Tweedledum and Tweedledee
It seems that the libertine Democrats have decided to try to stop the appointment of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court after all. (Peoria Journal Star, 1/28/06, page A3) They hope to do this on Monday although the article concludes that there are at least 62 votes to stop any possible filibuster. (It takes 60 votes to end a filibuster at the present time.) Pray that the filibuster does not occur, Judge Alito is appointed to the Supreme Court, and he is not swayed by the power of the position.
The article identifies Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry (both of Massachusetts) as being involved but does not identify any other specific leaders of the movement except by reference to “others.” My educated guess is that one of those “others” is Illinois’ own Senator Dick Durbin.
If I am correct and Senator Durbin is involved, it is also likely that Illinois Senator Obama is somewhere lurking in the shadows. I have been watching the way both of Illinois’ Senators vote on issues before the Senate as provided by the Peoria Journal Star. They are Illinois’ version of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. They may well be tied together at the hip!
One other thing I noticed in this article. This is the first time that I can recall that retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has not been referred to as a moderate or a centralist. The article simply says “The 55-year-old appeals court judge would replace Sandra Day O’Connor….” Maybe, since Judge Alito will soon be on the Court and Justice O’Connor will soon (Not soon enough!) be off of the bench, the writer of the article decided not to bother with the façade that she is somehow a moderate. As I’ve declared before, no one who supports the murder of innocent unborn babies through judicial fiat is a moderate or centralist. No one!!!
Here’s a shock. Another negative headline appears in the Peoria Journal Star on 1/26/06, page A7. This time it is in relation to the housing industry. The headline reads “Housing slow down may hurt rest of the economy, too.” Then, of course, it may not. Economically predicting the future is not an exact science although these writers seem to think it is or should be.
Of course, the headline emphasizes the negative. In the article itself we learn that for the last five years the sales of existing homes have set a new record each year. That’s rather impressive. But, the story dwells on the negative.
I personally know of these two examples. They both occurred in the Tucson area last year. In 2000, a couple bought their first home for about $130,000. It was a new home just built. Last year, five years later, they sold it for about $230,000. That’s about a $100,000 profit in five years.
The second couple had owned their home for years. They owned it free and clear—no mortgage. For 2006, it was assessed at about $170,000. By state law, the assessment for property is supposed to be at full market value. I know a member of the Tucson assessor’s office who told me they try to assess houses at about 80% of full cash value. Assessing homes is not an exact science either. This home was sold last year also. It was sold for about $310,000. Since another home will probably not be purchased, that is $310,000 to be put into the economy one way or another.
Maybe, it is a good economic occurrence that the housing market is cooling down. Maybe, the housing market was experiencing an instance where purchasers were willing to spend more money than called for based strictly upon supply and demand principles. Maybe, the housing market was approaching or had already arrived at a bubble situation. The same type of bubble situation that resulted in the implosion of the over valued high tech industry a few years ago. Maybe just maybe, a slow down is exactly what is needed for the housing market and for the economy.
None of this was addressed in the article. I would suggest that it is better to think than to just take newspaper articles at face value! Too bad reporters seem not to do a lot of thinking!
Supreme Court nominee Judge Sam Alito has been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a straight party vote. The ten Republican members of the committee voted for his confirmation while the eight Democratic members of the committee voted to oppose the appointment. As I predicted (twice), Illinois Senator Barack Obama has joined Illinois Senator Dick Durbin in saying that he will vote against the nomination on the Senate floor.
This is a quote from an article in the Peoria Journal Star on January 25, 2006, page A6. “’Yet in examining Judge Alito’s many decisions, I have seen extraordinarily consistent support of the powerful against the powerless, for the employer against the employee, for the president against the Congress and the judiciary, and for an overreaching government against individual rights and liberties.’ Obama said.”
Of course, this is Senator Obama’s expressed opinion. It may or may not be the truth of the matter. One must always remember that this is from an individual who like Senator Durbin believes that a mother has the “right” to murder her unborn child. When he speaks of individual rights and liberties, he is speaking of the “right” and “liberty” to MURDER! How utterly and completely sinful! How utterly and completely obscene! How utterly and completely depraved!
What is conspicuously missing from the quote and missing in the entire article is any mention of actually following the United States Constitution as written. That is the major problem with the libertine Democrats. They believe that the Court should be a policy making body. Of course, they only believe that when they have a majority on the Court. Now that they are losing their majority, they will do anything to try to get it back. Be prepared for campaigns filled with lies, half truths, and statements that demonstrate they believe the voting public is gullible idiots—because they do!
Praise be to the LORD! Pray that the murder of the unborn ends!
Do not stop now! Rely on the LORD’S power and majesty! Praise be to the LORD!
Hillary “We are the President.” Clinton lived in Park Ridge, Illinois. She attended Main South High School. She was, according to reports, an excellent student. She has a law degree and is a Senator from New York. Presumably during her years in school she passed several American history courses. Yet, from her recently quoted comment she never learned that history, she has forgotten it, or she is knowingly lying to the American people.
In a recently published article in the Peoria Journal Star (1/20/06, page A3), she is quoted as saying “that Bush’s presidency would ‘go down in history as one of the worst….’”
The article continues with this explanation, “Clinton campaign advisor Ann Lewis said any change in tone (by Senator Clinton—my addition) ‘reflects the change in current events,’ starting with the federal response to Hurricane Katrina and including the indictment of Tom DeLay, the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal and the administration’s electronic eavesdropping program.”
These four “events” seem to be the four major “events” that have convinced Senator Clinton “that Bush’s presidency would ‘go down in history as one of the worst.’” Starting from the last “event” listed and working backwards, let’s examine these four “events” that to Senator Clinton are major scars on the Bush presidency.
The United States is at war. Our civilian population was viciously attacked on September 11, 2001 in a surprise, unprovoked attack on New York City and Washington, D.C. We are at war. The President claims he has the authority to carry out the electronic eavesdropping that he has ordered and that has occurred. Some do not agree. No definitive conclusion has been reached either way. Yet, Senator Clinton has already concluded that this practice has been determined to be illegal. Shouldn’t she at least wait until it has been authoritatively decided?
Furthermore, she obviously does not know or does not remember our history. After the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, the Democratic Administration of President Franklin Roosevelt ordered the relocation of Japanese Americans into federal concentration camps without due process of law. These American citizens were not accused of any crime, they did not receive a trial, and they were not convicted of any crime. They were of Japanese descent—that was the only considered factor. Does Senator Clinton really think we believe that the eavesdropping done by the Bush Administration is worse than taking American citizens from their homes without cause and placing them into concentration camps? Does she think we are that stupid, naive, and ignorant of American history?
Let’s do some speculation. What if President Bush had not ordered the eavesdropping? What if we were attacked within the country a second time? What if, after an impartial investigation, it was determined that knowledge of the second attack could have been secured by eavesdropping? Who do you think would be among the first to criticize the President for not taking every precaution necessary to secure the safety of the United States? Did you answer libertine Democrats?
The second supposed source of this claim is the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. What scandal? There may eventually be a scandal; at the present time the only scandal is the one created by the mass media and the libertines of this country. Only one person has been accused and convicted of any crime. That person is Jack Abramoff. Jack Abramoff is not a member of the Bush Administration! Not a single person in the Bush Administration has been accused of any wrong doing because of or in relation to Jack Abramoff. Not a single person except Jack Abramoff has been convicted of any crime. This is another example of alleged guilt by association or party membership(?) without a shred of evidence being presented. It is extremely absurd! It is extremely un-American! For someone who has previously been accused of illegal activities as Senator Clinton has been, it is extremely hypocritical! It is extremely obscene!
The third “event” identified is the indictment of Tom DeLay. Tom DeLay is a Congressman from Texas. Tom DeLay has been indicted. Tom DeLay has not been convict of any crime. Tom DeLay’s case has not even gone to trial yet. Another extreme example of guilt by accusation of someone else!!! Oh yes, Senator Clinton. Do you remember your basic civic lessons? Tom Delay is not now nor has he ever been a member of President Bush’s Administration! Hillary, Tom DeLay is a member of Congress! Hillary, Tom DeLay is a member of the legislative branch of government. Hillary, that is the same branch of government that you are a member of! Hillary, does that mean you are also guilty of the same illegal offenses that he is accused of?
The final one is the Hurricane Katrina response. I have already talked about the difficulties of a bureaucracy responding to such a crisis. I will not go through that again. For her to blame the President for that response is extremely ridiculous. There are about two million federal employees in government. No one can control what a small portion of the bureaucracy does before the fact. Does Hillary expect him to be at FEMA making every day to day decision of the agency?
For someone who claims to be capable of being President of the United States, she has demonstrated an amazing lack of understanding. Hillary, given the knowledge of and understanding of government you have demonstrated, you even considering running for President is a scary joke on the country! You have demonstrated that you think we have very little knowledge of our government or our history. Either that, or you don’t!
Saturday night I wrote about a letter to the editor that was published in the Peoria Journal Star on January 20, 2006, page A4. I labeled that post “Diversity?” Tonight, I want to discuss a second letter to the editor that was published that same day. This one is entitled “Our differences make America great.”
This is a quote from the letter, “Our differences are what make this country so great.” Yet, the letter does not give even one example of why that statement is correct in his view. Perhaps, he gave examples and they were not printed. That I don’t know. I do know that none were given in the printed version of the letter. Maybe, we are to believe it since he claimed it. I don’t know. I do know that I don’t agree with his conclusion.
Back when I was teaching American history in high school, the textbooks referred to America as a “melting pot.” Without going into a long explanation of the concept, it was the belief that the many different peoples who came to America were assimilated into the society for the betterment of the nation. People came from many different societies with many different customs but they put those aside for the “American way” and for the country’s growth and improvement as well as their own.
My own grandparents on my mother’s side came to the United States after being born in Germany. My grandmother preferred to speak German even though she could speak English. I had to say thank you in German before I would receive a cookie. (She made fantastic cookies.) Yet, she did not demand nor did she expect to have government documents such as ballot instructions written in German.
Historically, that has been true for each migratory section of the society. Rather, they worked to learn and do things as done in America. They became part of the “melting pot.” That was historically true for the Jews of Eastern Europe, the Irish, the French, and people of Asian descent among others. They may have kept some of their customs, traditions, and practices in the family, the neighborhood, and the community. Yet, in the larger society they would blend those same practices into the American culture. They did not demand nor did they expect to be separate and apart from the American experience. (This, of course, is a generalization and not correct in every single instance.) They were part of the “melting pot” experience.
Last Thursday, I wrote about the girls’ basketball team from Morton defeating Richwoods, the number one ranked team in the state. I said in that post that that particular post was not political. I may have spoken prematurely. The Morton basketball team defeated Richwoods because the individual members of the team worked as a team. It may be trite, but an old saying declares “There is no I in team.”
No member of the team was demanding that all five starters must score an equal amount of points. That particular night, only eight of the members of the team played in the game. One of those eight played for only about two minutes. Yet, none of the members who did not play demanded that they have equal playing time in the game. They practiced together, they put in as much official practice time as the other members of the team, they helped the team to prepare for the game. Yet, they did not play for a single second in the game. The team was more important than their individual desires.
Looking specifically at the differences in the players, a player that is a good defensive player did not say “I’ll guard the best offensive player on the other team, but don’t expect me to score.” The best offensive player did not say “I’ll score a lot of points but I can’t play defense because I won’t have enough energy to score as I could.” Another player didn’t say “I’m a three point shooter; don’t expect me to dribble the ball.”
In short, even though they have different abilities, for the good of the team, they all have to work together and they all have to do things for the good of the team that they might not want to do. The team is more important than the individuals on the team. If that doesn’t happen, winning becomes less likely.
Rather than emphasizing the differences, I’ll take the “melting pot” any day. The coming together is what makes America great!
As was said during the American Revolutionary War (I didn’t take the time to research the exact quote but it is conceptually correct.), “Either we all hang together or we shall surely hang apart.”
Wars fought by the United States have killed thousands upon thousands of Americans. The War of 1812 had an estimated 22,500 dead. The Civil War had an estimated 620,000 causalities. World War I had an estimated 126,000 dead. World War II had an estimated 405,500 dead. The Korean Conflict had an estimated 53,000 dead. The Vietnam Conflict had 47,378 battle deaths and 10,799 other deaths.
Of course, the United States has fought in other wars and conflicts besides those listed. To account for those deaths, add an additional 200,000. (That number is probably inflated but I will use it for this illustration.) That is an estimated 1,485,177 men, women, and probably some children killed in wars fought by the U.S. in the approximate 230 year history of our country. That’s about 1.5 million people in 230 years. That’s a high price to pay for freedom. It’s a price that most of those killed were willing to pay.
January 22, 1973 is a “date that will live in infamy.” On that day thirty three years ago, 9 unelected men declared that women could legally murder their unborn babies. Over those thirty three years between 35 million to 45 million unborn babies were destroyed before they were even delivered. None of those babies had a choice. The slaughter continues today.
It is overwhelmingly sad. It is overwhelmingly tragic. On Sunday January 15, 2006, page A3 a large display ad was published in the Peoria Journal Star. At the top left of the ad was a picture of a small baby. To the right were these words, “Take my hand not my life…” The ad was calling attention to Sanctity of Human Life Week which was January 16-22, 2006. How ungodly, how unholy, how tragic! Human life in the United States is now so undervalued that it is necessary to advertise the importance of human life.
January 22, 1973 is a “date that will live in infamy.” On that day thirty three years ago, 9 unelected men proclaimed that women could legally murder their unborn babies. Over those thirty three years between 35 million to 45 million unborn babies were destroyed before they were even delivered. None of those babies had a choice. The slaughter continues today.
The supporters of the murder of unborn babies are fearful. They have not yet repented. They have not yet learned to fear the CREATOR of the universe. But, they are fearful. They are afraid, that with the changes in the Supreme Court, the Court will recognize the obvious—that each baby is a human life and that no one has the right to murder that life. Illinois’ two Senators voted against Chief Justice Roberts. Senator Durbin has said that he will vote against nominee Alito. I have predicted that Senator Obama will do the same. Nevertheless, the prediction is that Judge Alito will be confirmed. The baby killers are fearful that will be the case. They are fearful that Roe v. Wade will finally be overturned.
January 22, 1973 is a “date that will live in infamy.” On that day thirty three years ago, 9 unelected men ruled that women could legally murder their unborn babies. Over those thirty three years between 35 million to 45 million unborn babies were destroyed before they were even delivered. None of those babies had a choice. The slaughter continues today.
The Peoria Journal Star published an article (1/21/06. page B5) entitled “Group wants state to protect abortion.” “The Illinois chapter of the National Organization for Women is pressuring state legislators to do more to keep abortion legal in the state regardless of federal decisions…. The Freedom of Choice Act will not be drafted and introduced in the General Assembly until the 2007 spring session. Members of the group say they are trying to line up commitments from legislators. Essentially, the act would keep abortion in Illinois legal, even if the Supreme Court overturns the 1973 decision.”
January 22, 1973 is a “date that will live in infamy.” On that day thirty three years ago, 9 unelected men asserted that women could legally murder their unborn babies. Over those thirty three years between 35 million to 45 million unborn babies were destroyed before they were even delivered. None of those babies had a choice. The slaughter continues today.
Those who support life over murder and death are not finished. We can not relax. We can not stop fighting to save the lives of unborn babies. The supporters of the murder of the unborn have not repented. They have not relented. They will try to do state by state including Illinois what the unconstitutional edict of the Supreme Court did thirty three years before. This election at every level of government is important in preserving life over the “culture of death.” Continue praying, continue doing the will of the LORD, continue supporting candidates who support life over death. Encourage others to do the same.
January 22, 1973 is a “date that will live in infamy.” On that day thirty three years ago, 9 unelected men affirmed that women could legally murder their unborn babies. Over those thirty three years between 35 million to 45 million unborn babies were destroyed before they were even delivered. None of those babies had a choice. The slaughter continues today.
I want to discuss some aspects of two very different letters to the editor that were printed in today’s Peoria Journal Star (1/20/06, page A4.) I will discuss the first one tonight and the second one Monday night. The first letter was in response to an opinion piece written by Journal Star writer Pam Adams. As I’ve said, I’ve never been able to read one of her articles to its completion. (I have tried though.) Consequently, I didn’t read the original completely but did read enough of it to get a sense of it.
Reading the letter to the editor, I got the impression that the writer believes that Ms. Adams was “playing the race card” inappropriately. My own sense of my limited reading of her articles is that she “plays the race card” within almost, if not every, piece she writes. It is part of her outlook on life.
From what I have read of her writings, I would venture a guess that many (I can’t identify exactly what number, of course) readers would label her as a sexist (women first, foremost, and only) and racist (Black superiority complex—yes, Blacks can be just a racist as some Caucasians are). Let’s say for argument sake, that she is both a sexist and a racist. Furthermore, this fact is recognized by a majority of readers and the owner (who after all hired her) of the Peoria Journal Star. Also, the Journal Star insists on keeping her employed by the paper.
Let’s speculate, what reason would the paper give for keeping a sexist and a racist? Would it not be to provide a diversity of viewpoints within the paper? I would think that would almost certainly be the argument.
Speculating further, what if a journalist at the paper who has been working there for some time started writing racist and sexist material for the paper. However, his sexism is an obvious male sexism and his racism is an obvious Caucasian supremacy complex. Do you think he would be dismissed by the paper? Why? Because he is a sexist and racist? I think so.
Unfortunately, to most of those who preach diversity, one writer would be retained because that writer represents diversity. The other would be dismissed because that writer represents hatred, discrimination, and bigotry. In their view, it is only diversity if the diversity is according to their opinion of what is acceptable diversity. If it is not according to their parameters, it is everything evil that they have been fighting against to bring about the desired diversity they envision. The problem is: that is not diversity!
Congratulations!!! Congratulations to the girls’ basketball team from Morton. Tonight, they defeated the number one ranked team in class AA basketball in Illinois. Final score—56 to 47. Congratulations!!!
Okay. It has nothing to do with politics. However, it was an enjoyable game. Congratulations!!!
On my 12/08/05 post I lambasted Peoria Journal Star writer Phil Luciano for an article he wrote opposing a new Chicago ordinance which regulated smoking in public places. Today, he has another article published in the paper. (January 18, 2006, page B1) It is titled “Sex ed not part of the solution.” I think it is only fair to say, that in this article he is absolutely correct. I recommend that you read the article. (I’m surprised it was actually printed by the Journal Star!)
The original article in the Peoria Journal Star concerning this proposal was published on January 15, 2006, front page and page A17. One of the strong supporters of the proposed program (sponsored in the state senate by Democratic Senator Carol Ronen) is identified as Planned Murderhood. (They like to be referred to by their legal name—Planned Parenthood.) Another strong advocate of the proposed program is the ACLU. (I’m not exactly sure what this proposal has to do with the Bill of Rights but then the ACLU long ago abandoned any pretense of actually being concerned with constitutional issues.) These two groups are two of the most vile supporters, if not the two vilest supporters, of the murder of unborn babies. That in and of itself should tell any moral person that this proposal is a terrible idea. An idea which includes spending 2 million dollars of taxpayer money.
One quote from the article includes this frightening prospect, “Planned Parenthood groups are interested in applying for the grant money if it’s allocated. They could then teach the curriculum for free in schools interested in implementing it….” (page A17) Isn’t that just what parents need? An organization that believes that the murder of unborn babies either by a direct abortion or an abortion pill is a form of contraception teaching our students in public schools with our money. What a horrendous concept! What a travesty in the name of education! “Let me educate you on how to murder the unborn!”
First, we had the American Academy of Pediatrics advocating “that all teens—not just those who are sexually active—have access to birth control, including emergency contraception.” (http://www.christiangunslinger.blogspot.com/, July 13, 2005.) Now, we face the proposed prospect of Planned Murderhood teaching murder in the classroom. When will these disastrous groups stop advocating nonsense and let parents have parental control over their own children?
I’m going in a little different direction tonight. It’s not political as such but it does deal with the democratic process.
Recently the Illinois High School Association decided that some major high school sports including basketball will be divided into four classes based upon the population of the schools rather than the current two classes.
Every article that I recall from the sports writers at the Peoria Journal Star was opposed to it. The editorial writers were opposed to it. Personally, it makes no difference to me even though I do attend Morton’s girls’ basketball and softball games. I do have some concerns about the logic behind the negative comments though.
One major argument against the change was that a majority of the high schools did not support the change in an advisory referendum. That is true according to the newspaper articles. But, it is also true that a 60+ percent majority of those schools who bothered to vote did vote for the change. How is it the fault of the IHSA that many school districts decided, for whatever reason, not to vote? According to the criticism, it seems that if only 50 percent of the membership bothers to vote then it should be impossible to approve any change because a majority of schools did not support it. In political science terms that is a requirement of an absolute majority—50+ percent of the total voters who could have voted regardless of the number of actual voters. That procedure is not required in the vast majority of votes in this country. Yet, they expect it to be the requirement in this instance. Again, why is it the fault of the organization if the membership does not vote?
The following quote is from a negative article published on January 16, 2006, page D3. “The IHSA has finally caved in to the feel-good craze. Every child is a winner in this day and age. There are no losers.” First, let me say that I disagree with the philosophy and practice that everyone should “be a winner” and that unearned praise should be heaped upon students. However, let me also say—are these critics serious? Do they really expect us to believe that is happening? The proposal is to go from two classes to four classes. It is not to go from two classes to three hundred classes. Arizona has five classes in all sports (if I remember correctly, it is in all sports) and has had for years. I would guess that Arizona probably has less than one fourth of the schools in the state in comparison to the number of Illinois schools. There is no way that this proposal mandates that “Every child is a winner…. There are no losers.”
When I was a member of a school board in Arizona, high school girls’ basketball was played in the spring and girls’ softball was played in the winter. The boys, of course, played the tradition winter basketball and spring baseball. I was one of the first school board members in the state to push for a change so that the girls would also play during the traditional season. Contrary to my better judgment, our School Superintendent urged me to meet with and talk to the athletic directors of the conference schools. Everyone who spoke at that meeting (as I expected) was opposed to the change and claimed that it would be catastrophic for the athletic programs. The change happened. The catastrophe did not.
Instead of complaining, why not give it a chance. Better yet, why not come up with some creative ways to make the system better. For example, after the champions are determined in the four classes have a tournament the next week for charity with the class A champion playing the class AA champion and the class AAA champion playing the class AAAA champion. The next night, the winners of the first two games would play each other and the losers would play each other. They would have two more games, they would have some idea of how they would have competed again the other classes, and money could be raised for a good cause. This is just a starting point suggestion. Be creative. Do some good instead of just complaining. Just a suggestion!
The world will not change for the worse because of this change—I guarantee it!
Just as no one has the “right” to murder another human being, no one has the “right” to control another person as a slave. Freedom is a gift from GOD given to all mankind. There are, however, two spheres of freedom—freedom on the human plane and freedom on the spiritual plane.
Martin Luther King Jr. is honored today primarily for his efforts on the human plane although he was also involved on the spiritual plane. Naturally, the Bible makes reference to being free and freedom also. Tonight I want to quote some selected Bible verses in reference to spiritual freedom which in the final analysis is more important to each of us (or should be) than human freedom. I would encourage everyone to check these references for themselves and read the context of them.
“To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, ‘If you hold to my teaching you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.’” (John 8: 31-32)
“Jesus replied, ‘I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son (JESUS as the SON of GOD—my addition) sets you free, you will be free indeed.’” (John 8: 34-36)
“Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience (to GOD through JESUS, the CHRIST—my addition), which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.” (Romans 6: 16- 18)
“You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature….” (Galatians 5: 13a)
“Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants (Some translations use the word “slaves” instead of “servants”—my addition.) of God.” (I Peter 2: 16)
Spiritually speaking we are destined to be slaves—slaves to sin or slaves to GOD. It almost seems paradoxical. To become free from sin we must become slaves to GOD through obedience through HIS SON—JESUS. Yet, there is no greater freedom than that of being a slave to GOD since only through GOD can we be free from sin and the death that sin insures. So, whose slave do you want to be? GOD’S or a slave to sin? It must be one or the other. Being GOD’S slave leads to eternal life. Being a slave to sin leads to eternal death.
The Peoria Journal Star published a short article on 1/13/06, page B1 concerning a proposal to be made by Governor Blagojevich to give a $500 sales tax deduction to individuals who purchase select high mileage vehicles. The estimate is that this deduction would be used for about 15,000 cars a year. This would result in a loss of sales tax revenue of about $7.5 million a year. An advisor to the Governor is quoted as saying “The governor wants to give incentives to people who make wiser choices.”
This certainly seems like a good idea to help save the amount of fuel consumed in the United States. Perhaps, however, the Governor hasn’t considered some of the ramifications of this both for Illinois and the nation. First, it may be some what presumptuous of the Governor to decide for us what is a wiser choice for us personally and what is not a wiser choice for us. If it is a wiser choice, do we really need a $500 incentive to reach that decision? If we have already decided to buy such a car, we will be receiving a “windfall profit” that wasn’t necessary to offer. If the $500 induces us to buy that which we wouldn’t have otherwise purchased, then the government is using our tax money to induce us to make a purchase we wouldn’t have made otherwise.
The article lists seven cars that presently would qualify under the program. Six of those seven cars are produced by foreign automobile manufacturers. Consequently, if the incentive induces people to purchase what they otherwise would not purchase, this action could help to increase our balance of trade problems with more of our money going to overseas manufacturers. Also, if the incentive is of benefit, then the number of cars purchased because of it should be expected to increase in future years. Therefore, that $7.5 million of revenue lost will also increase if the incentive program is successful in encouraging consumers to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles. $7.5 million in revenues lost the first year, who knows how much thereafter if the incentive works.
Furthermore, the $7.5 million is not the only government revenue that probably will be lost. Take this possible example. A consumer drives 15,000 miles a year. Instead of purchasing a vehicle that gets 25 miles to the gallon, he uses the incentive to buy a vehicle that gets 35 miles to the gallon. If he continues to drive 15,000 miles a year, he will save 171.43 gallons of fuel each year. The motor fuel tax for Illinois is $.19 a gallon. (It’s a little higher for diesel.) In this example, he will also save $32.57 in motor fuel tax each year. If he saves that much, it means the State loses that much. Multiple $32.57 by 15,000 cars and the State loses about $488,500 a year in motor fuel tax. If more cars are purchased because of the incentive, they lose more motor vehicle tax.
We already know that the State and local governments have budget problems. The State has already decided to not pay money into State pension funds so that it can be spent for other budgetary items. Should the Governor be proposing a new incentive program that will take money away from state and local governments? Is this the best way to spend our tax dollars? Is this an election year maneuver to improve his chances to be reelected and to give him possible national exposure?
According to the Peoria Journal Star (1/11/06, page A1), the Governor of Illinois is proposing an extensive capital improvement program including the construction of schools. The school construction would be financed by adding another method of gambling within the state—Keno. According to the report, the governor believes he can do this without legislative approval because it is a form of a lottery which is already authorized by state law.
Yet, he is quoted as saying “‘I equate it to Bingo, which you see in church (not my church—my addition!) halls all across the state….’ ‘It’s a game that’s very much like Bingo.’” (page A6) So to the governor, it is both a lottery and a game similar to Bingo. The question of course is, if it like Bingo, does the authority exist to create it without legislative approval? He claims he has that authority. He claims a lot of things.
According to a companion article on page A6, the governor wants to provide $500 million for school construction. Yet, according to the same article, his office estimates that the new Keno (lottery-bingo game) would generate $40 million the first year and $80 million each year after the first year. However, if those estimates are accurate, without other sources of revenue it would take almost seven years to generate $500 million dollars. The article is unclear if this is a seven year project or if other sources will be used to finance the construction.
Another problem, of course, is the estimates on increased revenue. Since they are estimates, they may or may not be accurate in the prediction of the amount actually generated. From what I have observed in the past, these types of estimates tend to be over generous in their predictions of new money.
Furthermore, the proposal obviously is based upon the need to increase the amount of gambling which occurs in Illinois. Only three results are possible under this proposal. The first one is certainly not desirable based upon the governor’s goals. It is possible but surely not likely that the overall amount of gambling in money spent will decrease. The governor certainly does not want that to occur. The second possibility is that money already being spent on gambling will be shifted to Keno resulting in no net increase in money gambled. That may be a possible result. If it is, the school construction program will benefit but either other public gambling will suffer, private gambling will suffer, or a combination of the two will suffer.
The third possibility is that the overall amount spent on gambling in Illinois will increase. If that occurs, it means that money that would otherwise be spent on other goods and services or money that would have been saved will now be spent on increased gambling. Gambling does not increase productivity. It is nothing more than a shifting of resources from one group to another. Unless all increase in gambling comes from out of state (in which case those states are hurt) some portions of the Illinois economy must suffer if increased amounts of money are spent on gambling. Gambling in and of itself does not create money. It simply shifts wealth from one group to another—that is basic economics.
This negative concern is obvious to those who recognize the moral problems associated with gambling. This is a classic example of an immoral means being used to justify a positive end.
The libertine, Democratic Party inquisition of Judge Samuel Alito, President Bush’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, began Monday. As I was channel surfing, I came across a rebroadcast of one of the days hearing. A Republican Senator on the committee (I believe he was from Texas) was saying that even before the hearing there were 22 Democratic Senators who will vote against his nomination because he is not the activist judge that the supporters of these 22 Senators want appointed to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, I believe he is correct. Just as unfortunately, two of those 22 Senators are from Illinois.
The libertines know that their agenda for America including the present practice of murdering unborn babies can not be achieved through the legislative process. They know that the only way they have achieved any significant portion of it is through court decisions of activist Justices and judges who have rewritten the Constitution through judicial fiat. The judges and Justices are making policy decisions instead of being the impartial referees of the legal system that they were intended to be as written into the original Constitution.
Their almost total reliance upon the courts to achieve their ends was evident in the last Presidential election. While President Bush was promising to appoint “strict constructionists” to the courts who would follow the U.S. Constitution as written, candidate John Kerry was promising to appoint to the courts only those individuals who would continue the murderous practice of abortion. President Bush wanted members of the courts who will uphold the Constitution. John Kerry wanted members of the courts who would continue to write decisions to implement their libertine policies regardless of the clear wording of the Constitution.
There are present within the United States today two very different views of the purpose of our court system. One is to be an impartial referee upholding the U.S. Constitution and insuring that the laws passed by Congress are applied as mandated by the elected members of that body. The other is to rewrite the U.S. Constitution and laws passed by Congress and/or vetoing those laws to achieve a desired end as envisioned by those unelected judicial members.
In the first view, the opinions of the members of the court don’t matter to any great extent because they should normally (We are all human and sometimes don’t achieve our own standards.) apply the law and/or the Constitution to the particular issue before the court and reach their decision not upon their personal opinions but rather upon what the law and the Constitution require. The second view, places much greater emphasis upon the opinions and beliefs of the court members because they are more concerned with the outcome of the decision rather than upholding the law and/or Constitution.
In this case, the wording of the Constitution is used not in forming the opinion of the judge or Justice but rather to justify the decision reached by them. If it is necessary to interpret the Constitution differently to do so, then that is exactly what is done. Thus, you have the Supreme Court deciding that the Constitution allows the murder of unborn babies and defining the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment as really meaning that a “wall of separation between church and state” is required even though that phrase can not be found anywhere within the Constitution or its Amendments. This point of view is actually an assertion by the Court that they know best what is “right” for the nation.
Watching the committee hearing, it is easy to determine which members of the committee support each of the two viewpoints. If the member concentrates on the personal opinions of the nominee, he is most likely an advocate of activism and desires only members of the court who will support his position on the issues of the day. Particularly when they believe they will be losing power on the court, they will further argue that the new nominee should have the same political positions as the previous court member to main a “balance” on the court. Thus, President Bush should have appointed another “Sandra Day O’Connor” to replace Sandra Day O’Connor.
Unfortunately, the editorial writers of the Journal Star seem to be adherents to the second viewpoint. In an editorial published on 1/10/06, page A4; they write about specific issues that they believe Judge Alito should give his personal opinions about. They further declare “If Alito’s history is any indication, he will be no champion of the little guy on matters ranging from privacy to civil rights to the scope of government and corporate authority.” (News flash to the editorial writers: Even though they don’t define “little guy,” neither he nor another other member of the court system is suppose to be a champion for anyone. They are supposed to uphold the Constitution as written! Being the champion for anyone is to be an advocate and a policy maker—not the courts role or function.) Also, they wrongly declare “To the victor go the spoils.”
The courts are not nor should they be viewed as some kind of prize to help determine policy in the nation. And that is the problem! The courts have taken on powers never intended and have become the ultimate policy maker. To remain a democracy, we must end this slide into Courtocracy and end it now. The Senate needs desperately to confirm Judge Alito to the Supreme Court and we need to pray that he is the strict constructionist that he seems to be!
Yesterday I wrote about a letter to the editor from the Peoria President of the ACLU dealing with the First Amendment. I mentioned that several months ago I challenged anyone to prove the phrase “wall of separation of church and state” was in the Constitution and that no one did. However, over those months several letters were written in defense of the Supreme Court and the “rightness” of the phrase. Many of the letters used Thomas Jefferson as the source of the phrase which is probably correct.
However, relying on Jefferson as the authority on the “establishment clause” and therefore this so called “wall of separation” has several problems. First as I’ve pointed out, the phrase simply is not in the Constitution. Any reasonable person should expect that if that was the desire of the writers of the amendment; then the writers would have used that phrase when they wrote the First Amendment. Why would the writers encrypt the First Amendment? They did not!
Secondly, Jefferson was not particularly involved in writing the Bill of Rights or the First Amendment. “Therefore, although President George Washington endorsed a bill of rights in his inaugural address and James Madison vigorously advocated a bill of rights in the House of Representatives in June 1789, most members of Congress opposed even discussing the matter. Madison, however, persevered and obtained the necessary two-thirds vote to send draft amendments to the Senate. The Senate modified the amendments and eliminated some key provisions, particularly limitations on the states. On 25 September 1789, Congress agreed to twelve amendments, and by 15 December 1791, two years later, the necessary three-quarters of the states had ratified ten of these amendments, which have become known as the Bill of Rights.”
(The Oxford Companion to United States History; Edited by Paul S. Boyer; Oxford University Press, Inc.; New York, New York, 10016; 2001; page 73.)
James Madison is given credit for marshalling the Bill of Rights through the House of Representatives. So, where was Thomas Jefferson at that time? Was he a member of the House of Representatives? No. Was he a member of the Senate? No. In 1785, he was appointed as U.S. ambassador to France replacing Benjamin Franklin. He did not receive permission to return to the U.S. ending his ambassadorship to France until September of 1789 the same month and year that Congress approved the proposed Bill of Rights that were then sent to the states for ratification.
Therefore, unless Jefferson was carrying on long distance telephone calls with Congress or flying back to the U.S. periodically to shepherd the Bill of Rights through Congress, he was not eminently involved in the passage of the Bill of Rights.
Therefore, at best, the “wall of separation” as advocated by Jefferson was his personal opinion of how the “establishment clause” should be interpreted. It was not the interpretation given by the writers of the Bill of Rights nor was it the interpretation given by the Supreme Court for the first one hundred and fifty years of its existence.
Furthermore, if the supporters of the “wall of separation” are going to use Thomas Jefferson as their source, they have another problem. Thomas Jefferson opposed the Supreme Court’s use of the power of judicial review—the right of a court to declare a law to be unconstitutional. “Marshall’s Federalist Party had lost the presidency and Congress, but Marshall was determined to fight back. And so the doctrine of judicial review was born. Yes, the Constitution is indeed the supreme law of the land. But now the Court, by its own fiat, would decide what is or is not constitutional. The Constitution’s structure, including the balance of power between the three branches, was now broken.
Although Jefferson is claimed by modern Democrats as the father of their political party, he was a leading opponent of judicial activism. After Marbury (Marbury v. Madison, the first time the Supreme Court ruled a congressional law unconstitutional—my addition), Jefferson became an even more vocal critic of what he viewed as the overreaching of the judiciary under Marshall’s leadership.
To Abigail Adams, John Adam’s wife, Jefferson wrote a year after Marbury: ‘The Constitution … meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.’
Jefferson’s concern about judicial power grew stronger as he passed into old age. From Monticello, in 1820, the author of the Declaration of Independence wrote to William C. Jarvis:
‘To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps … and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.’
Neither the history of our founding nor the establishment of our government supports the current arrangement in which the judiciary rules supreme…. For 200 years, the elected branches have largely acquiesced to the judiciary’s tyranny.” (Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America; Mark R. Levin; Regnery Publishing, Inc.; Washington, D.C., 20001; 2005; pages 32-33.)
It seems Thomas Jefferson was a political prophet. He foresaw and predicted the Courtocracy of the present United States!
It is not often that I agree with a member of the ACLU. I do agree with one statement made in a letter to the editor printed today in the Peoria Journal Star (1/7/05, page A4) by the President of the Peoria Chapter of the ACLU. He was writing about the first Amendment and its provision in relation to freedom of religion. As printed in the paper, he wrote “The framers of the Bill of Rights got it right in the 18th century with the First Amendment.” He is absolutely correct.
Unfortunately, the activist Courtocracy has been rewriting the First Amendment to suit its own purposes rather than following the dictates of the clear wording of that Amendment. The First Amendment declares “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” It does not provide for a “separation of church and state” nor does it provide for a “wall of separation between church and state.” Don’t you think that if that was what the framers of the Amendment wanted; that is what they would have written!
This is what Mark R. Levin writes in Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America. (pages 40-41) “In 1947, however, the Supreme Court upended the long-standing balance between the government and religion in a case called Everson v. Board of Education. Justice Hugo Black, a longtime admirer of Jefferson, revived a previously obscure metaphor from Jefferson’s
writings. … But in writing for the court in Everson, Black seized on this idea that a ‘wall of separation’ existed between church and state. Black also declared that the religious clauses of the First Amendment, which were intended to be a check on the federal government, were now applicable to state and local governments. The term ‘wall of separation’ was to attach thereafter to every case or controversy arising under the establishment clause or the free exercise clause.”
If Mr. Levin is correct, the Supreme Court did not begin to use Jefferson’s concept of a “wall of separation” until 1947 almost one hundred and fifty years after the First Amendment was approved by Congress and adopted by the States. Dave Weiman, as ACLU Chapter President, is correct—the framers got it right. It has been U.S. Supreme Court Justices and the ACLU who has gotten it wrong since 1947. One thing is certain. The U.S. Constitution does not say anything about a “wall of separation” nor does it say anything about a “separation of church and state.”
Several months ago in a letter to the editor I challenged anyone to prove those two phrases were in the Constitution. No one did because no one can. They simply are not part of the Constitution! Are they Mr. Weiman?
If they are, prove it!
On my November 28, 2005 post, I had information about Protect Marriage Illinois, a group that is trying to place an advisory referendum on the November ballot. The Peoria Journal Star finally has an article about it in today’s paper (1/6/06, page B5.) Always trying to be fair and impartial, the reporter quotes a homosexual activist to give his take on the issue. The following quote is from that article.
“However, a gay-rights activist said the issue has no support with Illinois voters and only garners backing among ‘far, far, far right-wingers.’
‘This is about building up a mailing list and raising money by demonizing gay folks,’ Rick Garcia of Equality Illinois said.
Garcia cited statistics from a June 2005 statewide poll that shows that 67 percent of 600 registered voters contacted opposed changing the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages. Moreover, 70 percent opposed changing the U.S. Constitution to prohibit gay marriage.
The survey also showed that 39 percent supported gay marriage, while 49 percent opposed it. The poll was conducted by the Chicago-based GlenGariff Group and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.”
Here is my question. If Mr. Garcia has such great confidence in this poll and if Mr. Garcia believes the poll is accurate, why aren’t homosexuals going throughout the state gathering signatures for this advisory referendum? Think about it. According to the article, 19 states have amended their constitution to prohibit marriage between homosexuals. Every state that has had a vote on the question of amending its constitution has voted to do so. (Maine in the 2005 election
“ … voted to preserve the state’s new gay-rights law.” [Arizona Daily Star, 11/10/05, page A3.])
Now, according to Mr. Garcia, the homosexual activists can change that trend. Put the question on the ballot and let the voters speak. According to Mr. Garcia, the voters in Illinois will vote overwhelming not to prohibit homosexual marriage. What a great potential victory for his cause. So, why aren’t homosexuals actively gather signatures to win such a great victory?
If you have been following this blog, you know that I was a former public school teacher and a former public school board member. If you read the news, you know that a Pennsylvania school district had voted to teach “intelligent design” in their science classes. This issue was taken to court and, meanwhile, the supporters of “intelligent design” were voted out of office according to the media.
What I want to discuss tonight are some possible unintended consequences of this issue of the supposed “separation of church and state.” (I have said many times that that phrase is not in the Constitution and that concept was never intended by the original writers and supporters of the First Amendment.) Perhaps they are actually intended but I certainly hope not because I have no doubt they will be harmful to public education in the long run.
One consequence of this continuing attack on GOD in the public schools is a shift toward some state governments indirectly financing private education. A prime example has occurred in the State of Arizona where I lived for a number of years. In the 1990’s the state legislature passed a law which has been upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court allowing a one for one dollar tax credit to pay for the education (cover the cost of tuition) of private school students. For a married couple, the credit is a maximum of $625 each year and may be used every year. Donate $625 to an approved organization and you save $625 in Arizona income tax payments.
I don’t believe the legislature intended this; however, this is a case where tax payers can actually make more money than they donate. By state law, the money can not be donated directly to a specific private school. It must be donated to a specifically established non profit organization set up to funnel the donated money to at least two different private schools. However, because the organization must be a non profit organization, by federal law a tax payer may deduct that donation as a charity contribution if they itemize their tax return.
Let’s say a tax paying couple donates $625 to a legal organization. They can take a $625 credit on their Arizona tax return. If they itemize, they can also take a $625 charitable contribution on their federal tax return for the same money. If they are in the 27% tax bracket, that $625 will save them about $169 in federal tax. The result, they “earn” $169 with that $625 contribution and they get the $625 back. I encourage my clients to make the donation. They pay $169 less to the federal government, give $625 to a private school to help students pay their tuition, and the state has $625 less in tax revenue. They make money, the state loses money having less to give to public schools, and private schools have more operating capital.
Since this provision of the tax code was enacted, I have observed more of my clients’ children attending private schools. It costs less money to attend; the private schools are getting more money, and parents are leaving public educational systems that ignore the importance of GOD in their children’s lives.
Another consequence of children of Christians leaving the public school system is this. The discipline problems in the school system tend to increase on a percentage basis. In general, the children of Christians are less of a discipline problem than the children of non Christian parents. I’m sure the libertines will dispute this and they have a right to. However, public opinion surveys, which they love to quote, support this statement and my own observations as a public school teacher support this position. If it is true, the results are less learning because disruptive behavior lessens the learning environment and the cost of education increases as more money is spent on discipline. A double problem of increased costs and less learning when GOD is removed from the education process.
Finally, consider this. If you are financing your children’s education in a private school, how would you vote on a public bond referendum to increase your taxes to finance public education? The answer for many people may be to vote no. Many people do not want to have to pay for a private education for their own children and then turn away and increase their own taxes to support a public school system that has removed GOD from the schools. If you were a Christian with limited financial resources and children in private schools would you vote yes to increase taxes? If you were a Christian with no children in schools would you vote to increase your taxes so that a school system that ignores GOD could continue to do so using your money?
Remove GOD from the school system; harm public schools!
I have said before that I am a life long Democrat. I never voted for any Republican for any local, state, or federal office until 2000 when I voted for George W. Bush.
The largest single group of registered voters in Tucson, Arizona are registered Democrats. The city of Tucson holds city council elections in odd numbered years. Four council members are elected for four terms in one election. Two years later, the other three council members are elected for four year terms. There have been times when every council member has been a Democrat since council members are nominated by wards but elected city wide. In the 2001 election for the first time in my life I voted for all three Republican candidates for the city council. When I moved from Tucson in 2004, three of the seven council members were Republicans. (I don’t know the results of the 2005 election.)
I wrote the following letter to the editor after the 2001 election and sent it to the “Democratic” paper three times—November 16, 29, and December 11, 2001. It was not published any of those three times. This year with the 2006 election approaching I intend to devote more blog time on candidates for the respective political offices. I am posting this letter to the editor as an introduction to this political campaign year. The letter to the editor was entitled:
The Death of the Democratic Party
The Democratic Party had better wake up. Al Gore should have won the Presidential Election by at least fifteen percentage points. The Democrats should have won all three city council seats.
However, any political party that doesn’t know the difference between having moral values and discrimination is in trouble. Any party that portrays the Boy Scouts of America as evil is delusional. Any party that strives for confrontation instead of inclusiveness will eventually be excluded.
A great Republican President once said, “You may fool some of the people all of the time, you may even fool all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” The Democratic Party now looks very similar to the Democratic Party of the 1850’s. If they don’t change, they may suffer the same fate.
It was signed with my name and the following: A life long Democrat and democrat
In the 1850’s the Democratic Party supported slavery. In the second worst court decision in U.S. history, the U.S. Supreme Court supported slavery in its infamous Dred Scott Decision when the court ruled that slaves were property and once they were slaves they could never be free.
Today, the Democratic Party supports the murder of unborn babies, the sin of homosexuality as a civil right, the removal of GOD from public life, and other libertine issues not supported by the majority of voters in the nation. In the worst court decision in American history, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that mothers have a “legal right” to murder their unborn babies. The U.S. Supreme Court has instituted numerous other unconstitutional decisions that could not be passed democratically through the legislative process.
This year I hope to help the voters know the positions of the various candidates for public office.
