Friday, September 30, 2005

Saturday the 25th I wrote an article about a local columnist stating that I have never been able to finish one of her articles. It was suggested to me that I check the last paragraph of her article. I did. At the end of the particular column I was referring to, the writer gave the telephone number of Planned Murderhood of Central Illinois so that desperate women can get a prescription for the abortion pill over a weekend by phoning in a request.

Two comments in relation to this. It seems that a doctor's examination is no longer needed for a prescription these days. Also, do you think that the Peoria Journal Star and Planned Murderhood of Central Illinois have a contract between them that the Journal Star promotes the murderous practices of Planned Murderhood? This is not the first time the Journal Star has promoted this particular organization and encouraged the use of abortion pills by giving contact information for Planned Murderhood. What are the values represented by the Peoria Journal Star?

On 9/23/05 on page B5 the Journal Star had an article about Alex Sanger speaking at an award dinner of Planned Murderhood of Central Illinois. Mr. Sanger is the grandson of the founder of Planned Murderhood according to the article. From the comments quoted in the story it seems Mr. Sanger is as delusional as the rest of the libertines that are promoting the murder of unborn babies.

Here are some quotes from that article. "'Reproductive freedom is in the hands of the Republican Party,' he said. 'No freedom, no right is safe if one party platform opposes it.'"

"Sanger said polls show 73 percent of registered Republicans support abortion rights in at least some circumstances."

"'The Republican Party is pro-choice,' he said"

"His grandmother's greatest achievement, he said, was to make birth control respectable and discussed by everyone."

"'We failed to do that with abortion,' he said."

My comments on his comments are as follows. One can never make the murder of unborn babies respectable as long as the American people have any moral values. How can any responsible person with any concept of decency believe that murder of the unborn is respectable? Prayerfully that will never happen. Prayerfully Americans are now realizing that murder is not a viable solution! If the Republican Party is pro-murder of the unborn, why are the libertines so concerned about President Bush's judicial appointments? If Republicans support the murder of unborn babies, why does the platform oppose it? If Republicans supported the murder of unborn babies, a new political party would arise to demand the end of the murder of innocent unborn babies!

He quotes what he claims are the results of polls that state 73% of Republicans support the murder of unborn babies in some circumstances. First, as I've said before, polls are not a reliable method in many instances for determining the positions of the public. Nor do polls make policy decisions. Also, he neglects to state that one such circumstance is to save the life of the mother which is a very small percentage of actual abortions. It's quite conceivable that over 50% of that so called 73% only supported abortion to save another life. That does not mean they approve of the vast majority of abortions that occur in spite of no danger to the mother. As usual, the advocates of murder distort everything they can to attempt to achieve their immoral ends. Finally, no concept of freedom or any perceived right will ever allow the murder of unborn babies. Such practice is sin! Support of such sin is sin! Peoria Journal Star owners: the support of such sin is sin! GOD save the United States from itself!

Thursday, September 29, 2005

Mike Bailey is the new opinion editor of the Peoria Journal Star. Before his new appointment he wrote a weekly Sunday column which so far he continues to write. Sunday September 25, 2005 his column was printed in the paper. He basically was discussing a councilman's suggestion that the council investigate regulating newspaper boxes on city right of ways. The following is a quote from that article, "Not only aren't their boxes aesthetically pleasing or revenue generators, but 'they're a safety hazard, too,' he (Councilman Sandberg--my addition) said. 'It obfuscates the visibility at an intersection.' (Hate to be picky, but I think the word is 'obscures,' not 'obfuscates.' Oh well, it's the brave councilman who attempts a word of more than one syllable.)" The two sentences in the parenthesis are comments added by Mike Bailey in relation to the councilman's statement.

Here are my comments on Mike Bailey's comments. First, note that as usual he can't help but take a shot at the city council members in general with his snide remark that "it's a brave councilman who attempts a word of more than one syllable." That comment to me says that Mr. Bailey considers the council members in general to be rather unintelligent. He doesn't say that they grunt one syllable sentences but the comment comes very close to that implication.

I admit that my knowledge and use of the English language is limited. Writing and/or speaking were never my strong subjects--political science was. I have no doubt that while I was a member of the school board I sometimes misused the English language and sometimes did not communicate what I meant to communicate. It has been my experience that is also true for anyone who does a lot of public speaking. We are not reading off of cue cards. That is one reason why I object to the continuing attempts to make Mr. Bush look bad in relation to his public speaking. You can find mistakes by anyone if you look long enough and hard enough--yet I don't remember anyone in the media making fun of Senator Kerry. I however am rather certain he also made mistakes unless he was reading from prepared material. (I refused to use prepared material.) Nobody who does a lot of public speaking without notes is perfect in doing that.

Since I know my extreme limits in English, I tend to use the dictionary quite frequently. I checked the dictionary to see if Mr. Bailey's comment was accurate. I don't believe it is. As I read the sentence, the noun in the sentence is "it." The "it" referred to is the newspaper box. The verb in the sentence is "obfuscates." Mr. Bailey believes the verb should be "obscures" and can not be "obfuscates." My dictionary identifies "obfuscates" as a verb and provides the following definitions: "1 a: darken b: to make obscure 2: confuse." My dictionary further defines "obscure" as a verb meaning "1: to make dark, dim, or indistinct 2: to conceal or hid by or as if by covering...."

Substituting definition 1b in the sentence used by the councilman, the sentence now reads "It makes obscure (or conceals, one of the definitions for "obscure") the visibility at an intersection." As I said, I am no wiz at English. However, it seems to me that that is an acceptable use of the word "obfuscates." It certainly is as valid as using the word "obscures" since it means the same thing basically. Do you think Mr. Bailey owes the councilman a public apology through the newspaper?

I suggested awhile ago that the editorial staff of the Peoria Journal Star read the U.S. Constitution before they write editorials in relation to its content. Do you think that Mr. Bailey should consult a dictionary before he tries to publicly ridicule an elected government official? However, he did say that he "Hate(d) to be picky." The problem is I didn't believe it when I read it and I believe it less now. That is however the way the editorial staff is at the Peoria Journal Star. They are a fine example for the newspaper.

Another quote from the article is as follows: "So you can imagine the hell my life has become between those twin witches Katrina and Rita.

Throw in global warming, Biblical flooding, evacuees/refugees, terrorism...and it's starting to feel like Armageddon." Armageddon is in reference to a tremendous battle in the book of "Revelation" in the New Testament of the Bible. Biblical flooding is a reference to the flood that destroyed all humans except for Noah and his family. My response is that Mr. Bailey has no concept of hell, Armageddon, or the flood. Hell is so much worse than his life at the present that his present life would be considered a time of paradise in comparison. The floods of today don't come close to Noah's flood and never will and I don't think he really believes today is close to starting to look like Armageddon. Do you think he is trying to mock Christians? He is right about one thing though. This world as we know it is going to be ended by GOD. And the United States if it continues on its path of sin without repentance will soon (relatively speaking) perish as we know it. (All definitions are from Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition; Merriam-Webster, Incorporated; Springfield, Massachusetts; 1995.)

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

As difficult as it is for me believe this, I didn't post Monday night because my phone line had been dead since Sunday. According to the telephone repairman, squirrels ate through the cable line.

Recommended reading--Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America by Mark R. Levin.

On 9/26/05 the Peoria Journal Star printed another column by libertine columnist Ellen Goodman dealing with Judge Roberts and his nomination to the Supreme Court as Chief Justice. As one reads through all the dribble the seeming point of her article is that Judge Roberts lacks heart. Or as she quotes California Senator Dianne Feinstein (who I certainly would probably never use as a reliable source), "or (did that make Judge Roberts--my addition) an 'automaton,' in Dianne Feinstein's word?"

Of course, the libertine's definition of having heart is to support the murder of unborn babies, allow homosexuality, protect homosexuality as if it is a civil right, deny the existence of GOD--THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS, confiscate our property for the good of the people, allow eleven year olds to murder their unborn babies without parental input, hand out abortion pills as if they were aspirin, murder unborn babies by ramming a pointed rod through their brain (partial birth abortion), and permit all manner of smut in the name of freedom of speech among other libertine values. The last thing they want is someone who actually follows the United States Constitution. They want activist Justices who believe they somehow have the knowledge, insight, and ability to decide what is best for our country (referred to by libertine's as having heart) regardless of the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress or the states.

The libertines have basically conceded that Judge Roberts will be the new Chief Justice unless the libertine Democrats in the Senate stage a surprise filibuster. So why are they still writing about Judge Roberts and his perceived lack of heart? They are preparing for the next Supreme Court appointment from President Bush. I personally believe they will try much harder to prevent the next nomination whoever the nominee may be. Judge Roberts replaced a Justice who overwhelmingly based his judicial opinion on his understanding of the Constitution as written. It was a matter of replacing one strict constructionist with another. That will not be true in the second nomination if President Bush again nominates a strict constructionist. That nomination will be replacing a Justice, who more often than not in the major decisions that ignored the Constitution, voted with the libertines on the bench. If President Bush nominates a strict constructionist I expect a down and dirty fight from the libertine Democrats in the Senate. Be prepared.

One last thing in relation to Judge Roberts. Monday night I was watching the American Center for Law and Justice's weekly one half hour TV program. It was dealing with the present judicial nominations. A news clip was shown with Illinois Senator Durbin saying that he and the American people want a Justice who has the values of main street America. Senator Durbin voted against Judge Roberts in committee and said he would vote against Judge Roberts when the vote is taken in the Senate. In my opinion, Senator Durbin is delusional if he believes he represents main street American values and he is delusional if he thinks the libertine decisions of the present Supreme Court represents main street American values. If they do, why were they not established by the legislative process rather than by Court fiat? However, if he is correct and we do not repent and turn back to GOD given values, we are doomed as a nation.

Sunday, September 25, 2005

September 21, 2005 I wrote a blog in reaction to an opinion piece by one of the Peoria Journal Star's libertine syndicated columnists. The original article as I said in the blog continued the normal ranting and raving about the abortion pill that the editorial staff had done in earlier writings. On the same page that day a local columnist for the Journal Star wrote another article about the abortion pill and Illinois pharmacists. I have since been asked why I didn't also respond to that locally written piece.

I had considered doing so. I have already stated that pharmacists should have the right not to participate in a practice that is morally reprehensible to them and to their GOD. The practice of course is to help someone else murder an unborn baby. The governor's edict has now been taken to court. It is my guess that it will end up in the Illinois Supreme Court if not going eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court. I'm not familiar enough with the state Supreme Court to predict how they might rule.

As for not responding specifically to the column, the fact of the matter is that I have never been able to completely read one of her articles. I read enough of this one to know it was about pharmacists but didn't get it all read (just as in her earlier ones). I really don't care what her opinion is on the matter. Anyone who is so arrogant that they think they have the right to determine GOD'S gender doesn't carry much weight with me. (I did read enough of her column once to know she referred to GOD as female.) One day I may be able to actually finish one of her articles. That day has not yet come.

Saturday, September 24, 2005

I just finished reading Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America By Mark R. Levin. I don't agree with everything he wrote especially his two basic solutions to controlling the Court--basically because they both require Constitutional Amendments. I think there are sufficient methods already available in the Constitution if we have the will to use them. However, I do recommend the book. It is informative reading especially if you are not familiar with the court system and how it has operated over the years.

That said, over the last two days, the Peoria Journal Star has had a couple of articles dealing with Judge Roberts' nomination and I want to discuss some of the things said (as quoted in the paper) by some of the Democrats. The first article entitled "Roberts picks up Democratic support" was on page A2 of the 9/22/05 Journal Star. Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy who is the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee is quoted as saying, "'I can only take him at his word that he does not have an ideological agenda.'" That is an almost obscene comment considering that it is the libertine Democrats who have the ideological agenda and it is the libertine Democrats who have been using the Supreme Court to achieve what they could not achieve through the legislative process. Do they really believe the majority of the American people are so ignorant that they don't know this?

Another comment from the same headlined article is from Illinois Senator Barack Obama. He is quoted as stating, "'He strikes me as a good and decent person, but he is still following instructions, which is to say as little as possible on some core issues about how he would decide cases.'" Duh! The Senate's responsibility is to select a nominee who is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. It is not suppose to be issue based; but qualification based. First of all, until a case is before the Supreme Court, no Justice knows what the issues are. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is not supposed to be issue based; it is suppose to be constitutionally based. These libertine Senators are so far in left field both literally and figuratively that they no longer even recognize the function of the Supreme Court. It is not a super legislature!

There were two articles next to each other on page A2 of the 9/23/05 Peoria Journal Star. "Roberts wins committee approval" has this quote from Libertine Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy, "'The values and perspectives displayed over and over again in his record cast doubt on his view of voting rights, women's rights, civil rights and disability rights.'" What Senator Kennedy means is that Judge Roberts' values are not the same as Senator Kennedy's values (or lack of values). What he further means is that he doesn't think Judge Roberts supports the murder of unborn babies (a bogus, espoused women's "right") nor does he think the Judge supports homosexuality as a civil right. Libertine Democrats prefer to use code phrases rather than actually defining their lack of moral values.

The final article on the same page is headlined "Durbin, Obama announce their opposition." Senators Durbin and Obama are Illinois' two Democratic Senators. Senator Durbin is quoted as saying, "'He was so cautious and so guarded and so unwilling to tell us the most basic things about his beliefs and values. This man is going to guide our court for generations. (I'm not sure how long he expects Judge Roberts to live?) I just needed to know more before I gave him my vote.'" Libertine Democrat speak for "He didn't say he was going to support the murder of unborn babies or homosexuality as a civil right so I'm not about to upset my libertine Democratic money bagmen by voting for him." (My translation, of course.)

In the same article, Illinois Senator Obama states, "'... I hope that he will recognize who the weak and who the strong are in our society, and I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to bullies of all ideological stripes.'" What!!! That is not part of the job description or part of the function of a member of the court system. The function of the court is to apply the law and the Constitution as it was written. Senator Obama's comment may be relevant for a member of Congress. It is not appropriate for a member of the court. The court is not supposed to take sides on an issue. (They have been for years but they are not supposed to; that is not their purpose and function.) Again, Senator Obama is trying to turn judges and Justices into super legislators. We have far too much of that already!

What is glaringly absent from any of these quoted comments and any other printed comment I have read (or heard) from Democrats is the only area that they should be examining. Will Judge Roberts follow and uphold the Constitution of the United States? That is the purpose and function ultimately of all judges and Justices. Why do libertine Democrats not even consider that question?

Thursday, September 22, 2005

I received another petition Wednesday. I would again encourage everyone to print it, sign it, and sent it to:

Senator William Frisk
Senate Majority Leader
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510

Or send them to me at:

Christian Gunslinger
P.O. Box 481
Morton, Illinois 61550

And I will mail them at the end of each week as a group. Thank you. Pray that GOD leads us back from the libertine direction the court and others have been taking the nation.


As a concerned citizen, I am signing this petition to express my support for the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance and my outrage at efforts to ban the Pledge as written from public schools. The Pledge is a vital reminder of our nation's heritage and a strong support for the values that make our nation great. I oppose any efforts through the courts or the legislature to ban the Pledge or any portion thereof.

In addition, I support efforts to protect the Pledge of Allegiance, including the Pledge Protection Act which would prevent federal courts from declaring any portion of the Pledge unconstitutional.

Signature: _______________________________

Address: _______________________________

The Peoria Journal Star continues ranting and raving over the abortion pill--this time through Ellen Goodman a columnist for the Boston Globe. She, of course, is one of the libertine regulars published in the Journal Star. This new article doesn't say anything that is basically different so I'm not going to quote her and then point out the errors in her arguments. Been there; done that.

However, let's consider this. We know from past articles that all these writers support the murder of unborn babies. We know that they don't seem to have a problem with one million innocent new lives being destroyed before they are even born. We know that they don't seem to have a problem with 11-17 years old having easy access to an abortion pill regardless of the wishes of their parents. We know that they turn their noses up at the practice of abstinence. We know that they seem to support partial birth abortions that are, to most people in this country, barbaric in nature. We know that they are seemingly quite willing and able to lie to try to achieve their goals.

Think carefully about this. How can anyone who believes in the dignity of human life trust the judgment, the statements, the opinions, the accuracy, the truth of anything written by individuals who believe that there is no problem with murdering unborn babies. Some even deny, at least publicly, that they are babies. (Just a "wart" interfering with the life of a woman.) Can you expect the Peoria Journal Star or its editorial staff to have integrity? Can you expect the Peoria Journal Star or its editorial board to have credibility? Can you expect the Peoria Journal Star or its editorial writers to impartially present the news? Can you expect the Peoria Journal Star or its editorial staff to fairly present both sides of the issue? Can you trust anything they write? Does the Peoria Journal Star or its editorial board fairly and impartially reflect the views and opinions of the majority of the people of central Illinois?

You decide. As for me, I thank GOD daily that I voted for George W. Bush and that he was elected President of the United States. And I'm a Democrat but will never be a libertine Democrat.

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Yesterday, I wrote about the Afghan election. Tonight, I want to continue by discussing the German election as covered by the Peoria Journal Star by means of a report by an Associated Press writer. A little background according to that newspaper article which was on the second page of the front section of the September 19, 2005 paper. The current Chancellor is Gerhard Schroeder leader of the Social Democrats. The Christian Democrats led by Angela Merkel is the major opposition party. Here are two quotes from the article. "Supporters at Merkel headquarters were subdued after the party's poor performance. The Christian Democrats consistently polled above 40 percent during the campaign, with surveys giving it a double-digit lead." "With 298 of 299 districts declaring, the results showed Merkel's Christian Democrats with 35.2 percent of the vote compared to 34.3 percent for Schroeder's Social Democrats."

Some more background before I comment on the quotes given. Germany is a parliamentary system. There are a number of political parties that run candidates for parliament. If one of the major parties does not win a majority of the parliamentary seats, one of them forms a coalition with a smaller party (or smaller parties) until they do have a majority parliament. Before the election, the Social Democrats had the majority parliamentary power. Here is the number of seats before the election and after the election for the two major parties.

Social Democrats: Before: 251 After: 222 Percent of vote: 34.3%

Christian Democrats: Before: 248 After: 225 Percent of vote: 35.2%

Looking at the data: The Social Democrats had three more seats than did the Christian Democrats before the election. After the election, the Christian Democrats have three more seats than do the Social Democrats. The Christian Democrats gained a total of six seats in relation to the Social Democrats. Both of the two major parties lost seats to the smaller parties. The Christian Democrats received about one percent more of the vote than did the Social Democrats. No coalition has yet been formed by either of the two major parties at the time the article was written.

The Christian Democrats gained six seats in relation to the Social Democrats. They went from the second largest party in parliament to the largest party in parliament replacing the Social Democrats. Yet, the article said that the Christian Democrats had a "poor performance" in the election. Why? Because of created expectations by the media. As the article stated, "The Christian Democrats consistently polled above 40 percent during the campaign, with surveys giving it a double-digit lead."

Here is the problem. Anyone who is knowledgeable about public opinion polls knows that they are not as valid and reliable as the media tries to make them out to be. (One day in the near future I hope to do an article or two on public opinion polls--don't bet the farm on their accuracy.) Yet, because of created expectations by these polls and the news media, the writer of this article can slant the news saying that the Christian Democrats did poorly even though they won more votes than any other party and received more seats in parliament than any other party. (I'd hate to see the story if the Christian Democrats had actually lost!)

The media tries to make black look like white and white look like black. If the Christian Democrats did poorly, then the Social Democrats did even worse because they lost more seats than did the Christian Democrats. An old saying of knowledgeable politicians and others goes like this: "The only poll that counts is the poll on election day." That's one of the many reasons why I don't pay a lot of attention to polls and why the American public should not either. I've got another saying, "Tell me the results you want and I can give you a poll with those very results!"

Monday, September 19, 2005

Two elections of note this weekend. One election in Afghanistan electing a new parliament and one in Germany doing the same. A quote from today's Peoria Journal Star front page article from the Afghan President who had been elected last autumn, "'After 30 years of wars, interventions, occupations and misery, today Afghanistan is moving forward, making an economy, making political institutions,' President Hamid Karzai said as he cast his own ballot nearly a year after his own victory in an election that defied Taliban threats."

First, this struggle in Afghanistan is not over. However, democracy in their fashion is beginning. It is a great day for them made possible by the intervention of the United States. It did not come easily and it did not come cheaply. Many libertine Democrats voiced their opposition to our involvement. If they are smart, they will welcome this day as a day of developing freedom for the people of Afghanistan. Watch and see if they do or not. Don't be surprised if they don't.

Secondly, Iraq is also going through the same painful process. They were under dictatorial control for years in which thousands of their own citizens were murdered and two wars were waged before our intervention. Why do people expect this battle to be so easy? Afghanistan suffered through "30 years of wars, interventions, occupations and misery." They now are on their way to a democratic society but they will continue to have problems. The people of Iraq are suffering under terrorist assaults far greater than our troops are. How dare we even think of abandoning them to terrorists?! Probably the only thing that will prevent victory for the people of Iraq is our country's own lack of resolve and will to help a nation that has the opportunity to have democratic freedom. Yes, it probably won't be like our democracy. So what? Our democracy has evolved over time including a bloody civil war; give them a chance to do the same. Prayerfully, their democracy will not evolve into a Courtocracy.

Saturday, September 17, 2005

There was an article in today's Peoria Journal Star claiming that the Democrats will not attempt to filibuster over Judge Roberts' nomination and that he will be confirmed by the Senate. The only question remaining according to the Associated Press writer was how many no votes he will receive from the Democrats. Here is a quote from the article. "A strong 'no' vote also tells Bush he shouldn't nominate an ideologically rigid conservative as O'Connor's replacement, said Nan Aron of the liberal Alliance for Justice.

'The fact of the matter is that they're casting a vote on the chief justice, the highest judicial post of our country, the public face of the judiciary, and they should feel confident that when they vote 'No,' they are articulating an important statement about their values,' she said" (The "they" she is referring to are Senate Democrats.)

Let's examine this quote. First the Alliance for Justice in my political opinion is not liberal; it is one of many libertine groups that oppose a strict interpretation of the Constitution. They oppose a strict interpretation of the Constitution because they know such an interpretation would prevent the libertine policies that they espouse. They desire to have as much control over the judiciary as they possibly can because they have already lost control of the two elected branches of the federal government that answer directly to the people. They have been using the small, unelected judicial branch of government for years to force their agenda on the American people. It is much easier to convince five unelected Justices to make inappropriate changes than it is to convince elected bodies who have to stand before the people for reelection.

What does she mean when she refers to an "ideologically rigid conservative?" I would interpret that as any judge or individual who believes that the Constitution should be the basis for Constitutional decisions. Again, using the actual wording and precedents of the Constitution will not allow the implementation of their political agenda. Thus, they want only activists to be appointed to the Court. Anyone other than a judicial activist is an "ideologically rigid conservative." Rigid because they will not respond to arguments not based on the Constitution. Conservative because they actually believe that the Constitution is the basis for law in this country and should therefore be used as worded to reach decisions on Constitutional questions. In other words, they don't want anyone who will actually follow the Constitution in reaching Constitutional decisions. How strange!

What are the values that libertine Democrats will be articulating if they vote no against Judge Roberts' nomination? The desire to have activist judges appointed to all court positions. The desire to continue the thirty-two year practice of murdering unborn babies. The desire to recognize homosexuality as a civil right. The desire to remove all references to GOD the CREATOR of the universe in relation to all levels of government and public life. The desire to foster upon us a libertine society.

This quote demonstrates that the battle is far from over. Even if Judge Roberts is confirmed by the Senate as he should be, they are far from giving up their desire to control the country through the judiciary. The next appointment to the Supreme Court will no doubt be another test in relation to the direction this nation takes. We must continue to demand the appointment of and confirmation of Justices and judges who will obey the Constitution and use the Constitution as the basis for reaching Constitutional decisions.

The power is in our hands, let's use it!
Here is a quote from a Peoria Journal Star editorial headline on September 12, 2005: "Compounding an awful precedent." Here is a quote of the first sentence of that editorial: "John Morris surely knows that two wrongs don't make a right." I'm not going to deal with the rest of the editorial. I didn't read past the first paragraph. What is important is that the editorial staff recognizes that some precedent can be awful--from the headline--and the editorial board recognizes that "two wrongs don't make a right." And someone said that the editorial writers of the Journal Star and I can't agree on anything--we can, I just don't think they'll like how I use those two quotes.

In the paper the same day was a short article dealing with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter who supports the murder of unborn babies even though he is a Republican. You may recall that when he was in line for the chairmanship some conservative groups were opposed to him receiving it. They feared he would use the position to try to prevent judges and Justices opposed to the murder of unborn babies from being approved by the committee. He did receive the chairmanship perhaps by agreeing not to use his authority to obstruct such nominations. (I don't know, that's just an educated guess.)

Two quotes from that article include: "he (Senator Specter) will not ask Supreme Court chief justice nominee John Roberts whether he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that legalized abortion." The second quote is "'I (Senator Specter) think it is inappropriate to ask him head-on if he's going to overturn Roe, but I believe that there are many issues close to the issue, like his respect for precedent,' Specter told NBC's 'Meet the Press.'"

As the headline from the editorial declares not all precedent is worthy of being followed. Some precedent can be and is awful. Some precedent can be and is a plain violation of the Constitution. The decision in Roe v. Wade clearly ignores the provisions of the Constitution. You can and should respect precedent that is valid. Reversing precedent that is inherently wrong and destructive is also showing respect for precedent. After all, the precedent before Roe v. Wade for the vast majority of our history was not to allow the murder of unborn babies. Horrendous precedent should not be followed just because it is precedent no more than an unconstitutional law should be allowed to stand just because it is a law passed by Congress. (I am intentionally avoiding the controversy of whether or not the Courts even have the right to declare laws unconstitutional.) Laws can be unconstitutional if they violate the Constitution according to our Supreme Court. A precedent that violates the Constitution should not be allowed to stand just because it has become a precedent.

The next day on September 13, 2005 the editorial board wrote another editorial ranting and raving about the abortion pill. They were complaining that the federal government had not yet made a decision to allow the abortion pill to be sold over the counter. They continued to use the same incorrect arguments that they had previously used. They concluded by calling upon the state of Illinois to allow the abortion pill to be sold over the counter.

I would remind the editorial board of their statement in the previous day's editorial--"two wrongs don't make a right." Allowing the murder of unborn babies by a medical abortion is wrong. Allowing the murder of an unborn baby by an abortion pill is wrong. Selling an abortion pill over the counter so that underage teenagers (or younger) can get it either directly or indirectly is wrong. I guess in this case three wrongs don't make a right. Does the editorial board get this? No!

Friday, September 16, 2005

Yesterday in my post, I mentioned that another arrogant, power driven federal judge had ruled the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. Here is a quote from the article written today in the Peoria Journal Star. "U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation 'under God' violates school children's right to be 'free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.'

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue." (Peoria Journal Star, September 15, 2005, page A3, below the fold)

An explanation of the term "lacked standing." It basically means that the individual who brought the case to court does not have any legal justification to be involved in the case. In the original case mentioned, since the father did not have custody of the daughter, he had no basis for filing a law suit. The mother could have, he could not.

Now, if he did not have standing as the Supreme Court said he did not, then he did not have standing at the Appellate court level and he did not have standing at the District court level. If he did not have standing, he did not legally have any case before those two lower courts--it is as if the case never happened. Yet, the District court judge is now trying to use the decision of the Appellate court that legally never existed as his justification for ruling the phrase "under God" unconstitutional. He is trying to claim a nonexistent decision, legally speaking, is now a precedent that he as a lower court judge must obey. That is an absolute misuse of precedent. There is no precedent because legally there was no case. Now, if I know that, why doesn't this judge?

Congress placed the phrase "under God" by law into the Pledge of Allegiance approximately fifty years ago. After fifty years it is all of a sudden a coercive requirement that is not allowed by the Constitution. For fifty years that was not true! The Declaration of Independence has at least three references to a Higher Being (God). Is learning and reading about the Declaration of Independence now a coercive requirement that is unconstitutional under this judge's definition of what is Constitutional and what is not?

We now have a situation where according to Court rulings eleven year old girls can murder their unborn baby without the approval of a parent. Any filthy language is acceptable as free speech and has no coercive influence on children. Congress can not regulate the internet to try to limit children's access because it would possibly limit the free speech of adults. Yet, the phrase "under God" is coercive and harmful to children. What illogical, absurdly ridiculous, libertine trash!!!

This is yet another situation where a small handful of people can control what occurs legally in the United State because of the misuse and abuse of the Constitution by uncontrolled judges. (The greatest abuser of children in this country are the federal courts!) It does not matter if the majority of people support the position of a Congress who was elected by the people. A small group of unelected judges and Justices have total control over the final conclusion of the will of the people. This is Courtocracy in the fullest. It is also a violation of the very Constitution they took an oath to obey and protect. I believe it is time to impeach and convict judge Lawrence Karlton for violating his oath of office!

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

I wasn't going to write about this topic tonight. I was planning on dealing with a recent Peoria Journal Star editorial. It is so easy to find fault with so much of what they write about. Nevertheless, I'm changing direction for tonight since this deals with some of the things I have been saying in relation to the courts.

I was talking to someone today who at one time worked for Illinois State University. Often our conversations involve education. The conversation swung to our court system and specifically the United States Supreme Court. If I understood her correctly, we both agree that the Supreme Court is out of control. The question asked was: "What can we do about it?" (I just heard on the news tonight that a judge on the federal circuit court in California has ruled that the phrase "under GOD" in the Pledge of Allegiance is once again unconstitutional. The absolute arrogance of some of these judges!!!!!!!)

I said that there were three avenues of control and listed them. As I think about it now, there are actually at least six avenues available to rein in the Court and maybe even more.

The first one deals with passing laws to assist the courts in making a Constitutional decision. The petition that was presented here on the September 12, 2005 post is an example of how to do this. The Supreme Court in its Roe v. Wade decision said that the Court was unable to determine when life began. So in a typical illegal decision, they decided it was alright to destroy a new life until birth actually occurred since they were uncertain. Of course, the logical decision would have been to error on the side of preserving a life and not allowing the murder of unborn babies. That would have been contrary to the set libertine agenda of some court members. In circumstances such as these, Congress can help the court by, in this case, defining the beginning of life as occurring at conception which, of course, it does. Congress by law can guide the Court through the "difficult" problems it some times encounters.

The second means of control is before the country today. Who is appointed to serve on the Supreme Court is tremendously important in relation to the decisions the Court reaches. The libertines know this. That, as I've said before, is why they do not want the appointment of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Libertine Democrats do not want Justices to follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Following the Constitution would disallow many of the libertine decisions of the Supreme Court over the last forty-five years. The problem that develops is that the power the court has been granted through neglect does corrupt some members of the Court and they become activist Justices enticed by the power they possess.

Along these lines, if the Supreme Court errors in a decision; that decision can be corrected by Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court has been informally and illegally amending the Constitution for years with the unconstitutional decisions decided by the Court. The difficulty in this case is that with the Court it only takes five votes to rewrite the Constitution. With a Constitutional Amendment, it takes a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress and then a 3/4 vote of all the states to approve the Amendment. It is much easier for the Supreme Court to illegally amend the Constitution than it is to follow the designated procedure.

A fourth possibility is one I have mentioned before. The Constitution does not provide a term of office for life. The Constitution specifically says for "good behavior." It is obviously not good behavior to violate the oath of office every judge and Justice takes to uphold the Constitution. I am confident that if Congress began using its Constitutional duty of impeachment and conviction, most judges and Justices would stop abusing their power. Congress has to develop the "backbone" necessary to keep the Court in check as provided by the Constitution. It is not easy and it was not intended to be. However, it obviously was intended as a method to be used or it would not have been included in the Constitution.

The fifth possibility has been used in the past but again has not been often used in this present situation. It is extremely simple in design but could generate a Constitutional crisis. Of course, we have been under a Constitutional crisis for the last forty-five years as we develop more and more into a Courtocracy rather than the democracy intended by the Constitution. Simply put, the President can and in the past has refused to obey the decision of the Court. The Supreme Court has no power of enforcement. The Justices must rely upon the other branches of government specifically the executive to enforce the decisions of the Court. No enforcement; the decision is moot!

Finally, when I mentioned this solution she said, "I didn't know that was in the Constitution." But, it is. In the first part of Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2 it lists the areas where the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction; then it states: "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Consequently, as provided directly within the Constitution, Congress has the power and the authority to regulate how the Court handles cases and has the power and the authority not to allow the Court to get involved in a case. No involvement; no unconstitutional decision from the Court.

The other branches of the government have the Constitutional power and authority to control the abuses of the Supreme Court! The people need to demand that they use them! The people need to demand the end of our incremental plunge into a Courtocracy where a few dictate the direction of the government. The people need to demand: "Give us back our democracy!"
Michael Brown the director of FEMA resigned. I do not know if his reactions to the hurricane were incompetent or not. Neither does anyone else at this time. However, I do know that he was hounded out of office by libertine Democrats who claim to believe in due process and equal protection of the law, but do not!

Almost immediately after the hurricane hit New Orleans, these libertine Democrats proclaimed themselves to be prosecutors, judges, and the jury. They demanded that Mr. Brown either resign or be fired based upon their own opinions of the situation. Where was the investigation? Where was the due process? Where was the impartial consideration of the facts? It did not happen!

Even accused criminals are guaranteed that they are innocent until proven guilty. Even accused criminals are guaranteed due process of law. Even accused criminals are guaranteed a fair trial by an impartial jury. That however is not the case for an individual who happens to be a member of the opposition party. Libertine Democrats demanded their pound of flesh without any investigation. They already knew Mr. Brown was guilty and demanded his removal from office.

This should not be surprising. These are, in the main, the same libertine Democrats who have lied to the American people for years and years. These are the same libertine Democrats who have no problem with the murder of unborn babies and call it a civil right. These are the same libertine Democrats who espouse the sin of homosexuality as a civil right. These are the same libertine Democrats who blatantly lie and claim that the Constitution of the U.S. requires a "wall between church and state" when no such provision is found anyway in the Constitution or any amendment. Then, they claim that are doing this for the good of religion as if GOD needed their help. These are the same libertine Democrats who promote activist judges and Justices ignoring the provisions of the Constitution to achieve their own aims and goals. These are the same libertine Democrats who have lost control of the other two branches of the federal government and are desperately trying to maintain control of the judiciary. These are the same libertine Democrats who with the help of a libertine media are willing to use any circumstance including a natural disaster to further their cause.

Senator Durbin from Illinois who proclaimed to the world that the actions of some military personnel were similar to the actions of Nazi Germany before and during World War II is one of those libertine Democrats who called for Mr. Brown to be fired or removed from office. Yet, the same Mr. Durbin seems to be noticeably quiet about terrorists blowing up women and children in Iraq. I don't recall him making the same statements about the terrorists who were cutting off the heads of noncombatant, innocent captives while filming the murder of each captive. I don't recall him resigning when people complained about his statements which were broadcast throughout the world. Of course not, it is only the opposition who is not allowed an opportunity to defend themselves in a fair and reasonable investigation using due process. It is only the opposition who is not allowed to make even perceived mistakes.

Prayerfully, in the end the American people will see through these lies. Prayerfully, in the end the American people will realize that it is easy to take advantage of a crisis situation and demand actions that are in violation of the principles Americans claim to hold dear. Prayerfully, we will continue to remove from office through the democratic process these libertine Democrats who are doing so much harm to the country in the name of freedom. Prayerfully, the LORD of the universe will forgive us for allowing them to promote sin throughout the nation in the name of freedom. Uncontrolled libertine freedom is anarchy. Freedom without GOD is slavery to sin and leads only to physical and spiritual death. "Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of GOD." (I Peter 2: 16)

Monday, September 12, 2005

I received the following petition Sunday. I would encourage everyone to print it, sign it, and send it to:

Senator William Frisk
Senate Majority Leader
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Or send them to me at:

Christian Gunslinger
P.O. Box 481
Morton, Illinois 61550

And I will mail them at the end of each week as a group. Thank you. Pray that GOD leads us back from the libertine direction the court and others have been taking the nation.



Whereas: Because of Roe v. Wade, more than 45 million unborn children have died through abortions; and

Whereas: In Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court declared it could not resolve "the difficult question of when life begins"--and on the basis of this unresolved question, declared a new "right to abortion" based on a "right to privacy"; and

Whereas: The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"; and

Whereas: In Roe, the Supreme Court admitted: "If ... personhood [for the unborn] is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment...." (Roe v. Wade [410 US 113 at 156-7]); and

Whereas: Science is clear that human life begins at conception when a new human being is formed; and

Whereas: The American people oppose abortion-on-demand and want innocent life to be protected especially when it is most defenseless; and

Whereas: It belongs to Congress to resolve the question the Supreme Court said IT cannot resolve; and

Whereas: A Life at Conception Act, by declaring that unborn children are persons legally entitled to constitutional protection, will rescue millions of unborn children from dying by abortion-on-demand;

Therefore: I urge you to use all your power as Senate Majority Leader to make sure the Senate schedules hearings and a vote on a Life at Conception Act and to do everything possible to bring it to a full vote in the US House and Senate in this Session of Congress.

Signature: ______________________________

Address: _______________________________


Sunday, September 11, 2005

Remember 9/11 and Remember Pearl Harbor

Remember The Alamo
Remember The Alamo
Remember Pearl Harbor

Remember 9/11
Remember The Alamo
Remember Pearl Harbor

Remember 9/11

Pray for the LORD'S guidance!

"'Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our GOD, for true and just are HIS judgments....' 'Hallelujah!' ... The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshipped GOD, who was seated on the throne. And they cried: 'Amen, Hallelujah!' ... 'Praise our GOD, all you HIS servants, you who fear HIM, both small and great!' ... 'Hallelujah! For our LORD GOD ALMIGHTY reigns. Let us rejoice and be glad and give HIM glory!'" (Revelation 19: 1b-7a)

"'Worship God!'" (Revelation 22: 9b)

Saturday, September 10, 2005

The following letter to the editor was sent September 8th in response to an editorial written on the 7th. Since I don't expect it to be published and since I want to make more comments in relation to the editorial, I present it tonight along with further comments.

When is the Journal Star editorial staff going to actually read the Constitution? A quote from an editorial on 9/7/05. "The wall between church and state is not as sturdy as once it was but it has not come tumbling down, either." The "wall between church and state" is a fiction created by the Supreme Court.

I challenge the editorial board, any professors from any university, or anyone else to give the Article and Section or Amendment where that phrase is used in the Constitution. Then, quote that portion of the Constitution. It won't happen because it is not in the Constitution!

I am anxiously waiting to be enlightened.

Here is another quote from the same editorial. "Indeed, this President (President Bush, my addition) gets to leave his mark on the Supreme Court in a way few have, with two appointments...." I don't know the editorial board's definition of few. I do know however that counting George W. Bush the United States has had forty two Presidents. If my count is correct, of the first forty one Presidents (I'm not counting George W. Bush because he is still in office and has not yet appointed anyone to the court who has been approved.), twenty seven (27) different Presidents have appointed at least two members to the Supreme Court. Last time I knew, 27 is more than half of 41. Can the editorial board be serious in saying that few Presidents have had the opportunity to appoint two members to the Supreme Court!?!

Perhaps they mean in recent history. Wrong again! Beginning with President Franklin D. Roosevelt who appointed eight Associate Justices and one Chief Justice, every President appointed at least two Justices to the court with the exceptions of Jimmy Carter who did not appoint anyone and Gerald Ford who appointed one although Mr. Ford served less than four years. From Roosevelt to Clinton, that is eleven Presidents. Nine out of the eleven Presidents have appointed at least two members to the Supreme Court.

I wish the editorial board would learn the facts before they write!

On the same day that the editorial appeared, the Journal Star ran an advertisement for a curriculum package entitled "The Constitution & First Amendment Curriculum Package." I would suggest that before the editorial staff writes another editorial in relation to the Constitution that every member be required to take and pass that course. Learn what you are writing about before you write about it!

Friday, September 09, 2005

The quote from Tuesday, "When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean." (60 U.S. 621.) Did you guess Roe v. Wade the arrogantly obscene 1973 court decision that allows a mother to murder her own unborn baby? If you did, you are wrong. This quote is from a much earlier court case. It is from the equally infamous Dred Scott v. Standford court case of 1856. The quote was part of the dissenting opinion from Justice Benjamin Curtis who wrote in opposition to the 7-2 majority decision.

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Roger Taney. In his opinion the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans were not nor could they be U.S. citizens, that slaves were property, and that the Missouri Compromise that outlawed slavery in the territories was unconstitutional. The Dred Scott Decision was primarily supported by the Democratic Party and was opposed by the newly formed Republican Party.

"Whether it was dicta or not, Taney discussed the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise and the debate over slavery in the territories. His goal was to finally settle the status of slavery in the territories in favor of the South. Ignoring the plain language of the Constitution, Taney argued that Congress did not have the power to pass laws to regulate anything, including slavery, in the territories.

Taney also argued that any law that prohibited a master from taking a slave into the territories violated the Fifth Amendment, which protected the right to private property. Taney wrote that 'the right to property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution.'" (Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2004, Contributed By: Paul Finkelman.) This case is a prime example of Supreme Court Justices placing their own opinions above the clear meaning and intent of the Constitution. The country less than ten years later was involved in a bloody civil war in part because of this decision. Activist Justices ignoring Constitutional principles wrote their own decision based upon their own value judgments!

Almost one hundred twenty years later, activist Justices wrote their own law in relation to the murder of unborn babies. The Dred Scott Case and Roe v. Wade Case allowing the murder of unborn babies are the two most compelling examples of activist Justices doing untold harm to the nation because they have refused to follow the Constitution of the United States in violation of their oath of office.

We must stop the murder of unborn babies and stop activist Justices from controlling the country through their Courtocracy. Wake up America! Wake up Christians! Become actively involved in saving our nation from out of control activist Justices.

Thursday, September 08, 2005

There is an old saying. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Because Congress has not been willing to use their Constitutional power of impeachment and conviction, because court appointees serve for long undetermined periods of time without facing elections, because the public has not demanded that Justices follow the Constitution in their decisions, and probably because of other reasons not enumerated, the Supreme Court has taken upon itself more power and more control than was ever anticipated or desired by the writers of the Constitution.

It has not been overnight. It has been a gradual process over two hundred years. Sometimes the power grab accelerates; sometimes it is slowed down or momentarily reversed. It is a Courtocracy that has become the most powerful branch of the government. The Supreme Court determines what is law and what is not law. The Supreme Court writes law. The Supreme Court can blatantly disregard the Constitution in its decisions and it does. The Supreme Court can and has used international law and the laws of other countries to reach court decisions rather than our own Constitution.

Because of the power amassed by the Supreme Court, the most important power of the President is his power to appoint Supreme Court Justices. The libertines know this. That is why "Democratic Senators Charles Schumer of New York and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut said President Bush should ask (retired Justice Sandra Day, my addition) O'Connor to rescind her retirement and perhaps become chief justice." (Peoria Journal Star, Monday, September 5, 2005, page A7.) Two libertine Democrats want Justice O'Connor back on the court to delay the opportunity President Bush has to appoint two new Justices. Do you think they are concerned about the smooth functioning of the court or want to continue as long as possible the libertine direction of the court?

All Christians should thank GOD daily that Senator Kerry was not elected President. He had publicly stated that he would only appoint baby murderers to the Supreme Court. Before the retirement of Justice O'Connor there were four activist libertine Justices, four usually strict constructionist (They usually use the Constitution to reach their decision.) Justices including Justice Rehnquist, and swing vote Justice O'Connor who more often than not voted as an activist Justice. (Why else would two libertine Senators want her back on the court? You and I both know that if she were a strict constructionist they would not suggest it.)

President Bush now has the opportunity to appoint two members to the Supreme Court. However, here is the problem. Justices that are considered to be strict constructionists before appointment sometimes get enticed by the power they have and become activist Justices.

Of the activist Justices, two were appointed by President Clinton. (President Clinton made two appointments in his eight years in office.) Of President Reagan's three appointments, one is a strict constructionist, one is an activist, and one (Justice O'Connor) was more activist than strict constructionist. President Ford's one appointment is an activist. Only the first President Bush of recent Presidents appointed two strict constructionists who remained strict constructionists. Three (two and one half+) of the activists were appointed by Republican Presidents. We know Democratic Presidents appoint activist Justices. Unfortunately, some Justices are corrupted by the immense power possessed by the Supreme Court. Pray that President Bush's appointments are not swayed by that power!

I know I said that I would deal with the quote given yesterday. However, it took longer than I anticipated to write today's entry and I'm not going to be able to finish tonight. It will be explained tomorrow--the LORD willing.

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

As I'm sure you know, Chief Justice Rehnquist died over the weekend. May GOD have mercy on his soul and bless his family in their time of grief. As a liberal Democrat I was not pleased with his appointment in 1971. In 1973, I began to chance my position as an out of control court stunned knowledgeable Constitutional authorities by discovering that the Constitution allowed the murder of unborn babies. (A dissenting opinion is an opinion in which a Justice(s) does not agree with the majority opinion of the court.) A dissenting Justice Rehnquist wrote that "the majority had misinterpreted the Constitution by relying on the 14th Amendment's due-process guarantees to support a 'right to privacy.'

Noting that 36 states already had enacted abortion statues by 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted, Rehnquist said the majority had found 'within the scope of the 14th Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.'" (Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2004, Source: Los Angeles Times, January 23, 1973.) In other words, if the original writers of the 14th Amendment had intended that amendment to be used to disallow laws against abortion, those 36 laws that were already on the books would have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court at that time.

The activist Supreme Court in 1973, over one hundred years later, rewrote the Constitution to fulfill their own value judgments. They were not following the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, if one actually reads the Constitution, there is absolutely no mention of the word privacy or the phrase "right to privacy." It is not in the Constitution! No Justice could rationally reach the conclusion that a person can murder an unborn baby from any portion of the U.S. Constitution as written and amended!!!

During the time Justice Rehnquist was on the Supreme Court I did not always agree with his decisions. However, it was obvious from his decisions that he was trying to uphold the Constitution as written. He was not reaching his decision first based upon his own value judgments and then trying to use the Constitution to justify those value judgment decisions.

While he was Chief Justice, he was almost yearly invited to speak to law students at the University of Arizona. Sadly, almost yearly some law students would protest his appearance trying to prevent the Chief Justice from speaking. Here were future lawyers trying to deny freedom of speech to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court because they did not approve of his using the Constitution to reach Constitutional decisions. How perverted!

The following is a quote from a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court written as part of a dissenting opinion in a Supreme Court case. "When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its (the Constitution's, my addition) meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men (a Courtocracy, my addition), who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean." (Quoted from: Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America; page 15; Mark R. Levin; Regnery Publishing, Inc.; One Massachusetts Avenue, NW; Washington D.C., 20001; 2005.)

The quote is very similar to what I have been repeatedly saying. GUESS WHAT COURT CASE IT COMES FROM! (I will discuss more tomorrow and identify the court case the quote comes from.)

Saturday, September 03, 2005

According to at least one article I read in relation to hurricane Katrina, at least one group declared that the hurricane was GOD'S response to homosexual sin. The specific article I read ridiculed that idea.

The fact is I don't know. The fact is no one else knows. GOD knows. We do know that in the past GOD has intervened in the affairs of man. The flood and the destruction of the human race with the exception of Noah and his family is an obvious example. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for sins including homosexuality is another example mentioned both in the Old and New Testaments. The New Testament gives at least three examples of individuals who were killed by GOD because of their sin--Ananias and Sapphira, husband and wife, and Herod (all in the Book of Acts).

We also know that some occurrences are just that. Through the normal process of life people die--through natural causes, through accidents, through natural disasters. JESUS said the following "'Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower of Siloam fell on them--do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.'" (Luke 13: 2b-5)

James 4: 14 says "Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes." We have no guarantees as far as our life span is concerned. Death could occur at any time. Sometimes through GOD'S almighty hand. Most of the time through the natural processes that were put into place by GOD after the spiritual fall of man.

The important thing is to repent and come to the one and only true GOD and HIS SON, JESUS the CHRIST. Paul writes in II Corinthians 6: 2b "I tell you, now is the time of GOD'S favor, now is the day of salvation." Since we do not know when we are going to die (even people who attempt suicide are not always successful) the wise action on our part is to repent and turn to GOD today for salvation.

Unfortunately, many people refuse to repent and turn to GOD for their spiritual salvation. I am struck by the words of Revelation 16: 7-11 "And I heard the alter respond: 'Yes, LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, true and just are your judgments.'"

"The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of GOD, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify HIM.

The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom was plunged into darkness. Men gnawed their tongues in agony and cursed the GOD of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done."

Even in the face of personal disaster some people stubbornly refuse to repent and turn to GOD for salvation. They choose to curse the GOD of the universe and remain in their sins. They may complain greatly about their situation but they refuse to repent. They refuse to stop sinning. They refuse to give praise and glory to GOD and HIS SON. They refuse salvation. This is the only real, meaningful choice in life and they choose the wrong choice!

Friday, September 02, 2005

Let us continue to pray for the people affected by hurricane Katrina. Let us thank GOD for the generosity of the American people as they respond to the needs of those in the area.

Having said that, this morning on the radio I heard a news report which included the mayor of New Orleans blasting the federal government for their slow response. This evening I heard a TV newscast where he continued to fault the U.S. government with language that was bleeped out.

First of all, any mayor or other government official knows or should know that government bureaucracies react slowly. That is simply a fact of life. Given the circumstances, instead of complaining he should be grateful and thankful.

I don't know the mayor personally but I do know political people. If what I'm saying does not apply to him, I apologize. I do not know his motive(s) and very few people probably actually do. However, we all know that one of man's faults is to deny responsibility for mistakes and to try to blame others to take the heat off. That seems to be particularly true in this modern era.

This is a rather lengthy quote from the front page of the Peoria Journal Star on Monday, August 29, 2005 by an Associated Press writer written before the hurricane hit New Orleans.

"When Hurricane Katrina hits New Orleans today, it could turn one of America's most charming cities into a vast cesspool tainted with toxic chemicals, human waste and even coffins released by floodwaters from the city's legendary cemetaries." (My comment: if I remember correctly, New Orleans has above ground cemetaries.)

(Here is a key point as the quote continues.) "Experts have warned for years that the levees and pumps that usually keep New Orleans dry have no chance against a direct hit by a Category 5 storm."

"That is exactly what Katrina was as it churned north-northwest toward the city. With top winds of 160 mph and the power to lift sea level by as much as 28 feet, the storm threatened an environmental disaster of biblical (The writer (editor) did not capitalize Biblical, I would have.) proportions, one that could leave more than 1 million people homeless."

(Skipping four paragraphs of predictions.)

"With Katrina bearing down on his below-sea-level city, Mayor C. Ray Nagin ordered a mandatory evacuation for the city's 485,000 residents...."

Was it the federal government that built a city below sea level? Was it this administration who did not prepare the levees for a Category 5 storm? I'm not going to judge whether or not the evacuation order was given at the appropriate time since hind sight can never change the event and we don't have the benefit of hind sight at the point of decision (some people should remember this); but I do know from the story that it was the mayor not the federal government who gave the order. We also know from experience that some people choose to ignore such orders. Who made the decision to evacuate people to the domed statium? Who prepared the evacuation plans? In a federal system all these things and more are the responsibility of the local and possibly the state government.

Don't blame the federal government for a disaster not of their making! I wouldn't be surprised to hear someone blame President Bush for hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans. (A plot by his oil rich political friends?) It seems to be a situation of blaming any other person to take the pressure off. President Bush and the federal government becomes an easy target to blame. It unfortunately seems to be human nature--not GOD's nature. Is the mayor expecting perfection from everyone else and ignoring his own failures?
First, let me say that I (and I hope every Christian is) am praying for those who have been devastated by hurricane Katrina.

Yesterday, I heard on a Christian radio station that the governor of Louisiana had proclaimed today a day of prayer for the people of the state. I didn't see that news in the paper but I could have missed it. I've been skimming the paper the last few days. I know I shouldn't have, but the first thought that popped into my head was: "Would the ACLU complain that that proclamation was a blatant violation of the First Amendment?" (Which, of course, it is not!)

Then I remembered a letter to the editor I had written while living in Tucson. It was not printed but it seems appropriate to print it here since I've been writing about the Supreme Court's misapplication of the Constitution and about the First Amendment's "establishment clause"--"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." Here is that short letter:

Is this correct? Mayor Miller recently recants his proclamation recognizing "Bible Week" since the ACLU threatened to sue because of a possible violation of a supposed "separation of Church and State." Then on December 15, 1998, the same mayor is shown on TV news participating in a Hanukkah celebration in the mayor's office.

I didn't hear or read any complaint by the ACLU. I didn't hear or read any indication by the mayor that he was being inconsistent. Perhaps the ACLU is more concerned with attacking Christianity than protecting the so called separation of Church and State.