Marriage Protection vote

On July 18, 2006 the members of the House of Representatives voted on the following proposed Constitutional Amendment:

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states:

Article

Section 1.  This article may be cited as the ‘Marriage Protection Amendment’.

Section 2.  Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.  Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”

Simple and direct.  The amendment would maintain the civil practice followed in the United States since before the nation was formed.  It is neither revolutionary nor is it oppressive.  It is the continuation of our long historical practice.

It is also necessary to prevent the continued assault on the institution of marriage by those who desire to change that established practice.  The courts in this country have demonstrated a willingness to rewrite the Constitution contrary to the will of the people.  This proposed amendment would prevent libertine courts from destroying a traditional institution that is under attack.  John Dean has been recently quoted as declaring that he and his supporters will not stop trying to change this traditional concept of marriage.  They believe that marriage should not be defined as only between a man and a woman.  They intend to use the courts to bring about their corrupted definition of marriage.

Although the proposed amendment received a majority of the vote, it did not receive the two-thirds vote necessary to continue the process.  Of the 423 votes cast, 236 members of the House of Representatives voted in favor of the amendment.  177 members of the House of Representatives voted no.  With 423 votes cast, it was necessary to have 282 yes votes.  The amendment failed by 46 votes.  202 Republicans voted yes.  27 Republicans voted no.  34 Democrats voted yes.  159 Democrats voted no.  1 Independent voted no.  1 Democrat voted present.  2 Republicans did not vote. 7 Democrats did not vote.  

Obviously, the vast majority of Democrats, who voted, voted against the amendment to preserve the historically traditional definition of marriage in this country.  Just over 82% of the Democrats, who voted, voted against preserving traditional marriage—82%.  In contrast, over 88% of Republicans, who voted, voted in favor of traditional marriage—88%.

If you go to www.house.gov, you can view all the pertinent information.  That website is the official website for the House of Representatives.  The vote was on H J RES 88 and the roll call number is 378.  Check it out.        

The following Democrats voted for the proposed “Marriage Protection Amendment”:

Barrow
Berry
Bishop (Ga.)
Boren
Boucher
Boyd
Chandler
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Cuellar
Davis (Al.)
Davis (Tn.)
Edwards
Etheridge
Ford
Gordon
Herseth
Holden
Jefferson
Marshall
Matheson
McIntyre
Melancon
Ortiz
Peterson (Mn.)
Rahall
Ross
Scott (Ga.)
Skelton
Spratt
Tanner
Taylor (Ms.)
Thompson (Ms.)

(The representatives’ State is given when there is more than one representative with the same last name.)

The following Republicans voted against the proposed “Marriage Protection Amendment”.

Bass
Biggert
Boehlert
Bono
Castle
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Fitzpatrick (Pa.)
Foley
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Hobson
Hostettler
Johnson (Ct.)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Leach
Paul
Ros-Lehtinen
Sanders
Schwarz (Mi.)
Shays
Simmons
Sweeney

Since this is an election year, all seats in the House of Representatives are up for reelection.  How did your representative vote?  Did he/she vote to protect traditional marriage or not?  If you don’t know your representative, you can find out on the website www.house.gov using your address and zip code.  

Why would anyone who supports traditional marriage between a man and a woman vote for a representative who does not?????

Ignorance: thy name is evolution

A news story was published in the Peoria Journal Star on August 27, 2005, page A6 which demonstrates both how ridiculous is the reasoning of evolutionists and how wrong they are.  The headline is “Humans on exhibit at London Zoo.”

Quoting from portions of the news story: “At London Zoo, you can talk to the animals—and now some of them talk back.

Caged and barely clothed within a rocky enclosure, eight British men and women monkeyed around Friday for an amused, bemused crowd behind a sign reading ‘Warning: Humans in their Natural Environment.’”

“Visitors stopped to point and laugh, and several children could be heard asking, ‘Why are there people in there?’

London Zoo spokeswoman Polly Wills said that’s exactly the question the zoo wants to answer.

‘Seeing people in a different environment among other animals … teaches members of the public that the human is just another primate,’ Wills said.  It also, she concedes, lets them ‘have a gawk at people.’”    

“Chemist Tom Mahoney, 26, decided to participate after his friend sent him an e-mail about the contest as a joke.  Anything that draws attention to apes, he said, has his support.

‘A lot of people think humans are above other animals,’ he said. ‘When they see humans as animals, here, it kind of reminds us that we’re not that special.’”

“Mark Ainsworth, 21, also heard about the Human Zoo on the news.

‘I’ve lived in this country for nine years and have never come to a zoo,’ said Ainsworth, who came with Wecker.  ‘This exhibit made us come to the zoo.  Humans are animals too.’

The human captives were kept well-fed and watered by zoo staff, who took care to ensure they did not grow bored.  A supply of board games was on hand, and some said they were looking forward to tuning into the England-Australia cricket match on the radio.

Unlike the zoo’s non-human inhabitants, they are allowed to go home each night at closing time.”

According to the zoo spokesperson and some interviewed people “the human is just another primate,” “it kind of reminds us that we’re not that special,” and “humans are animals too.”  Are these statements correct?  The answer is no!  The article itself proves that these statements are incorrect.

What is some of the evidence that we are not on the same level as animals as demonstrated by this news story?  Naming some obvious ones as illustrated by the story, the news story itself is proof we are not similar to animals.  Animals don’t print and publish news stories.  Animals don’t put other animals in zoos so that others animals can come and “gawk” at them.  Animals don’t put on and take off clothing.  If we were really animals just like other animals, why the clothing?  Because we have laws against not wearing clothing in certain circumstances and the zoo authorities do not want to violate the laws.  Do animals have written laws that dictate conduct and actions to be observed?  Of course not.  We are different than animals.  Different because we are not animals.  

Listing a few of the other differences as illustrated by the article:

Animals don’t verbally with the spoken word and in writing communicate with each other.

Animals don’t ask questions.

Animals don’t put up written signs to identify items of interest.

Animals don’t create categories for other animals—they don’t identify themselves as primates.

Animals don’t have personalized names for each other, i.e. Tom Mahoney.

Animals don’t identify with the age of the animal—I’m 26, he’s 21.

Animals don’t have occupations such as Chemists.

Animals don’t do what chemists do and can’t do what chemists do.

Animals don’t have e-mail.

Animals don’t divide territory into countries that have governments.

Animals don’t travel by vehicles they have created—automobiles, trains, ships, airplanes.

Animals don’t have concepts such as boredom.

Animals don’t have board games to keep themselves amused.

Animals don’t have radios.

Animals don’t have England-Australia cricket matches.

Animals don’t go home at night from the zoo.

Animals don’t have closing time—animals don’t have time or watches, or clocks, or calendars, or even sun dials.

WE ARE NOT ANIMALS!!!!!

The Bible declares “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1: 27)  Although there may be disagreement over what is meant by being created in the image of GOD, this much is certain.  No where in the Bible does it say that animals were made in GOD’S image.  

Man is a unique, GOD made being.  Men and women are not animals regardless of what evolutionists believe, claim, or teach!!!!!

Evolution vs. evolution

The Peoria Journal Star published the following short article.  I am quoting it in its entirety except for the picture and the statement under the picture. (July 14, 2006, page A9)

“’Darwin finches are evolving’

BY RANDOLPH SCHMID
AP SCIENCE WRITER

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Finches on the Galapagos Islands that inspired Charles Darwin to develop the concept of evolution are now helping confirm it—by evolving.

A medium sized species of Darwin’s finch has evolved a smaller beak to take advantage of different seeds just two decades after the arrival of a larger rival for its original food source.

The altered beak size shows that species competing for food can undergo evolutionary change, said Peter Grant of Princeton University, lead author of the report appearing in today’s issue of the journal Science.

Grant has been studying Darwin’s finches for decades and previously recorded changes responding to a drought that altered what foods were available.”

What!!!  This is a non-story!  I don’t know of anyone although there are possibly a few, Christian or non-Christian, who does not agree that a species can alter to a limited extent over time in that specific species.

For example, man probably has grown taller on average over time.  Man probably has grown fatter on average over time.  Is growing fatter over time an evolutionary change to provide for the survival of the species?  Is growing fatter a sign of the survival of the fittest?  

However, there are some claims that I don’t believe Christians would accept as true.  I believe we would argue against man every having a tail, for instance.  I don’t think we would accept an argument that man at one time universally walked on all fours instead of upright.  However, I think almost everyone would accept some evolution, i.e. some modified change, within a species.  Yet, the fact is: the finch is still a finch!!!

Science writer Randolph Schmid should realize this as well.  What Christians do not accept as true is species evolution.  They do not accept it because it has never been shown to be true and it is contrary to the WORD of GOD.  There is no factual, scientific evidence to support the theory that species A evolved into species B which evolved into species C which evolved into species D which through continuing species evolution eventually over millions and/or billions of years evolved into man.  

That theory has never been demonstrated scientifically to be true!  That theory in fact can not be demonstrated to be true without first proving how nothing became something.  Then, how that something which did not have life; suddenly and miraculously became alive?

Two other questions that evolutionists ignore.  They ignore them because they can’t possibly answer the questions scientifically.  When the first whatever evolved into man, how did the man reproduce?  Did the first woman also miraculously evolve at just that exact time?  Did evolution occur at numerous points where there were a flock of men and they didn’t have to reproduce for awhile?  If so, why did that process stop and reproduction become necessary?  

This is a problem not just in relation to man.  What of all the other species that require a male and female for reproduction?  What a miracle.  The male and female must have evolved at just the same time!!!  Miraculous!!!  But then, Darwin’s theory needs a lot of miracles!!!!!  

Also, why did evolution stop at man?  Our science fiction writers think up superior species all the time.  We even make movies about them.  Yet, none of them exist.  We are all just men and women?  Why?  What stopped the evolutionary process?  

You know the evolutionist rationale don’t you?  “Well, we need a couple of more millions of years for that to happen.”  Of course, they won’t be around to know if it happens or not—at least not in their present physical bodies.  Just like the global warming alarmists, they seem to think they can predict the future.  

And they claim to be scientific!!!  Not a chance.  It is all speculative garbage when they claim man evolved through the centuries from a beginning single celled thing.  Garbage!!!  And they teach that garbage in schools as truth!!!

        

Consensus vs. truth

With newspaper article after newspaper article trumpeting Al Gore’s version of global warming as being truth incarnate, I was surprised to read a somewhat opposing view printed in the Peoria Journal Star.  Can anyone say investigative reporting?

It was an article on the front page of the Star on June 25, 2006.  Of course, to the left was a blurb touting a Parade magazine article in the same newspaper.  The blurb declared “INSIDE PARADE: Many predicted changes in the climate have already begun—we are warming up the earth and we must stop.  Learn about the changes that are taking place and what you can do to affect climate change.”  Of course, Parade magazine has long ago become a mouthpiece for the libertines in our society so I don’t give much credence to anything they report.

Back to the actual article of concern for this post.  The headline stated “Midwest dodges global warming, so far.”  Quoting some of the pertinent material in the story:

“Has global warming hit the Midwest?

The answer state scientists say, is ‘no’ and ‘not yet.’

The long term averages that scientists use to measure climate change show the Midwestern climate has not changed, though it could change in the future, two scientists said.

‘The Midwest is an area where compared to the rest of the globe, there’s been relatively little warming.  Especially in summer, we haven’t seen much warming,’ said Ken Kunkel, director of the Center for Atmospheric Sciences for the Illinois State Water Survey.”

“Hilberg (‘Steve Hilberg, director of the Midwest Regional Climate Center for the water survey’—my addition) and Kunkel take a longer view and focus on climate going back to the 19th century.  Variation is the norm, they said.

‘Historically we’ve had much worse summers in the past than in recent years.’ Kunkel said.

‘The most intense heat in Illinois (was) in the 1930’s and we haven’t reached those levels, other than a few days here and there.’” (page A16)

“Scientists try to predict the future based on models.  ‘Rainfall models are varied.’ Kunkel said.  ‘Models project (both) wetter and drier.  There’s no consensus.  It’s uncertain,’ he said.” (page A16)

“Climate is never permanent, Hilberg said.  ‘Back in the late ‘70s, we had bad winters.  The scientific community was talking about a little ice age at that time.  Now it’s major warming.’

Warmer winters may be a normal variation, he said.

‘Probably there’s no disagreement that the climate is changing,’ Hilberg said.  ‘The biggest bone of contention is the magnitude, one or two degrees, or 10 to 12 degrees.  The magnitude of the trend is the $64,000 question.’” (page A16)

Weather is day to day.  Climate is the long term average of day to day weather.  Over the last 100 years, climate has increased in warmth by one degree.  That is probably a normal pattern although over time that pattern may reverse and a cooling period may occur.  Note that in the 1970’s, less than 40 years ago, scientists were predicting a cooling trend.  40 years is a short period of time when dealing with climate.  

According to these two scientists and others, we can not proclaim that we are facing an Al Gore’s projected global warming.  The earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling as far as climate is concerned.  

Over time, climate does change.  The question is how much and in what direction.  Al Gore and his cohorts do not know that answer definitively.  Claiming they do is claiming to know the future.  They don’t!!!

Question: How can it be global warming if not all parts of the globe are warming?  Isn’t that a contradiction in the very concept of global warming?  

I don’t know if these two quoted scientists believe or don’t believe that man has walked on the moon.  I do know they are being scientific when they say there is no consensus on Al Gore’s concept of global warming.    

So, why do we tend to receive only one view on the issue?  The answer, in part, is control and intimidation.  The media controls the information presented.  If they present only one view that becomes, in part, the accepted view.  If a view becomes the accepted view, other views become less popular and individuals who hold those views are intimidated not to contradict the accepted view.  For example, it is claimed that everyone who does not accept the concept of global warming is wrong and they are compared to people who believe we did not have men on the moon.  Sound familiar?
  
However, even if there was a consensus, the consensus may not be correct.  Consensus does not necessarily equal truth!!!

I do not know if global warming as envisioned by Al Gore is occurring.  Neither does Al Gore.  And that is the truth!!!  

            

Propaganda for children

Last night, I wrote about Al Gore’s concept of global warming.  Tonight, I want to continue.  But first, I want to give credit where credit is due.  

The idea that if Al Gore is actually serious about global warming  he should run again for President came from a column written by George Will published in the Peoria Journal Star on June 12, 2006, page A4.  The idea that if Al Gore is actually serious about global warming he should call for the immediate end of motor vehicle racing as entertainment came from a column by Jonah Goldberg published in the Peoria Journal Star on June 16, 2006, page A4.  From the columns, I gathered that neither of these two columnists accepts Al Gore’s concept of global warming.  I don’t know if they accept that man has walked on the moon.    

I found this interesting in a propaganda sort of way.  On June 12, 2006 the Peoria Journal Star published a section entitled “Kids Journal Star.”  On page C2 of this section, they had the following items.  “Kids offer tribute to Dad” which consisted of four Father’s Day cards produced by four children.  Each card gave the name of the child who produced the card and the age of each child.  Below the four cards were two short articles.  One featured the video game of the week by the Associated Press and the other article was “Hey Wiseguy” which featured a science question from a nine year old and the answer from the “Wiseguy.”  To the left of the four cards was the “Book Corner.”  This section featured three book reviews written by three seventh-graders from Pleasant Valley School.  Below the three book reviews—the book reviews ran down the left column of the page, was an article credited to Missy Shepler.  

Nothing else is given about Missy Shepler.  I don’t know if she is a child, an employee of the Associated Press, an employee of the Peoria Journal Star, or if she just walked into the Peoria Journal Star and handed the article to the editors and asked them to print it.

The article is entitled “’An Inconvenient Truth.’”  If you don’t recognize that title, it is the title of Al Gore’s movie about global warming.  Quoting from the article:

“If the scientists of the world are right, we are turning our world into a ticking time bomb.  Temperatures are rising all over the world, causing global storms, and we have a mere 10 years to avert major disaster.

Former vice president Al Gore, longtime advocate of the environment, has sounded a rally cry.  It’s time for us to change our ways.  Visit www.climatecrisis.net to learn about global warming and how you can take action against it.  Calculate your personal impact to see how much carbon dioxide your household produces each year, and find out what 10 simple things you can do to reduce it.

Watch the trailer for ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ and see when and where it is playing near you.  Download e-cards, Take Action PDFs, film posters, desktops, icons and screensavers.

If you love your planet, you have to see this film.”

Isn’t that a nice, short propaganda piece crammed into a kids section of the newspaper.  It starts with “if” and then proceeds as if all that Al Gore claims is true.  Notice some of the concepts expressed in this short article:
“ticking time bomb”
“causing global storms”
“avert major disaster”
“longtime advocate”
“rally cry”
“it is time”
“climate crisis”
“take action”
“your personal impact”
“produces each year”
“do to reduce”
“Watch the trailer”
“see when and where”
“download” (get free goodies at the website)
“love your planet” and
“have to see”  

All this propaganda for children!!!  Do you think the children will recognize this propaganda for what it actually is?

I especially like the ending for a compelling piece of pure propaganda.  “If you love your planet, you have to see this film.  (my underline)  

Is this a paid commercial for this movie or just pure propaganda?  It sure is not news!!!  Is it typical of the Peoria Journal Star???  

Al Gore--scientist?

The seven day weather forecast given for the Peoria area of Central Illinois on the weekend of July 15th was for seven days of temperatures in the mid to high 90’s with no rain.  On Wednesday in Morton, we had 1 inch of rain.  On Thursday in Morton, we had 1/4th inch of rain.  On Friday in Morton, we had 4 inches of rain.  On Saturday, the official high temperature for Peoria was 83 degrees.

We are not able with 100% of accuracy to prediction the weather seven days in advance.  One of my clients in Tucson is a meteorologist—educated at the University of Arizona.  He is a TV weatherman for one of the local Tucson stations.  His station wants him to predict the weather conditions five days in advance.  He told me that he doesn’t like to go more than three days because of the increased inaccuracy of any such forecast.

Yet, Al Gore and his cohorts claim to be able to predict the weather conditions for the world not just seven days in advance, but ten to fifty years in advance.  Sometime, someone should ask these people what the weather conditions will be for the next two weeks.  But then, newspaper reporters and others who parrot these predictions would have to be actually thinking.  Who can accurately predict the future fifty years from today?  I mean besides Al Gore!    

I was channel surfing recently when Al Gore was on some program talking of global warming.  He claimed that the only people who do not accept his version of global warming are similar to those who do not believe that man has walked on the moon.  Cute.  But, wrong.

However, that is not unusual for him or his supporters.  Any one who disagrees with him or his conclusions must be wrong.  Why?  Because they disagree with his conclusions!

If we can not predict with complete accuracy the weather seven days from today, how can they actually expect us to believe they can accurately predict what is going to happen ten years from now, fifty years from now?  

However, if Al Gore really believes his dire forecast of future weather conditions, why isn’t he doing more to convince the public to stop this disastrous slide into oblivion?  His solution?  Make a movie.  Make some money.  Somehow this should be sufficient to rally all true believers to accept his version of future events.

If he really believes what he claims to believe, why isn’t he demanding immediate and drastic sacrifice?  And that is the key concept—sacrifice!  

As was pointed out in a recent column, why isn’t he demanding the immediate end of all motor powered racing events?  Pollutants are being spewed into the air with no other benefit than entertainment for the public.  Why are all of his proposed solutions more government regulations?  Why isn’t he actively campaigning for the Presidency so that he can be in a power position to actually do something about it?  

Is he really convinced of what he wants others to believe?  I don’t know if his version of global warming is true.  Unfortunately, neither does he nor do his cohorts.          

  

Money buys elections for GOP

A letter to the editor published in the Peoria Journal Star on July 22, 2006, page A4 has the headline “Government for sale to the biggest contributor.”  The last two paragraphs declare: “Finally, there’s story No. 3 (‘Giuliani stumps for Topinka’), about Judy Baar Topinka raising $100,000 at a dinner and $1.2 million at a Bush-headlined fund-raiser.  Who do you suppose is attending these fund-raisers?  I’m pretty sure the average citizen is not coughing up $2,500 for supper.  No, this money is coming from corporations and wealthy individuals.

It is painfully obvious that today, our government is for sale to the highest bidders, the richest corporations and the most well-to-do.  Meanwhile, the current administration distracts us with non-issues, such as immigration and flag burning.  God help us if we vote to retain these crooks in the next election.”

The agenda of the writer seems to be revealed in the last paragraph.  He is not really concerned about how politics is financed.  He wants the present administration removed from office.  

In the meantime his biases are apparent.  He must be living in his own dream world if he actually believes that immigration and flag burning are non-issues.  They may be non-issues to him; I believe they are very relevant and important issues to a majority of voters.  I know they are to me.  I have written articles about both of these non-issues and no one is giving me money to either write on specific issues or to remain silent on specific issues.  Come to think of it, no one is giving me money to write.  

Furthermore, he is wrong when he declares twice that corporations are donating money to specific political candidates.  He is wrong or he knows something no one else does.  It is illegal for corporations to directly donate money to federal candidates.  I haven’t lived in Illinois long enough to know for certain if that is also true in Illinois, but my guess is that it is.  If he knows of illegal contributions (He must since he calls the current administration crooks.), he has an obligation to furnish that information to the proper authorities.

I wonder if he has already written a similar letter about Democrats.  “The campaigns last week had to report how much money they raised and spent in the last half of 2005.  Blagojevich again set the pace, bringing in $2 million to put his campaign fund at $15.5 million—shattering state money records at this stage of the election cycle.” (Peoria Journal Star, February 5, 2006, page A1)  I guess Democratic Governor Blagojevich raised his $15.5 million from small donations of $5 to $50 from thousands of poor voters who want nothing more than good government and to be able to murder their unborn children and marry someone of their own sex.

The letter writer should have waited a bit longer before he wrote his letter.  Coincidently the following story entitled “Hollywood’s A-list delivers for New York Democrat” was published on July 21, 2006 one day before his letter was published in the paper. (Peoria Journal Star, page C8)  The New York Democrat is none other than Senator Hillary “We are the President” Clinton who is running for reelection this year.

“The itemized donations were made public Wednesday with the paperwork for April through June more than 4,000 pages.  In that period, Clinton raised almost $5.7 million, bringing her total for her reelection effort to $43 million to date.  She has more than $22 million cash on hand.”

Some of the people listed as giving donations to her campaign and the amounts donated include:

Tom Hanks-------$4,200
Owen Wilson-----$2,100
Chris Rock------$2,100
Bette Midler----$4,200
James Caan------$4,200
Maria Maples----$2,000
Rob Reiner------$3,200
Billy Crystal---$4,000
Robert Iger-----$2,100

I am sure though that all of the other donations that total $43 million to Senator Clinton’s campaign were from average citizens who want nothing more than good government and to be able to murder their unborn children and marry someone of their own sex.  Certainly, none of the money came from wealthy individuals and the most well-to-do who want something in return for their donation.  Certainly, that is not the case since Senator Clinton is a Democrat and a champion of the down and out.  

The above listed contributors must be really struggling to come up with that kind of money to help a struggling Senator from New York.  They probably gave up some much needed food money to sacrificially donate to the Senator’s campaign.  

After all, poor Senator Clinton only received $8 million to write her tell nothing book about her husband.  She desperately needs the money.  Being poor herself, she is a champion of the poor!

  

Ignoring an error

On June 26, 2006 I wrote and posted an article entitled—“Freedom of speech includes what?”  It was a reaction to an editorial published in the Peoria Journal Star.  The original Star editorial was critical of the Senate’s attempt to begin the process for a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit flag burning as a form of speech.  I also sent that article to the Peoria Journal Star as a letter to the editor.  

The Peoria Journal Star printed that letter on July 14, 2006, page A4 with the headline “Congress should rein in libertine Supreme Court.”  The letter as edited and published in the Star read:

“Journal Star editorial writers continue to demonstrate either their ignorance of U.S. history or their lack of understanding of what the Constitution actually means.

The headline for the June 26 editorial is “Fly the flag freely, not because you have to.”  The editorial is a response to a proposed constitutional amendment to stop “desecration of the flag.”  The headline is incorrect: The amendment is not a requirement that one must fly the flag, it is intended to rein in one of the many unconstitutional rulings by a libertine Supreme Court that has relied upon precedent and its own value system (or lack thereof) to reach decisions, rather than the Constitution’s wording.

This is not new.  The Supreme Court invented the supposed “right” to murder an unborn child.  The court rewrote the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment dealing with religion, changing it to a wall of separation between church and state.  The court declared that the sin of homosexual behavior could not be legislatively prosecuted as a crime.

The editorial writers’ position seems to be that if the court reaches a decision, no matter how outlandish, everyone must accept it as final and irrevocable.  I don’t think so.

Congress has for far too long allowed the court to get away with disregarding the language and intent of the Constitution.  It is about time Congress started to stop the Supreme Court from handing down ridiculous rulings.

Congress has every right to propose an appropriate constitutional amendment.”

Because of an error in the published letter, I wrote the following letter and sent it to the newspaper.

I always appreciate your publishing one of my letters as you did on July 14, 2006—“Congress should rein in libertine Supreme Court.”  However, in the process of editing my approximately 650 word letter to about 250 words you changed the meaning of one of the sentences.

I wrote: “The Amendment is not a requirement that one must fly the flag.  It is intended to rein in one of the many unconstitutional rulings by a libertine Supreme Court that has relied upon their own value system (or lack thereof) to reach decisions rather than the wording and history (precedent is the legal term) of the United States Constitution.”

In editing my letter, you wrote: “The amendment is not a requirement that one must fly the flag, it is intended to rein in one of the many unconstitutional rulings by a libertine Supreme Court that has relied upon precedent and its own value system (or lack thereof) to reach decisions, rather than the Constitution’s wording.”

I never wrote that the Supreme Court relied upon precedent to reach these obscene rulings!  Just the opposite is true as my original letter stated.  The Supreme Court ignores long established precedent to unconstitutionally amend the Constitution by court rulings rather than the constitutionally mandated methods.

Please publicly correct your error so that my letter reads as it was intended to be read.  Thank you.

The letter requesting a correction of the previous letter was mailed the next day on July 15.  One week after the original letter was published I have not seen the correction requested.
Did I miss it?  Do you think they will correct their error or let it go uncorrected?

I know that we all make mistakes.  Certainly, errors have been made before when letters are edited by the paper.  But, doesn’t the paper have an obligation to correct those errors when the errors are pointed out to them?  Every day that a delay occurs lessens the impact of the correction if it does eventually occur.

Makes one wonder.  How many other mistakes have they made when editing letters to the editor?  How many other recognized errors still go uncorrected?  How much trust can one place in the accuracy of the letters to the editor that are edited and printed?  How accurate is the Peoria Journal Star???

Republican abdiction?

Last week on a blog—Democracy Chicago style, I quoted extensively from an article on the www.familytaxpayers.net website about the Protect Marriage Illinois referendum.  Not only did the website have information about the progress of the referendum, it also made some rather pointed comments about the Republican Party in Illinois.  Again, I’m going to quote from that website article.

“In January of this year, our friends at Protect Marriage Illinois (PMI) asked us for assistance with collecting the necessary signatures….”

“Family Taxpayers Network responded by agreeing to put in place the professional infrastructure needed to accomplish such a major undertaking.  No other statewide organization, including the Illinois Republican Party, was in a position to pull off what turned out to be one of the most successful grassroots efforts in Illinois history.”

“Family Taxpayers Network essentially took on the leadership role that Republican State Parties have typically performed in other states on the protect marriage front.  Family Taxpayers Network stepped-up on this quintessentially Republican issue since it was clear that the Illinois GOP had no desire to help, and it lacked the organizational ability in any case.

The Illinois GOP’s entrenched establishment actually abandoned the cause and the Party’s base entirely on this project, and very early on.  It’s fashionable these days for Republican leaders to talk about how important it is to build the grassroots.  But when presented with an historic opportunity to do more than just talk—they merely cut and run.  The fecklessness demonstrated by the Illinois GOP’s outdated leadership hardly bodes well for the old-line Republican candidates going into November.

The good news is that thousands of real volunteers did step-up to answer the call.  Our hope is that from these ranks the real leaders of tomorrow will emerge.  One of the great things accomplished by this project is the tremendous number of new and dedicated folks who were introduced to political activism for the first time.

These are good people, and most of them haven’t heard yet that the political game in Illinois is only supposed to be for self-serving profiteers.  These people represent precisely the new blood this state needs.  Family Taxpayers Network is dedicated to helping these folks stay involved.  Regardless of what happens with the referendum, it’s only one project and it’s only a beginning.”

“One of the remarkable stories to come out of this effort is the tremendous participation by Black Churches on the south and west sides of Chicago.  In fact, approximately one-third of all petition submissions came from minority communities.  This is just one more example of how the Illinois Republican Party missed an historic opportunity.  For all of the empty talk about how the GOP needs to get into the African American community and demonstrate how our Republican Party is really on the side of black folks—when a perfect opportunity presents itself, the blowhards were nowhere to be found.”

“As Jessie Smart, Chairman of the Illinois Board of Elections said yesterday in a status hearing, ‘I can’t understand why anyone would object to give the voters a chance to express their opinions.’

Incredibly, voters deserve an answer not just from liberal Democrats—but also from Topinka and the Illinois GOP on that question.

Posted July 6, 2006”        

Just a minor crime

Last night I wrote my first post criticizing an advice column and the writers of the same.  Tonight, I write my second column along the same lines.  

I was going through my old newspapers and came across the following article in Parade Magazine.  It was published on September 25, 2005, page 17.  The writer of the column, if I remember correctly, claims to have the highest I.Q. in the United States (maybe in the world, I don’t know).  The following is the complete published question and the complete published answer.

“I saw a neighbor shoplift from a local store.  When I reminded her that she didn’t pay for the item, she said that the store overcharges, and she was just getting even.  Our family is friends with hers: If I had reported her behavior, the friendship would be lost.  But by ignoring the theft, I felt like a party to it.  As I respect your ethical sensibility, I’d like to know what you would have done.”
—V., Atlanta, Ga.

“I’d have done the same.  You didn’t ignore the theft: You pointed it out to the culprit.  That helped both her and the store.  Good for you!  She probably was embarrassed and—I hope—will be less likely to commit the act again.  

But if you had no effect on her, and she repeats the behavior, she’s going to be caught someday.  In the meantime, I would have a little chat with her over the kitchen table and ask if she has shoplifted before.  If she has, I would suggest that she go online, read about the subject and then seek professional help.”

Mind you, this response is from an individual who claims to have the highest I.Q. in the United States.  This is absolutely the wrong advice.  But, it is not unexpected.  It is situation ethics at its finest.  If the letter writer “respect(ed) your ethical sensibilities” before, she should not now.  The columnist’s ethics are in the sewer.

The shoplifter committed a crime.  The letter writer’s response does not help the store.  The store is out the item stolen.  No one can reasonably believe that mentioning to her that you saw the crime is going to stop it from happening in the future.  She was caught and nothing negative happened.  (Isn’t that the same as a positive reinforcement?)  It is also not guaranteed that she will some day in the future be caught.  But, even if she is, how far in the future will that be?  How much will be stolen before she is caught, if ever?  

Let’s kick up the crime to a higher magnitude and look at the same response by the columnist.  “I was walking with a friend, we walked past a tall male that I’d never seen before, my friend pulled out a gun from her purse and shot him dead on the street.

She said he once hit her a few years ago and she has been waiting to get even with him.  I felt bad but don’t want to lose the friendship we have cultivated.  I pointed out that she should not have shot the man.  Ethically, what should I have done?”

“Why, I would have done the same thing.  You let her know that what she did was wrong.  She is probably embarrassed that she killed him in front of you.  You did the man a favor also.  Now, he doesn’t have to go through a court trial and possibly end up in prison.  Good for you!  If she continues killing, she will eventually get caught.  You might want to talk to her about this compulsion to kill people in order to get revenge.  Hopefully, she will seek professional help and stop killing people.”  

Does the advice from the columnist seem ridiculous now?  It should.  

The woman by not reporting the crime she saw has also committed a crime.  It is called obstruction of justice.  “Obstruction of Justice, interfering with the enforcement of law, often by concealing (my underline) or destroying evidence of criminal actions.” (Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation.)  The evidence she is concealing is her eyewitness account of the crime as it was being committed.  Not only did the shoplifter commit a crime; so did the letter writer.

Friends don’t commit crimes in front of friends.  Friends don’t rationalize their crime to their friends.  Friends don’t let friends get away with committing crimes.

I know this to be a true account.  A young girl of about twelve shoplifted a bottle of liquor from a local grocery store.  When her father found out, which was rather soon because she had passed out on a nearby street, he gave her a choice.  She must either go back to the store with him and confess her actions to the store manager or he would take the liquor back, tell the manager who did the crime, and let nature take its course.  She chose to go back to the store and confess her crime.  

The shoplifter should have been given the same two choices.  Go back, return the merchandise, and confess that she took it without paying or the letter writer would report her crime to the proper authorities.  That’s true friendship.  

Friends don’t let friends commit crimes!!!  

        

Blackmail anyone?

I have never written an article in response to an “advice column.”  Personally, I question the validity of writing a letter to someone to ask that person(s) to make a decision for the writer.  Not only that, it seems to me that the person giving the advice is relying upon only one view point in relation to the issue.  The writer may be leaving out pertinent and important information.  The writer may be skewing the information either deliberately or unintentionally.  I’m sure there are also other reasons not to rely upon an advice columnist to make one’s decisions.

The following is the complete letter written and the complete response published in the Peoria Journal Star on July 17, 2006, page C4.  It is from “Annie’s Mailbox.”  The two women who now supposedly write the column worked for Ann Landers according to the explanation of why “Annie’s Mailbox” is now a featured advice column.

“Dear Annie: My daughter gave my wife three scratch-off lottery tickets for Mother’s Day.  One was a $10,000 winner.  My wife promptly gave my daughter $2,000 of her winnings.  

My daughter went home and told her husband.  She then called my wife and insisted she should have gotten half the winnings.  My wife explained to her that it was a gift, but my daughter hung up the phone.

Now we probably will never see our grandsons again.  I told my wife that I wish she never would have won that money.  What is your opinion?—A Reader.”

“Dear Reader:  Yes, your daughter is wrong.  The tickets were a gift, and the winnings belong to your wife.  It was generous, as well as appropriate, for her to give $2,000 to your greedy and ungrateful daughter.  However, that doesn’t solve your problem.  If your daughter insists on holding the grandchildren for an additional $3,000 ransom, we say grit your teeth and pay it.  Your wife is still up $5,000, and there will be peace in the family.”

What!!!  Are these so called advisors insane???  That is an absolutely terrible and incorrect answer based upon the information given.  First of all, these two obviously don’t know the tax laws.  The wife will not necessarily be up $5,000.  If they are required to pay federal income tax, the $10,000 will be taxed as any other income unless they also have $10,000 of gambling losses.  Since most states also have an income tax system, they may also have to pay state income tax on it.  Furthermore, if they are collecting social security, that $10,000 is also used to determine if their social security is taxed and to what extent.  

I don’t gamble myself.  However, I have tax clients who do.  In Arizona, the State of Arizona withholds a percent of lottery winnings when it involves a $10,000 payout.  The wife may have never received the full $10,000 to begin with.  If they owe some taxes on that $10,000, they will never have possession of the full $10,000.  

However, taxes are not the major problem with this ridiculous answer.  If the daughter is holding the grandchildren ransom over $3,000, this family has deeper problems than the issue of the $3,000.  A daughter or son should not use their children as a weapon against their parents!!!    

Furthermore, no one should give in to blackmail!!!  Period!!!  Giving in to blackmail means you are almost guaranteeing that you will be blackmailed again and again until you either get tired of it and say “no more” or until you die always giving in to the blackmail.  Successful blackmail will only lead to more attempts to blackmail.  Anyone who has done it once successfully will not hesitate to try it again.  Success breeds another attempt!!!  Giving in to blackmail will not bring peace to the family.  It will breed future strife and either capitulation or another blackmail attempt.  

Are these advisors serious???  Should Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar either resign because of their incompetence or be fired for the same???        

    

A major Democratic Party goal

“’Today’s decision by the New York Court of Appeals, which relies on outdated and bigoted notions about families, is deeply disappointing, but it does not end the effort to achieve this goal.’—former Vermont Gov. and presidential candidate Howard Dean reacting to a July 6 court decision reaffirming a court decision banning homosexual marriage.” (Peoria Journal Star, July 15, 2006, page D6)

Howard Dean is more than a former Vermont Governor and presidential candidate.  He is also the titular head of the Democratic Party.  The new theme being pushed by the Democratic Party is “A New Direction.”  However, it is not a new direction.  It is the same libertine direction that the Democratic Party has been supporting recently.

What is the goal that the Democratic Party wants to achieve in the above quote?  Homosexual marriage throughout the United States!  They will use whatever means they can to achieve that goal.  The primary success they have had in relation to homosexual marriage has been through the courts not by support of the people.  

Do not be deceived.  The Democratic Party wants homosexual marriage throughout the United States.  Homosexuals are major supporters of the Democratic Party and have unofficial control of the Democratic Party in portions of the country.  

Do not be deceived.  They believe that the marriage of one man to one woman is outdated.  Outdated because they believe that homosexuality is normal.  They believe that homosexuality is not immoral.  They believe that homosexual marriage is a Constitutional right just like murdering an unborn baby.

Do not be deceived.  The Democratic Party will go to what ever lengths they believe necessary to achieve their goal of legalized homosexual marriage.  They will repeat over and over again that anyone who disagrees with them is bigoted.  Anyone who disagrees with them is intolerant.  Anyone who disagrees with them is prejudice.

Why would any Christian, who believes and supports what the Bible teaches, vote for a Democratic candidate who supports immoral behavior as a Constitutional right?  Why would any Christian support immoral behavior?  Why would any Christian support the Democratic Party?

“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked.  A man reaps what he sows.  The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.  Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” (Galatians 6: 7-9)  

      

Democracy Chicago style

The following is the complete news story printed in the Peoria Journal Star on July 6, 2006, page B6 by Doug Finke, Copley News Service.  “Gay marriage referendum may not qualify for ballot.”

“An advisory referendum asking Illinois voters if they want to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage may not have enough valid signatures to make it on the November ballot, a preliminary analysis by the state Board of Elections shows.

State law requires that at least 95 percent of the signatures to place the issue on the ballot must be valid.  However, a statistical sampling conducted by the board of the petition signatures found only 91 percent of them to be valid.  That would leave the issue short of the signatures needed to place it on the ballot.

Referendum backers said they will challenge the analysis.

‘This finding is a momentary setback, but we remain hopeful that the citizens will have the opportunity to affirm marriage as between one man and one woman,’ Peter LaBarbera, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute, said in a written statement.”

When I first read this article I thought it was incomplete even by the standards of the Peoria Journal Star.  For starters, it doesn’t begin to explain the “why” question of journalism.  Why were the signatures being rejected?

I had a very, very, very minor role in gathering signatures.  However, because of my involvement I am now on the e-mail list for Family Taxpayers Network—the organization that was probably most responsible for gathering the number of signatures gathered.  Their website is www.familytaxpayers.net.  

I’m going to do something unusual for me.  I’m going to quote from an article from that website without comment.  It is rather long but worth reading.  I am not changing any part of the material except for using the full word(s) instead of abbreviations.  I’m doing this for the sake of clarity.  I did leave out a few paragraphs but none that would alter to context of the material.

“Family Taxpayers Network is not involved on the legal side now that the petitions have been filed and the review continues at the Board of Elections.  Protect Marriage Illinois has retained its own lawyer and that work continues under Protect Marriage Illinois’s direction.  However, Family Taxpayers Network will continue to follow the developments.

Here’s where things now stand.  Last week, the Illinois State Board of Elections announced that the petitions had narrowly failed the state’s sampling procedure.  The sampling needed to support a finding that the entire submission would include valid signatures equaling at least 95% of the 283,111 minimum signatures required.

The sampling indicated that 91% of the goal would be reached.  While very respectable numbers were achieved from the sampling, this is still a small setback.  Passing the first sampling phase would have meant by-passing some additional hurdles.  But all this means is that additional work must be done.

Fortunately for Protect Marriage Illinois, they now have an opportunity to repair enough signatures to pass the sampling step.  Assuming this can be done—the Board of Elections would then decide whether or not to entertain the objections already filed by liberal Democrats and gay marriage advocates.  Alternatively, the Board could decide to certify the referendum for the ballot at that stage.

Protect Marriage Illinois should be able to ultimately prevail on appeal regarding the sampling stage procedure.  Sampling was performed independently by County and City Clerks all across Illinois.  Petitions were submitted from every one of Illinois’ 102 Counties, and each area had to be sampled separately.

The sampling procedure actually went better than expected in nearly every Illinois jurisdiction.  The exceptions were the reviews performed by the City of Chicago and Cook County.  The Protect Marriage Illinois sampling was clearly harmed by liberal bias and subjective staff rulings regarding many individual signatures in these two jurisdictions.  (My underlining)    

While Family Taxpayers Network did not lead-up the monitoring effort, we did provide assistance.  What observers witnessed at the Chicago and Cook County Board of Elections was a tragic derailing of democracy.  Many obviously valid signatures were not counted in the sample simply because a City or County employee made a subjective determination that a signature on a petition did not “sufficiently match” that voter’s signature on file with the Board of Election.  (My underlining)

For example, if someone had signed a shortened version of her or his first name on the petition, but 20 years before had signed a voter registration card using their full first name—that signature could be subjectively invalidated for purposes of the sample.  Protect Marriage Illinois observers witnessed just this type of disenfranchisement occur during the Chicago and Cook County sampling—even when the signature was clearly by the proper person who was in fact a registered voter.

These types of decisions can and will be appealed of course.  But keep in mind that these pending challenges are not reflected in the raw sampling numbers which were just released.

The problems in sampling procedure now put an unfair burden back on Protect Marriage Illinois to in essence further prove that certain valid signatures are truly valid.  It’s basically like someone having to prove their innocence and that they didn’t commit fraud.  It’s a legal standard that we doubt exists anywhere outside of the election arena.

Everyone expected the sampling results from Chicago and Cook County to be lower than the rest of the state.  But Chicago came in with such a low rate—it pulled the entire state average down tremendously for the sample.  Protect Marriage Illinois is confident that while the Chicago validity rate is certainly lower than elsewhere—that once mistakes and bias are corrected for—the statewide sample should pass.”

“One of the remarkable stories to come out of this effort is the tremendous participation by Black Churches on the south and west sides of Chicago.  In fact, approximately one-third of all petition submissions came from minority communities.  This is just one more example of how the Illinois Republican Party missed an historic opportunity….”  (My underlining)

“Again, it’s too early to say whether or not the protect marriage referendum will appear on the November ballot.  It could go either way, and a difficult fight is still ahead in any case for Protect Marriage Illinois.

But no one thought the effort would get nearly this far.  The fact that over 60,000 more people signed the protect marriage petition than voted for the GOP’s nominee for Governor in March is remarkable.”  (My underlining)

“As Jessie Smart, Chairman of the Illinois Board of Elections said yesterday in a status hearing, ‘I can’t understand why anyone would object to give the voters a chance to express their opinions.’

Incredibly, voters deserve an answer not just from liberal Democrats—but also from Topinka and the Illinois GOP on that question.  (My underlining)

Posted July 6, 2006”    





  

“I was sentenced to life in prison on June 9 on federal drug charges, and I have one question that I am finding difficult to get an answer for: Why have the powers-that-be in government sat idle for the last 25 years while South American countries grew, processed and then unleashed cocaine and heroin on American society?


These two drugs have cost America more than 100 twin towers, and who knows how many more, in lives.  Why would any government let this happen to its society?  We have a cocaine epidemic in America.  Every city has crack houses, every neighborhood has a crack corner.

Look what has happened to our society in 25 years.  Look at today’s youth.  You can’t put a price tag on society’s decline.  Why would a government let this happen?”


XXXXX X. XXXXXXXXX
Knox County Jail
Galesburg (Letter to the Editor [the letter is complete as published], Peoria Journal Star, July 13, 2006, page A4)


I was not planning on dealing with this subject matter tonight.  This letter was such a good example of one aspect of our societal psycho babble that I had to comment.

The gist of the letter, of course, is that the letter writer is not responsible for his being sentenced to jail for life.  Without commenting on whether his observations are correct or not, it is the fault of the government.  If the government had not allowed other countries to grow drugs that are illegal in this country, he would not have committed crimes against society.  He would not be in jail today.


That is the crux of one of the attitudes that exists today.  No one is responsible for their actions.  If it is not the fault of the government, it is the fault of my genes.  If it is not the fault of my genes, it is the fault of my environment.  If it is not the fault of my environment, it is the fault of my addictive behavior.  If it is not the fault of my addictive behavior, it is the fault of my lack of education.  If it is not the fault of my education, it is the fault of my parents.  If it is not the fault of my parents, it is the fault of my peer group.  If it is not the fault of my peer group, it is the fault of my medical condition.  If it is not the fault of my medical condition, it is the fault of ____________.  (Fill in the blank)  


One thing is certain, it is not my fault.  I am not responsible for my actions.  Name a culprit, find a reason, find a cure.  But know this.  It is not my fault.


Find a cure?  It is right before us.  It is the only one true and lasting solution.  It is so easy and yet is so often and so easily rejected by people not only in this country but also around the world.  The cure is not more money, more drugs, more psychologists, more education, more government, less government, more political freedom, less political freedom, more personal freedom, less personal freedom, more self esteem.  There is only one cure.  


JESUS, the CHRIST


“Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.  If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well.’” (John 14: 6-7)        

Last night I wrote about President Bush and the recent Supreme Court decision that he could not try military detainees using military tribunals.  I pointed out the obvious.  President Bush was not the only President to lose such a case before the Supreme Court.  I made reference to President Lincoln suspending the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War and President Roosevelt relocating Japanese Americans to camps during World War II.  I said that what President Bush has done does not compare with these two acts of President Lincoln and President Roosevelt.


Recently, I came across an article published in the Peoria Journal Star on February 19, 2006, page A13.  It was entitled “Scholars rate 10 worst presidential mistakes.”  I usually don’t place much emphasis on such ratings.  However, I thought this was interesting for what is not listed.


It began as follows: “U.S. presidents have been blamed for some egregious error.

So who had the worst blunder?  President James Buchanan, for failing to avert the Civil War, according to a survey of presidential historians organized by the University of Louisville’s McConnell Center.”


I won’t give each of the other nine listed blunders.  But, I will list the Presidents in order from two through ten and the concept the action revolved around.


Andrew Johnson—reconstruction after the Civil War
Lyndon Johnson—the Vietnam Conflict
Woodrow Wilson—the peace treaty after World War I
Richard Nixon—Watergate
James Madison—War of 1812
Thomas Jefferson—Embargo Act of 1807
John F. Kennedy—Bay of Pigs
Ronald Reagan—Iran-Contra Affair
Bill Clinton—Monica Lewinsky Affair


Personally, I don’t think any single President could have prevented the Civil War.  The gulf was too great between the two conflicting views.  However, notice the following: George Bush is not listed and neither is Abraham Lincoln nor Franklin Roosevelt.  The action of President Lincoln to suspend the writ of habeas corpus during war did not make the top ten list of blunders.  The relocation of thousands of Japanese Americans during World War II did not make the top ten list.  


Just maybe these scholars recognize that extraordinary measures sometimes have to be taken during conflicts.  Measures that would not occur at other times.  Measures that can not be debated for two years while the country is under attack.  Measures that the Court later said were not acceptable.    


I am sure of this.  The libertines will not stop trying to convince the public that George Bush is evil.  He is evil to them because he is changing the libertine plunge into immorality and pulling us back to a country that follows moral truths.  What could be more evil than that to a libertine!!!