep recession.

Would such a story be appropriate in a discussion of the unhealthy alternative lifestyles represented in the “Gay” Pride Parades held across the nation? In contrast, the establishment press goes out of its way to give the impression those who practice homosexuality live a carefree life, filled with boundless joy and “gaiety”.

To illustrate my point, the homosexual characters in nearly every television series are portrayed as happy, well-adjusted individuals who have a true grasp of the meaning of life. In reality, the homosexual lifestyle is very painful for those who are caught up in it. Studies conducted by the Center for Disease Control say male same-sex partners often die early. Rampant infidelity among those who practice this type of decadence leads to a hollow existence, compounded by the moral judgments this group applies to themselves.

Both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times say the police estimate 450,000 people lined the parade route in support of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals. However, many of those who looked upon the parade were there for prurient interest. Often the event features what a majority of Illinois residents would refer to as obscene behavior which is in clear violation of the city of Chicago’s obscenity and decency laws. The Chicago Police look the other way while parade participants and on-lookers perform simulated and actual sex acts in public and flaunt their nudity, all in the attempt to either titillate those along the parade route or draw the ire of innocent members of the public who are subjected to an x-rated display of the most vile and perverse behavior. And it is behavior. If every human being on the planet Earth suddenly became a homosexual, the human race would die out within a generation. In addition, there is evidence, as with any addictive behavior, individuals can and do overcome the curse of homosexuality, contrary to claims by gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals who assert they are “born that way”.

Holy Scripture tells us we are to love the sinner, but hate the sin and we are all sinners in God’s eyes. But if not for the precious gift of Christ’s salvation because of the blood He shed on the cross for the remission of sins, all of us, homosexual or not, would be without hope.

Many homosexuals claim their existence and purpose for living is more than simply a choice concerning how they have sex. Yet the image presented to the public by the establishment media and those who supported and participated in “Gay” Pride Parades–not only in Chicago, but across the country–sent a very different message. So, if it is not about the sex, what was the purpose for the parades? The clear message is that homosexuality is all about the sex. And it has to be. After all, it’s the “Gay” Pride Parade.

A blogger, called Red Blooded American, put it most succinctly when replying to a Chicago Sun-Times article by writing:

They certainly hurt themselves every time they dress up in @$$less chaps and a Speedo and scream to the top of their lungs “I’m no different from you”. If you want your lifestyle to be accepted as normal, then act normal. Until then, you will struggle with acceptance.

An excellent column was written by David Smith, Executive Director, Illinois Family Institute, prior to the parade. For complete article, click HERE.

Smith lists which politicians, corporations and media organizations supported the “Gay” Pride Parade by either marching or having a float in the parade or simply financially supporting the day’s activities. Those who support the pro-family agenda should take special note of this list. Are these politicians and groups representing all of us? Or do they have a politically correct agenda which is in stark contrast to the Judeo-Christian ethic which a vast majority of Americans still embrace?

The media is supposed to be a neutral observer, reporting on the facts. However, in recent decades, commentary has blended its way into the hard news sections of news entities which cross the lines of journalistic integrity. The media’s coverage of Chicago’s “Gay” Pride Parade, by some members of the press, was a perfect illustration of tainted journalism. Sadly, when this occurs, we are all losers.

In the movie, “The Rainmaker,” about an unscrupulous insurance company refusing to pay a legitimate claim, the young lawyer fighting for justice for his sick client turns to the high-powered and well-paid corporate lawyer across the table and asks, “I’m just wondering, do you even remember when you first sold out?” It is a commentary on how and why people abandon the cause of what is right for financial and other reasons.

I remembered that comment when I was told that conservative columnist George Will had endorsed gays in the military on Sunday’s edition of the ABC show “This Week” and had smeared supporters of the Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion policy as unintelligent. I couldn’t believe it. But I checked the transcript. Indeed, George Will had said those curious things.

Although Will was referring to Republican members of Congress as dummies, it is a fact that the chiefs of all the military services also expressed their opposition to repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” at this time. Are they stupid, too?

Sunday, May 30, will mark the day when George Will sold out.

On this occasion, he decided to take a politically expedient viewpoint, which won him plaudits from the other panelists, but the policy position he took is demonstrably fraught with dangers for our troops. It is reckless and dangerous, primarily because Will and other panelists refused to come to grips with the health impact of gays in the military. Instead, they talked about gays they know, or the gays their kids knew, as if the only factor is whether you can interact with them at a cocktail party.

Socializing with gays is not the main issue, although it can be a problem in the close quarters and battlefield conditions that our soldiers are forced to endure. The key problem is that the blood of male homosexuals is contaminated with HIV and other diseases that can cause death.

These infectious agents cannot be effectively screened out of the blood supply. That is why gay males are prohibited from donating blood.

What George Will may not understand is that the gays are already moving beyond the issue of acceptance in the military to demanding that the federal government lift the ban on gay blood, putting all of our lives at risk and in jeopardy.

It was not always this way with Will. Back in 2007 he seemed aware of the authoritarian nature of the gay agenda, noting in a critical column that they were trying to label support for traditional values as homophobic and a hate crime. He wrote a 2009 column defending California’s vote in favor of traditional marriage and criticizing efforts to undo it.

But somewhere along the way, possibly in response to criticism of columns like that, Will decided to give up the fight. Perhaps he started moving this way after the election when he hosted a dinner party for then-President elect Obama. In any case, the drift reached a ridiculous extreme on Sunday’s “This Week” program, when asked why Republicans in Congress were fighting repeal of the homosexual exclusion policy, and Will replied with the comment, “They’re not being very intelligent.” The other panelists chuckled.

This is what George Will has become-a purveyor of insults against those who used to treat his columns as authoritative. He apparently has discovered that it plays well to the liberal intelligentsia and saves him a lot of hate mail. He has found his new “base,” just like other conservatives who sell out. Now, he will be praised at the dinner parties with the “progressives” from the Obama Administration.

Whatever the motivation, I remember being struck when I listened to George Will’s speech at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and thought about how it was narrowly focused on economics and had ignored the moral and social dimensions of the crisis that affects our nation.

I know that George Will is aware of the moral crisis, especially how it is reflected in the acceptance of the hideous practice of abortion on demand in the United States. Will has a child with Down syndrome and he has written about how society is targeting a whole class of citizens with this disability for elimination. With good reason, he finds it morally objectionable.

Will George Will now abandon this issue as well?

Fortunately, there are parents like Kurt Kondrich of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who keep this issue alive. You may remember that Kurt and his wife Margie and their Down syndrome daughter, Chloe, met with Sarah Palin during the 2008 presidential campaign. The meeting received national attention.

Kurt has written a short piece with a new twist on the “profiling” controversy involving the new Arizona immigration law. He writes about the issue of “Prenatal Disability Profiling” and says:

“Since passage of the new Arizona immigration law to curb the flow of illegal aliens into this country there has been a lot of talk about ‘profiling.’ Profiling can be defined as targeting an individual for criminal activity based upon race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. Many people across this nation decry this procedure as outrageous and unacceptable. There is a targeted group of unborn children who are profiled and targeted daily, and none of them have engaged in any type of criminal activity. Their only crime is they do not meet the standards of perfection and beauty a lost culture has deemed necessary to enter this world. The extra chromosome they carry is being genetically profiled, and their unique, angelic traits do not allow the majority of them to secure ‘entry’ into this world.

“When a person is profiled and identified as an illegal alien the most severe penalty can be deportation. When a child is prenatally profiled and identified as having Down syndrome the penalty in 90% plus of the cases is termination. In all my years as a Police Officer I cannot recall a criminal case involving an individual with Down syndrome, and I often think how better off our society would be if these terminated ‘profiled’ individuals had been granted citizenship. It is frightening how silent the outcry is for this form of profiling, and my prayer is that this nation and world will wake up soon and recognize the true injustice of ‘Prenatal Disability Profiling.'”

The reason the unborn are targeted for elimination is that they are not considered members of the protected groups of people under the Marxist view. Their status is of secondary importance to the rights of women, one of the protected groups. On the other hand, illegal aliens and gays are considered victims of American society and have been elevated to protected status. As such, the view is that they should and must be given special rights.

George Will is just the latest example of a trend by some “conservatives” to surrender on the cultural issues and fight the battle on economic grounds. Another example is his fellow “conservative” columnist, Kathleen Parker, also of the Washington Post writers group. She has become pro-gay as well.

When translated into political terms, this becomes the kind of “new” or “progressive” conservatism that we saw in the British Conservative Party, which failed to win a majority of the vote in the recent British elections and now has to exercise power in collaboration with a far-left party. We have called them the fake conservatives. British Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader David Cameron is so much of a panderer to the militant homosexuals in Britain that he told them he wants to rid “homophobia” from the schools, give special funding to the transgendered, and provide tax breaks for homosexual couples.

Does George Will consider this an “intelligent” course for the Republicans that he now spends time insulting?

It is tragic to see a pillar of the conservative media become a captive of the lost culture. The American conservative movement has lost one of its greatest columnists.

Throughout civilization, there have been those who have attempted to find humor at the expense of others. This has been the case in American history as well. People who are different because of their social class, skin color, ethnic or religious backgrounds have often been the butt of the most vile so-called humor.

However, supposedly, we now live in a time of tolerance. Yet it is clear there are certain groups who apparently are fair game to be the recipients of mean-spirited attacks which have little to do with levity.

Recently, an episode of South Park — a cartoon which airs on the Comedy Channel–fanned the flames of controversy by insulting those who practice the Islamic faith. The same episode insulted Christianity by presenting an image of Jesus Christ which also was defamatory in nature.

It has often been said it is a losing proposition to take on contentious issues which result from cartoons or comic strips. But though it may not be politically prudent to question the appropriate nature of such satirical venues, the First Amendment provides the right to do so.

Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the Creators of South Park, have made a living off of their irreverence with the series. Christianity has often been their target. Of course, Stone and Parker will deny this fact. They will say South Park is only satire, not meant to demean or be hurtful to anyone.

Unfortunately, American society has bought into this notion in recent decades. Jokes that were once told in backrooms are now appropriate in public venues, depending on who or what the subject is. It is obvious Christianity does not fall within the boundaries protected by political correctness or tolerance.

To say South Park has been the only source to assail those of the Christian faith through the so-called use of humor would be unfair and inaccurate. But Stone and Parker were only criticized for their irreverence by the mainstream media for the episode which depicted Muhammad in a bear costume which is contrary to Islamic doctrine that the prophet never be drawn. However, Stone and Parker needed attention due to the fact that in today’s culture conflict results in controversy, and controversy leads to fame.

The problem is those on the far left–which dominate the mainstream media–either do not understand or do not care whether what they do is hurtful. This mindset hardly follows the definition of tolerance. According to Webster’s Dictionary, tolerance is defined as “a tolerating or being tolerant, esp. of views, beliefs, practices, etc. of others that differ from one’s own”. The term is not selective. The meaning of the words is not subject to political correctness or the fad and fashions of the times.

When Stone and Parker depict Jesus Christ in an unflattering way, a vast majority of Americans take offense. They do so because they believe Christ is their Savior who suffered the most grievous of pain, before being hung on a cross to die for the sins of mankind. Is it possible the creators of South Park do not truly understand the tenets of Christianity and Christ’s sacrifice? To the contrary, the opposite is most likely the case. Stone and Parker fully understand because irreverence has been a means to their success.

Perhaps South Park and its creators don’t deserve all the blame for their irreverence. Our society has given them the license to be hurtful.

But there are dangers we should take from history which result from this lack of sensitivity. In Nazi Germany, propaganda films depicted the Jews as rats which infested the Third Reich. These images did not suddenly appear. They began incrementally with baby steps which led to the creation of the final solution to the “Jewish problem”.

South Park is an infantile, poorly illustrated cartoon which carries an inordinate amount of social significance. The program truly reflects the intolerance of our times which stems from an underlying motive, some self-serving, some sinister.

There is good advice that comes from the left regarding such so-called artistic expression. Americans can change the channel. They can also send letters to sponsors who pay the bills which allow cartoons like South Park to remain on the air. Perhaps those who are offended most can take equal blame by staying silent and doing nothing–while their faith or culture is insulted.

Rex Huppke, who purports to be a reporter for the Chicago Tribune, but is, in reality, a mouthpiece for homosexual activism, has written yet another propaganda piece about homosexuality. Huppke wrote an article — not an opinion piece — but an article that doesn’t even attempt a pretense of objectivity.

In language dripping with bias, Huppke wrote about the plight of Americans who define their identity by their homosexual desires and behavior and who have non-American sexual partners. Huppke wrote a thinly disguised endorsement of U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez‘ disastrous immigration reform proposal which would allow “foreign-born partners of gay and lesbian Americans the same path to citizenship as heterosexual spouses.” It was an endorsement so thinly disguised it could be mistaken for a bare-naked, Hollywood-produced public service announcement.

Congressman Gutierrez — and evidently his PR accomplice Huppke — seeks to write into law the unproven, a-historical assumption that relationships defined by unnatural homosexual desire and immoral homosexual acts are morally equivalent to heterosexual relationships.

In a 747-word article, Huppke allotted a whopping 21 words to an acknowledgment that opposing views exist. This is the entirety of his commitment to presenting both sides:

Invariably the addition of language to benefit same-sex couples will rile some who oppose extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians.

Here are some additional telling stats from the impartial, unbiased reporter Rex Huppke:

• Number of quotes from Gutierrez: 4
• Number of quotes from supervising attorney for the National Asylum Partnership on Sexual Minorities at the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago (yes, apparently, such a center exists): 2
• Number of quotes from homosexuals who have foreign-born partners: 3
• Number of quotes from opponents of Gutierrez’ proposal: 0

It’s not merely the inclusion of quotes from only supporters of the proposal that is problematic; it’s also the soap opera-esque content that is troubling.

Huppke quoted Gutierrez who said that “The underlying part of any comprehensive immigration bill is family unity.” This language manipulates Americans’ deep respect for family and family unity while ignoring the disturbing embedded assumption that two homosexual men constitute a “family” that per se deserves respect.

Huppke then quoted a homosexual Episcopal priest who frets about the possibility of his homosexual paramour being deported:

You can’t imagine the stress we live under daily…To wake up every morning and think this could be the day that we no longer have the resources or support to be together.

And then Huppke delivered his coup de grace in a concluding tear-jerking anecdote. Have your hankies at the ready:

For Josh Lampinen, a 30-year-old Chicago Web designer, a change in the law couldn’t come soon enough. His fiance, Jerome Lienard, lives in France, and the couple are struggling to find a way to be together.

…

Lampinen said the distance between them is always a strain, particularly in times of crisis. A year and a half ago, Lampinen’s grandmother died, and Lienard couldn’t be by his side.

“That’s when you want your partner there,” Lampinen said. “And he wasn’t. It just wasn’t possible. It’s instances like that that just make it evident how unfair this situation is.”

Unfortunately, in an increasingly non-rational, non-thinking culture, appeals to such tales of woe carry persuasive power. It is these kinds of “narratives” that are shaping the views of even conservative Christians, particularly younger Christians who are not being taught to think critically. As Thomas Sowell, African American Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, writes:

The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.

Huppke reported that Gutierrez met with “LGBT community leaders at noon on Monday at the [homosexual] Center on Halsted” where he was joined in his confab by U.S. Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) and openly homosexual Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO).

Some concluding and random thoughts:

• Appeals to emotion are not reasons.
• The presence of sad feelings tells us precisely nothing about the morality of homosexuality — or any other moral issue.
• The presence of emotional and sexual feelings and sexual interactions between two (or more) people does not render their relationship a family structure worthy of affirmation or legal status.
• Rex Huppke is not reporting; he is cheerleading and proselytizing.

Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn asserts that the “stench of history” lingers in the air following the cancellation of a high school prom in Mississippi. It isn’t the “stench of history” but rather the stench of Zorn’s ignorance that hangs over his diatribe and pollutes both thought and discourse.

By suggesting that the virulent racism of the South in the 1960’s is morally equivalent to societal disapproval of homosexuality, Zorn perpetuates the ludicrous and offensive assumption that race is ontologically (i.e., by nature) equivalent to homosexuality. Zorn conveniently omits any discussion of this unproven assumption upon which his analogy depends. By omitting any such discussion, he frees himself from the burden of providing evidence or justification for the proposition that homosexuality is by nature analogous to race or for the proposition that disapproval of homosexuality is analogous to racism.

The only thing racism shares in common with the belief that volitional homosexual acts are immoral is that Zorn hates both. If that’s all that’s required for Zorn to see equivalence, then I guess in Zorn’s strange moral universe, disapproval of polyamory, adult consensual incest, or paraphilias is equivalent to racism, which in turn would make polyamory, adult consensual incest, and paraphilias ontologically equivalent to race. In reality, race or skin color is ontologically equivalent to biological sex–not to homosexuality.

The racist belief that African Americans were inferior and ought not to have interacted socially with whites was a malignant falsehood that needed to be exposed and eradicated. In contrast, the belief that boys ought not to have sex with boys or girls with girls is true and should be both publicly expressed and affirmed. This moral belief has nothing whatsoever to do with ignorance, bigotry, or hatred.

There are, broadly speaking, two categories of conditions: immutable conditions with no behavioral or moral implications, like race and sex; and conditions that are centrally defined by behaviors that are legitimate objects of moral assessment even if biological factors influence impulses. Such conditions would include polyamory, promiscuity, selfishness, drug use, aggression, pedophilia, Body Integrity Identity Disorder, Gender Identity Disorder, and homosexuality. From the behavioral/moral category, Zorn has plucked out homosexuality and decided to treat it like conditions from the immutable, non-behavioral category with no justification for doing so.

Implying an analogy between traditional beliefs on homosexuality and racism is specious in that the latter reflects negative judgments based on 100% heritable, immutable conditions that carry no behavioral implications. In contrast, it is widely debated, even within the homosexual community, whether homosexuality is immutable. Indeed, “queer theory” holds that sexuality is a fluid social construction. In addition, there is no research proving that homosexual attraction is biologically determined. Finally, homosexuality inherently involves acts that can be justifiably deemed immoral. Such moral conclusions do not constitute hatred of persons or bigotry.

Zorn errs not merely in assuming without proof that homosexuality is ontologically analogous to race, but in suggesting that the racist act of secretly relocating a prom in Birmingham, Alabama in 1965 in order to exclude an African American girl is analogous to openly canceling a prom because one student sought to violate morally legitimate policy regarding homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors.

Zorn concludes his commentary by deeming school policy that prohibits homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors as hatred of persons. Even identifying people as “homosexual” reveals ontological and moral assumptions. For those who share Zorn’s unproven assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexuality, identifying someone as homosexual means not only that same-sex desire and homosexual acts are experienced, but that they are central to and affirmed in his or her life.

In contrast, for those who hold conservative assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexuality, stating that someone is homosexual would mean only that someone experiences same-sex attraction and perhaps engages in homosexual acts. Traditional ontological and moral assumptions about homosexuality would not, however, suggest that those attractions are central to identity or worthy of affirmation.

Most people believe that polyamorous attractions, though unchosen and likely shaped by biology, should not be considered either central to identity or worthy of affirmation. And just as it would not constitute hatred of persons to prohibit polyamorous behavior at a school dance, it does not constitute hatred to prohibit homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors at a school dance.

Comcast, a giant media conglomerate, is currently in the process of purchasing NBC Universal. Comcast is the nation’s largest cable service provider, serving 39 states and the District of Columbia. When negotiations are completed, Comcast will have controlling interest of the NBC network, its News Division and NBC Universal’s cable networks–which include MSNBC and CNBC. The deal’s price tag is an estimated $30 billion.

Besides the business aspects regarding Comcast’s acquisition of NBC Universal, which I won’t go into here, some speculate Comcast’s controlling interests of NBC Universal may lead to a huge shake-up in the management of its news division and address what many refer to as NBC’s liberal agenda. One hint of NBC’s change in its news content may have become evident when, earlier this month, one of its major news anchors, the controversial David Shuster, was suspended indefinitely for reported behind the scenes negotiations with cable news rival, CNN. For years, NBC has been criticized for liberal bias in its news content, and there may be indications other on-air personalities may also be looking for employment elsewhere when the Comcast deal is finalized.

The NBC News Division, including MSNBC and CNBC, have been losing millions of dollars for NBC Universal. For example, MSNBC consistently comes in dead last in viewer ratings. On the other hand, cable news rival, the FOX News Channel, has a viewing audience which trounces its competition nightly. Indeed, MSNBC, CNBC and CNN viewership combined do not equal the ratings of Fox News.

NBC Universal is currently owned by General Electric (GE) whose Chairman and CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, has been accused of having a conflict of interest involving possible government deals–much of this involving green technology. Some say GE has been put on the fast track regarding giant profits which would result from legislation like Cap and Trade, if the bill were ever passed into law by Congress. Therefore, GE has devoted significant resources towards the development of alternative energy. Some assert Immelt has supported left-leaning political policies which would directly benefit his corporation, and the conduit for doing so was through the utilization of NBC Universal’s news division.

MSNBC’s on-air personalities have drawn the ire of conservatives who see the network as a major proponent of a liberal agenda. From primetime network programming, which includes Hardball with Chris Matthews, Countdown with Keith Olbermann and the Rachel Maddow Show, many media observers believe such broadcasts would not be in the best interest of Comcast’s bottom line when its purchase of NBC Universal is finalized.

Much criticism has been levied against MSNBC and rightly so. For example, after watching Barack Obama give a speech during his presidential campaign, Chris Matthews said Obama “sent shivers up his leg” (hardly objective). Keith Olbermann once referred to President George W. Bush as a “Pathological Liar or Idiot-in-Chief”. Out-of-the-closet lesbian Rachel Maddow advances a political agenda which even the most objective of viewers would consider leftist in nature.

The underlying question is: Will Comcast–a corporation which sells its product to not only conservatives, but liberals as well–be willing to take the political heat from a public which it depends on for revenue?

“When the Comcast deal finally goes through, some heads might roll across the board at NBC,” said a high-ranking member of management for the network who requested anonymity. “Over the top shows, like that featured in MSNBC’s primetime programming, may soon become a thing of the past.”

Comcast, which offers a product, is in business to make a profit. Whether a corporation is connected with a particular agenda, be it left or right, that corporation has to look to their bottom line. Subsequently, those who use the Comcast product may have an influence regarding the political content of the news divisions at NBC, MSNBC and CNBC once the acquisition is completed. Therefore, liberal bomb throwers, including Olbermann and Maddow may soon be seeking employment elsewhere. Imagine if Comcast subscribers decided to boycott the country’s number one cable provider because of such programming which alienates a significant segment of its customers. After all, recent polling indicates 50% of Americans now refer to themselves as conservatives. Most certainly, Comcast’s Chief Executive, Brian Roberts, is aware of this reality.

Comcast’s affiliation with NBC Universal may have an impact far beyond its control of NBC’s News Division. If Comcast provides more balance concerning NBC’s news coverage, it is possible the NBC News Division would be more financially successful and, more importantly, provide a more honest news product for the country.

Of course, Comcast’s ownership of NBC Universal may have no impact at all regarding how the news is presented on NBC in the future. However, surely Comcast desires to make NBC and its cable affiliates competitive. If so, the beneficiaries will not only be Comcast, but the American people as well.

Whether one is a Republican, Democrat or Independent, it was clear over 55% of the American people were against the recently passed health care reform bill. As Americans learn about what’s actually in the bill–passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on Sunday, March 21, 2010 and signed into law by President Barack Obama on Tuesday, March 23rd–these numbers will increase.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media did not adequately or, in some cases, even attempt to address the issues within the bill before its passage into law. Putting aside the philosophical debate whether health care coverage is a Constitutional “right” that should be provided to all Americans, [See David E. Smith’s article] it is clear the mainstream media either did not know what was in the bill or intentionally practiced the art of omission concerning this new law’s content and how it would impact all Americans.

In fact, the establishment press is still touting comprehensive health care reform as an “historic” law that will provide insurance plans for the estimated 30 million Americans who are currently without health care insurance–whether they want it or not.

Besides the quality of America’s health care delivery system, by far, one of the biggest losers–as the law now stands–will be senior citizens because the health care reform legislation calls for $500 billion worth of cuts in Medicare’s budget over the next ten years.

Medicare’s annual budget is approximately $500 billion. 75% of the program’s annual budget is allocated for benefits provided to seniors and the disabled. Essentially, under the new law, the $500 billion cuts in the federal funding of Medicare for the next ten years will leave an entire fiscal year of Medicare’s budget without funding.

Companies which provide medical equipment, including artificial heart valves, hips, knees, motorized wheel chairs, and other services and technology previously covered by Medicare will be heavily taxed with increases of up to 20%. This will clearly result in government panels, consisting of bureaucrats, who will eventually decide which seniors will be eligible for these services and products. Many of these decisions will not be dependent upon the consultation of physicians. In essence, the government will determine who is–and is not–eligible for Medicare-approved services. Also targeted for decreased funding under Medicare are programs, including hospice care, home health care and payments to psychiatric hospitals which provide services to the elderly.

For a moment, let’s put aside how the cuts to Medicare will affect seniors. The big lie–concerning what some say will result in the eventual government takeover of one-sixth of the American economy–was that health care costs would actually be reduced, even though 30 million Americans who do not currently carry medical insurance would be added to the system. Employers and health insurance companies will have to foot the bill for this new entitlement. Common sense dictates these costs will eventually be passed along to the public. The greatest impact on the private sector will be the increase, not the decrease, in insurance premiums which will have to be levied against policy holders.

Most Americans did not buy into the foolish notion that health care reform would actually reduce health care costs and would be a money-saver for the U.S. economy in the long run–even though that’s how proponents promoted health care reform. In essence, every American will now have health care coverage. However, common sense dictates we cannot provide insurance coverage to 30 million people and expect the costs to private companies or the government itself to go down. It was–and still is–a ridiculous premise. Recently, huge corporations, including AT&T, Verizon, John Deere and Caterpillar released estimates on how much compliance to health care reform legislation would mean to their bottom lines. For example, AT&T, the nation’s largest communications provider, projected losses of over $1 billion for complying with the law’s guidelines during the first year health care reform will take effect. [See: John Deere, Caterpillar, Verizon Announce Rise in Health-Care Costs After Obamacare Passage by Mary Katharine Ham:http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/john-deere-caterpillar-verizon-announce-rise-health-care-costs-after-obamacare-passage]

Here is the operative question which must be asked of the dominant media whose responsibility was–and is–to inform Americans as to what this new law will mean to us all: Did you know what was in the bill and, if not, why?

Perhaps by the time you’re reading this column, the primary results from the February 2, 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary will have been released. Yes, it’s taken one month for state officials to tabulate the numbers regarding the primary race between State Senators Bill Brady and Kirk Dillard.

I personally think this is ridiculous for a number of reasons; first of all, a lot of us care — Republican or Democrat. Illinois is one of the most important states in the union and the state’s residents have virtually been kept in the dark regarding the vote tabulations in the close race between Brady and Dillard. To say this has been frustrating would be an understatement. On election night, Brady’s lead was right around 500, but vote counts have shown the Senator from Bloomington with a lead dipping close to the 200 mark.

At first, I took my frustrations out on the establishment media in Illinois. Why weren’t we seeing day by day updates of who was ahead in the race? Where were reports concerning what safeguards were being taken to protect the integrity of the electoral process? It seemed like there was never an election to determine the candidate from the Republican Party who would run for Governor against the Democratic incumbent Pat Quinn.

However, an excellent column by Mark Brown of the Chicago Sun-Times explained Illinois’ arcane process when it comes to counting votes, and I thank Mr. Brown for taking the time to fill in us political neophytes.

In his Feb. 18, 2010 column, Brown wrote:

As strange as it may seem, Illinois keeps no running statewide tabulation of election results.

The State Board of Elections, which oversees elections in Illinois, collects no results on Election Night or even in the days afterward. The state’s 102 county clerks aren’t required to report any results to the state board before Feb. 23, which most will accomplish by mail. The state board will then have until March 5th to announce its official tally.

The only authoritative statewide count until then is the one compiled by the Associated Press, which put Brady’s lead at 420 votes right after the election but hasn’t kept the totals updated since then.

In his Sun-Times column, Brown went on to explain that the only way Illinois voters could have received a running total concerning the race between Brady and Dillard was if it was conducted by an outside news agency, like the Associated Press.

Brown’s explanation makes sense. The powerful and once wealthy state of Illinois has an electoral system which depends upon a media source to keep residents informed about the results of elections.

But don’t worry, I’ll take the blame. When Saturday Night Live funny man Al Franken and then incumbent U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman were running neck and neck in the 2008 general election in Minnesota, the public received reports on this race almost daily. The sad thing is, I forgot that this is Illinois and that my expectations for the same kind of efficiency from those running the electoral show in this state were foolish. Well, perhaps I shouldn’t be so rough on the State Board of Elections and the media because they were only working within the system provided for them.

I am very glad Mark Brown took the time to address the minutiae involved with the way votes are counted in Illinois. Everyone should take a moment to read his column. Brown also called the fact that a running vote tally was not available “a dirty little secret known only to political insiders.”

Now, thanks to Brown, the “dirty little secret” is out and, according to his column, on March 5th you all will have learned who won the Republican gubernatorial primary–which should not be a secret. Mr. Brown, you wrote a “lovely” column.

Perhaps by the time you’re reading this column, the primary results from the February 2, 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary will have been released. Yes, it’s taken one month for state officials to tabulate the numbers regarding the primary race between State Senators Bill Brady and Kirk Dillard.

I personally think this is ridiculous for a number of reasons; first of all, a lot of us care — Republican or Democrat. Illinois is one of the most important states in the union and the state’s residents have virtually been kept in the dark regarding the vote tabulations in the close race between Brady and Dillard. To say this has been frustrating would be an understatement. On election night, Brady’s lead was right around 500, but vote counts have shown the Senator from Bloomington with a lead dipping close to the 200 mark.

At first, I took my frustrations out on the establishment media in Illinois. Why weren’t we seeing day by day updates of who was ahead in the race? Where were reports concerning what safeguards were being taken to protect the integrity of the electoral process? It seemed like there was never an election to determine the candidate from the Republican Party who would run for Governor against the Democratic incumbent Pat Quinn.

However, an excellent column by Mark Brown of the Chicago Sun-Times explained Illinois’ arcane process when it comes to counting votes, and I thank Mr. Brown for taking the time to fill in us political neophytes.

In his Feb. 18, 2010 column, Brown wrote:

As strange as it may seem, Illinois keeps no running statewide tabulation of election results.

The State Board of Elections, which oversees elections in Illinois, collects no results on Election Night or even in the days afterward. The state’s 102 county clerks aren’t required to report any results to the state board before Feb. 23, which most will accomplish by mail. The state board will then have until March 5th to announce its official tally.

The only authoritative statewide count until then is the one compiled by the Associated Press, which put Brady’s lead at 420 votes right after the election but hasn’t kept the totals updated since then.

Great Read For Political Outsiders

In his Sun-Times column, Brown went on to explain that the only way Illinois voters could have received a running total concerning the race between Brady and Dillard was if it was conducted by an outside news agency, like the Associated Press.

Brown’s explanation makes sense. The powerful and once wealthy state of Illinois has an electoral system which depends upon a media source to keep residents informed about the results of elections.

But don’t worry, I’ll take the blame. When Saturday Night Live funny man Al Franken and then incumbent U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman were running neck and neck in the 2008 general election in Minnesota, the public received reports on this race almost daily. The sad thing is, I forgot that this is Illinois and that my expectations for the same kind of efficiency from those running the electoral show in this state were foolish. Well, perhaps I shouldn’t be so rough on the State Board of Elections and the media because they were only working within the system provided for them.

I am very glad Mark Brown took the time to address the minutiae involved with the way votes are counted in Illinois. Everyone should take a moment to read his column. Brown also called the fact that a running vote tally was not available “a dirty little secret known only to political insiders.”

Now, thanks to Brown, the “dirty little secret” is out and, according to his column, on March 5th you all will have learned who won the Republican gubernatorial primary–which should not be a secret. Mr. Brown, you wrote a “lovely” column.

Did Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan Lure Families Into Default Or Foreclosure?

On January 4th, 2010 the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) posted an exclusive report titled: Obama Administration’s“Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan” Actually Putting Homeowners In Default or Foreclosure. This month NBC 5 Chicago will run a series of special reports conducted by consumer affairs reporter Lisa Parker which will look into the mortgage foreclosure crisis facing thousands of Illinois residents and millions of homeowners across the nation.

IFI’s investigation exposed how the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan may have lured unsuspecting Illinois mortgage holders into default or foreclosure regarding a seemingly well-intentioned program. A central Illinois couple from Eureka –who were not in arrears on their mortgage payments–applied for and were accepted into a program funded through the $787 billion stimulus package titled the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was, in part, designed to lower interest rates for homeowners who were in over their heads related to mortgages approved and insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, due to these quasi-privately owned companies which provided loans to many homeowners whose income should not have qualified them for mortgage loans. Many economists believe the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crisis has led to the current deep recession America now finds itself in.

The IFI investigation revealed that some homeowners–who were not behind on their mortgages–were enrolled in the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan, only months later to be informed that they did not in fact qualify for mortgage relief. After lenders agreed to accept lower payments, this family from Eureka –and possibly hundreds of others–were told that they should have known they did not qualify for the program, and their mortgage holders were now demanding reimbursement for the “shortfall” in their lower adjusted mortgage payments until the “shortfall” was paid back. Subsequently, this failure in the administration of the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan led some homeowners who were not originally into jeopardy of losing their homes into default or foreclosure.

NBC 5 Chicago will also delve into the overall housing crisis facing Americans which has led to an estimated one out of every five homes being in default of foreclosure.

“The Housing Crisis: Dreams Denied”

“We are continuing to hear from viewers whose lives have been shattered because of the housing crisis,” said Frank Whittaker, Station Manager/Vice President of News, NBC 5 Chicago. “Our series will look at some of the new issues that have arisen, and we will provide our viewers with important information they need to protect themselves. We believe the issue is so critical that we will devote an afternoon of our newscasts on March 24th to helping our viewers find answers to their problems.”

There had been national reports regarding problems with the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan. But after the Illinois Family Institute’s Exclusive Report on January 4th detailed specifics concerning how lenders had not put these mortgage adjustments in writing and then later rescinded the offer of lower interest rates to some mortgage holders, demanding repayment (for the difference of their original mortgage payment and the adjustments they received after being informed they qualified for the program), Lisa Parker’s investigation and other media reports have led to formal clarification of those who do qualify for mortgage relief and the expansion of the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan. Though details are still not clear regarding who does and does not qualify for this program, in at least some cases mortgage lenders have been willing to renegotiate original agreements made to homeowners who found themselves in jeopardy of default or foreclosure after being accepted into the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan.

The reports will air on NBC 5 Chicago (WMAQ-TV) on Wednesday, March 10th at 10 P.M. (repeated the next day at 5 P.M.), and on Wednesday, March 17th at 10 P.M. (repeated the next day at 5 P.M.). The series will conclude on Wednesday, March 24th, with an afternoon of reports and interviews in the 4:30, 5 and 6 P.M. newscasts which will include a phone bank of experts where viewers can call in to ask questions.

The interview with the family from Eureka , Illinois will be broadcast in Chicagoland. However, other NBC owned affiliates may chose to broadcast the series in other areas across the state.