The following is an explanation of the symbols in the “parable” posted on Saturday, March 25th—“There was an Island”.
The island is the earth.
The 1000 people are the inhabitants of the earth.
The owner of the island is GOD, the CREATOR of the universe.
The instruction book is the Bible.
The mainland is Heaven.
The bridge is the LORD JESUS CHRIST.
The sharks are the devil and sin.
The engineer is false prophets and teachers.
The ship is humanism and other man created “methods” to reach salvation and enter into heaven.
The conclusion of the parable: the only way to get to Heaven is by obedience to GOD (following the Bible which includes faith, repentance, confession, baptism, love, and obedience) and through HIS SON—JESUS. (To be continued.)
There was an island. It was small but relatively comfortable. One thousand people occupied the island. Years ago according to the story, the owner of the island left.
There was a bridge. There were instruction books left for each of the thousand people. Each instruction book was identical. The instruction book said that the bridge led to a mainland country that was huge and provided joy to all who lived on the mainland. Throughout the instruction book, the same instruction was repeated. The bridge was the only way to safely reach the mainland. It was believed that the owner of the island had left the instruction book for the benefit of the 1000 inhabitants.
However, no one on the island could actually see the mainland. No one on the island could actually see an end to the bridge. The water surrounding the island was invested by sharks. Occasionally, an adventurous person would attempt to leave the island by swimming or on a makeshift boat. Each time, the other inhabitants of the island saw that person killed by the sharks.
Occasionally, an adventurous person would attempt to leave the island by walking across the bridge. Each time the other inhabitants saw that person disappear into the horizon. Never once did any person who left the island by the bridge come back to the island. No one knew for certain what had happened to any of them.
There was an engineer who lived on the island. He said he had read the instruction book from cover to cover. He thought some of the instructions were not being read correctly. He didn’t believe the bridge could safely get anyone to the other side. He believed the owner would eventually send a beautiful, huge ship to carry everyone safely to the mainland. He believed that the people should wait for the ship. Then, all of them would be safely transported to the mainland.
Over the years some people tried to leave the island by water and all died. Some people tried to leave the island using the bridge and they disappeared from view. The people on the island were not perfect. Occasionally, someone would kill someone else. People died from diseases and from old age.
After each death, the bodies would be placed next to each other near where the anticipated ship was expected to dock. Over the years the ship never arrived. However, with the encouragement of the engineer the remaining residents always hoped for and anticipated its arrival shortly. Eventually, only the engineer remained on the island. As he was dying, he laid down next to the other bodies still believing that the ship would arrive to carry all the bodies to the mainland. (To be continued.)
The Peoria Journal Star published an editorial from their staff on 3/23/06, page A4. I am not concerned with the editorial except for one sentence. The following is a quote from that editorial: “If we may put it delicately, state government in Springfield and Chicago is a bipartisan cesspool of corruption.”
Whoa!!! That is quite a statement! I admit that I have lived in Illinois for less than two years. Yet, I haven’t read about any cesspool of corruption of state government. Does the editorial staff have proof to support their statement? Is this another instance of the editorial staff saying it is true and therefore it must be true? Is this an example of their philosophy that there are many truths and we can pick and choose the truth we want to believe and accept?
Last year the editorial writers professed their undying devotion to “the rule of law.” One of the basic tenets of “the rule of law” is that an individual, no matter who he is or what he is accused of, is innocent until proven guilty.
Is the editorial staff declaring that the present governor is guilty of corruption even though he has not even been accused of any such action in a court of law? Is the editorial staff declaring that the Republican nominee for governor is guilty of corruption even though she has not even been accused of any such action in a court of law? Do the editorial writers have any proof to support their stated conclusion that “state government … is a bipartisan cesspool of corruption”?
When the editorial writers refer to state government do they include all elected governmental officials in the executive portion of government? When the editorial writers refer to state government do they include all elected governmental officials in the State House of Representatives and the State Senate? When the editorial writers refer to state government do they include all elected members of the judiciary? When the editorial writers refer to state government do they include all non-elected members of the various state bureaucracies?
Do you think the editorial writers should be just a little more specific in their broad picture of state corruption? Do you think the editorial writers should present at least some proof that their conclusion of a vast network of corruption is true? Do you think the editorial writers should support “the rule of law” which they claim to champion? Do the editorial writers understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?
Do you think the editorial writers should wait until a court of law declares their assessment to be true? Maybe, we don’t need a court of law because we have the editorial writers of the Peoria Journal Star. Are the editorial writers the prosecutor, the judge, and the jury? Have you ever known them to be wrong?
Tomorrow is primary election day in Illinois. A basic responsibility of all qualified citizens is to participate in the electoral process. Unfortunately, we know that only a portion of those eligible will actually vote tomorrow. The neglect by some increases the importance of each vote for those who do vote.
No one who has opposition in the primary has yet won anything in the electoral process. Few basketball “experts” predicted that Bradley would defeat both Kansas and Pittsburg last weekend. Some “experts” even complained that Bradley was not qualified to be a part of the NCAA tournament. (Does that sound familiar? Read my post on March 16th responding to the arrogance of the Peoria Journal Star editorial staff declaring that certain candidates were not qualified for statewide office. Also, read my post on March 15th about this coming primary.) Tomorrow is the first true test of the support each candidate has for nomination to public office.
My vote tomorrow will be for BILL BRADY FOR GOVERNOR and SANDY WEGMAN FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.
Remember: NO PUBLIC OPINION POLL HAS EVER VOTED FOR A CANDIDATE FOR PUBLIC OFFICE!
Remember: NO ENDORSEMENT HAS EVER VOTED FOR A CANDIDATE FOR PUBLIC OFFICE!
Remember: YOUR VOTE TOMMORROW IS IMPORTANT. PRAY FOR GUIDENCE. THEN, VOTE!!!
I have a Master of Science degree in political science. I taught American government for several years in Illinois schools. My first involvement in a political campaign, that I can remember, was in the fourth grade. It was very limited involvement but involvement never the less. I have run for political office. I have won primaries and a general election. I think I have some understanding of the political process in this country.
Nevertheless, I would not presume to tell anyone how they should cast their vote in an election. It is their vote; not mine. I do believe it is proper to state who I am voting for and why. What any particular voter does with that information is up to them. I would, as before, urge everyone to vote in the primary next week. Your one vote can make a difference.
I believe the values held by the various candidates are as important if not more important than their position on the various issues. Issues come and go. What may be an important issue during the election may not be that important during the term of office of the elected candidate. New, unforeseen issues will develop during his term of office. Issues that he must decide without any real feedback from the voters.
Values are more permanent than issues. The candidate’s values should always be an influence on how he decides future issues that were unforeseen today. The candidate’s values also have an impact on his leadership ability. As a voter, I want to elect candidates who are leaders not followers. I want them leading based upon their values. The values of the candidate are the most important criteria I use in determining who I will vote for.
I want a candidate who is pro-life. I want a candidate who understands that homosexuality is a sin. I want a candidate who supports the GOD directed traditional family unit. I want a candidate who is not intimidated into trying to minimize his established values. I want a candidate who is a leader and not a follower.
For governor I am voting for Bill Brady. From what I have read, both Ron Gidwitz and Judy Topinka support the murder of unborn babies. Both of these candidates support civil unions for homosexuals which to me is just an attempt to try to “straddle the fence” and benefit from the support of both homosexuals and those who oppose homosexuality while not totally pleasing either side. A sad lack of leadership and commitment to one position or the other. Their positions on either or both of these issues are sufficient to prevent me from voting for either one of them in the primary.
I have read that Jim Oberweis is pro-life but have not seen or heard any commercial from him declaring that to be his position. He also may have alienated Topinka supporters with some of his ads which may mean they will not support him in the general election. I have not read Andy Martin’s positions on either being pro-life or pro-family. That may be intentional. That may be because of the poor media coverage he is receiving. I have not seen or heard any commercial ads for his campaign.
In contrast, Bill Brady is finally running ads featuring his pro-life and pro-family positions. No other candidate has run ads or radio commercials declaring their position on these issues as far as I know. This tells me that Bill Brady will take a leadership position in these two areas. Bill Brady is also from central Illinois. Bill Brady will receive my vote in the primary.
For lieutenant governor, both Steve Rauschenberger and Joe Birkett have aligned themselves with a candidate (Gidwitz and Topinka) who supports the murder of unborn babies and civil unions for homosexuals. They are each automatically rejected for that alignment—no leadership there. I have not read or heard anything in relation to Lawrence Bruckner and his positions on the murder of unborn babies and pro-family values—no leadership there.
I am voting for Sandy Wegman. She is running an ad stating she is endorsed by the Illinois Federation for Life. She has said she will be actively involved in issues because of her values including her pro-life position. The editorial writers at the Peoria Journal Star believe she is unqualified for statewide office. That is a positive for voting for her. She is from Kane County and I use to teach in Kane County. Sandy Wegman will get my vote.
One last thing. It is always a good idea to pray for GOD’S guidance before you vote. Then, VOTE!!!
Tuesday, March 21, 2006 is primary election day in Illinois. I urge all eligible voters to exercise their right to vote. Don’t be fooled into believing that your vote does not count.
From my own limited political experience, I can testify that every vote is important. I won a primary election against a candidate who was both a medical doctor and a lawyer by 54 votes. I lost a general election by 3 votes. There was a news story a few years ago where the vote total was a tie and one of the two candidates neglected to vote. Every vote can make a difference. Vote!
Don’t be swayed be public opinion polls or by endorsements. I can guarantee this to be true. NO PUBLIC OPINION POLL HAS EVER VOTED FOR A CANDIDATE FOR PUBLIC OFFICE. I can also guarantee this to be true. NO ENDORSEMENT HAS EVER VOTED FOR A CANDIDATE FOR PUBLIC OFFICE. The person or persons who made the endorsement may vote for that candidate but the endorsement does not vote for any candidate. The person who made the endorsement has only one vote just as you and I have only one vote.
Actually, in a primary election your vote is even more critical than in a general election. We know that fewer people vote in the primary than in the general election. That means that each vote has more weight than in the general election. If 100 people vote in the primary election and 1000 people vote in the general election, your one vote in the primary election has ten times the weight of your one vote in the general election—1/100th compared to 1/1000th. You have greater influence in the primary than in the general election!
Often, in the primary election it is not the candidate who has the most support who wins. Rather, it is the candidate who can get his supporters to the poll and voting for him. In Arizona a few years ago, two Republicans were running in the primary for governor. One was the Majority Leader for the State House of Representatives. Every public opinion poll had him winning by a large margin. He received every major endorsement from members of the Republican Party and from state newspapers. Almost every news source had him easily winning. HE LOST!!!
Your vote can make the difference. Vote in the primary on March 21, 2006. VOTE AND BE HEARD!
Tomorrow I will announce who I am voting for in the governor and lieutenant governor races and why.
Last night I wrote about two editorials from the editorial staff of the Peoria Journal Star published on March 13, 2006, page A6.
Tonight, I will discuss the third one published that day. After discussing the death of two individuals and the heart attack of Peoria’s District 150 Superintendent of Schools, the editorial declares “At 44, 45, and 59, life is just beginning. All of us should do what we must to squeeze all that we can out of it.”
That is the end of the editorial. The editorial does not explain or clarify what the editorial writers mean by “squeeze all that we can out of it.” They are right about one thing. Life is not guaranteed to anyone. This is what the Bible has to say about it. “Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.” (James 4:14)
This is the problem. They don’t say anything in the editorial about our responsibilities for what we do with our life. Basically, there are only two alternatives available to squeezing all that we can out of life. One is to serve GOD and the other is to serve ourselves. Given the humanistic attitudes expressed by the editorial staff in the past, I’m afraid that their suggestion to squeeze everything out of life that you can is no more than a suggestion to serve yourself to the fullest. It is the “eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow you die” philosophy of the world.
That philosophy says that it is perfectly alright to murder your unborn child because you are more important than any other consideration. That philosophy says that it is alright to make abortion pills available to minors because you are more important than any other consideration. That philosophy says it is alright to let a comatose woman die of starvation because you are more important than any other consideration. That philosophy says it is alright for terrorists to murder children, civilians, and captives because they are not killing you and your loved ones.
That philosophy will never be accepted by GOD the CREATOR of the universe. This is what the Bible says about the “eat, drink, and
be merry for tomorrow you die” philosophy of the world. “What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?” (Matthew 16: 26a) Also, “’But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’
‘This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God.’” (Luke 12: 20-21)
The choice? Satisfy yourself or satisfy GOD. Satisfy yourself and it makes a tremendous difference when you die. Satisfy GOD and it does not matter when you die—HEAVEN awaits!!!
The editorial staff of the Peoria Journal Star has gone beyond their usual twisted logic in the three editorials published on 3/13/06, page A6. I don’t usually waste effort pointing out their flaws but I will tonight. Actually, I’ll deal with one tonight along with a quote from a second one. I’ll deal with the third one tomorrow.
Quoting from the third short editorial, “A thumb down (actually it’s a picture—my addition) to voter’s in Texas’ 22nd congressional district for giving disgraced U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay an overwhelming victory in Tuesday’s Republican primary. The former House majority leader, the indicted poster child for abuse of political power in Congress, won by a 2-to-1 margin over the closest of three challengers.”
Wait a second! Who said he was disgraced? Why the editorial writers of the Peoria Journal Star and other libertine media elites. If they say it is so; then, of course, it must be so! NOT!
This is what I get a kick out of. Notice, he has not been convicted of anything! He has been indicted. In the mind of the editorial writers, indictment must mean conviction unless, of course, they should happen to be indicted for something. Then, you can bet the farm that their tune would change. Then, they would scream “what happened to innocent until proven guilty?” In their minds, anyone who they disagree with is guilty. Anyone who they agree with is innocent until proven guilty. I hope they are never on a jury!
Notice also the extreme arrogance of these people. They don’t live in Texas. They don’t vote in Texas. Yet, they believe they are qualified to determine who the people of Texas should vote for and who they should not vote for. What absurd nonsense. What absurd arrogance.
Wait. Their arrogance does not extend just to Texas. They also demonstrate it in their first editorial of the day. They believe they are qualified to tell all central Illinois voters who to vote for. This particular editorial deals with the office of Lieutenant Governor in the Republican primary.
Wait. It gets worse. This is a quote from that first editorial. “Neither (Sandy Wegman and Lawrence Bruckner—my addition) is qualified for statewide office.” Do they mean that these two candidates do not meet the Illinois State Constitutional qualifications for Lieutenant Governor? Of course not. They mean that these two candidates do not meet the Peoria Journal Star’s qualifications for a Lieutenant Governor. Who are these people that they believe they are qualified to tell us who is and who is not qualified to run for political office?????
What utter, absurd arrogance!!! Do these editorial writers meet the qualifications for editorial writers? Are there any qualifications for editorial writers?
The following is from a movie review published in the Peoria Journal Star on 3/9/06, page C3.
“It’s all very Judy Garland-and-Mickey Rooney, let’s-put-on-a-show in its innocent enthusiasm.”
“The film isn’t about to mention that, either, but knowledge of Chappelle’s recent spiritual journey—which culminated with an appearance on ‘The Oprah Winfrey Show’—makes some of the more introspective moments seem that much more meaningful.”
“Quick take: Sweet, tender and funny—just maybe the best concert you’ll see this year.” Wow! What an endorsement!
Here’s the mystery! The film is “Rated: R”! “Family guide: profanity”!
What an oxymoron!!! Sweet, tender, funny, innocent, spiritual but PROFANE!!!
Last Wednesday night the 8th of March, I wrote a blog about a letter I had written to the Peoria UPN TV station concerning the content of a commercial aired during the IHSA Class A Girls’ State Basketball Tournament. The blog was entitled “Immoral garbage.” I stated that I would not watch UPN any longer because that “garbage” commercial was aired during the basketball game.
Guess what. Tonight I watched the last half of the second night game of the IHSA Class A Boys’ Basketball Tournament. I decided to watch it because I had heard that UPN was going to air two night games of the Big Ten Basketball Tournament. The ISHA Class A games would be aired on Channel 17 instead of UPN by Insight Cable which operates in Morton. Channel 17 is usually reserved for items pertaining to a Peoria area junior college.
Guess what. I watched the entire second half and not one “garbage” commercial was shown. Every commercial was age appropriate for the audience that would be watching a high school basketball game. In other words, there was not one commercial promoting any program to be aired by the UPN station. UPN was not broadcasting the game and UPN was not inserting the “immoral garbage” promotions for their “immoral garbage” programs. It is possible to watch a high school basketball game without a “Janet Jackson Moment” as long as it is not being broadcast by UPN.
The IHSA ought to take note! Do you think they will?
The governor of Illinois has proposed a new tax credit for Illinois college students. I, of course, have not read the proposed law. The Peoria Journal Star in an article on page A9 on 3/9/2006 states the following: “Blagojevich also appeared at Bradley University to rally support for his proposal for a tax break for college students who make good grades. Parents of college students, or students paying their own way, would be able to apply for the $1,000 tuition tax credit by maintaining a B average. It would apply to private and public university students.” I believe I read elsewhere that the credit would be for the freshman and sophomore years of college. Also, I believe the proposal states that if the taxes owed are less that $1,000,
then the state government would refund to the individual(s) who filed the tax return the remainder of the tuition up to the full $1,000.
I have a few questions in relation to this proposal. It is my understanding that once a person becomes an adult (18) his grades can not be provided to the parents because of federal privacy laws. Therefore, if this is true, how are parents going to know for certain whether or not their adult child has a B average? How is the State of Illinois going to know if the B average claimed is in fact a B average?
Is this proposal going to lead to more cheating in college as students attempt to maintain a B average? Is the college or university going to increase grade inflation to insure that their students have a B average so that they can benefit from the college tax credit? Will the colleges be pressured into providing more B’s and A’s to insure that students don’t leave their school in search of an easier college to maintain the B average requirement? Will the work required in one college for a B average become the standard for all colleges because of the fear of losing students to easier schools? Is a B average in one school equivalent to a B average in all schools?
This seems strange. The State of Illinois is a provider of the product of education. The State of Illinois is in competition will private universities in the state for qualified students. The State of Illinois is now proposing a law that will benefit those private colleges and universities that are in competition with the state’s public universities. Will this law decrease the number of students who attend the public universities of this state? Would it not be wiser for the State of Illinois to decrease the cost of tuition in the public universities rather than giving a tax credit to every family who sends a child to any university in the state—be it public or private. Do you as a citizen of the state want to provide a $1,000 tax credit to a family who earns one million dollars a year?
Is this a reasonable, logical, valid proposal?
I mailed the following letter to the UPN station in Peoria on March 1, 2006. As of yet, no one has responded. I don’t expect a reply. However, if I receive one, I will post it.
Your TV station will not be invited into my home again. Even when you promise wholesome entertainment, you bring along your immoral garbage.
We were watching the IHSA girls’ basketball tournament. Your immoral garbage was not invited but it came along anyway. A quote from a commercial aired during the game, “Once I got dumped during sex.”
Your TV station got dumped during a commercial. I should not have to police a wholesome program to prevent an immoral commercial from invading my home! Unfortunately, you don’t seem to have anyone with an ounce of intelligence working for your station!
I did what the libertines always say we should do. “If you don’t like it, don’t watch it.” The TV was turned off. It will not be turned back on to any UPN program. I will not unintentionally invite garbage into my home and no program seems to be immune from the garbage invasion—not even a high school basketball game.
How many pre-teenagers were watching a basketball game and were exposed to a commercial glorifying premarital sex? Would you run beer commercials during this time slot? Would you run condom commercials? Then again, maybe you did and I turned off the TV before they were aired. It would not surprise me.
I’ll miss watching high school basketball. I will not miss the immoral garbage you tried to force upon us.
On February 1 and February 2 of 2006 I wrote articles dealing with partial-birth abortions. It might be of benefit to read those two articles particularly the description of a partial-birth abortion procedure. The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal to an Appellate Court’s decision declaring the law passed by Congress to made partial-birth abortions illegal unconstitutional.
First, I urge everyone who knows that partial-birth abortions are immoral and barbaric to pray that the Supreme Court correctly upholds the Congressional law that prohibits the use of partial-birth abortions. Second, the America Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has started a petition drive to show the support the American people have for this law. I urge you to download the petition, sign it, and send it to the ACLJ.
One word of warning though. Like most non-profits, the organization solicits for donates to continue its work. I determine how much I will contribute each year and then don’t go over that amount. If you don’t want to be solicited, you may want to be cautious about sending in the petition. To me it is worth it. However, I can’t guarantee that they will not solicit you.
Committee to Protect the Ban
on Partial–Birth Abortion
We are grateful the Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear the case regarding the ban on partial-birth abortion. We stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, members of Congress, and the office of the Solicitor General in asking the Supreme Court to reverse the rulings of the lower courts and uphold the constitutionality of the national ban on partial-birth abortion.
We fully support the ban on partial-birth abortion. This barbaric practice, which brutally takes the life of a partially-born baby, is an abomination that should be outlawed in our country once and for all. Thank you.
Name: __________________________________
Address: _______________________________
City: __________________________________
State: ________________ zip code: ______
Signature: _____________________________
Mail to:
American Center for Law and Justice
Post Office Box 90555
Washington, D.C. 20090-0555
An open letter to Illinois Republican Gubernatorial candidate
Bill Brady
According to an article printed in the Peoria Journal Star on March 4, 2005, page B5; you believe “the majority of GOP voters look for a candidate who supports their social views.” Examples given of those social views include being pro-life, supporting “a constitutional amendment stating marriage is between a man and a woman”, and letting local school boards decide if intelligent design should be taught in their schools.
So, why are you not emphasizing these issues in your TV commercials that are being run in this area? The two commercials I have seen basically declare that you will be “tough on taxes.” That does not separate you from any of the other Republican candidates. That does not separate you from the declared position of the present governor.
If you believe that value issues are the most important issues in this campaign and that you have something better to offer than the other Republican candidates, then that should be the emphasis of your campaign. Do you expect the voting public to know this by osmosis?
This should be the theme of your campaign. “Every farmer knows that you reap what you sow. If you sow immorality, you will reap immorality.” Every TV and radio commercial should pertain to your value positions and how they differ from the other Republican candidates. Every speech and every meeting should concentrate on these themes and why you are the best candidate in relation to these themes.
Unfortunately, there are only two weeks before the primary and you have a lot of catching up to do. Get busy and shout from the housetops the important values you will bring to the governor’s office. If you believe it, declare it!
