Monday, October 31, 2005

The following quote has been attributed to Thomas Edison.  (I did not research it and can not verify the correctness of that.)

“No one can study chemistry and see the wonderful way in which certain elements combine with the nicety of the most delicate machine ever invented, and not come to the inevitable conclusion that there is a Big Engineer who is running the universe.”

The Peoria Journal Star printed a letter to the editor on 10/16/05 disputing the concept of intelligent design.  As I’ve said, intelligent design is incomplete because it does not acknowledge that GOD is the intelligent designer.  I’m going to do something I don’t normally do.  I’m going to quote the entire letter.  “With the mapping of the human genome complete, we now know that much of our DNA sequence is junk DNA.  It adds nothing to what makes us human.

This is clear evidence of randomness in its formation, not intelligent design.

Take a watch, for example.  It looks, and is, complex.  But it wasn’t designed to be complex.  It was designed to be as simple and efficient as possible, to do the job it was designed to do.  Intelligent designers don’t design complexity and wastefulness.  They design simplicity and efficiency.  

If the watchmaker just throws in a bunch of junk parts that add nothing to the function or efficiency of the watch, we might want to question his intelligence.”

Let’s examine these statements.  How long did it take humans to learn about and finally map our DNA sequence?  Just because the scientists don’t know what some of the purposes of it are does not necessarily mean that it does not have a purpose.  If the first time you are exploring a man made watch you can’t immediately identify a function or a purpose for it, it does not necessarily mean it has no function or purpose.  It just means you don’t know the purpose of it.  Question?  If you know the purpose and function of every portion of a watch, can you then duplicate that watch?  I would think the answer is yes.  Therefore, if scientists know the purpose and function of the DNA sequence, can they duplicate a human being?  You and I know that they can not.  So just maybe, they don’t know as much as they think they know.  It would not be the first time!  Just maybe, the parts considered “junk DNA” really aren’t.

However, even if GOD chose to include DNA in the sequence that has no function that does not prove that it was random.  Is it not arrogant to claim that the creator of something did not know what he was doing in that creation if you can’t even create the same thing let alone something better?  Is it not arrogant to claim you understand completely the process involved but you can not do the process that you completely understand?  Who’s intelligent and who is not?  

Is it not arrogant to tell the designer his design is “wrong” if you can’t do any better?  You can’t even copy that which HE designed from nothing.  And there is the rub.  Evolution still can’t and never will be able to explain through the concept of evolution where all the first mass came from.  How does something come from nothing?  They will always have to begin with the assumption that something was there from the beginning.  We know however that can not be scientifically true!          

Imagine this.  You are a student who is being taught by a master bridge builder how to build bridges.  He does something you don’t understand and don’t see the need for.  Would you then tell that master bridge builder that he is wrong because you don’t believe there is any need for what he has done?  Jesus said in Matthew 10: 24, “’A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.’”  When the student (man) can build from scratch (i.e. starting from nothing) a better mouse trap (a man), I may begin to believe that man evolved.  Until then, I’ll believe that GOD created the universe and all that is within it.  “In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1: 1)  “So GOD created man in his own image, in the image of GOD HE created him; male and female HE created them.” (Genesis 1: 27)      

The end of physical life under evolution is the absolute end of life for that person.  Christians believe, because the Bible says it is so, that the end of life leads to a new beginning.  A new beginning in which each of us will bow down before GOD.  Do you think those individuals who accept evolution as truth will tell GOD the creator that HE did not create the universe?  I don’t.  They will be speechless before GOD asking for forgiveness or arrogantly defiant to the end but to no avail.  We each have a choice.  The only true choice is to repent and accept GOD as creator and savior or to reject HIM and spend eternity condemned.  To me it’s an easy choice.  To those who accept evolution, it’s the wrong choice!    

Saturday, October 29, 2005

I was going through some saved papers the other day when I came across this letter to the editor that was originally published on 5/19/98 and reprinted in my church’s weekly bulletin.  I am reprinting it tonight because I plan on discussing this topic to a greater extent Monday.  

“Until I read an AP article entitled ‘Little-Known Apes Challenge Theories’ (news story, May 11), I did not realize that it had been established than man and all other living species descended from a common ancestor six million years ago.  Indeed, the author stated that without any disclaimer, quotes or references.  I believe this is more than a lapse in good journalistic practice; it represents a shallowness of thinking which we too readily accept nowadays as a ‘good’ education.  I also hold the editors of The Oklahoman to fault for not taking the time to more carefully screen for significant errors in their publication.  (Of course, the Peoria Journal Star also routinely prints as fact the absurd notion that we are descended from a common ancestor—my addition.)  

As noted in Michael Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box,” evolution as a credible scientific process is microbiologically and biochemically preposterous.  Scott Huse’s “The Collapse of Evolution” exposes its many flaws and weaknesses.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that evolution is nothing more than a religious faith, a faith created by man in order to place himself at the center of the universe and to exclude an inconvenient God.  Just because our self-serving culture chooses to inject a false doctrine as evolution into its educational curriculum, to the exclusion of any mention of a God-inspired design in the world, does not mandate that we forget our common sense and accept it.  Indeed, it takes a great deal more faith and suspension, to believe in evolution than to practice any other religious faith.

This atheist may sputter about ‘a common ancestor,’ but, as John Wayne said, ‘That don’t change the truth none.’  The Oklahoman needs to be a little more careful in representing ‘truth’ to its readers.  (As the editorial writers of the Journal Star have alluded to, they believe in multiple truths anyway; I don’t expect them to see the truth of truth unless God works on their hearts—my addition.)

John R. Young M.D.

I reprinted the above letter to the editor to emphasis the following comments.  Evolution is either true or it is a lie.  The Bible claims that GOD created the universe and all that is within it.  That too is either true or it is a lie.  


Consider this; the Bible also declares that there is a Heaven and a Hell.  That we all have not only a physical body but a soul and a spirit.  We are three in one just as GOD is three in one.  Evolution can not account for either a soul or a spirit nor could such entities realistically evolve.  Consequently, it is realistic to conclude that according to evolution theory neither the soul nor the spirit exists nor could they have ever existed.  After all, what could they have evolved from?  

The Bible also maintains that each of us after our physical death will either spend eternity in Heaven or Hell.  That also is either true or it is a lie.  According to the theory of evolution, there can not be either a Heaven or Hell.  Again, no method of evolving into two such places.  So, what is left?  What is the X of evolution after death?  NOTHING!  We live, we die, we are no more!        

Friday, October 28, 2005

“’As the civil leader of Peoria who took an oath of office to uphold the state and federal constitutions, which mandate a separation between church and state, you are not free to turn City Chambers into a prayer fest!’”  This sentence was supposedly written by the co-president of a group calling itself the Freedom from Religion Foundation.  It seems Peoria’s mayor despicably, according to this group, allowed some leaders of the community to pray in the council chambers.

I’m not going to waste more time giving any more of the details.  It amazes me how many don’t know the Constitution and say ridiculous things like the federal Constitution “mandates a separation between church and state.”  As I have said repeatedly, it’s simply not true!  Once more for anyone who can read, this is what the Constitution actually says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”  

That’s it!  Sum total of Amendment I in relation to religion.  If there is any one who should be reprimanded for violating the oath of office he/she took, it is the members of the U.S. Supreme Court who have illegally rewritten the Constitution by unconstitutional edict.  However, I don’t think the co-president will be writing a letter to the Supreme Court.

“The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be guaranteed, and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his religious opinions; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State.  No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship against his consent, nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.” (Constitution of the State of Illinois, Article I—Bill of Rights, Section 3—Religious Freedom.)  

The above quote is taken directly from the State Constitution.  (It is a lot longer than the first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.)  Surprise!  Surprise!  Not one word in relation to the separation of church and state!  Do you think maybe, that if the writers of the Constitution wanted to provide for the “separation of church and state” they might just write that phrase into the Constitution!  Maybe we should actually begin again to obey and uphold our Constitutions and not allow these small groups of individuals to control our rights because they don’t agree with the actions we take.  Why should their “rights” supersede our “rights” when they don’t have a constitutional leg to stand on?

I pray the mayor and council don’t back down on this and don’t allow a small minority to control that which is not theirs to control!        

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Disgraceful!!!  I just heard on the evening news that Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination to the Supreme Court.  The conservative groups who judged her guilty (of exactly what I’m not sure of), even before the confirmation hearing could begin, should be ashamed of themselves.  Even criminals get a trial before being convicted—not Ms. Miers.  Disgraceful!!!  

Disgraceful!!!  I wrote during Justice Roberts’ nomination that the Libertine Democrats should not use his position on specific issues to determine his qualifications to the Supreme Court.  If that is true for the libertines, it is just as true for the conservatives.  Their actions are a disappointment.  It is not a good idea to model your behavior after the libertines!  Disgraceful!!!  

Disgraceful!!!  They behaved as badly if not worse than the libertines do.  The libertines are laughing at you!  You can only have strengthened their resolve to keep a strict constructionist off of the Court.  You did their work for them.  All they had to do was sit back and watch you destroy the nominee.  Disgraceful!!!  

You may have also eroded your own support base.  Disgraceful!!!

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

The headline of a story written by a Peoria Journal Star reporter on the front page of the business section on 10/25/05 declares “Projection indicates hotter, longer summers.”  A quote in the story proclaims “’Take the hottest two or three weeks we have currently and figure on having that weather last for two months,’ said Diffenbaugh, referring to climate patterns in the latter half of the 21st century.”  Also on this first page of the story, we are told that these predictions are the result of “the most comprehensive model ever developed” and then analyzed by supercomputers.  We also learn that Midwest winters will be warmer by around 20 degrees.  (Personally, I’ll vote for that but then I enjoy the warm winters of Tucson.)  Furthermore, the Southwest where Tucson is located will be even hotter than it is as that area of the country experiences the greatest heat increase in its climate.

The article does not state what assumptions were used to develop the model.  It does finally allude to the basis of the model in the second to last paragraph of the story in the second page of the business section.  “That bottom line for the climate model is that extreme weather is in our future unless we find a way to limit greenhouse gases, he said.”  Finally, after some readers have stopped reading we are told that apparently the model was developed around the theory that greenhouse gases are increasing the temperature of the earth.  

Wouldn’t it have been important to state this in the first one or two paragraphs?  Aren’t the assumptions used to develop the model at least as important as the conclusions reached by the supercomputer?  We know that a good article gives the most important details of the story in the first few paragraphs.  We know that some readers won’t get past the first few paragraphs and even more will not follow the story onto the second page.  Yet, the validity of the conclusions is dependent upon the information used to develop the model.  Is this article supposed to be a mystery novel or an informative news story?

I’m not a computer person and I don’t claim to be a natural scientist.  However, even I am aware of the saying “Garbage in; garbage out!”  If the model is not correct, it doesn’t matter how super the computer is.  “Garbage in; garbage out!”  The computer as far as I know does not change the developed model but only works from that which it has been given.        

My conclusion: one more Peoria Journal Star article that is slanted and biased in it presentation of the information.  Garbage in; garbage story.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Rosa Parks, a symbol of the modern day civil rights movement, has died.  May GOD have mercy on her soul.  She refused to give up her bus seat to a Caucasian man.  Her arrest led to a boycott of the bus company in Montgomery, Alabama and the beginnings of the modern civil rights movement.

What is often ignored in the history of the civil rights movement is the significant role that Christians have in it.  The meeting to organize the boycott was held in a Baptist church.  The elected leader of the boycott was a Baptist minister.  Later, that Baptist minister helped organize the Southern Christian Leadership Conference which had a leading role in the movement.  Christians from throughout the nation including Southern Christians traveled to cities in the South to support, work for, and lead the growing civil rights movement.
However, that was not the first time Christians were actively involved in this movement.  The abolition of slavery before the Civil War had a strong component of Christian involvement although often ignored by historians.  The “underground railroad” moving run away slaves from the South to the North had direct Christian participation.  Many of the “way stations” along the different routes were at Christian churches.

President Abraham Lincoln, who issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves in areas of rebellion, learned to read in part by reading the Bible.  Throughout his political career he made reference to the Bible and its passages on numerous occasions.  In perhaps his most famous speech, The Gettysburg Address (When I was forced in school to learn this and publicly recite it, I never thought I’d actually use it.), he included this line, “It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under GOD, shall have a new birth of freedom—and  that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”  

(There’s that phrase under GOD.  I thought that was just a coercive phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance.  I guess students can no longer be forced to memorize or learn about the Gettysburg Address because of that coercive phrase.  Where was that California judge when I was required to learn the Gettysburg Address?  [By the way, I thought this was interesting.  Here is a quote from Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2004, 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation, “In the contemporary newspaper reports of the dedication ceremonies, Everett’s remarks were lauded highly and given prominence on the front page, while the words of Lincoln were relegated to an inside page.”])    

(If I didn’t know better, I can imagine President Lincoln uttering these same words in relation to our involvement in Iraq.  Some people are still willing and able to sacrifice for freedom almost a hundred and fifty years later!)        

Christians, who are following the Bible, know that GOD loves all people regardless of the momentary coloring of their skin.  Christians know that all people including themselves have sinned and fall far short of the glory of GOD.  Christians know that all people including themselves must repent of their sins and correctly accept GOD, the Father; JESUS, the SON; and the HOLY SPIRIT as the one true GOD and SAVIOR of the world.  Christians desire that everyone becomes as they are—Christians!


Monday, October 24, 2005

The Hartford blog promised for October 24th is posted on the October 17, 2005 post.

Now it begins.  The attacks on Harriet Miers are beginning to surface.   The front page headline in the Peoria Journal Star on 10/19/05, “Miers supported abortion ban.”  My response—good.  Maybe the conservatives who have been slow to support her will start to give the support they should.  I certainly don’t believe her opposition to abortion will hurt her in central Illinois although it won’t please the editorial staff of the Journal Star.  An incumbent Democratic legislator tried to use that same issue in the last election in a Democratic district and lost the election anyway.

Then ultra libertine Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein from California is quoted as saying, “This raises very serious concerns about her ability to fairly apply the law without bias in this regard.”  What absurd dribble!  What she means of course is that she is afraid that Ms. Miers will actually follow the Constitution and strike down the murder of the unborn for the abomination it is.  We can certainly pray that it happens and happens quickly.  We have been murdering our unborn for over thirty years and it is well past time that this court sanctioned murder stops and stops now.  

Do you understand this?  Our government, yours and mine, has through our Supreme Court sanctioned, approved, allowed, and encouraged the murder of between 32-45 million unborn babies over the last thirty two years.  That same Court has sanctioned, approved, allowed, and encouraged mothers to become murderers.  That same Court has sanctioned, approved, allowed, and encouraged medical personnel to become murderers.  The libertines know this and demand that it continues.  We as a government through the Supreme Court, a majority of five unelected people, have murdered 32-45 million innocent, unborn babies.  The inhumanity of it!  The sin of it!  The condemnation of GOD of it!

The headline in today’s Journal Star page A3 reads “’She would not get a majority.’”  The sub headline; “Democrat says Miers lacks confirmation votes.”  My respond—I think he’s wrong.  Then in the last three paragraphs, the unidentified Associated Press reporter begins the guilt by accusation assassination of her character.  Here is a quote, “Knight Ridder Newspapers reported Saturday that Texas officials paid Miers’ family more than $100,000 for a small piece of land in 2000—10 times the land’s worth—despite the state’s objection to the way the price was determined.”  

The information from this paragraph and the next is so sparse it is impossible to know the truth.  Miers’ family includes who?  Why was the land purchased by the State?  We know from the recent history of the city’s attempt to purchase the local water company that it is very difficult to determine the value of real estate.  Of course, the State is going to object, the State wants to pay as little as possible; the seller wants to receive as much as possible.  Real estate, if there are no impediments, is a classic example of supply and demand.  Who determines what is small?  Who determines what is the fair market value of the land?  This according to the article happened in 2000.  Was anyone accused in a court of law of wrong doing?  Was there a trial?  Was there a conviction?  My guess is that the answers to the last three questions are no, no, and no.  As I said, it is the season for character assassination by accusation and guilt by accusation.  
I am not a Washington insider.  I do not have an inside pipeline to the power brokers of the country.  This is my prediction on the Miers’ nomination if no new, damaging information is proven and if the libertine Democrats don’t filibuster.  She will be confirmed!  (I have been right before; I have been wrong before.)

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Tonight’s post is about poor reporting of the news and some probable misrepresentation of the facts or lack of knowledge about the facts by a U.S. Senator.  All the direct information comes from the newspaper article so if any of it is incorrect or incomplete it is because the information was incorrect or incomplete in the article.  The headline in the Peoria Journal Star reads “Senate fails to raise the minimum wage.” (story from the Associated Press, 10/20/05, page A8.)  This is not about whether the minimum wage should or should not be raised.  It is about reporting the story and the statement that the Senator allegedly made.

Here are the facts as given in the article.  The minimum wage is  currently $5.15 per hour.  The proposal is to increase it by $1.10 over eighteen months to $6.25 per hour.  Here is the quote, (Senator Edward) “Kennedy, D-Mass., … pointed out that a single parent with two children working a minimum wage job earns $10,700 a year, $4,500 below the poverty line.”

Here is the situation that Senator Kennedy certainly should know about (I do) and yet he seems to ignore it to try to achieve his goal.  Also, any good reporter should know this and certainly should have reported it if he is going to report the $4,500 below the poverty level remark because it makes a difference in the statement.  The amount of money earned by wages can not be adequately understood without looking at the entire picture.

Congress a number of years ago passed the “earned income credit” provision for the federal income tax system to encourage people to work.  Using the figures for a 2004 income tax return, a family of two children with one adult working would pay no income tax.  They would however receive from the federal government through the income tax system $4,290 (based on total income between $10,700 & $10,750) as an “earned income credit.”  Consequently, unless that was figured into the equation by Senator Kennedy and the article is totally silent on that so there is no way for the reader to know, his statement is misleading.  Counting the $4,290 in ‘earned income credit,” the family is not $4,500 below the poverty level but just $210 under.  That is a great deal of differ when one is talking about such figures.  In fact, the family makes up over 95% of the difference through the “earned income credit.”  The story and/or Senator Kennedy’s statement is totally slanted unless the “earned income credit” is accounted for.  Yet, the article does not mention it at all.

Here is some additional information that has impact on this article and yet was ignored.  If the minimum wage was $6.25 under the 2004 tax provisions, that family would have earned $2,288 more over the year.  They would still have paid no federal income tax.  The earned income credit would have actually given the family more money—$4,300 which is the maximum amount a family with two children could have received in 2004 under the law.  Also, this family would have received an additional $338 through the “additional child tax credit” provision.  Consequently, under such a minimum wage increase, the family income would have increased in 2004 from the originally implied income of $10,700 (implied because it did not account for the $4,290 of “earned income credit”) to $17,626 including a $2,288 wage increase, $4,300 in “earned income credit,” and $338 in “additional child tax credit.”  Also, many government aid programs take into account three basic factors which are income for that year, total assets, and number of members in the immediate family.  An increase in the minimum wage may or may not impact any of these programs and that information was not mentioned.  Finally, we probably all know or have heard of individuals who are living with someone else (who may or may not be earning additional money) who is not being factored into the situation.  

The point is this: the whole question of increasing the minimum wage (I did not begin to mention all of the factors including the government’s definition of the poverty line.) is much more complex than the article implies and that the Senator is quoted as understanding it.  It is difficult for the general public to reach a valid conclusion unless they have all the information available.  My conclusion; that article did more to muddy the facts than to bring them forward for intelligent decision making.

Friday, October 21, 2005

The editorial staff of the Peoria Journal Star seems to love to rewrite the Constitution to serve their own desires.  I have written before how they have misapplied the “establishment clause,” as has the Supreme Court, to create a “separation of church and state” which simply does not exist and never has.  Now they are misapplying the provisions of Article VI Section 3 in relation to the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court.  To refresh our memories here is what the Constitution says, “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”  They actually do quote the Constitution correctly and then they misapply it!

Here is what they wrote in the editorial, “Here we thought President Bush and many members of Congress had read and understood the Constitution.  (The editorial staff doesn’t understand the Constitution!—my addition)

Apparently not, judging by their efforts to sell Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers to the American public on the basis that she’s an evangelical Christian.”

“If the Founders meant what they wrote, then Miers’ religious orientation should be irrelevant to her rightness or wrongness for the Supreme Court.”  Wrong!!!  (It does seem odd that they are using what the Founders wrote in this instance but ignore it in relation to “separation of church and state” but that’s another post.)  They are wrong on their basic reading of the very Constitutional section they quoted.  The key word in that section for the purpose of this post is “required.”  That word destroys their unfounded arguments.  The Constitution specifically says a religious test can not be required as a qualification for an office.  It does not say and never was intended to say that one’s religious makeup can not be considered when dealing with any office.  It does not say that the values and character of an individual because of his religious faith can not be used in the determination of whether or not that individual is qualified to serve in that office.  In fact, to say such would be ridiculous and could then be use to disqualify such a person.  That then would be using a lack of religious conviction to judge an individual’s qualifications.  That would disqualify many of the people who participated in government at that time and some of the very individuals who wrote the Constitution.  Don’t be ridiculous!

The provision says a religious test can not be required for a public office.  It does not say and should never say that one’s religious beliefs should not be a part of why that individual is elected or selected.  As I said, they love to rewrite and/or misapply the Constitution to suit their own purposes.  Don’t be fooled by their misuse and abuse of the Constitution!    


Thursday, October 20, 2005

This is a quote from a letter to the editor published in the Peoria Journal Star on 10/16/05.  “But this was never about freedom; it’s an occupation in an oil-rich region where we have installed a government that is arguably more repressive than the one it replaced.”  This was part of my response on my 10/17/05 post.  “The one ridiculous claim that infuriates me most is this: ‘we have installed a government that is arguably more repressive than the one it replaced.’”  This is a quote from Zell Miller’s book A Deficit of Decency.  “And nothing infuriates this Marine more than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.” (A Deficit of Decency; Zell Miller; Stroud & Hall Publishers; Macon, Georgia; 2005; p. 256.)

I am a life long Democrat and democrat.  As I have said before, the Democrat Party has been taken over by libertines, in my opinion.  The first Republican I ever voted for in a general election was George W. Bush in 2000.  Zell Miller according to his book is also a life long Democrat.  He was the Democratic Governor of Georgia and a Democratic Senator in the U.S. Senate.
In 2004, he gave the Keynote Address at the Republican National Convention for the nomination of George W. Bush for President of the United States.  Today, I finished reading his book.  In the book, he printed in the appendix his first draft of that speech.  The above quote from him comes from that draft.  

I wasn’t going to do this tonight for my post but some of that address relates well to the letter to the editor quoted above particularly in relation to her reference of “it’s an occupation.”  I’m posting a section of that speech.  The point: the U.S. is not an occupier but a liberator for Iraq.

“But not today, motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today’s Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, some kind of Darth Vader military empire trying to colonize people.”

“And nothing infuriates this Marine more than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women, and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.”

“There those ‘occupiers’ lie, silent sentinels of sacrifice not for plunder or territory, but for freedom for others.

U.S. soldiers liberate, they don’t occupy.  Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier.

And, our soldiers don’t just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.  It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protestor the freedom to accuse, abuse, and burn that flag.

No one should dare to even think about being the commander in chief of this country if they don’t believe with all their heart, soul, and mind that our soldiers have, are, and always will be liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don’t waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party (Democrat Party—my addition) today.  In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution.  America is what’s wrong with the world.

They don’t believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.  They believe America creates our enemies, be they communists or terrorists.

For every world problem, this crowd always blames America first.  They see despotic regimes as nuisances not as threats.  Dictators are always given every benefit of the doubt.

They’ve never seen a threat great enough to require military action.  They don’t believe that military force has ever solved anything, and that if it did, it shouldn’t have.

In their rise to prominence, these head-in-the-sand Democratic leaders have been on the wrong side of history and freedom during the last three decades.  It is not their patriotism—it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking.”

“President Bush sees the world as it really is, with terrorists who are determined but allies who are timid.”

“George Bush makes it unmistakably plain when he tells terrorists that he will act decisively to defend America….”

“… Take not the advice of the timid.  Step not back but forward.”  (A Deficit of Decency; Zell Miller; Stroud & Hall Publishers; Macon, Georgia; 2005; pages 256-261.)


Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Another unconstitutional Supreme Court decision; another petition to the Senate.  This one is in relation to personal property rights.  If you desire; print it, sign it, and send it to

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

Or to me at: Christian Gunslinger
P.O. Box 481                  
Morton, Illinois 61550

A couple of weeks ago, I sent two packages of petitions to the Senator.  One to define life as beginning at birth and one to retain “under GOD” in the Pledge of Allegiance.  Thank you to everyone who participated.

Petition to Protect Private Property Rights

We believe the right to own property is one of the most fundamental of our constitutionally protected freedoms.  It is a primary reason our Founding Fathers worked so diligently to declare our independence.  We will not sit idly by and watch this right be taken away.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on property rights, which allows the government to seize the home, small business, or other private property of one citizen and transfer it to another private citizen if the transfer would boost the community’s economic development, is an outrage.

We stand in strong support of Senator John Cornyn’s bill, “The Protection of Home, Small Business, and Private Property Act of 2005,” that would prohibit transfers of private property without the owner’s consent if federal funds were used, and if the transfer was for purposes of economic development rather than public use.

We ask that you swiftly review and pass this important legislation.  Thank you.

Name: _________________________________

Address: ______________________________


Signature: ____________________________

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

America citizens have a right to be opposed to the conflict in Iraq.  Other America citizens have a right to support our nation in its effort to actually fight the terrorists who are trying to destroy our country.  They have a right to vote for whomever they want—voting for either the candidate who desires to end the conflict or the candidate who wants to continue it (if such a choice exists).  However, I would like to at least once have those who oppose the conflict actually present valid arguments instead of emotional dribble and lying at every turn.  The latest example was printed in the editorial pages of the Peoria Journal Star on 10/16/05.

Here are some examples as printed in the letter to the editor.  “Call your legislators and demand the return of our children, mostly poor, and minority youth.”  I imagine that by the use of the term children she means sons and daughters because last I knew one could not join the military until age eighteen and at that age they are considered to be adults in our society.  Secondly, last I knew the U.S. does not have a draft system.  Therefore, every single person who is in the military has chosen to be in the military.  Do these people believe we are still fighting the Vietnam Conflict?  According to their arguments, they do.  

“Our treasury is being plundered as we spend over a billion dollars a week on this quagmire, with no end in sight.”  Here are my dictionary definitions of plunder (the verb).  1a: to take the goods of by force (as in war): pillage, sack  1b: to take by force or wrongfully: steal, loot  2: to make extensive use of as if by plundering: use or use up wrongfully: to commit robbery or looting. (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition; Merriam-Webster, Incorporated; Springfield, Massachusetts; 1995.)   Does she know something that the rest of us do not?  Last time I knew, all money being spent in the Conflict is coming from the U.S. treasury with the approval of Congress through the legal appropriation of money.  If it is not being done legally, she should provide the evidence so the culprits can be tried for their crimes.  If it is being done legally, by definition it can not be plundered.        

Yes, war is expensive and some times takes a long time.  Maybe, the terrorists should not have attacked us, but they did.  If I remember correctly, during one of the years of World War II; we spent more money on the war than our entire GNP for that year.  Should we have stopped fighting World War II and brought the military home because they were dying and because it was costing too much money.  If we had, we wouldn’t be concerned about this conflict because we’d all probably be speaking German.  Speaking of Germany, we still have troops stationed there.  We have troops stationed in Japan.  After fighting the Korean Conflict, another conflict where our men died and we spent tons of money, we still have troops there.  Yes, we may have to have troops in Iraq in the foreseeable future, freedom and democracy demand sacrifice.  Sacrifice that most of us would prefer not to make but sacrifice that must be made in order to protect the freedom we have.  Why do these people conveniently forget that we are at war and we did not start the war.  Of course, by their logic, if we lay down our arms the terrorists will also lay down their arms.  NOT!!!

“But this was never about freedom; it’s an occupation in an oil-rich region where we have installed a government that is arguably more repressive than the one it replaced.”  Is she serious?  These comments would be laughable if they weren’t so ridiculous.  How does she know the conflict is about oil and not about freedom?  Who gave her this great insight?  How did she get into the minds of our leaders?  Is she at the discussion table where all this evil plotting and planning is going on?  Actually, if it is about oil, we should be invading Canada.  We get more oil from them that any other nation, they are closer, and I suspect would be easier to conquer.  Man, our leaders just are not bright enough to know who to attack for our oil.?!  

By the way, the same ridiculous and untrue argument was used during the Vietnam Conflict.  It’s cheaper to buy the oil that it is to fight wars over it.  Plus, the history of the U.S. is not to control conquered territory but to turn them into democracies or at least try—Germany, Japan, Afghanistan, Iraq.  The day the letter was printed the front page story was the election to approve the new Iraqi Constitution.  (Of course, according to these libertines all this is just the trappings of democracy; Iraq is not capable of being democratic according to them and therefore we should not waste our time trying.)    

The one line that infuriates me most is this: “we have installed a government that is arguably more repressive than the one it replaced.”  Does she seriously believe that we are so stupid and gullible to believe that the present democratically elected Iraqi government is more repressive than Saddam Hussein’s government?  The present government is fighting a war to protect a newly received independence.  Saddam Hussein was a feared and murderously oppressive terrorist within his own country for years.  The same day as the letter, the paper had an article concerning Hussein’s impending trial.  I am not going to list all the things he is accused of and he has not yet been found guilty of anything.  However, we do know that he was involved in two wars.  A war against Iran in the 1980’s and a war he began in the early 1990’s by invading a neighboring nation.  Maybe, the libertines have forgotten their recent history.  There are none so blind as those who will not see.    

“Another soldier died today.  Like many of the U.S. soldiers being killed in our name, he was just 19.  He’ll never eat another meal with his family, work a civilian job, fall in love, marry, have children, grow old, or do any of those things that millions of Americans take for granted.  His one chance at this life has been snuffed out far too early.”

I would rather that not a single American soldier die in Iraq.  I would rather that not a single Iraqi child, mother, or father, youth, or adult die at the hands of terrorists in Iraq.  Freedom is not free and is not without cost and sacrifice.  However, that America soldier chose to serve his country by joining the military.  That American soldier gave his life so that this whining woman could have the freedom to complain about his giving his life for her.

Another unborn baby dies every 20-30 seconds.  Like all of the unborn babies being killed because of the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional edict—government sanctioned murder, he was not yet delivered from the womb.  He’ll never eat a meal with his family, work any job, fall in love, marry, have children, grow old, or do any of those things that millions of Americans take for granted.  His one chance at this life has been take by his own mother and a medical professional, who had sworn to protect life, before he was even born.

Abortion has murdered 32-45 million unborn babies who never had any choice.  Fight the battle to stop the murder of our unborn if you are concerned about injustice.  The unborn have no choice!

The Hartford, thank you.

I’m shifting gears somewhat tonight.  One of the things I enjoy doing is helping companies realize that they should follow a policy that is good for the consumer.  Most companies desire to serve the consumer as long as their bottom line is intact.  Large companies some times get enmeshed in bureaucratic regulations, which are often issued for sound reasons, and can lose sight of the consumer.  Occasionally, they need to be reminded that common sense should take precedent over unbending rules.  I again thank The Hartford for using common sense.

This is an actual incident with only the identities not being revealed.  I wrote two letters on behalf of an individual I know.  Here is the first one.  

On 6/14/05 an 86 year old acquaintance of mine while driving her car was hit by an 89 year old woman driving a car insured by your company, I believe through AARP.  (Copy of accident report although difficult to read is enclosed.)  The car was totaled for insurance purposes.  Until she purchased another car, she rented a car for transportation purposes.  It is my understanding that your company has accepted 100% responsibility for the accident through your insured driver.

First, I personally did not approve of the agreement but I don’t have power of attorney.  My acquaintance owned a 1998 Chevy which had 32,999 miles on it at the time of the accident.  Needing another car, she settled on a newer Ford Taurus that had 34,000+ miles on it.  The difference between the amount received for her old car and the new one was over $6,000.  I personally was not happy with that because it is my belief that she should be made whole without cost to her—she was not responsible for the accident in any way.  The most important aspects of a car in her situation are a car that runs well and the total mileage on it.  She is not going to buy another car in her life time and she is not going to use all the bells and whistles on the newer car.  I would not have accepted the deal.  However, she is of the old school and doesn’t like to make waves.  I don’t have a problem in that area.  All this is leading up to what I see as the present problem.

She paid for the rental car with a credit card.  (Copy of credit card bill is enclosed.)  In July she paid her credit card bill including the $172.73 for the rental car.  Today, we went to her insurance company to see why she has not yet received reimbursement.  Her insurance company said paying the bill is your responsibility.  An agent from her company called your company and was told that no reimbursement would occur until the total process was complete.  My understanding is that that can not occur until after the car has been sold for salvage which has not yet occurred and in fact can not be predetermined.  In the mean time, she has not been reimbursed for a cost she should never have had to incur.  It occurred only because your insured driver hit her car.  Are you going to pay her interest on the money during the time you have use of it and she does not?  I didn’t think so!

After I returned home, I called your agent.  She refused to budge from the position of no payment until the process is complete.

My question is:  Is $172.73 worth antagonizing an individual who has only suffered loss because of the driving skills of one of you insured drivers?  Do you want someone complaining to everyone she knows and meets about the policies The Hartford follows in dealing with an 86 year old woman who is completely innocent of any wrong doing?  Is this practice good public relations?  Plus, now with the hurricane situation will this meager amount be pushed in the background even farther than it is now?  It is now almost two months since she paid for that which she should not have had to pay for.  Will it be two years (which was one time frame we were told) before she receives her money?  She may not be alive in two years.  (Is that your plan; to drag it out until she has dies?)  I hear people reacting negatively to the government’s response to the hurricane, how will they react to your response to an innocent 86 year old woman?  You are supposed to be the company for the retired?  Give me a break!

As it happens, I have power of attorney for one of my clients (I am a tax consultant and my clients listen when I tell them of incompetent companies.) who has both house and car insurance policies with your company through AARP.  Her husband recently died and she is moving from Arizona to Texas.  I will look long and hard for a replacement company if this is an example of how you handle policy claims!  I also happen to write a Blog:   You can rest assured that this incident will make a good post for one of my almost daily blogs.  If I am not satisfied by your response you can look for a blog on this issue on or about the first few days of October.  (I do want to give you a chance to rectify the situation.)  Oh yes, I also own a publishing company—Gunslinger Publications L.C. (an Arizona company)—and I plan on publishing as a book my blogs from July 13th through the end of this year.  So you will not only make the blog but probably a book as well.  That should be good for your company, as they say—even bad publicity is still publicity.  I’m happy to do you the favor.

The above letter generated a check for $50.00 late in September.  Since it was not the $172.73 owed; a second letter was sent.

Are you serious?  This is not acceptable!  I suggest you immediately rectify this situation!

On September 7, 2005; I sent you a letter in relation to an accident an acquaintance of mine had with one of your clients.  (A copy of that letter is enclosed.)  I requested that your company immediately pay her the $172.73 (copy of credit card statement enclosed) she had already paid to rent a car because of the damage caused to her car by your client.  I suggested that you must respond before the end of September.  You did.  You sent a check for $50.00 instead of the $172.73 out of pocket expenses she incurred.  That is not acceptable.

The day after she received the check, we went to her agent.  While we were present, the agent called your adjustor for an explanation.  Your adjustor claimed that she had only rented the car for 2 days and had selected the other costs that rental agencies charge on an optional basis and that The Hartford would not pay for those.  I had a copy of the rental agreement with me (A copy is enclosed.) which proves that not to be true.  We FAXed that copy to her and she claimed she could not read it.  (That could well be true.)  She claimed she would get a copy from the rental company.  That was two weeks ago and she still has not been paid the money due her.  That is not acceptable!!!

This is the situation.  If she does not have a check for the remainder owed to her in her hand by October 24, 2005 (I don’t care if an agent has to personally bring it to her, you are costing me time and money!), I will begin advertising how The Hartford treats an 86 year old victim of one of your clients.  Check my blog site on the night of October 24, 2005.  There will be a post concerning The Hartford.  It can either be positive or negative.  The choice is your.  Any publicity is good publicity—right?

She received the money this morning.  She called me and said, “I got it!”  She was happy, surprised, and is satisfied.  

This post tonight is to fulfill my statement about a post on the 24th.  Thank you again—The Hartford.  The keys are to keep copies of everything, provide them as needed, be persistent, and follow through.  Most companies want to do the right thing; some times they need some encouragement and direction.          

Saturday, October 15, 2005

Libertines strike again!  This time it is a national libertine columnist who weeps that America no longer seems to want a free press.  Here is a quote from the column printed in the Peoria Journal Star on 10/14/05 page A4, “Yet, in the U.S. a confluence of forces is acting to undermine the legitimacy of a press that questions those in power.  On the right, radio and TV talk shows promote the notion that the media should be openly partisan.  On the left, critics accuse the ‘mainstream press’ of being a lapdog for the administration.  (Right???—my addition)  The very idea of an independent press is widely debunked.

Meantime the blogosphere—which leans on links to articles in the major papers—promotes opinion as fact.”  (My addition—and so does the media; they always have and always will.)

I’ve got bad news for her.  The media has never been independent.  The media has never been unbiased.  The media has never been the heralds of truth.  The media is just like any other human institution.  It does some good, it does some bad, it provides some benefits, it causes some problems.  That has been true throughout U.S. history.  The media has not been in the past and never will be the savior of American democracy.

Just from recent history, we know that the media lies, that it slants stories, that it makes up stories, and that it is not and should not be above the law.  Conservatives have been complaining at least since the Presidency of John Kennedy that a majority of reporters were and are liberals who slant the news to their point of view.  Yet, she claims that it is conservatives who want the media to be partisan.  Guess what?  It already is and there is absolutely nothing new about that.  The media has been partisan from the beginning of our nation.  The media is partisan today.  The media will be partisan in the future.  It is a myth that people can put aside their view points and just report the facts, the whole facts, and nothing but the facts.  It hasn’t happened in the past, it does not happen today, and it won’t happen in the future.

I believe what she is really complaining about is the loss of power and influence that the “mainstream  media” has experienced over the past few years.  It has lost power and influence in part because the public is becoming more aware of the lies, slanted news stories, and made up stories.  The public has become aware that the media seems to believe that the employees of the media are above the law.  And most importantly, the “mainstream media” is losing some of its monopolistic power to control the news and what information the public receives.

Why are they losing this monopolistic control?  In a large part because of greater competition.  Competition from the very areas that she uses as examples to support her erroneous argument.  CNN has been challenged by Fox News and from what I’ve read CNN has been losing the competition.  Radio and TV talk shows are no longer dominated by the “mainstream media.”  The blogosphere can almost instantaneously challenge the lies, slanted news, and made up stories put forth by the “mainstream media.”  Competition; isn’t it grand!  We need more of it; not less.


Friday, October 14, 2005

Abortions are government sanctioned murders.  That was one of the statements from yesterday’s post.  The sanction has been approved by the U.S. Supreme Court by court edict.  For over thirty years the Supreme Court has allowed the murder of unborn babies.  During that time, a very conservative estimate of the number of allowed abortions is at least 32 million.  Some have placed the number of government sanctioned abortions at 42-45 million.  Whatever the actual number, it is a holocaust of gigantic proportions.  If one million abortions were performed in a specific year, just over 2,739 unborn babies were murdered every single day of that year.  If 1.5 million abortions occurred in a specific year, just over 4,109 unborn babies were murdered every single day of that year.  For every abortion performed there are at least two murderers—the mother who requested the murder and the authorized medical person who performed the murder.  There is no question that murder is a sin.  There is no question that abortion is murder.  (See the 10/13/05 post)

If abortion is a sin, are those individuals who argue that women should be permitted to murder their unborn babies also committing a sin?  Even in our own judicial system, we have laws to punish those who aid another person who has committed a crime.  We call them an accessory to the crime.  In Matthew 18: 7 JESUS is quoted as say, “’Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin!  Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!’”  To me, this is crystal clear.  If you advocate that people should be allowed to commit a specific sin such as murdering an unborn baby, you too have sinned.  It is necessary for all Christians not to sin.  However, we also must not encourage others to sin and we must not support others in their sins.

It is also logical.  If you love others by wanting the best for them in relation to GOD, you obviously would not encourage them to sin or support their continued sinning. That would be the same as encouraging them to be eternally condemned.  Instead, the loving thing to do is to encourage them not to sin, to warn them that they are sinning, and to help them to repent from their sin.  These are some of the things Christians must do to help others to come to know the only true GOD and JESUS HIS SON.

Christians must not sin.  That is a given.  Christians must not advocate sin and Christians must not encourage others to sin.  Is that the end of it?  No!  James 4: 17 declares “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.”  Here is where I have sinned.  I have known since the Supreme Court decision that allowing the murder of unborn babies was a monstrous sin.  Yet, I supported the elect of Bill Clinton.  I thought, incorrectly, that the leadership of the Democratic Party would realize the enormous error involved in promoting the sin of murder.  Bill Clinton nominated and the Democratic controlled Senate approved two of the most libertine members on the Supreme Court today.  Bill Clinton promoted the use of the murder of unborn babies as a means of birth control throughout the world through the United Nations.  The Democratic Party controlled by its libertine members continue to advocate the murder of unborn babies.  

I know that the right, correct, and Christian action to take is to oppose the murder of unborn babies.  I know the right, correct, and Christian action to take is to work to get elected Senators and Representatives who oppose the murder of unborn babies.  I know the right, correct, and Christian action to take is to support the appointment of members to the Supreme Court who will obey the principles and the wording of the U.S. Constitution and the laws passed by Congress.  I have decided that I must do the good I know I ought to do.  For as James says, to not do so is a sin.  Are you as a Christian doing the good that you know you ought to do?  

When I was living near the University of Arizona, someone wrote on the sidewalk in chalk “Love is an action word.”  I thought it was written by either an English or an education major.  I though it was probably written by a female because I’m afraid most males don’t think in that manner.  Yet, it got me to thinking; Christianity is also an action word.  Let’s live our Christianity by doing that which we know we ought to do!  


"Don't return to back alleys" is the headline for a letter to the editor printed on 10/11/05. Coincidentally (or not), the letter was side by side with the letter, that I wrote about Tuesday, lamenting the supposed lack of qualifications for Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. The letter is filled with incorrect statements but I will not deal with those. My concern is the gist of the letter and an argument often advanced by the humanistic rationalists who support the murder of unborn babies. It is this, although they, of course, don't state it in these terms. I'm translating their humanistic rationalist political correctness. "Society should make it easier and safer for a mother to murder her unborn child." These humanistic rationalists have great compassion for the murderer and none for the murder victim.

Make no mistake about it; the vast majority of Supreme Court allowed abortions are government sanctioned murders. And most of the humanistic rationalists know it and some even admit it. GOD created the first man. GOD created the first woman. GOD created the process to be used by the first man and woman and all humans since to create their children. GOD knows exactly when life begins because HE created the process to create life.

Man then provided names for the process involved in human life as created by GOD. In our modern English, man named the joining together of the egg and sperm (the beginning of the human life cycle as created by GOD) conception. (Did you ever think about this? JESUS said that in marriage the two, a man and a woman, become one. When a sperm from a man unites with an egg from a woman the two become one and a new life is created in that instant. There is no way that man evolved by chance. No way!!!) Man named the developing, growing unborn baby a fetus. (Doesn't even sound human does it? Maybe that is why the humanistic rationalists always refer to a developing human as a fetus.) Man named the delivered human a baby. Man named the growing child an adolescent. Man named the child from 13 to 19 a teenager. Man named the human at age 18 an adult. Man named the human of an advanced age a senior citizen. (You get the idea and of course I didn't mention all the terms and all the stages.) The point is that all of the terms relate to the same thing--a human being. A human being begins at conception (It has to be true and there has to be a starting point.) and continues through various named stages until the physical death of that human being. It is the same for every human being created by the natural process created by GOD. (And everyone should know this. However, the humanistic rationalists try to rationalize the truth away to suit their own desires. Yes, Peoria Journal Star editorial staff; there is only one truth.)

Senator Hillary "We are the President." Clinton has as much as admitted that abortions murder unborn babies. She has been quoted as saying that "abortions should be legal, safe, and rare." What? Why should they be rare? There can be only one reason why! Abortions murder innocent unborn babies. If a baby is not murdered by an abortion, there would be no reason for them to be rare. If an "impediment" is being removed, there would not be a need for abortions to be rare. The only possible reason why abortions should be rare is the obvious reason. Abortions murder unborn babies. If that is not true, ask Senator Clinton why abortions should be rare. Listen carefully to her answer!

A few years ago the editorial writers of the Arizona Daily Star, the largest Tucson paper, admitted the same thing. They probably did not realize it but they certainly did. A woman from Phoenix was suing a doctor in Phoenix because an abortion he performed was not successful. In other words, the baby lived; the baby was not murdered. This particular abortion was either her third or fourth, I don't remember exactly which one. The editorial writers suggested that she should drop her suit because the last attempted abortion was one too many. What? If an abortion doesn't murder an unborn baby then it doesn't matter how many abortions a woman has. One, two, three, four, twenty; it does not matter if a life is not being destroyed. By stating that the last abortion was one too many, the writers were admitting that each and every abortion murders a human life. Each and every abortion murders a human life!

The conclusion tomorrow; the Lord willing.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Illinois Senator Dick Durbin has decided that he can repeal the law of supply and demand. This is not at all surprising since he has already decided that he knows more about right and wrong than GOD does. He has demonstrated that he believes the murder of unborn babies should be allowed by the government through Supreme Court edict. Now, he thinks he is capable of defining and controlling supply and demand.

He, following his usual concept that he knows best, has decided that the supply and demand price of a barrel of oil should be $40 a barrel. He arrives at this mystical number by a simple process. The average price of a barrel of oil was $40 a barrel in 2004. By his thought process, that, therefore, is the supply and demand price of oil today. (Any creditable economist will tell you that reasoning is ludicrous!) Any time the price goes above that benchmark price the oil companies are benefiting from "excessive" profits. Wow! Now he not only believes he can control supply and demand, he thinks he can determine what is excessive profit and what is not excessive profit. (I don't think you can find two economists who can agree on that question, yet Senator Durbin knows.) Thankfully, we have Senator Durbin who has no problem defining excessive profit. (If his proposed law ever passed which I seriously doubt, do you think the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional?) (Information about Senator Durbin's proposal is from the Peoria Journal Star, 10/12/05.)

When governments believe they can manipulate and determine supply and demand issues, one result is almost inevitable. Economic catastrophe. Do you really want to change the price of gasoline? There are two ways to do so economically. Increase the supply and/or decrease the demand. Both usually take some time to provide the adjustments necessary. (The easiest way of all is to personally use less gasoline.)

After the oil embargo of the 1970's we had an opportunity to do just that. We didn't take it. Hopefully, this time, if we don't fall for Senator Durbin's doomed proposal, we will actually do what we could have done and should have done thirty+ years ago. Don't be misled by the pied piper of the libertine Democrats. Make the hard choice of actually changing the dynamics of the supply and demand for oil. In the long run, the nation will be the better for it.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Does an appointee to the federal court system have to be a lawyer? No! Has there ever been an instance where an appointee to the federal court system has not been a lawyer? Yes! I bring this up because of a letter to the editor in the Peoria Journal Star this morning. The letter writer laments that Harriet Miers is not qualified for her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court because she has never been a judge.

So what? Being a judge does not automatically qualify one to be a member of the Supreme Court. All one has to do is look at the present members of the Supreme Court to realize that having been a judge at a lower level does not mean one will be a Constitutional Justice at the Supreme Court. We have Justices who continually violate their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. We have Justices who use international law or the law of other nations to reach decisions instead of using the United States Constitution and the laws passed by Congress.

What are the Constitutional qualifications for a member of the federal court system? The U.S. Constitution requires members of the House of Representatives to be 25 years of age, be a U.S. citizen for 7 years, and live in the state where they were elected. (While in college I had a disagree with one of my political science professors because he said members of the House of Representatives had to live in the district where they were elected. Not true. The Constitution says nothing about districts. In fact, the first elections did not have districts--Representatives were elected state wide. [Do you remember Chris?]) Members of the Senate have to be 30 years old, be a U.S. citizen for 9 years, and live in the state they were elected from. (Of course, originally, Senators were appointed to the Senate by state legislatures.) The President has to be a natural born citizen (Why Arnold can never be President.), 35 years of age, and have lived in the United States 14 years before his election to the Presidency. What are the Constitutional qualifications for a member of the federal court system? None!

Why would the writers of the Constitution not give any qualifications for members of the federal court system? I don't know. I do know this; they were smart enough not to require them to be lawyers! Perhaps they wanted members of the court to first and foremost uphold the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. Duh!

I am presently reading Zell Miller's A deficit of Decency. I certainly don't agree with everything he writes. However, he has an excellent chapter in relation to the Senate (He was a Senator.) and the courts entitled "Elected to Serve, not Swerve." On pages 122-123, he quotes Thomas Sowell from his book The Quest for Cosmic Justice (Free Press, 2002). I liked what it said so I will quote it here (I did not research it to see if it was accurate.) "After having lunch one day with Judge Learned Hand, (That is his correct name; I remember the name from school.) (Justice Oliver Wendell) Holmes entered his carriage to be driven away. As he left, Judge Hand's parting salute was: 'Do justice sir, do justice.' Holmes ordered the carriage stopped. 'That is not my job,' Holmes replied to Judge Hand. 'It is my job to apply the law.' Elsewhere Holmes wrote that his primary responsibility as a judge was 'to see that the game is played according to the rules whether I like them or not.'" To which I reply: Amen!

Sunday, October 09, 2005

The theory of intelligent design should not be taught in our public schools. As a former school board member, I will repeat the statement: The theory of intelligent design should not be taught in our public schools. The truth should be taught in our schools. The truth is that GOD created the universe and all that is within the universe. This is what should be taught in public schools because it is the truth. The theory of intelligent design does not give credit to GOD and is therefore incomplete.

This is a true statement, either GOD created the universe as claimed in the Bible or HE did not. This is a true statement, evolution as now taught in the classrooms of our schools is either true or it is not. This is a true statement, the information taught in relation to evolution and the belief that GOD created the universe including all life can not both be true.

The Bible is replete with statements declaring that GOD created the universe and all that is within. In my post on Tuesday, August 9, 2005; I gave five Biblical quotes that all stated that GOD created the universe. I will not repeat those here. However, here is a related quote from Romans 1: 18-20, "The wrath of GOD is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about GOD is plain to them, because GOD has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world GOD'S invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." In short, all one has to do is look at the creation of all things and it is obvious that they must all be made by GOD. It is obvious!!! To deny that GOD created all things is both godlessness and wickedness. When our schools teach the lie of evolution, the teaching of that lie is both godlessness and wickedness.

In my August 9th post, I explained some of the reasons why the "big bang" theory is invalid. Those same reasons are valid in relation to evolution because if the universe could not have been created by the process of the "big bang" theory then there is no universe for evolution to occur in. One must first understand the creation of the universe before one can understand how life was created. One of the major problems with the "big bang" theory or any theory that excludes GOD as creator is the question of where did all of the mass of the universe come from? Scientists know very well that something can not be created from nothing! Yet, the proponents of the "big bang" theory claim that is exactly what happened. They are unable to explain how. But, they take it for granted that it did. That is unscientific!

The same type of problems is evident with the theory of evolution as taught in the schools. Books have and can be written discussing all of the errors involved in the evolution theory. I will only mention one obvious problem. Scientifically, it is accepted that an element or conglomerate of elements can not go from not being alive to life. It has never been observed scientifically nor can it be. We do know because it has been observed as stated in the Bible that it is possible to go from life, to death, and then back to life. It has never been observed or proven that it is possible to take elements that do not have life within them, mix them together, provide some type of catalyst, and thus produce life. That has never been done or been shown to have ever occurred. Yet, the advocates of evolution would have everyone believe that once and only once that did occur without a CREATOR. Ridiculous until proven otherwise!

Here is the kicker. If the belief that GOD created the universe and all that is within including human life is a lie, then our Declaration of Independence is a lie. The Declaration of Independence specifically declares that the CREATOR gave us our rights--"that they (all men) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...." No CREATOR; no rights! Thus, if teaching that GOD created the universe is unconstitutional; then teaching the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional; then the Supreme Court is absurd, is godlessness, is wickedness.