Constitutional Amendment 3 - Vote

Transcription

November 2012
St. Louis MetroVoice
Page 8
Missouri’s Statewide Ballot Questions:
How to Vote on these Issues on Nov. 6th
By Kerry Messer
Here in Missouri registered voters often have
the opportunity to vote on state-wide ballot measures which are proposed to change State Statutes
(Propositions) or the State Constitution (Constitutional Amendments). These ballot measures
come from two sources, either the State Legislature or citizen initiatives. The citizen’s initiative
process is regulated by the State Constitution
and is always designated to appear on the next
General Election ballot following their successful
completion of the signature gathering process.
Constitutional
Amendment 3 - Vote “YES”
(Proposed by the General
Assembly, SJR 51)
Official Ballot Title: (what voters
will see in the voting booth)
Shall the Missouri Constitution
be amended to change the current
nonpartisan selection of supreme
court and court of appeals judges
to a process that gives the governor
increased authority to: appoint a
majority of the commission that
selects these court nominees; and
appoint all lawyers to the commission by removing the requirement
that the governor’s appointees be
nonlawyers?
There are no estimated costs or
savings expected if this proposal is
approved by voters.
Fair Ballot Language:
A “yes” vote will amend the
Missouri Constitution to change
the current nonpartisan selection
of supreme court and court of appeals judges to a process that gives
the governor increased authority
to appoint a majority of the commission that selects these court
nominees. This measure also allows
the governor to appoint all lawyers
to the commission by removing the
requirement that the governor’s
appointees be non-lawyers.
A “no” vote will not change the
current constitutional provisions
for the nonpartisan selection of
supreme court and court of appeals
judges.
If passed, this measure will have
no impact on taxes.
Analysis: Constitutional
Amendment 3 addresses the infamous “Missouri Nonpartisan
Court Plan.” Falsely reported to
be of such popularity that several
States have used it as a pattern for
their own applications. The truth
is that no State has duplicated it
without first making significant
alterations! Now, for the first
time, Missouri voters have an opportunity to address some of the
faults of this constitutional provision that have led our State into
judicial darkness.
Under the current nonpartisan
court plan, all higher court judges
(State Supreme Court and Appeals Court judges) and certain
specified Circuit Court judges
are appointed rather than elected.
This has led to widespread confusion and frustration among voters, and insulation from accountability for the judges.
Currently these judges are preselected by a non-elected judicial
commission. When a vacancy
occurs on these courts a judicial
commission fields applications
from interested individuals. A
slate of potential finalists are presented to the sitting Governor,
who in turn makes the final ap-
pointment from the slate. Once
appointed, judges serving on the
bench face an initial retention
vote on the ballots of voters from
the appropriate jurisdictions, and
repeated retention votes thereafter. However, due to the nature
of the process there are no campaigns or advertising related to
these retention votes which results
in voters having no idea how
to discern anything about such
judges. Human nature leads the
majority of voters to support the
status quo and 99% of judges never lose their retention. To make
matters worse these retention
votes can take as long as twelve
years (Supreme Court members)
to recycle!
It is all too common for voters
to go to the polls on election day
and see judge retention questions
for the very first time, not knowing they were even going to be
on the ballot. When anything
questionable regarding a judge
comes up, there is no one to hold
accountable. The appointing
Governor points to the judicial
commission for not advancing
better finalists to pick from and
commission members wash their
hands saying it was the Governor
who appointed the judge. No
lawmaker had anything to do
with the appointment. Voters end
up with no way to hold anyone
accountable.
To make matters worse, the
Missouri Bar Association, and the
trial lawyers in particular, control
the process behind the scenes to
elevate their own selections without approval from or accountability to the voters. Only until recent
months, and following years of
high profile criticism, has the
judicial commission process even
allowed public access to the interviews conducted with applicants
for vacant judgeships.
Constitutional Amendment
3 realigns the appointments
and tenure of members of the
judicial commission to coincide
with the sitting Governor. This
creates a political environment
that removes the excuses used to
avoid accountability. While the
commissioners never have to face
voters, at least the Governor cannot pass blame if voters can tie the
commission’s slate of finalists to
the Governor. This provides some
degree of accountability, and possible recourse for voters.
Other changes include expanding the number of finalists presented to the Governor to appoint
from. The current three finalists
would grow to four. This increases the possibility of a pro-life
applicant to survive the process
during years in which a pro-life
Governor is in office.
The end result of Constitutional Amendment 3 is that a poor
quality Governor will continue
to appoint judges which voters
Those statewide ballot questions put forward by
the Legislature may have a designated election
date embedded in the proposal, otherwise such
issues default to the next General Election date,
or another election as directed by the Governor.
On November 6, 2012 Missouri voters will see
four State-wide ballot questions. Two have come
from the General Assembly of the Legislature,
and two have come to the ballot through citizen
initiative efforts. Of the four, one is a Constitutional Amendment and three are Propositions
would never elect. But voters
would have opportunities to hold
a Governor accountable for doing
so. However, a pro-life Governor
would be in a much better position to bring pro-life judges forward by appointing conscientious
commission members.
Missouri Family Network
recommends a “YES” vote for
Constitutional Amendment 3 as a
vote for accountability. It is not a
magic pill to fix everything wrong
with Missouri’s judiciary, but at
least it is a step in the right direction.
Proposition A - Vote “YES”
(Proposed by a citizen’s initiative
petition.)
Shall Missouri law be amended
to: allow any city not within a
county (the City of St. Louis) the
option of transferring certain obligations and control of the city’s
police force from the board of police
commissioners currently appointed
by the governor to the city and establishing a municipal police force;
establish certain procedures and
requirements for governing such
a municipal police force including
residency, rank, salary, benefits, insurance, and pension; and prohibit
retaliation against any employee of
such municipal police force who reports conduct believed to be illegal
to a superior, government agency,
or the press?
State governmental entities estimated savings will eventually be up
to $500,000 annually. Local governmental entities estimated annual potential savings of $3.5 million;
however, consolidation decisions
with an unknown outcome may
result in the savings being more or
less than estimated.
A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to allow any city not
within a county (the City of St.
Louis) the option of establishing a
municipal police force by transferring certain obligations and control
of the city’s police force from the
board of police commissioners currently appointed by the governor
to the city. This amendment also
establishes certain procedures and
requirements for governing such
a municipal police force including
residency, rank, salary, benefits,
insurance, and pension. The
amendment further prohibits retaliation against any employee of such
municipal police force who reports
conduct believed to be illegal to a
superior, government agency, or
the press.
A “no” vote will not change the
current Missouri law regarding St.
Louis City’s police force.
If passed, this measure will have
no impact on taxes.
seeking to change State statutes.
The purpose of this article is to help provide
voters with some additional information on each
of these four ballot questions so you can make
a more informed vote. Here at Missouri Family
Network we provide our recommendations of
“YES” or “NO” votes so voters understand the
perspective of our analysis up front. All voters
are challenged to take the time to seek out opposing information and vote your convictions with
clarity.
Analysis: Proponents of Prop.
A primarily argue from a “local
control” perspective, as well as
outlining the history of the current law. Opponents focus on
the concern of mismanagement
and/or possible corruption at risk
from placing the St. Louis Police
board under the control of the
City.
Missouri Family Network
(MFN) rejects the bulk of both
positions and makes our final
recommendation of a “YES” vote
based on citizen’s control. Allow
me to explain.
Let’s first look at “local Control.” This is not a fully valid
reason for changing current policies and practices. The principles
of local control come from the
historic debates surrounding
education. At the base of these
education debates are divided
philosophies regarding any government’s jurisdiction over education in the first place. While
government may provide a free
system of public education, it certainly has no moral authority to
dictate education policy to those
not interested in government
schools. In fact many effectively
argue the State has no compelling
purpose for being involved. (This
is an ongoing debate.) Because
education ultimately resides with
the will of parents alone, local
control principles play an incredibly important role.
However, law enforcement is
in fact one of the basic purposes
of government. Thus the local
control argument in this case does
not fit well. To make the case
stronger is the fact that while the
State of Missouri should rightfully
be seen as a sovereign State (in
relationship to other States, nations, and even our own Country,
the United States of America), it is
also THE sovereign political/civil
entity. All cities, towns, villages,
counties, townships, precincts,
etc. are subservient to the State
as the sovereign authority which
allows all the others to exist, and
in what form. In all matters of
political sub-divisions within the
State, the authority of the State
ultimately trumps local control.
The single legitimate use of this
argument resides in the values of
locally directed and customized
control that is often only realized
at the local level and bearing the
benefits of efficiency not otherwise recognized or appreciated
from a central planning bigger
government.
Secondly we reject opponents’
concerns over possible mismanagement and/or corruption. If the
City of St. Louis is this untrustworthy we should be hearing ongoing cries for disbandment of the
City’s charter, or a State take-over
of City management. (Stick with
me a moment longer please.) No
one claims the City does not have
significant political problems.
However, among the hundreds
of thousands of residents, there
are many fine citizens who work
tirelessly to improve the City and
support efforts to hold people accountable. And amazingly, there
is no hue and cry for the City to
be dissolved. Yet this writer has
seen several towns and villages
come and go in less than 50 years,
including urban, suburban, and
rural communities!
Facts: Over 150 years ago the
State’s population distribution
was weighted within the City of
St. Louis by staggering proportions. With the Civil War bearing
down the Governor and State
leaders realized that the St. Louis
Police Department was by far the
largest para-military force both
in Missouri as well as west of the
Mississippi River! To risk divided
factions targeting control of this
force was a major concern for the
State and the safety of thousands.
As a result of these developing
political/military dynamics, the
State asserted its sovereignty and
took over control of the police
department.
So here we are over 150 years
later and the State has never
restored control of the St. Louis
Police Department back to the
citizens of the City! What if this
were your local police, fire department, or other service providers
or local infrastructure? In fact the
citizens of every other community
in the State regulates its own services through the constitutional
republic methods of civil structure. As a result people can hold
local politicians accountable for
any mismanagement and/or questions of corruption.
It has proven to be inefficient
and costly to Missouri taxpayers to have the members of our
State Legislature micro-manage
the policies of the local police in
St. Louis City. To save Missouri
taxpayers money and to treat St.
Louis City citizens with proper
respect, it is incumbent upon
Missouri voters to say “YES” to
Proposition A.
Proposition B - Vote “NO”
(Proposed by a citizen’s initiative
petition.)
Shall Missouri law be amended
to: create the Health and Education Trust Fund with proceeds of
a tax of $0.0365 per cigarette and
25% of the manufacturer’s invoice
price for roll-your-own tobacco
and 15% for other tobacco products; use Fund proceeds to reduce
and prevent tobacco use and for
elementary, secondary, college,
and university public school fundSee How to Vote on page 9
November 2012
How to Vote
Continued from page 8
ing; and increase the amount that
certain tobacco product manufacturers must maintain in their
escrow accounts, to pay judgments
or settlements, before any funds
in escrow can be refunded to the
tobacco product manufacturer and
create bonding requirements for
these manufacturers?
Estimated additional revenue to
state government is $283 million to
$423 million annually with limited
estimated implementation costs
or savings. The revenue will fund
only programs and services allowed
by the proposal. The fiscal impact
to local governmental entities is
unknown. Escrow fund changes
may result in an unknown increase
in future state revenue.
A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to create the Health
and Education Trust Fund with
proceeds from a tax on cigarettes
and other tobacco products. The
amount of the tax is $0.0365 per
cigarette and 25% of the manufacturer’s invoice price for rollyour-own tobacco and 15% for
other tobacco products. The Fund
proceeds will be used to reduce
and prevent tobacco use and for
elementary, secondary, college, and
university public school funding.
This amendment also increases
the amount that certain tobacco
product manufacturers must
maintain in their escrow accounts,
to pay judgments or settlements,
before any funds in escrow can be
refunded to the tobacco product
manufacturer and creates bonding
requirements for these manufacturers.
A “no” vote will not change
the current Missouri law regarding taxes on cigarettes and other
tobacco products or the escrow
account and bonding requirements
for certain tobacco product manufacturers.
If passed, this measure will increase taxes on cigarettes and other
tobacco products.
Analysis: Proposition B is a
massive tax increase at best, which
should be rejected. At its worse,
it is a politically correct attempt
at social engineering that must be
rejected. Giving proponents the
benefit of the doubt, let’s simply
evaluate the tax perspective.
Just a few years ago Missouri
shared in the “tobacco settlement
agreement” brought about by
the 1990’s politically motivated
attacks and resulting litigations
created by a Democrat congress
angry over tobacco industry support of Republican candidates
over Democrats. Hundreds of
billions of dollars were distributed
to the States, including Missouri,
with little going to cessation
programs or assistance for those
harmed by tobacco. Basically the
money was absorbed by the State
to prop up its 1990’s government
growth spurt (a time in which
State government doubled in size
and costs).
Now we are being asked to
accept a tobacco tax increase for
the purpose of funding tobacco
related medical services and education. (What supporters of Prop
B need to do is go back to the Legislature and ask them to reallocate
current State revenues to make up
for the funds already spent that
should have provided these programs.)
There are two groups of voters
facing this tax increase: First are
consumers who would face a significant tax jump on their tobacco
products. For these folks a “NO”
vote is easy. However, they may
find it more difficult to sway their
friends – so take a puff, or bite off
a chaw and read on about the second group, the non-tobacco users
who pitch their tents in two different camps.
The first camp of non-tobacco
users see tobacco use as a personal
choice. These campers believe
smokers have been warned for decades that tobacco use is harmful
and that more taxes will not create any resolve for the problems
associated with tobacco use. For
these folks let us consider the implications of such a new tax within
the context of a politically correct
culture. Governments today believe they have the right to dictate
such things as the size of your
soft drink. (You get the picture.)
What may be the next target of
politically motivated taxes? Fast
food? Non-eco friendly products?
The second camp of nontobacco users see tobacco as a
vice, or a sin. For these folks let’s
consult Scripture. Let’s see, how
many times does the Bible point
to civil government leaders being blinded to the victims of vice
because of tax revenues received?
(Check out the minor prophets
and the teachings of Proverbs, as
well as other precepts.) This is exactly why the State cannot bring
itself to stop casinos or alcohol
abuse. There is just too much
money coming into State coffers
while the social costs (which are
higher) gush out through multiple agencies and services.
So for tobacco users and nonusers, a huge tobacco tax increase
is not an attractive proposal.
Missouri Family Network recommends a “NO” vote for all citizens
heading to the polls on November
6th, no matter which group or
camp they reside in.
Proposition E - Vote “YES”
(Proposed by the General Assembly SB 464)
First a little background information. Last year a group of
Missouri State Senators and the
Lt. Governor’s office discovered
and diverted plans by certain
members of Governor Nixon’s administration to create the health
care exchanges for implementing
ObamaCare in Missouri. These
healthcare exchanges provide the
administrative framework for
enabling the federal government’s
healthcare takeover and is opposed by a supermajority of Missouri citizens. (See Prop. C, 71%
adoption vote, August 3, 2010.)
Following the revelations of
what many citizens consider a
“scandal” the State Legislature
passed SB 464 which seeks to prohibit the Governor, or any state
bureaucracies from establishing
such exchanges without voter approval or that of the voter’s elected
members of the General Assembly.
After passage of the legislation proposing this constitutional
amendment, the Secretary of
State (Robin Carnahan) in tandem with the Attorney General
(Chris Koster) drafted the summary ballot question for voters
to read in the polling booth. But
because their ballot question was
so misleading and designed to
taint the election, Lt. Governor
Peter Kinder and a large host of
Republican members of the Legislature filed suit challenging the
legality of the ballot title.
To help you better understand
this situation in this issue we have
provided both the original version of the ballot question (which
was rejected by the court as
misleading) as well as the replacement question which will appear
on your ballot as written by the
court. See box below.
Analysis: Proposition E simply asserts that without voter
approval, or that of the citizen’s
duly elected members of the State
House and Senate, the Governor
nor his agencies shall enable
ObamaCare on their own.
Implementation of the “Affordable Care Act” requires a
new healthcare exchange system
which carries a price tag of upwards to fifty million tax dollars
($50,000,000.00). However the
Page 9
federal government is willing
to provide the money (which
still comes out of our pockets) if
Missouri‘s Governor or another
State agency agrees to accept it.
Thus it is important to expressly
prohibit such a move through the
executive orders of the Governor
or other actions by unelected bureaucrats.
Missouri Family Network recommends that citizens concerned
about the various implications of
ObamaCare should cast a “YES”
vote for Constitutional Amendment 3 in order to reserve such a
move to themselves. As a Constitutional Republic it is wholly appropriate to restrict such authority to voter approval or that of the
197 member Legislature.
†
†
†
Kerry Messer is the President
and founder of Missouri Family
Network (MFN). The services of
MFN are free to those who wish
to be informed. MFN is a faith
ministry seeking to encourage
and equip Christians and local
churches to be the “Salt & Light”
as we are called to be in our culture. We provide the lead voice
for the traditionally conservative
pro-family community on the full
scope of public policy issues in
Missouri. To schedule a speaker
for your church, civic organization or other special event,
contact Missouri Family Network via mail at P.O. Box 1288,
Festus, MO 63028, by phone at
(573) 483-2007, or by email at
[email protected]. For more
information about MFN, please
visit their website at www.MissouriFamilyNetwork.net. If you
wish to be added to MFN’s E@
lert Network please email them
your name, postal address and
phone number at mofamnet@
ldd.net.
Official Ballot Title: (Original Version)
Official Ballot Title: (NEW Version)
(What voters would have seen in the voting booth)
(What voters WILL see in the voting booth)
Shall Missouri law be amended to deny individuals, families, and small businesses the ability to
access affordable health care plans through a statebased health benefit exchange unless authorized
by statute, initiative or referendum or through an
exchange operated by the federal government as
required by the federal health care act?
No direct costs or savings for state and local governmental entities are expected from this proposal.
Indirect costs or savings related to enforcement actions, missed federal funding, avoided implementation costs, and other issues are unknown.
Shall Missouri Law be amended to prohibit the Governor or any state agency, from
establishing or operating state-based health
insurance exchanges unless authorized by a
vote of the people or by the legislature?
No direct costs or savings for state and local governmental entities are expected from
this proposal. Indirect costs or savings related to enforcement actions, missed federal
funding, avoided implementation costs, and
other issues are unknown.
A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to deny
individuals, families, and small businesses the ability to access affordable health care plans through a
state-based health benefit exchange unless authorized by statute, initiative or referendum or through
an exchange operated by the federal government as
required by the federal health care act.
A “no” vote will not change the current Missouri
law regarding access to affordable health care plans
through a state-based health benefit exchange.
If passed, this measure will have no impact on
taxes.
A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to
prohibit the Governor or any state agency,
from establishing or operating state-based
health insurance exchanges unless authorized by a vote of the people or by the legislature.
A “no” vote will not amend Missouri law
to prohibit the Governor or any state agency,
from establishing or operating state-based
health insurance exchanges unless authorized
by a vote of the people or by the legislature.
If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.
November 2012
Page 10
2012 Election Questionnaire Process & Responses
By Jim Day
As you can see, our stated
purpose was clearly to provide
candidates the opportunity to
relate their opinions or positions
on issues that we decided were
of major concern to our readers
and the public at large. We
emphasized the point that we
the questionnaires were initially
mailed, the candidates were
given a deadline of September
27th to respond. Knowing that
most candidates receive a great
number of questionnaires and
are typically busy campaigning
or working, we went the extra
mile and extended the due date
deadline to October 2nd just to
make sure every candidate had
ample time to respond.
At various times during the
process I personally contacted
a number of the candidates and
encouraged them to respond.
The Reasoning Behind
the Process
Why did we go through such
a lengthy, time consuming and
costly process to make sure every
candidate got our questionnaire
and had the opportunity to
respond? The answer is quite
simple and in fact was printed
at the end of the questionnaire
itself which read: “If it [the
questionnaire] is not returned
we will assume you Chose Not
to Respond, which will be
noted next to your name in our
section.”
We obviously took our efforts
and questionnaire seriously. We
strongly believe that citizens
should be informed as to where
a candidate stands on issues
which presently (or could in the
future) affect their lives -- before
they vote for any candidate. In
fact, we believe that those who
are in public office or vying
for public office are actually
‘obligated’ to inform citizens of
their positions on issues because
of their potential or present
representative status.
With this in mind, the readers
will note that several candidates
have “Chose Not to Respond”
printed next to their names. This
was their choice -- not ours. We
would have rather that they had
responded. If your candidate
didn’t respond, I suggest you
call them and ask them why
not. I can assure you, it was not
because they were not given the
opportunity.
The Questionnaires
In structuring the
questionnaires, we didn’t actually
ask the candidates a question per
se. Instead, we provided them
with 10 different topics each with
at least two, and some with more
than two, statements under each
topic. In our instructions we
asked the candidate to circle only
one of the statements under each
topic that reflected their opinion
or position or came the closest
to their opinion or position.
By in large, we attempted to
provide the candidates with a
range of choices which reflected
opinions from one end of the
political spectrum to the other.
And, for good measure, we
threw in choices which tested
the candidate’s knowledge of
political philosophy and history,
such as some of the statements
offered under the topics of
+
The Process
were non-partisan and did not
endorse candidates or political
parties. The cover letter was sent
on MetroVoice stationery, which
plainly read “St. Louis’ Christian
News and Events Publication.”
Not only was this an excellent
opportunity for the candidates to
relate their personal opinions or
positions on some of the critical
issues of our day but, at the
same time, show the differences
between themselves and their
opponents on the issues. By
extension, it allowed them
to connect with prospective
supporters/voters who agree
with their positions/opinions.
Quite clearly, candidates had
nothing to lose from answering
our questionnaire and
everything to gain.
Candidates were given
clear and concise instructions
regarding a number of ways they
could return their questionnaires
and photos (either by U.S. Mail,
fax or e-mail). All candidates
were mailed the questionnaire
via First Class U.S. Mail to the
address or addresses which
they themselves provided to the
Missouri Secretary of State. By
mailing the questionnaires First
Class, we were assured that the
candidate would receive the
questionnaire or it would be
returned to us as “undeliverable.”
Only two questionnaires were
returned as “undeliverable.”
To further ensure that
every candidate received our
questionnaire we employed
the services of Mr. Darrell Day
to call each of the candidates
and if need be mail, fax, or
e-mail another copy of the
questionnaire and cover
letter should the candidate
(or their representative) state
that they had not received the
questionnaire or that it had been
misplaced or lost.
As mentioned earlier, when
+
On September 10th, 2012 we
mailed each of the candidates
within our Missouri readership
area our General Election 2012
Questionnaire. Along with the
questionnaire, we mailed a cover
letter explaining who we were,
the purpose of our questionnaire
and how they could respond.
The cover letter began with
the following: “The St. Louis
MetroVoice is a NON-PARTISAN
monthly newspaper that is
distributed throughout the greater
St. Louis metropolitan area
and surrounding communities
(including Illinois), that reaches
approximately 40 to 50,000
readers in over 675 distribution
points. We are presently
assembling our November 2012
General Election Special Focus
Issue, which will be distributed
October 16, 2010. The purpose
of this special issue is to provide
candidates with the opportunity
to relate their opinions and/or
positions on issues that concern
our readers and the general
public. We do not endorse
candidates or political parties
and would greatly appreciate
your participation in this issue by
completing the enclosed candidate
questionnaire and providing us
with your photograph.”
The candidates were
initially asked to return their
questionnaire by September 27th
to participate but a few were
given an extension via phone
until October 2nd because
they had called to request an
extension.
Legislative Philosophy, U.S.
Constitution and the Second
Amendment.
Our objective was not just
to get the candidate’s opinion,
but to encourage them to really
think about the topic and
their opinion/position on each
topic. Hopefully -- assuming
the candidate was honest -- our
readers will be able ascertain
from the candidate’s selections
how the candidate thinks, how
informed they are, and what type
of world view they possess. On
the surface it may appear that
our questionnaire was simple,
but I assure you, it was not a nobrainer.
Candidates’ Answers
The vast majority of candidates
who responded chose (as they
were asked to do) just one of
the statements provided under
each topic. Although it was not
specifically stated in our cover
letter or on the questionnaire
itself, we did allow candidates to
add short clarification comments
if they felt that the selections we
provided under each topic did
not quite reflect their opinion
or position. Some candidates
chose a statement, but wrote
a clarifying comment. Others
chose not to give any opinion or
left the topic blank and wrote in a
comment.
If a candidate selected one
of our statements but added a
comment, we recorded their
choice, added an asterisk (*) next
to their selection, and recorded
their comment in their total list
of answers. For example, under
our topic of “Abortion,” one of
the four choices we provided was
“[c] Abortions should only be
allowed in rare cases to save the
life of the mother.” A candidate
may have selected [c] but added
a clarifying statement such as
“Only in the case of an ectopic
pregnancy.” In this particular
case you’ll see their recorded
response as “5. c*”. Then, in their
list of recorded responses, you’ll
find “*5. Chose ‘c’ and wrote in:
‘Only in the case of an ectopic
pregnancy.’”
On questionnaires where a
candidate chose not to select
any of our choices but chose
instead to make a comment or
write in their opinion/position,
we recorded their response as
“NR*” (No Response with an
asterisk *). Here again, in their
list of recorded answers we
quoted their written response/
comment. A few candidates
cherry picked which questions to
respond to and which questions
not to respond to. In those cases
we put “NR” (No Response) in
their answer list on the questions
they did not answer. If a
candidate did not respond to our
questionnaire at all, you’ll find
“CHOSE NOT TO RESPOND”
next to their name.
If any reader wishes to obtain
a copy of a candidate’s completed
questionnaire they are more than
welcome to call me and I will
send them a copy so they can see
for themselves how the candidate
responded.
Incumbent candidates, those
presently holding either a Federal
or State office are indicated by a
lower case italicized and bolded
“i” after their name.
Can’t Find Your
Candidate?
If you can’t find your candidate
listed there are four possibilities;
1. They are in a contest outside
of our readership area, 2. They
are a candidate running for
an office below that of a State
Representative (i.e. County
Executive), 3. They are a writein candidate, and 4. They have
already won their race by default
(meaning no one from another
political party will be running
against them in the November
6th General Election).
Score Your Candidate
Before reviewing and scoring
a candidate’s responses to
our questionnaire we highly
recommend that you first read
our Biblical Responses section
– the responses which we feel a
candidate should have chosen
from a Christian, biblical worldview perspective on pages 16
through 18.
To see whether or not a
candidate agrees with your view
point on our topics you will need
to compare their answers to our
questionnaire printed on page 11.
We recommend that you
first list the answers of your
favorite candidates on a separate
piece of paper then go to the
questionnaire and compare their
answers. This will save you the
time and effort of having to
turn back and forth between
the questionnaire and your
candidates’ answers.
On pages 12 through 14
are the responses to our
2012 General Election
Candidate Questionnaire
from candidates running for
office from the Republican,
Democrat, Libertarian, and U.S.
Constitution Party. Due to the
importance of this election cycle
we also mailed questionnaires
to candidates running for U.S.
Congress that were not in our
readership area as well as the
Presidential and Vice Presidential
candidates from each of the
Parties mentioned above.
Our prayer is that this
information will assist you
in making the right choice
on whom to vote for in the
upcoming election.
In closing, I want to make
sure everyone remembers that
regardless of the outcome of this
election that Christ Jesus is still
on His throne at the right hand
of His Father, He is still in charge,
and He works everything for
good for those who are called
according to His purpose. He
is the King of Kings and Lord of
Lords! May HIS will be done in
this critical time in the history of
our nation.
SUPPORT PRO-LIFE CANDIDATES
November 2012
Page 11
+
+
+
ST. LOUIS METROVOICE 2012 GENERAL ELECTION
CANDIDATE QUESTIONNAIRE
1. LEGISLATIVE PHILOSOPHY
[a] America is a melting pot of beliefs & values. Since we live in a democracy, laws
that relate to moral issues should reflect the view of the majority of our citizens and not
impose any one group’s values over another’s.
[b] Issues related to morality are very subjective. Therefore, government should not
legislate morality.
[c] Laws, by their nature, legislate morality. Since our nation was founded upon the
specific moral principles of the Judeo-Christian belief system, those principles should be
our guide to the enactment of any legislation.
2. HEALTH CARE
[a] The new federal Affordable Health Care Act should be fully implemented because it
is fair, equitable and provides everyone with affordable health care.
ourselves as a nation. The Constitution is a document that requires continual scrutiny
and revision as the needs of our society change.
[b] The U.S. Constitution is one of the primary founding documents of our country. It
should never be interpreted without first considering the intent of our founding fathers
when it was written. It should only be changed through a properly enacted amendment
after careful consideration and exhaustive public debate.
7. EDUCATION
[a] Education should be supported and monitored at state and local levels with minimal
federal involvement.
[b] Support and oversight of education by federal, state and local government is
absolutely necessary to ensure that all children receive a high quality education so they
may compete in the global market.
[b] The Affordable Health Care Act should be repealed. The Act is neither fair, equitable
nor Constitutional. Government should not be forcing citizens to purchase goods or
services be it health care or anything else.
[c] Education of children should be left in the hands of parents without federal or state
intervention or control.
3. PRIVATE PROPERTY
[a] The 2nd Amendment was intended to apply only to the federal military, state militias
(today’s National Guard) and law enforcement, not the general public.
8. SECOND AMENDMENT
[a] Private property should, in some situations, be subject to public opinion and
consensus as to its use.
[b] Private property is fundamental to freedom and prosperity and should not be
subject to external controls.
[c] Private property cannot be allowed to stand in the way of civic progress or the good
of a community.
[b] The use of firearms for sporting, recreational and home defense purposes are
perfectly legitimate uses, but in the interest of public safety, firearms should be registered
to help law enforcement fight crime.
[c] The 2nd Amendment broadly protects the rights of individual Americans to keep
and bear arms.
Gun control infringes upon this Constitutional right and violates the original intent of
our founding fathers.
4. TAXATION
[a] Taxes should be a fixed percentage of commercial activity and government services
held to that percentage of income without the ability to borrow past that limit.
[b] Taxes should be pro-rated. Those at the highest income levels should pay the highest
rates. Conversely, those who are at the lowest income levels should pay the lowest rates
or none at all.
5. ABORTION
[a] The freedom to have an abortion is, and should remain, a woman’s choice.
[b] Abortions should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the
mother.
[c] Abortions should only be allowed in rare cases to save the life of the mother.
[d] Under no circumstances should any type of abortion be allowed.
6. THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
[a] The U.S. Constitution is a historical part of the founding of our country. It is the
document that gave us our rights and liberties and outlines how we should govern
9. IMMIGRATION
[a] We are a nation of immigrants. As a wealthy, compassionate and benevolent
country we should welcome immigrants to our country and support their needs without
challenges to their circumstances.
[b] Illegal immigration threatens our national sovereignty, security and culture. Our
present immigration policy can and should be better enforced and controlled but we
should recognize and accept legitimate immigrants without burdensome red tape.
Criminal aliens however should be rejected and deported without question.
10. MARRIAGE
[a] Denying same-sex couples the right to legally marry is discrimination and a
violation of their First Amendment rights. Same-sex couples should have the same right
to marry as heterosexual couples.
[b] Marriage is the union of one man and one woman and has been the foundation
of the family since the beginning of time. Legalization of same-sex marriages stands
opposed to the laws of nature and God.
NOTE: Please mail your questionnaire to: St. Louis MetroVoice, PO Box 1533, St. Peters, MO 63376 or e-mail it to [email protected]. You may also fax it (please call first)
to (636) 936-8119. Your questionnaire MUST BE RECEIVED NOT LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 27 to be included in our election issue. If it is not returned we will assume
you “Chose Not to Respond” which will be noted next to your name in our section. On behalf of the MetroVoice staff and those who you are seeking to represent, thank you.
- Jim Day, Publisher
Don’t forget to take the
+
+
QUICK REFERENCE VOTING GUIDE
with you to the polls when you vote!
+
+
+
+
November 2012
Page 12
General Election 2012 Questionnaire
Presidential and Missouri Candidate Responses
CANDIDATE RESPONSE KEY
Republican
Party
Libertarian
Party
Democrat
Party
Constitution
Party
U.S. President &
Vice President
i
Barack Obama - President
Joseph Biden - Vice President
i
to provide – not the federal
government. The course of
education for minors is for
parents to decide.”
*9. Candidate wrote in “c”
and wrote: “We must totally
end illegal immigration and
significantly reduce legal
immigration.”
i
Robb Cunningham
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
2.b
7.c
3.b
8.c
4.a
9.b
U.S. Senator
Claire McCaskill
Gary Johnson President
James Gray –
Vice President
1.c
6.b
i
3.b
8.c
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
1.c
6.b
1.b
6.b
2.b
7.a
3.b
8.c
4.a
9.b
5.c
10.b
2.b
7.c
3.b
8.c
4.a
9.a
5.a
10.a
4.a
9.b
5.c
10.b
1.b 2.b 3.b 4.NR* 5.NR*
6.b 7.c 8.c 9.a*
10.a
*4. Candidate wrote in: “Neither.”
*5. Candidate wrote in: “None of
the above.”
*9. Marked ‘a’ and scratched
through “and support their
needs.”
1.c
6.b
2.b
7.c
3.b
4.a
5.d
10.b
U.S. Representative
District 5
Emanuel Cleaver II
3.b
8.c
4.a
9.a
5.a
10.a
U.S. Representative
District 1
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Anatol Zorikova
i
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
David Spence
1.c
6.b
2.b
7.a
3.b
8.c
4.a
9.b
5.c
10.b
3.b
8.c
4.a
9.a
5.a
10.a
Jim Higgins
1.c
6.b
2.b
7.c
3.b
8.c
4.b
9.b
5.b
10.b
Randall Langkraeher
U.S. Representative
District 3
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Robyn Hamlin
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Blaine
Luetkemeyer
1.c
2.b 3.b 4.b
5.b
6.b
7.a
8.c
9.b
10.b*
*10. Candidate chose ‘b’ and
wrote in: “Marriage is one man
and one woman. That is not to
say that other people don’t have
the right to a civil union, whether
they are heterosexual or not.
People should have the right to
name their closest human.”
1.c
6.b
2.b
7.a
1.b
6.b
2.b
7.c
Missouri
Lt. Governor
Susan Monte
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Peter Kinder
i
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Matthew Copple
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Eric Mayer
William Clay
i
i
Jacob Turk
2.b
7.a
Missouri Governor
i
Jonathan Dine
1.b
6.b
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Greg Cowan
Bill Slantz
i
2.b
7.a
Rick Vandeven
Jay Nixon
Ann Wagner
Virgil Goode Jr. - President
1.c 2.b
3.b 4.NR* 5.d
6.b 7.NR* 8.c 9.NR* 10.b
*4. Candidate wrote in “c” and
wrote: “Taxes should be fair,
simple and Constitutional!”
*7. Candidate wrote in “d” and
wrote: “Public education is for
state and local governments
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Thomas Holbrook
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Todd Akin
comment
5.c
10.b
+ MISSOURI +
CHOSE NOT TO RESPOND
NR
Teresa Hensley
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
1.c
6.b
No Response,
* but made a
U.S. Representative
District 4
Vicky Hartzler
CHOSE NOT TO RESPOND
No Response
1RUHVSRQVHWRWKHWRSLF
U.S. Representative
District 2
Glenn Koenen
1.b
2.b 3.b 4.NR* 5.a
6.b
7.a 8.c 9.NR* 10.a
*4. Candidates wrote in: “Other:
Federal income and payroll
taxes should be repealed, the IRS
abolished, and a consumption tax
enacted to tax sales rather than
income, investment and other
productive economic activity.”
*9. Candidates wrote in: “Other:
Immigration should be easier
for those who wish to come to
the U.S. to work, and work visas
should be issued on the basis of
the market, rather than arbitrary
limits or quotas. Those who pass
a basic criminal background
check and can find work should
be allowed to enter with minimal
government obstacles.”
Incumbent
NOTE: Incumbent includes anyone
UXQQLQJIRUVDLGRIÀFHRUSUHVHQWO\
KROGLQJDQRWKHURIÀFH
Jim Clymer – Vice President
Mitt Romney - President
Paul Ryan - Vice President
NR
Cynthia Davis
U.S. Representative
District 8
Jack Rushin
i
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
3.b
8.c
4.a
9.b
5.b
10.b
Jo Ann
Emerson
i
Steven Wilson
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
1.c
2.b
3.b 4.a
5.c
6.b
7.a* 8.c
9.b
10.b
*7. Marked ‘a’ and added: “but
it is not totally reflective of my
philosophy since it says ‘minimal
federal involvement’ and I don’t
believe we should have any
federal involvement.”
See Questionnaire page 13
1.c
2.b
3.b 4.NR* 5.b
6.b
7.a
8.c 9.b
10.b
*4. Wrote in: “I support tax reform
to make our tax code flatter and
fairer, as well as a reduction in the
corporate tax rate.”
It’s YOUR
Christian Civic
Duty To Vote!
November 2012
Questionnaire
Missouri
Secretary of State
Jason Kander
i
2.b
7.a
MO Senate
District 3
Joseph Fallert
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
i
Shane Schoeller
1.c
6.b
3.b
8.c
i
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
4.a
9.b
5.c
10.b
MO Senate
District 13
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Gina Walsh
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Jacquelyn Thomas
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Justin Harter
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Missouri Treasurer
i
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
State Representative
District 41
Ed Schieffer
i
i
Cole McNary
District 65
Ann Zerr
i
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
John Alsup
1.b
6.b
2.b
7.a
3.b
8.c
4.b
9.b
5.b
10.b
Sean O’Toole
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
District 63
Chris Koster
i
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
District 66
Ed Martin
1.c
6.b
2.b
7.c
3.b
8.c
4.a
9.b
5.d
10.b
Dave Browning
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
MO Senate
District 1
Scott Sifton
Jim Lembke
i
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
i
NOT TO
RESPOND
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
District 64
Wayne Henke
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
1.c
6.b
2.b
7.a
3.b
8.c
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
4.a
9.b
5.c
10.b
District 90
Deb Lavender
Rick Stream
District 68
2.b
7.a
3.a
8.c
4.a
9.b
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Rekha Sharma
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
District 69
Margo McNeil
i
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
District 70
Joe Zelle
i
1.a
6.b
2.a
7.b
3.a
8.c
Marsha Haefner
1.c
6.b
2.b
7.a
3.b
8.c
4.a
9.b
4.b
9.b
District 91
Jeanne Kirkton
i CHOSE
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
District 97
Sam Komo
NOT TO
RESPOND
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Elizabeth Deal
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
District 92
Genise Montecillo
i
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
John McCaherty
1.c
6.b
2.b
7.c
3.b
8.c
3.b
8.c
1.c
6.b
4.a
9.b
5.c
10.b
2.b
3.b
4.b
5.d
10.b
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Mary Nichols
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
1.c
6.b
2.b
7.c
3.b
8.c
District 99
5.d
10.b
1.b
2.NR 3.b 4.b* 5.NR
6.a
7.a
8.c
9.b 10.NR
*4. Choose ‘b’ and scratched
through “or none at all.”
Andrew Koenig
i
1.c
2.b
3.b 4.a
5.c
6.b
7.a* 8.c
9.b
10.b
*7. Chose ‘a’ and wrote “no”
above the word “minimal.”
District 102
1.c
2.b
3.a
4.a
5.b*
6.b
7.a
8.c* 9.b
10.b
*5. Chose ‘b’ and wrote in: “I have
a MO Right to Life endorsement.”
*8. Chose ‘c’ and wrote in: “I am
rated ‘AQ’ from the NRA.”
4.a
9.b
5.d
10.b
Bob Burns
District 72
Patrick Brennan
4.a
9.b
NO
PHOTO
AVAILABLE
District 93
2.b
7.a
i
William Pinkston
Al Faulstich
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
1.c
6.b
5.b
10.a
i
5.c
10.b
Bill Otto
Eugene Dokes
5.c
10.b
District 95
Keith English
Robert Cornejo
VOTE
November 6th
1.c
6.b
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Tony Leech
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Cloria Brown
Julie Stone
Bryan Spencer
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
1.c
2.b
3.b 4.a
5.c
6.b
7.a* 8.c
9.b
10.b
*7. Chose ‘a’ and struck through
the words “with minimal federal
involvement.”
iCHOSE
Tommie Pierson
Glen Lindemann
1.a
2.a* 3.a
4.b
5.b
6.b
7.b
8.b* 9.b* 10.b*
*2. Marked ‘a’ and added: “May
need future amendments.”
*8. Marked ‘b’ and added a
comma after the word “crime,”
and wrote in “only automatic.”
*9. Marked ‘b’ and underscored
the words “Criminal aliens.”
*10. Marked ‘b’, underscored the
word “Legalization,” and wrote:
“Never to receive same tax &
legal benefits.”
Vicki Englund
Edward Harlow
Bill Stinson
Missouri
Attorney General
i
District 94
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Beverly Steiniger
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
District 82
Michele Kratky
Gary Romine
Cisse Spragins
Clint Zweifel
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Page 13
John Callahan
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
See Questionnaire page 14
November 2012
Page 14
Questionnaire
Kurt Bahr
i
District 104
Kathie Conway
Ron Hicks
i
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Terry Lesinski
November 6, 2012
Missouri’s Four
State-wide Ballot Issues
Constitutional Amendment 3 Vote YES
Accountability for Nonpartisan Judges
3.b
8.c
i
Dan Smith
Ann Schroeder
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Paul Curtman
1.NR 2.a* 3.b* 4.b
5.a
6.b
7.b
8.b 9.b
10.a
*2. Marked ‘a’ and wrote in:
“National Health Care is needed,
this particular one may still need
some changes.”
*3. Marked ‘b’ but underscored
“some situations” in choice
‘a’ and wrote in “Usually each
subdivision has rules & when
you purchase there, you agree to
abide by them,” under selection
‘b’.
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
District 109
Debbie Bixler
Proposition A......................... Vote YES
Returning Control of St. Louis Police
to Local Citizens
Proposition E ......................... Vote YES
Limits to Creating ObamaCare
Healthcare Exchanges
5.b
10.b
District 105
Mark Parkinson
Proposition B .......................... Vote NO
Massive 500%+ Tax Increase
on All Tobacco Products
4.a
9.b
1.c
6.b
2.b
7.c
i
3.b
8.c
4.a
9.b
5.c
10.b
District 111
NO
PHOTO
AVAILABLE
1.c
2.b
3.b 4.a
5.d*
6.b
7.a
8.c
9.b
10.b
*5. Marked ‘d’ and wrote in:
“I really believe ‘c’ should be
the case & these cases should
be extremely rare with our
modern medicine & technical
advancements in saving lives
however I am a realist & know
if you make the exception then
‘every’ abortion will be because
of the ‘life of the mother’ is in
danger.”
Michael Frame
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
District 114
T. J. McKenna
Derrick Good
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
1.c
6.b
2.b
7.c
3.b
8.c
4.a
9.b
5.b
10.b
District 107
Rod Hoffman
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
1.c
6.b
2.b
7.a
3.b
8.c
4.a
9.b
5.c
10.b
District 112
Danie
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
Paul Wieland
Becky Ruth
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
District 115
Rich McCane
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
i
Elaine Gannon
1.c
6.b
+
QUICK REFERENCE
VOTING GUIDE
2.b
7.a
2.b
7.a
3.b
8.c
4.a
9.b
5.c
10.b
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
+
VOTE
November 6th
1.c
6.b
Jeff Roorda
+
1.c
2.b
3.b* 4.a
5.c*
6.b
7.c
8.c
9.b
10.b
*3. Marked ‘b’ and wrote in:
“Eminent Domain is acceptably
only within Constitutional
limits.”
*5. Marked ‘c’ and wrote in:
“Specifically, ectopic pregnancy.”
CHOSE
NOT TO
RESPOND
District 113
SUPPORT
PRO-LIFE
CANDIDATES
+
+
+
will STAND TOUGH
for
Christian Values
On November 6th Vote
Ed Martin for Attorney General
PAID FOR BY MISSOURIANS FOR ED MARTIN, RANDY MCARTHUR, TREASURER
November 2012
Page 15
Missouri Right to Life PAC Candidate Endorsements
General Election – November 6, 2012
These candidates are endorsed by Missouri Right to Life Political Action Committees for the November 6, 2012, general election.
Unlisted races have no endorsements. Complete candidate ratings at missourilifepac.org
U. S. President
U.S. Senate
MITT
ROMNEY (R)
TODD
AKIN (R)
“If I have the opportunity
to serve as our nation’s next
president, I commit to doing
everything in my power to
cultivate, promote, and support
a culture of life in America.”
U.S. Congress
District 1
ROBYN HAMLIN (R)
District 2
A
ANN
W
WAGNE
R (R)
District 3
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER
R (R)
District 4
VICKY HARTZLER
R (R)
District 5
JACOB TURK (R)
District 6
SAM GR
GRAVES (R)
District 7
BILLY LONG (R)
District 8
JO ANN
A
EMERSON (R)
District 6
TIM REMOLE (R)
DIANA J. SCOTT (D)
District 7
HARRY
RR W
WYSE (D)
District 8
JAMES W
W. (JIM) NEELY (R)
District 9
DELUS JOHNSON (R)
District 12
K
KEN
WILSON (R)
District 13
NICK MARSHALL (R)
District 14
RON SCHIEBER
R (R)
District 15
K
KEVIN
CORLEW (R)
Missouri Statewide Races
District 20
BRENT LASA
LASATER
R (R)
Governor
DAVID (DAVE) SPENCE (R)
District 21
VICKI RILEY (R)
Lieutenant Governor
CYNTHIA L. DAVIS (C)
District 25
SALLY MILLER
R (R)
Attorney General
ED MARTIN (R)
District 28
JIM AZIERE (R)
Missouri Senate
District 31
DALE WALKU
W
P (D)
District 1
JIM LEMBKE (R)
District 3
GARY
R ROMINE (R)
JOSEPH FALLE
F
RT, JR. (D)
District 13
JACQUELYN THOMAS (R)
District 25
TERRY
RR SWINGER
R (D)
District 27
W
WAYNE
W
WALLINGFO
RD (R)
District 29
DAVID SAT
A ER
R (R)
District 31
ED EMERY
R (R)
Missouri House
of Representatives
District 3
NATE WALKE
NA
W
R (R)
District 5
LINDELL F.
F SHUMAKE (R)
TOM SHIVELY (D)
facebook.com/pages/MissouriRight-to-Life/103083246348
District 33
RON HARVEY
R
(D)
District 37
NOLA WOOD (R)
District 39
JOE DON MCGAUGH (R)
WILL TALBERT (D)
“I believe that life begins at
conception, and I’m appalled
that we do not protect the
innocent lives of our unborn
children.”
District 46
FRED BERRY
RR (R)
District 82
EDWARD HARLOW (R)
District 127
MIKE K
KELLEY (R)
District 47
MITCH RICHARDS (R)
District 91
ELIZABETH DEAL (R)
District 128
SUE ENTLICHER
R (R)
District 48
DAVE MUNTZEL (R)
District 92
A FAULS
AL
F
TICH (R)
District 129
SANDY
D CRAWFO
CR
RD (R)
District 49
JEANIE RIDDLE (R)
District 93
TONY LEECH (R)
District 130
JEFF MESSENGER
R (R)
District 51
DEAN A. DOHRMAN (R)
District 94
CLORIA BROWN (R)
District 52
ST
STANLEY
COX (R)
District 99
A DREW KOENIG (R)
AN
District 131
SONYA MURRAY
RR AN
A DER
A DERSON (R)
AN
District 53
GLEN KOLKMEYER
R (R)
District 102
K RT BAHR
KU
R (R)
District 55
RICK BRA
BRATTIN (R)
District 104
KATHIE CONWAY (R)
KA
District 57
DON BULLOCK (D)
District 106
CHRISSY SOMMER
R (R)
District 58
DAVID WOOD (R)
District 107
RON HICKS (R)
District 59
MIKE BERNSKOE
R
TTER
R (R)
District 109
PAUL CURTMAN (R)
District 61
DAVE SCHAT
CHA Z (R)
District 111
DERRICK R. GOOD (R)
District 62
TOM HURST (R)
GREG STRA
STRATMAN (D)
District 112
PAUL WIELAND (R)
District 63
BR
BRYAN
SPENCER
R (R)
BILL STINSON (D)
District 64
ROBERT CORNE
RNEJO (R)
WAYNE J. HENKE (D)
W
District 132
MELISSA LEACH (R)
District 133
ERIC W.
W BURLISON (R)
District 134
ELIJ
LIJAH HAAHR
R (R)
District 136
K
KEVIN
A TIN (R)
AUS
District 138
DON PHILLIPS (R)
District 140
L
LYNN
MORRIS (R)
District 141
TONY DUGGER
R (R)
District 113
DAN E. SMITH (R)
District 143
JEFFREY POGUE (R)
SHANE VAN
V
STEENIS (D)
District 114
BECKY RUTH (R)
District 144
PAUL FITZWAT
ZWA ER
R (R)
District 115
District 147
ELAINE FREEMAN GANNON (R)
KATHY SWAN (R)
KA
GANNON (R)
District 148
RICH MCCANE (D)
HOLLY REHDER
R (R)
District 118
District 40
PAUL QUINN (D)
District 68
REKHA SHARMA (R)
K TH ENGLISH (D)
KEI
District 41
ED SCHIEFFER
R (D)
District 69
GLEN LINDEMANN (R)
District 120
JASON T. SMITH (R)
District 42
BART KORMAN (R)
District 70
EUGENE DOKES (R)
District 122
STEVE L
LYNCH (R)
District 44
CALEB ROWDEN (R)
District 72
PA ICK J. BRENNEN (R)
PATR
BEN HARRIS (D)
District 123
DIANE FR
FRANKLIN (R)
Elections have consequences
Elections have consequences
District 149
NEAL E. BOYD (R)
District 150
K
KEN
T HAMPTON (R)
District 151
DENNIS FOWLER
R (R)
District 153
STEVE COOKSON (R)
District 158
SCOTT FITZPA
PATRICK (R)
District 162
CHARLIE DAVIS (R)
twitter.com/MORight2LifePAC
Paid for by Missouri Right to Life Political Action Committees, Patricia Skain, Treasurer. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.
Page 16
November 2012
The Biblical Answers to Our 2012
General Election Questionnaire
By Dr. David J. Vaughan
What follows are the
Judeo-Christian belief system,
Questionnaire ‘topics’ and
those principles should be our
‘statements’
guide to the
under each topic
enactment of any
from our 2012
legislation.
General Election
Questionnaire.
Legislative
Questionnaires
Philosophy
were sent to
- The Biblical
Missouri StateResponse is [c]
wide and local
According to
candidates within
Romans
chapter
our readership
13,
God
ordains
area as well as the
human government
Presidential and
as a means to curb
Dr.
David
J.
Vaughan
Vice Presidential
evil and reward
candidates who will be on the
good
in
this
life.
Government
November 6th ballot in Missouri.
officials
are
here
called
the
Unfortunately we were unable
“servants”
of
God.
Government
to send our Questionnaire to the
originates in the Divine will;
Illinois candidates within our
therefore, God desires that it
readership area and for that we
sincerely apologize to our Illinois conform to the Divine will or law.
Civil government is not,
readers.
as some have taught, an evil
institution. It is a good institution
The Process
designed to punish evil. The State
Candidates were asked to
is required by God to keep law
ponder statements under 10
and order by protecting the lawdifferent major topics and select
abiding citizen and punishing the
one of the statements listed that
law-breaking criminal. The State
either directly reflected or came
is, therefore, an agency of “wrath”
the closest to reflecting their
or “vengeance” against those who
personal opinion, position or
violate the law. To this end, God
beliefs on that particular topic.
has given the State the “sword,”
The statements under each topic
were structured to not only reveal which is a symbol of its power to
inflict physical punishments on
the candidates knowledge of the
criminals.
subject but, more importantly,
However, it is erroneous to
their overall world-view.
assume,
therefore, that because
Following each topic and
Church
and
State are distinct
its respective statements we
institutions,
that the State is a
have provided the appropriate
non-religious,
or purely secular,
response from a biblical,
institution.
Romans
13 teaches
Christian world-view
that
civil
government
has its origin
perspective. We encourage you
in
the
Divine
Will,
thus
it does
to compare the answers that your
not
have
a
secular
(non-religious)
candidate provided through their
foundation. Moreover, the duty of
Questionnaire to the appropriate
the State is to implement law, and
biblical responses that we’ve
law has its foundation in religious
listed before casting your vote.
belief. Law is inescapably moral,
An individual’s world-view
and morality expresses notions
reveals how they think and act
of ultimate value or religious
privately as well as publicly.
presupposition. In a sense, law is
Knowing, or at least having a
the legal codification of a society’s
sense of an individual’s worldreligious values. For instance, in
view, is extremely important
our founding legal document, we
- particularly when he or she is
are told that “men are endowed
running for public office. Values
with certain inalienable rights,”
voters, i.e. Christian citizens,
such as “life, liberty and the
should expect, and should
pursuit of happiness;” and that
be most supportive of, those
these rights are derived from “the
candidates whose answers reflect
laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”
a biblical, Christian world-view
on each of the subjects covered in Here we have a religious principle
codified in a legal document. As a
our Questionnaire.
result, we criminalize and punish
murder. Yet, we do so because we
1. Legislative Philosophy
believe that human life is sacred.
[a] America is
But our belief in the sanctity of
a melting pot of
human life is religiously derived; it
beliefs & values. is an article of faith.
Since we live in
a democracy,
2. Health Care
laws that relate
[a] The
to moral issues
new federal
should reflect the view of the
Affordable
majority of our citizens and not
Health Care Act
impose any one group’s values
should be fully
over another’s.
implemented
because it is fair,
[b] Issues related to morality
equitable and provides everyone
are very subjective. Therefore,
with affordable health care.
government should not legislate
morality.
[b] The Affordable Health Care
Act should be repealed. The
[c] Laws, by their nature,
Act is neither fair, equitable nor
legislate morality. Since our
Constitutional. Government
nation was founded upon the
should not be forcing citizens to
specific moral principles of the
purchase goods or services be it
health care or anything else.
Health Care - The Biblical
Response is [b]
The modern issue of health
care must be viewed through the
biblical teaching on ‘charity.’ In
the Scriptures there are three
“circles of concern:” the family,
the Church and the State. Which
has the primary duty of caring for
the poor and infirm? That duty
falls mainly on the family. Next
in line is the Church, which is also
to help those who have no family
support (I Tim. 5: 1-16). Other
than the example of famine in
Egypt under Joseph, which was a
genuine national emergency, we
have no biblical example of civil
government directly supporting
the poor.
Therefore, it can be argued
that the responsibility to provide
health care falls first on the
family and secondarily on the
Church. To that end, various laws
in the Old Testament (such as
gleaning regulations, the festival
tithe, and priestly hygienic laws)
were established to encourage
compassion and generosity to the
needy, and to ensure the general
health of the people of Israel.
The role of the civil government
ought to be one of insuring fair
and equitable medical and legal
practices, not one of providing
health care itself. Of course, this
would require two areas of reform.
First taxes must be lowered
so families have the economic
means to care for their own. And
secondly, the insurance industry
must be reformed, the result of
which would be the lowering of
medical costs. These two reforms
alone would alleviate the socalled “crisis” in health care,
and eliminate the need for direct
government intervention.
3. Private Property
[a]
Private
property
should,
in some situations, be subject to
public opinion and consensus as
to its use.
[b] Private property is
fundamental to freedom and
prosperity and should not be
subject to external controls.
[c] Private property cannot be
allowed to stand in the way of
civic progress or the good of a
community.
Private Property - The
Biblical Response is [b]
The biblical teaching on private
property assumes the following: 1)
All wealth is owned by God (Dt.
10:14; Job 41:11; Ps. 24:1-2; Ps
50:10-12). God repeatedly says
in His Word, “The earth is mine!”
Because He is the Creator He is
the absolute owner of all. 2) All
personal and social wealth comes
from God (Dt. 8:18; Pr. 10:22;
Ps. 127:2; Mt. 6:25-26). The
Bible does recognize the private
ownership of property, but it is a
relative right not an absolute one.
God is the absolute owner, and the
wealth He bestows on any given
person is a stewardship. 3) All
wealth should be used according
to God’s will (Lk. 12:41-48; Mt.
25:14-46). The Decalogue forbids
theft: “Thou shalt not steal.” And
this command, as well as many
others in the Old Testament,
recognizes the right to private
property.
The Eminent Domain Supreme
Court Decision, as well as many
laws on taxation, not only directly
violate the U. S. Constitution;
more importantly, they directly
violate God’s sacred law, “thou
shalt not steal.” Theft is theft
regardless of the perpetrator whether he be a hooded robber
with a loaded gun or a blackrobed judge with an unrighteous
decree.
4. Taxation
[a] Taxes
should
be a fixed
percentage of
commercial
activity and government services
held to that percentage of income
without the ability to borrow past
that limit.
[b] Taxes should be pro-rated.
Those at the highest income
levels should pay the highest
rates. Conversely, those who
are at the lowest income levels
should pay the lowest rates or
none at all.
Taxation – The Biblical
Response is [a]
The fundamental difference
between the modern method
of taxation and the biblical
model is very simple: modern
taxation is progressive, whereas
biblical taxation is regressive. A
progressive tax means different
percentages (hence, different
tax brackets) for diverse groups,
whereas a regressive tax requires
the same percentage for all groups
or persons.
In Mosaic legislation, taxation
was referred to as the “tithe,”
which literally means 10%. There
were three tithes instituted in
Israel, the Levitical tithe (Lev. 17:
30-34; Nu. 18: 21, 24), the Festival
tithe (Dt. 12: 5-7, 17-18; 14: 23),
and the Poor tithe (Dt. 14: 28-29;
26: 12-13). The Levitical tithe
was used to support the priests
and Levites as they ministered to
the religious and spiritual needs
of Israel. This tithe maintained
the proper public worship of God.
The Festival tithe was used to
celebrate the three annual festivals
held in Jerusalem. The Poor tithe
was given every third year, and
replaced the festival tithe of that
year. This meant that every family
in Israel paid an average tax of
23% of their increase (income).
However, we must note that this
included “religious” giving as well
as civil taxes. In addition to these
tithes there was a minor tax for
“redeeming the first born,” and a
minor “head tax” when the men
of Israel came of age. There were
no property taxes, no real estate
taxes, no gift taxes, no inheritance
taxes, etc. The annual tax was on
increase (income) only.
If we exclude the Levitical
tithe from our calculations
(since Israel was a theocracy and
the priesthood was part of the
government), the application of
the Mosaic legislation to today
would result in a tax rate of
approximately 13-15% of income
paid for all civil services – local,
state and federal. Moreover, the
most important point to note is,
that this tax would be applied
equally to all, rich and poor. The
same percentage paid by all;
hence, genuine equality before the
law.
Further, if we limit the
definition of commercial activity
to a ‘sales tax’ and exclude
personal or corporate income from
potential taxation, a uniform rate
applicable to all would accomplish
the aim of equality under
the law, necessarily fulfill the
scriptural precedent of ‘to whom
much is given much is required’
for the wealthiest individuals/
corporations/businesses would
logically pay more in the
aggregate, and could allow for
exemptions to the national sales
tax targeted to the very poor and
destitute among us (as transpires
currently where life necessities
are sales tax free for WIC/SNAP
purchases).
5. Abortion
[a] The
freedom to have
an abortion
is, and should
remain, a
woman’s choice.
[b] Abortions should only be
allowed in cases of rape, incest or
to save the life of the mother.
[c] Abortions should only be
allowed in rare cases to save the
life of the mother.
[d] Under no circumstances
should any type of abortion be
allowed.
Abortion - The Biblical
Response is [c]
The Christian view of abortion
can only be understood in the
broader context of the Bible’s
overwhelmingly pro-life teaching.
The indisputable sanctity of
human life is taught throughout
the Scriptures. From Genesis
onward, for instance, the creation
account states that men and
women are created in the very
image of God (Gen.1:26-28).
This simple but profound fact
gives human life a priceless value.
Moreover, Genesis also tells us
that God commanded man to be
fruitful and multiply, a command
that includes a moral judgment
that human life is a positive
good that should be reproduced.
In addition, God required that
murder be punished by death
because man is made in the image
of God (Gen. 9:5-6). Of course,
the ultimate statement on the
value of innocent human life is the
death of Christ for mankind. How
See Biblical Answers page 17
November 2012
Biblical Answers
6. The U.S. Constitution
[a] The U.S.
Constitution
is a historical
part of the
founding of
our country. It is the document
that gave us our rights and
liberties and outlines how we
should govern ourselves as a
nation. The Constitution is
however a living, breathing
document that requires continual
scrutiny and revision as the needs
of our society change.
[b] The U.S. Constitution is
one of the primary founding
documents of our country. It
should never be interpreted
without first considering the
intent of our founding fathers
when it was written. It should
only be changed through a
properly enacted amendment
after careful consideration and
exhaustive public debate.
The U.S. Constitution - The
Biblical Response is [b]
The Bible does not directly
address the question of
Constitutional interpretation.
However, it does address the issue
of truth telling. In the Ninth
Commandment, we are told not
to bear false witness; this requires
not only that we tell the truth, but
also that we accurately represent
the words and actions of others.
Misrepresentation of someone
else’s words is a distortion or
perversion of meaning. It is a
form of lying. This is forbidden
by Scripture, and is the biblical
basis for a strict interpretation
of the Constitution – indeed, of
any written document. To read
the Constitution contrary to the
meaning of the drafters is to falsify
their meaning, which the Bible
forbids. Those who argue that the
Constitution is a “living, breathing
document” generally attempt to
change the plain meaning of the
text to fit a modern politicallycorrect agenda.
7. Education
[a] Federal
support and
oversight of
education is
absolutely
necessary
to ensure that all of our nation’s
children receive a high quality
education so they are prepared
to compete in today’s global
economy.
[b] Education should be
supported and monitored at state
and local levels with minimal
federal involvement.
[c] Education should be left in
the hands of parents without
federal or state oversight,
intervention, or control.
Education - The Biblical
Response is [c]
The Bible recognizes at least
three “orders” or “institutions”
ordained by God to administer
His authority: the State, the
Church and the Family. These
three are institutionally separate,
with different duties and rights.
The State is to administer civil
justice as defined by God: its
symbol is the sword. The Church
is to administer grace through
the Gospel, the sacraments and
charity: its symbol is the keys.
The Family is to administer
nurture, instruction and welfare:
its symbol is the rod. Thus,
there is no biblical mandate for
State involvement in education,
while there is a clear and forceful
mandate to the Family (the
parents) to train and educate
their children (See Dt. 4:9; 6:39, 20-25; Pr. 1: 8-9; 22:6; Eph.
6:1-4). A biblical approach
to education, therefore, will
limit the involvement of civil
government while simultaneously
encouraging parents to assume full
responsibility for their children’s
education.
9 Immigration
[a] We are
a nation of
immigrants.
As a
wealthy,
compassionate and benevolent
country we should welcome
immigrants to our country and
support their needs without
challenges to their circumstances
or qualifications for citizenship.
[b] Uncontrolled immigration
threatens our national
sovereignty, security and culture.
Immigration policy should be
crafted and enforced which
recognizes and accepts legitimate
immigrants without burdensome
red tape. Illegal aliens, however,
should be held accountable to the
established law.
Immigration - The Biblical
Response is [b]
The Bible has much to
say regarding the “stranger,”
“foreigner” or “alien.” The most
common Hebrew term used is gûr
(or gêr), which literally means
“client” or “stranger.” It refers
to a person who has taken up
permanent residence in a foreign
country. (See Vine, Expository
Dictionary) According to Old
Testament, legislation the “client”
is to observe the Sabbath rest (Ex.
20:10) and to share obligations
with the Israelite population (Ex.
12:19; Lev. 16:29). Although these
“clients had no inherited rights in
the land (as did the descendants
of Abraham under the provisions
of the covenant promise), they
were nevertheless granted
concessional rights, privileges and
also responsibilities, under the
law. The Israelites were required
to treat the “clients” kindly (Lev.
19:10; 23:22; Dt. 10:18-19; 14:29;
24:19-21), and not oppress them
(Lev. 19:33; Dt. 24:14, etc.). (See
Renn, Expository Dictionary of
Bible Words)
The current immigration
debate is primary a matter of
border security. In an age of
global terrorism, it is incumbent
on nation-states to secure their
borders against invasions of every
kind. In fact, God established
the boundaries of each nation,
knowing that man’s quest for
power required contending nations
as checks and balances to restrain
tyrannical and oppressive regimes.
The civil government is required
to punish evil and reward good
(Rom. 13:1ff). Therefore, each
nation has a right to defend its
boundaries from foreign invasion,
whether covert infiltration or
overt attack, by using military and
legislative measures.
It is a matter of both prudence
and stewardship that each
nation must establish reasonable
immigration policies to insure
its economic, social and political
stability. An “open border” policy
is national suicide.
Repeatedly in the Old
Testament, God required that
there be “One Law” in the land
to be observed by both Jews and
“clients” (Ex. 12:49; Lev. 24:22;
Nu. 15:14ff). This requirement
was designed to guarantee where
there was “justice for all” –
neither oppression nor privilege.
Everyone had to obey the same
laws. An “illegal” immigrant is,
by definition, in violation of the
law (hence, the term “illegal”) and
should be dealt with accordingly.
See Biblical Answers page 18
Your vote is her voice . . .
8. Second Amendment
[a] The 2nd
Amendment
was intended
to apply only
to the federal
military,
state militias
(today’s
National
Guard) and law enforcement, not
the general public.
[b] The use of firearms for
sporting, recreational and home
defense purposes are perfectly
legitimate uses, but in the
interest of public safety, guns and
ammunition should be registered
to help law enforcement fight
crime.
[c] The 2nd Amendment broadly
protects the rights of individual
Americans to keep and bear arms.
Gun control infringes upon this
Constitutional right and violates
the original intent of our founding
fathers.
Second Amendment - The
Biblical Response is [c]
Although the Bible does not
directly speak to the issues of
You can help save
her generation.
Vote Pro-Life!
Missouri Right to Life Political Action Committee
For candidate information, please telephone 573-635-5110
or visit our website at missourilifepac.org
Paid for by Missouri Right to Life PAC, Patty Skain Treasurer
Copyright © 2011 Speed of Life Photography. All Rights Reserved.
precious is a human soul for which
Christ was willing to die?
In light of this biblical
testimony, we must answer the
question of the “hard cases” such
as rape and incest. According to
the Bible, only those who commit
a crime should be punished. Thus,
the offending party, the rapist or
incestuous perpetrator should
suffer, not the unborn child who is
the innocent party.
Life begins at fertilization.
For many Christians the most
difficult case is when a mother’s
life is in danger from childbirth.
Everything should be done to
save the life of both mother and
child. In the case of a genuine
medical emergency (such as an
ectopic pregnancy) the mother,
in agreement with her husband,
might choose to spare her own
life for the benefit of her family.
However, the same Christ who
laid down His life for us has
told us to lay down our lives for
others. When necessary, we are
to follow Christ’s example and die
that others may live. A Christian
mother, who risks her life that her
child might live, is the ultimate
example of Christ-like love.
gun control or the “right to bear
arms” as we understand them,
it does teach that self-defense is
permissible; thus the “means” of
defense, or the right to bear arms
is assumed. The Bible gives us a
specific law that teaches the right of
self-defense. Exodus 22: 2 reads: “If
the thief is found breaking in, and
he is struck so that he dies, there
shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.”
Commenting on this verse, Old
Testament scholar Walter Kaiser
says, “the thief was exposed to the
loss of his life as the householder
defended himself, his family, and his
home by delivering a lethal blow.
This was especially true at night
when the thief ’s intentions (whether
to steal, kill or both) could not be
easily and quickly determined.”
Because the Bible recognizes the
right to private property, as well as
the sanctity of marriage, a man has
the right to defend both his property
and family from violent criminal
action.
The right to self-defense
would be useless of course, if
law-abiding citizens did not have
the appropriate means to halt
aggressive criminals. Thus, selfdefense assumes and requires the
right to bear arms. A disarmed
citizen is a defenseless citizen,
regardless of his supposed “rights.”
This was surely the view of our
nation’s Founders who drafted and
ratified the Second Amendment.
Page 17
November 2012
Page 18
Biblical Answers
10. Marriage
[a]
Denying
same-sex
couples
the
right to
legally marry is discrimination
and a violation of their First
Amendment rights. Same-sex
couples should have the same
right to marry as heterosexual
couples.
[b] Marriage is the union of
one man and one woman and
has been the foundation of the
family since the beginning of
time. Legalization of same-sex
marriages stands opposed to the
laws of nature and God.
Marriage - The Biblical
Response is [b]
The Bible does not encourage
persecution against persons
because of race, religion,
nationality, religion or gender.
The modern notion of “sexual
preference” (a code word for
homosexual) is foreign to a
biblical world-view.
In the Bible, we are told that
God created “male and female”
and commanded them to “be
fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:2728). Marriage was instituted to
facilitate procreation and alleviate
man’s loneliness, requiring the
“man to leave his mother and
father, and cleave unto his wife”
(Gen. 2:18-25). Clearly, then,
God’s created order for human
sexual expression is heterosexual
monogamous marriage.
All sexual activity outside of the
marriage institution is considered
sinful. Therefore, the Scriptures
prohibit adultery (Ex. 20:14; Rom.
13:9); fornication (Dt. 22:28-29;
Mk. 7:21); bestiality (Ex. 22:19;
Lev. 20:15); incest (Lev. 18:6-18;
I Cor. 5:1), and homosexuality
(Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:24f; I Tim
1:10). Since the duty of the State
is to punish evil and reward
good, it has a legitimate right
(if not duty) to discourage or
criminalize each of these activities,
rather than grant any of them
a protected status. So-called
“constitutional” arguments for
abolishing heterosexual marriage,
such as “freedom of expression”
or a “right to happiness,” not only
are contrary to the Founder’s
original intention (see topic 6), but
also cannot be squared with the
biblical requirements for human
sexuality and marriage.
†
†
†
Dr. David J. Vaughan is Pastor
of Liberty Christian Church in
O’Fallon, MO, Director of the
Liberty Leadership Institute (a
division of Whitefield Theological
Seminary) and President of Liberty
Classical School. He also serves a
Consulting Editor for the St. Louis
MetroVoice and Highland Books.
As a prolific writer, Dr. Vaughan
has written a multitude of articles
which have appeared in numerous
national publications. He has also
authored a number of books which
include: Give Me Liberty: the
Uncompromising Statesmanship
of Patrick Henry; The Pillars of
Leadership; Jonathan Edwards;
Extra Muros; and Statesman and
Saint: The Principled Politics
of William Wilberforce. As a
lecturer and community leader,
Dr. Vaughan speaks at a variety
of church and civic functions, has
appeared on nationally syndicated
television and radio, and is a host
of an Encounter radio program on
Christian radio station KSIV 1320
AM here in St. Louis. Dr. Vaughan
may be contacted by email at
DavidVaughan@LibertySTL.
com or by calling (636) 240-4412.
For more information regarding
Liberty Christian Church visit
www.libertystl.com.
Joplin is Under Siege by Islam!
By B. J. Armstrong
I was a first responder volunteer after the 2011 F5 tornado
that ripped through Joplin, MO
destroying one-third of the city. I
was in Joplin four days after the
devastating tornado hit and was
shocked at the enormous upheaval of what looked like a war zone
with only slab foundations and
piles of rubble where homes and
businesses once stood. Emergency vehicles were still sounding, and ambulances and police
cars were still scrambling to reach
victims who were trapped under
the rubble. I struggled to hold
back tears as I drove through the
stricken city. The whole thing
hit me all at once that people
might still be inside some of the
hundreds of homes and mangled
cars that were picked up by the
tornado and slammed back to the
ground; everything was smashed
beyond recognition.
A year later I knew in May that
God was tugging at my heart to
return to Joplin. It was a place
where Christians wanted to be.
This friendly, quaint town was
just a speck on the map until the
deadly May 22 tornado made a
three mile wide swathe through
the city. For over a year Christian
volunteers from virtually every
State covered Joplin with daily
prayer, not only
ly for the City Of
Officials who were instantly put
into a realm of decision-making
that would impact the way Joplin
would survive, but for volunteers who saw the overwhelming
need and responded with love. I
witnessed how that prayer was
protecting not only the citizens
of Joplin, but those Christian
volunteers who faced 105 degree
temperatures daily to help rebuild
homes and lives.
North County Christian School
Investing in Eternity One Student at a Time
NOW ENROLLING PreK-12th Grade
NOR
TH
ACSI Accredited
TY
UN
CO
CE
LE
B
RAT
CHRIST
IA
N
S
L
OO
CH
» Dual Enrollment/ College Credit and AP Classes
» Full College Preparatory Curriculum
» Fine Arts and Athletic Programs
» Extended Care and Summer Programs
E
I NG 50 Y
AR
845 Dunn Rd. Florissant, MO 63031
314.972.6227 www.nccsedu.org
S
By this August most volunteers
who had come to Joplin and covered it with prayer had returned
home because the school year was
about to start. Joplin desperately
needs Christian volunteers to step
forward once again and come
to Joplin to help a town still in
dire need. They need to rally together and pray for this community which is now facing a much
greater danger than the tornado
that ravished her. That danger is
Islam!
What I wasn’t aware of when
I first came to Joplin in 2011 was
that there was an Islamic Mosque
in Joplin. The devastating tornado brought the quaint town’s
existence to the attention of the
world bringing thousands of both
Christian and non-Christian
volunteers to help the town. Unfortunately the disaster also provided Islamic leaders with an opportunity. Within days after the
tornado The Joplin Globe printed
an article about a $500,000 donation to purchase laptops for Joplin
schools. The press release said
only that the donation was from
a ““foreign country.” That country turned out to be the United
Arab Emirates an oil rich Muslim
country located on the Persian
Gulf. The people of Joplin had
not even had time to mourn their
losses when an Islamic country
made its appearance. Just ten
days after the storm, while the
hurting people of Joplin were
still searching for loved ones, and
even before the people of Joplin
had time to fully grasp what had
happened in their lives, Islam was
there. City Officials hadn’t even
had time to fully organize disaster relief efforts when out of the
blue the United Arab Emirates
had stepped in with a $500,000
donation – a donation I might
add to Joplin’s Public School District to provide laptops for every
Joplin high school student. The
donation was not earmarked for
clean-up, rebuilding homes or infrastructure but to provide laptop
computers for Joplin high school
students! The Superintendent of
Joplin Schools and City Officials
either didn’t take the time or
didn’t have the time to rationalize
why an Islamic country would
be offering such money for their
school system.
The following is a quote from
an article that appeared in The
Joplin Globe’s August 10, 2011
newspaper confirming Islam’s
intrusion came just ten days after
the tornado devastated the town
and people of Joplin. The Globe
article stated, “A Representative
from the United Arab Emirates
Embassy in Washington D.C., on
Tuesday announced
an initial
donation
of $500,000
toward the
local school
district’s plan
to provide laptops computers this year
to all Joplin
High School
students. The
announcement regarding the
district $2.7 million One-on-One
initiative was made at Joplin High
School’s temporary 11th and
12th grade campus at Northpark
Mall.” The article quoted Dana Al
Marashi, head of the Heritage and
Social Affairs Department for the
United Arab Emirates Embassy
who stated, “When we saw the
devastation (from the May 22 tornado) that took place, the Ambassador (of the United Arab Emirates) decided that we needed to
do something as a country.” “We
reached out to Joplin to figure
out what we needed to do as far
as contributing. We got in touch
with the Joplin public schools in
terms of helping with the One-toOne initiative.” Al Marashi also
stated that “one of her colleagues
had visited Joplin ten days after
the tornado and spoke to school
officials to start mobilizing the
effort.”
On August 11, 2012 the United
Arab Emirates offered a matching
fund which upped their donation
to $1,000,000 asking for an ongoing ‘partnership’ with the Joplin
Public School District.
On August 6, 2012, a year af
after the tornado and the offer of
$1,000,000 for the public school
system, the Islamic Mosque in
Joplin was burned to the ground.
Many citizens of Joplin, including some pastors and other
religious groups eagerly tried
to make amends for the August
2012 burning of the Mosque even
though the FBI has stated it has
not been determined who set
the fire. Rumors in Joplin have
it that an Islamist realizing that
Joplin was a strong family oriented Christian city actually set
fire to the Mosque to gain sympathy from the City using Joplin’s
weakened state to secure a strong
hold on Joplin. It worked! The
Joplin Globe rallied behind the
Muslims and on August 11, 2012
The Globe printed another full
page-plus article with the caption
“FAITH - Spiritual Studying - Ramadan a Holy Month That Allows
Muslims to Purify Soul.” The two
page article listed approximately
eighty names of people who participated. The list of churches
and religious organizations who
are supporting this false religious
movement is enough to boggle
the mind of any discerning
Christian who knows that Islam’s
goal is to wipe out Christianity –
world-wide!
On August 20, 2012 The Joplin
Globe ran another large front page
article entitled “Love Conquers Joplin Muslims Share Eid al-Fitr
with community.” However, the
article did not explain what Eid
al-Fitr celebrates. The article listed religious invitees such as Jews,
Christians and Hindus as well as
others who helped celebrate Eid
al-Fitr. Readers were told that the
celebration was like celebrating
Christmas and Thanksgiving. I
couldn’t believe what I read. I say
let the Muslim community worship as they choose and celebrate
their holiday; but do not compare
Christmas and Thanksgiving to
See Joplin Under Siege page 19

Constitutional Amendment 3 - Vote

Transcription

Similar documents

SEXtend \seks tend \ - Student Health Center

Login with BearPass - Missouri State University

Purpose of the Course: Target Group: University Certification

Rodeo Flyer Rolla 8/08 (Page 1)

love generation - Ryde Eastwood Leagues Club

Purpose of the Course - Missouri Southern State University

Cable Dahmer Chevrolet

liry"

Application Form - Himachal Pradesh

Stephen J. Moore | Director