Most police officers in our community do not feel that Mr. Clinton is a friend of law enforcement, public safety or police labor. His liberal positions on gun control, drug enforcement and his flaccid crime bill do nothing to promote the peace, welfare, and safety of American society. Furthermore, Mr. Clinton has done nothing in his first four years to improve the position of police labor.
Does any law enforcement officer in this state really believe that a man who loathes the military and despises police officers will do anything in his final four years to protect the rights and jobs of America's lawmen?
Local FOP members were stunned and embarrassed by the national president's announcement. The membership present at our Sept. 26 meeting voted overwhelmingly against the position of the Grand Lodge. Delegates to the state FOP conference in August of this year voted nearly unanimously to endorse Sen. Robert Dole's candidacy.
The membership of local Lodge 97 believes that the endorsement by the Grand Lodge is grossly misleading and an insult to all public safety professionals in our area. While the president's reelection commercials may flaunt the endorsement of the Grand Lodge and suggest the support of thousands of America's police officers, their support and especially their trust are not his to claim from FOP.
Paul Haring
President, Lodge 97 FOP, Grand Rapids
"In 1987, US District Judge Russel G. Clark ordered an increase in the property taxes in Kansas City, Missouri from $2.05 to $4 per $100 of assessed evaluation. In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld his decision.
"Do you doubt the constitutional republic is road kill?
"What happened to opposition to taxation without representation? Nobody in Kansas City elected Judge Clark. He was appointed by a president to a life term.
"What happened to separation of powers? For all of America’s existence prior to 1967, the power to tax had rested only with the elected representatives or the people, not in the judicial or executive branches of government.
"In case you're curious, Judge Clark ordered the tax increase to build schools, which he thought would make an integration plan that hadn't worked, work. The taxes were increased, and the schools were built. The integration program still didn't work.
"But the more important point is that Clark breached a line that to my knowledge, no other federal judge ever had breached before - directly ordering elected officials of a local government to raise the taxes on their constituents. Federal judges have long been engaged in legislating and even administrating, so it may be no surprise that they would usurp the function of taxation, too.
"Perhaps more depressing is that the breach didn't cause much of a stir the national press, which today has by and large adopted the tabloid mentality, saw neither sex nor blood in the matter and more or less ignored it.
"Liberty, being a condition, neither bleeds nor has gender.
"Neither of the two political monopoly parties took much notice. The Republican Party, born with the intent to murder the constitutional republic, which it did with Reconstruction, is now little more than a puppet of multinational corporations. The Democrats, who have become socialists, it seems to me, are more interested in income redistribution than in liberty.
"For that matter, many Americans seem interested mainly in sex, blood, and income redistribution, provided the redistribution is in their favor.
"The dumbing down of America may be more than a catch phrase. If so, it will be a temporary condition, as experience will succeed where academics failed in teaching the disadvantages of slavery and the benefits of freedom. Experience, though, is a hard, costly and sometimes cruel way to learn.
"There is a group fighting this judicial problem, The Madison Forum. It wants to amend the Constitution to prohibit judges from levying taxes.
"I think that's the wrong approach. In the first place, if we amend the Constitution to correct bad judicial decisions, the Constitution will soon be the size of the Oxford unabridged Dictionary. In the second place, why would judges pay any attention to a new amendment when they routinely disregard the Constitution itself?
"It would be better to repeal all the amendments starting with the 12th.
"But even that is buying a cow before you build the barn. Until the American people decide they want to curb the powers of the imperial government in Washington, nothing will happen.
"As long as the debate is all about group rights, tinkering with income redistribution schemes and playing gotcha games with the internal revenue code, liberty will continue to be ignored, which is to say, it will continue to diminish. Nobody can save people from themselves, but themselves."
In fact, homosexual activists claim a "pervasive pattern of employment 'discrimination" against lesbians and gays" nationwide. Because we at Concerned Women for America do not believe anyone should be unfairly discriminated against, we have investigated these alarmist allegations.
Workplace Fairness and The Law
Cheryl worked as a cook at a family-style restaurant in the South. In 1991, the company adopted a policy refusing to employ anyone "whose sexual preferences fall to demonstrate normal heterosexual values." Cheryl told her manager she was a lesbian. She was fired for "violation of company policy."
Under the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Americans With Disabilities Act (1992), persons may not be discriminated against in matters of employment for race, sex, national origin, religion, age, or disability. In addition, government employees may file charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) if they experience retaliation for "whistle- blowing" or fail to receive equal pay for equal work. Although nine states and more than 600 businesses have anti-discrimination policies that include "sexual orientation," federal law does not consider sexual behavior a protected category.
Crunching the Numbers
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, approximately 127 million Americans were employed in non-farm industries from July, 1995 to July, 1996. Presumably their jobs exist within the "6.8 million private and public workplaces" described in a 45-page "State of the Workplace" report by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). CWA obtained the study from the HRC, the nation's largest homosexual political organization. Since the EEOC is not obliged by law to track employment discrimination against homosexuals, the HRC prides itself on doing so.
Thus regional surveys from 1986-1994 posted on the HRC’s current Internet pages reveal that for gays and lesbians in three quarters of the country:
-14 were let go "without cause"
-3 were fired after violating employers' explicit rules against homosexuality.
-2 quit because they perceived themselves to be "harassed"
-1 was demoted (she believes) because of her sexual orientation
That equals a total of 20 people.
Family Voice called the HRC to request all available documentation on gays and lesbians who were fired - or not hired - solely because of their homosexuality. We were told that "instances are difficult to verity, because employers do not always give this as a reason. And employees may be reluctant to reveal this as a cause."
We also contacted the pro-homosexual Committee for Equal Opportunity; the ACLU's National Gay and Lesbian Rights Project; Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund; and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. These organizations either would not talk with us at all - or gave evasive answers to our inquiries.
CWA further consulted an extensive report prepared by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute. In "Pervasive Patterns of Discrimination," the NGLTF collated 21 surveys from 1980-1991. The study examined 11,984 responses from 15 states. It claims that "between 16 and 44 percent [of homosexuals] have faced some form of discrimination in employment." The NGLTF arrives at the larger figure by including such incidents as respondents;
-Being asked about a photograph or their partner
-Hearing co-workers joke about gays
-Feeling they had to conceal their homosexuality while on the job
Using the NGLTF's tables, CWA calculated that of those who answered questionnaires about "perceived discrimination," 1,584 were either fired - or not hired- because of their sexual orientation. But even adding the HRC's figures and those of the NGLTF together the number of gay, lesbian, or bisexual employees who may have experienced serious discrimination still equals only .000013 percent of the 127 million Americans working.
The Bigger Picture
In contrast, EEOC officials told Family Voice that from 1990 through 1995, nearly 465,000 charges of discrimination were filed for reasons of race, gender, national origin, religion, age, disability, unequal pay, or "whistle-blowing." That amounts to slightly more than one third of one percent of those employed in business and industry.
Thus, no objective documentation exists to prove that homosexuals suffer job discrimination comparable to what blacks, women, or other minorities experience. In fact, Maryland's state personnel secretary revealed to The Washington Times in 1993 that "informal inquiries" had turned up "no discrimination in hiring or promotions" of homosexuals. Rut that did not stop then-Governor William Schaefer from issuing an executive order prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.
But if homosexuals are not widely discriminated against in the workplace, why are gay activists so determined to press this claim? The answer is: they want America's stamp of approval on their behavior. As early as 1989, homosexual authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen laid out their strategy for getting Americans to accept their lifestyle. In After the Ball, they wrote: "Our campaign should not demand explicit support for homosexual practices, but should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme." What does the rest of America think?
Equal Rights vs. Special Rights
A 1996 USA Today poll found that 85% of Americans believe gays and lesbians "should be treated equally with others in the workplace." But in a Newsweek survey also taken this year, Americans were asked whether the U.S has "done enough," or "too much" to "protect gay rights." As many as 66% answered either "too much" (40%) or "enough" (26%) -- only 27% thought "more" should be done.
Dan was an outstanding employee on his way to being made a partner in a management consulting company. Upon employment in 1989, Dan had signed a contract which stated explicitly that "homosexuality" was grounds for dismissal. Then in 1990, his boss learned that Dan was gay. He was subsequently fired.
For the past decade, homosexual activists have been pushing for a "gay civil rights bill" that would add "sexual orientation" to those criteria already protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However - with the exception of religion - federal law only protects unchangeable attributes of individuals - not forms of behavior.
"Most characteristics are not protected by law," says government labor economist Jay Meisenheimer. He cites such common ones as ability to speak English; marital status; pregnancy; level of education; prior arrest or conviction; drug or alcohol abuse; and physical grooming. "Broadly defined, discrimination happens whenever an employer makes a choice," Meisenheimer told Family Voice. For instance, "A nuclear lab looking for a scientist is going to turn you down if you don't have a Ph.D. in physics. And a Methodist church that needs a pastor will not hire a Jewish rabbi. It's just a question of what's good business practice?"
The Push for ENDA
As a human resources manager with a government agency, Karl had devoted his career to guaranteeing equal employment opportunities for federal workers, But in 1994, he objected to the department's proposal that homosexual employees' partners be offered the same benefits as spouses of heterosexual workers. Karl was summarily removed from his post.
Most Americans understand the difference between "equal" rights and "special" rights. They support equal rights. Rut what homosexual activists want are special rights. They are demanding unconditional protection from both business and government (local, state, and federal) or a behavioral choice. Homosexuality is not only illegal in 21 states, but is morally offensive to many Americans. in addition, they are insisting on the same insurance and health care benefits for their partners to which married couples are entitled.
Claiming "intrinsic unfairness" in the workplace, radical gay activists in 1994 collaborated with liberals in Congress to introduce the employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). But the bill stalled in committee before the 103rd Congress adjourned. Meanwhile, ENDA was picking up support from business, labor, civil rights groups, and even religious leaders. In June, 1995, the bill was reintroduced. four months later, President Clinton endorsed ENDA - making him the first chief executive in history to approve a homosexual rights bill.
What About Employers' Rights
In 1993, a California company hired a temporary employee assumed to be a woman. But in the restroom, female employees discovered that the temp was a man, dressing as a woman. When the temp job ended, the transvestite re-applied to the employer (who still did not know 'her' true identity) for a permanent position. When she was turned down for being "over-qualified," the cross-dresser sued the company, claiming discrimination.
Under both the House and Senate versions or ENDA, employers would be required to hire and promote and would be prohibited from firing - gays, lesbians, bisexuals, or persons of whatsoever "sexual orientation."
Despite the lack or credible evidence that homosexuals are substantially discriminated against, ENDA would declare them a protected minority class. Yet the Supreme Court previously denied this in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986). And subsequent decisions of the 7th and 9th Circuit Courts agreed with the ruling.
But what about employers' rights? Should the owner of a day care center be forced to hire a man whose 'sexual orientation' is pedophilia?
Protecting employees' immoral behavior by law is equivalent to requiring a bank to employ an embezzler or a chronic gambler. Or mandating that a family 'counseling service staff' include a 'woman who publicly flaunts her adultery?'
Apart from moral conviction, why might an employer choose not to risk hiring a homosexual? According to the National Lesbian-Gay Health Foundation, homosexuals are three times as likely to have an alcohol or drug abuse problem. And abundant evidence from major medical journals has documented the health hazards of homosexual behavior (hepatitis, sexually transmitted and gastro-intestinal diseases). With domestic partner benefits, medical costs could really add up!
Moreover, it is the public who will foot the bill for same-sex partners with AIDS and other diseases. ENDA poses a serious threat to employers' pocketbooks and their First Amendment freedoms of religion, speech, and association.
Homosexual activists and their supporters argue that sexuality is a private matter. Yet for thousands or years societies world wide have discouraged same-sex relations -- indeed, any extramarital relations. Sex outside of marriage morally damages everyone involved. It poses a risk to both the public's health and finances; it results in disease, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and increased welfare expenditures.
If you want to make an impact:
-Speak out publicly against the disinformation campaign being waged by the
radical homosexual lobby.
-Work for equal treatment in your place of employment - based on bona fide
job qualifications, not sexual behavior.
"The law protects homosexuals from physical assault or property damage just as it does for all other U.S. citizens." Concerned Women for America supports equal rights in the workplace - not special rights based on sexual orientation or behavior.
The significance arises when we take a look at history and discover that the last (and most recent) time that this was done was just before the Civil War after which Lincoln declared war without a sitting Congress.
To further arouse my curiosity, Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. defines "sine die" as without day, without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing. Hence, a final adjournment: final dismissal of a cause..."
The mystery deepens even more when you consider the following excerpts from the Congressional Record.
(1) CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE (Senate - October 03, 1996) Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now move that the Senate stand in adjournment sine die under the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 230, or until 6 p.m., Friday, October 4, if the House fails to adopt House Concurrent Resolution 230. And God be with you all.
The motion was agreed to, and at 6:54pm, the Senate adjourned sine die, conditioned on the House concurrence, in the Senate amendment to House Concurrent Resolution 230.
(2) From the Congressional Record of October 4, 1996. H12300: "SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT"
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the work of the 2nd session of the 104th Congress has been completed. Pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 230, as amended, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. WALKER). In accordance with the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 230, as amended, the Chair declares the 2d session of the 104th Congress adjourned sine die.
Thereupon (at 2 o'clock and 52 minutes p.m.) pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 230, as amended, the House adjourned.
Many will now ask, (as did I) "What is House Concurrent Resolution 230? The text is as follows.
H.Con. Res. 230
Agreed to October 4, 1996
One Hundred Fourth Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday the third day of
January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six.
Concurrent Resolution
Providing for the sine die adjournment or the second session of the One
Hundred Fourth Congress.
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
that when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Wednesday, October 2,
1996, Thursday, October 8, 1998, or Friday, October 4, 1996, on a motion
offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by the Majority Leader, or his
designee, it stand adjourned sine die, or until noon on the second day after
Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent
resolution, and that when the Senate adjourns on Wednesday, October 2, 1996,
Thursday, October 3, 1996, or Friday, October 4, 1996, on a motion offered
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by the Majority Leader, or his
designee, it stand adjourned sine die, or until noon on the second day after
members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent
resolution.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
It appears that H. Con Res. 230 gives Congress the option of reconvening the 104th Congress (not the 105th that will be elected next month) whenever they feel it is necessary. Without this resolution, the sine die adjournment would have been a permanent adjournment of the 104th Congress. Since I have been able to find no reference, in history, to this having been done before, I can only wonder why it was done this time.
I don't have the answers so maybe we should be asking the Members of Congress.