Does Your Maker Want You to Read this Book?
      Regardless of who you think your maker is, He wants you to know what is going on in your society. Otherwise, you can’t make smart choices for yourself and for your family.
     Author Nancy Pearcey noted recently that a teacher was startled when he read her statement: “Christians are called to redeem entire cultures,” He’d never heard that before, he said. “I’ve always thought of salvation in terms of individual souls,” he related.
     Obviously we must do both.
     “It’s a familiar but tragic story,” says Pearcey, “that devout young people, raised in Christian homes, head off to college and abandon their faith.”
     But why would we expect anything different when we do not understand that the most important provider of information in the entire nation, the New York Times Company, a venerable institution in all the colleges of America, does not even attempt to be impartial? It all changed in 1935 when the Sulzberger family took control of The New York Times Company and began to “interpret” the news.
     Even if you don’t get your information directly from that source, you and your family are affected by it constantly. Even Brit Hume on Fox News says many times a week: “The New York Times said today ...”.when he should be saying: “Pinch Sulzberger and his dysfunctional family said today ...”
     When your maker made you independent with an independent mind, He expected you to use that mind and not let it rust. He is not happy to see you go into a hole and pretend you are all alone. We all know that is not true. If we didn’t understand it before Pinch Sulzberger inflicted “gay marriage” upon us, we do now.
     You owe it to yourself, your family and your maker to understand the world we live in. And please remember that no one is making any profit from this book. The proceeds are being used only to spread this message of hope to more people. After all, we are not fighting “Superman,” only tragic little people who have lost their way. We must know the difference.
Sulzberger’s New York Times Conglomerate Attempted to Damage Pawlick’s Daughter
      The New York Times conglomerate tried to hurt Atty. Ed Pawlick’s daughter last spring simply because Pawlick had the courage to oppose “gay marriage.”
     In April 2004, it printed, on the front page of the Business section of the Boston Globe, a large story intended to incite lawyers against the daughter, who has owned Lawyers Weekly for seven years. The first two words in the story were: “Attention attorneys.”
Then this followed:

     The attempt to damage the daughter failed and made it even more clear that Pinch Sulzberger is very worried and understands that he’s in serious trouble if Pawlick is not stopped from telling the truth.
Only One Way to Understand Why Sulzberger Is So Desperate
     There’s only one way to discover what frightens Sulzberger so badly. Reading this fascinating and revealing book will quickly show you the answers. Everyone else is afraid to go against this powerful institution.
     The Globe story agreed that Pawlick’s newspapers “have become the bible” for lawyers.
     But it also said that his “current campaign to preserve the traditional definition of marriage” makes him part of the “fringe.” When did that become part of the “fringe”?
     “He is a man fond of conspiracy theories, and he has a mean streak to boot,” their article continued. But they just pulled that out-of-the-air, with no attempt to show why they said it.
      Sulzberger made one serious mistake. In the past, he has always ignored Pawlick, hoping he will just go away. This time, he acknowledged he knows about Pawlick in that his reporter wrote that he had contacted Sulzberger who “declined to comment on the book.”
      Obviously, the news about the book has gotten to Times Square and Sulzberger is concerned enough to tell his man in Boston, Richard Gilman, to do a hatchet-job on Pawlick. But it didn’t work. And it gave even more publicity to “Libel by New York Times.”
      The article was so vicious that every reader could readily see it. Why was Sulzberger trying to hurt her? Because he’s a desperate man who is in trouble? Despite the fact that the daughter said that Pawlick “has no ownership interest in or influence over Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly,” he still wasn’t satisfied.
     “But Lawyers Weekly would not say whether dad still receives income from the company,” it speculated, noting that Lawyers Weekly is a private, closely-held business which doesn’t comment on finances.
     It ended its story this way: “Reasonable people can disagree on what marriage is or is not. But leaders like Ed Pawlick, we can do without.”
       Pawlick had the last laugh. His daughter revealed on Sept. 1 that she had just sold the company after almost a year of negotiating for an undisclosed amount to Dolan Media of Minneapolis. She is a lawyer with four children under the age of eight who wanted to spend more time at home.
     “So eat your heart out, Pinch, and play fair for once in your life,” said Pawlick, “and keep your dirty hands away from my daughter. I have never said anything about you that isn’t a true fact. Sadly, you cannot make that statement, and you know it.”