Thursday, November 30, 2006

Gift card scam

I am posting this as a public service.  I have not verified the correctness of the information.  React as necessary for your own protection.

“If you buy Gift Cards from a display rack that has various store cards, you may become a victim of theft.  Crooks are now jotting down the card numbers in the store and then waiting a few days.  They then call to see how much of a balance THEY have on the card.  

Once they find the card is "activated", they go online and start shopping.  You may want to purchase your gift card from a customer service person where they do not have the Gift Cards viewable to the public.

Please share this with all your family and friends...

These websites confirm the above information!!!

http://www.snopes.com/fraud/sales/giftcard.asp

http://www.snopes.com/info/top25uls.asp

As before, I am somewhat hesitant to publicize a method of theft that some crooks may not have thought of.  However, I think it’s important that the public take the appropriate measures to avoid being taken by these immoral people.  Perhaps the stores will wise up and use “mock” cards in the displays requiring all such purchases to be from stock out of view from the public.  

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

COUNTRY OF CHOICE

I received two e-mails Tuesday the 28th that I am going to post over the next two days.  The first one is about immigration of which I have written several posts already.  The second one, which I hope to post tomorrow, is about gift cards and the related scam being used by the crooks of this world.  Tonight’s topic: immigration.

Yep! I passed it on...
 
I am sorry but after hearing they want to sing the National Anthem in Spanish—enough is enough. Nowhere did they sing it in Italian, Japanese, Polish, Irish (Celtic), German, Portuguese, Greek, French, or any other language because of immigration. It was written by Francis Scott Key and should be sung word for word the way it was written. The news broadcasts even gave the translation—not even close. Sorry if this offends anyone but this is MY COUNTRY—IF IT IS YOUR COUNTRY SPEAK UP—please  pass this along~
I am not against immigration—just come through like everyone else. Get a sponsor; have a place to lay your head; have a job; pay your taxes, live by the rules AND LEARN THE LANGUAGE as all other immigrants have in the past—and GOD BLESS AMERICA!PART OF THE PROBLEM:
Think about this: If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone—YOU’RE PART OF THE PROBLEM!!!!Will we still be the Country of choice and still be America if we continue to make the changes forced on us by the people from other countries that came to live in America because it is the Country of Choice??????
Think about it!
IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT.

It is Time for America to Speak up. If you agree—pass this along; if you don't agree—delete it.

Okay, you can’t delete my post.  As I said, I received it as an e-mail.  You can copy this and pass it on by e-mail or otherwise.  Not passing it on is the same as deleting it.

Isn’t it time we take back our country!!!

 

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

CONGRATULATIONS, part 2

It seems I’m stuck in a sport’s mode.  November 11th I posted congratulations to Morton’s varsity girls’ volleyball team for playing at the State Tournament for the first time since 1981.  Last night, I congratulated Morton’s varsity girls’ basketball team for winning a tournament in Quincy and in the process defeating the then 5th and 1st ranked AA teams in the State.  

Tonight, it is to congratulate three varsity players on the girl’s volleyball squad.  Of six players selected, three Morton players are members of the “2006 Journal Star All-Star Volleyball Team.” (Peoria Journal Star, November 28, 2006, page D3)

What is somewhat surprising is that one of the three Morton players selected was not a first team selection to the Mid-Illini Conference Team although she probably should have been.  She was a second team selection.  I attended a couple of games this year.  The games I saw, these three players never left the game.  They played every second of each game.  

What should be encouraging to Morton Volleyball fans is that none of the three are seniors.  One, who was also the “Player of the Year,” (Peoria Journal Star, November 28, 2006, page D1) is a junior, one is a sophomore, and one is a freshman.  Morton should be able to anticipate another exciting year next volleyball season.

Until then, CONGRATULATIONS GIRLS!!!    

Congratulations to the Basketball team

Congratulations to the girls’ basketball team from Morton High School.  Last Friday and Saturday, they played in the Quincy Invitational Tournament.  Friday, they defeated the 5th ranked team in the State of Illinois.  Saturday night they defeated the number one ranked team in the State (the team won the State High School Tournament last school year) to win the tournament.  They made 16 of 17 free throws to win the game by 2 points.  This is the second year in a row that Morton has defeated the number one ranked team.  In each case, the defeated team was the defending State Champions.  Again, CONGRATULATIONS!  

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

THANK YOU LORD!

“So they took away the stone. Then JESUS looked up and said, ‘FATHER, I THANK YOU that YOU have heard ME. I knew that YOU always hear ME, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that YOU sent ME.’”
>>> John 11: 41-42 (NIV)

“But THANKS be to GOD! He gives us the victory through our LORD JESUS CHRIST.”
>>> I Corinthians 15: 57 (NIV)

“But THANKS be to GOD, who always leads us in triumphal procession in CHRIST and through us spreads everywhere the fragrance of the knowledge of HIM. For we are to GOD the aroma of CHRIST among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are the smell of death: to the other, the fragrance of life.”
>>> II Corinthians 2: 14-16a (NIV)

“THANKS be to GOD for his indescribable GIFT!”
>>> II Corinthians 9: 15 (NIV)

“Be joyful always; pray continually; give THANKS in all circumstances, for this is GOD’S will for you in CHRIST JESUS.”
>>> I Thessalonians 5: 16-18 (NIV)

“Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that can not be shaken, let us be THANKFUL, and worship GOD acceptably with reverence and awe, for our ‘GOD is a consuming fire’”
>>> Hebrews 12: 28-29 (NIV)

“All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped GOD, saying:

‘Amen!
Praise and glory
and wisdom and THANKS and honor
and power and strength
be to our GOD for ever and ever.
Amen!’”
>>> Revelation 7: 11-12 (NIV)

The LORD willing, my next post will be Monday night. Until then, have a safe and THANKFUL Thanksgiving weekend. GOD bless all who are in HIS body.
Something to think about?

$252,000,000
$189,000,000
$160,000,000
$141,500,000
$136,000,000
>$75,000,000
>$13,000,000
>>$5,250,000
>>$1,750,000
>>$1,500,000

Do you recognize the preceding figures? How about these?

>$25,200,000 per year for 10 years
>$18,900,000 per year for 10 years
>$20,000,000 per year for 08 years
>$12,863,636 per year for 11 years
>$17,000,000 per year for 08 years
>$15,000,000 per year for 05 years
>>$4,333,333 per year for 03 years
>>$2,625,000 per year for 02 years
>>$1,750,000 per year for 01 year
>>$1,500,000 per year for 01 year

Do you recognize the figures yet? How about this?

Alex Rodriguez
Derek Jeter
Manny Ramirez
Todd Helton
Alfonso Soriano
Aramis Ramirez
Mark DeRosa
Henry Blanco
Kerry Wood
Wade Miller

The above figures and names were all included in a story published in the Peoria Journal Star on November 20, 2006, page D1. If you haven’t yet recognized the names then you don’t follow baseball. They are all major league baseball players. The last six have all signed or resigned with the Chicago Cubs. The Chicago Cubs according to the story lost more games in the National League last season (2006) than any other national league team.

The figures? The first set of figures is the total amount of money each of the ten listed players is going to be paid for playing baseball. The second set of figures is the amount of money to be paid for each year of the contract.

Who pays those salaries? Indirectly, everyone who watches and attends baseball games. I wonder. If someone would add up the yearly salary of all major league baseball players, how many nations’ (if any) gross domestic product (GDP) would be lower than the total yearly salary of all major league baseball players? Just wondering? Wouldn’t it be interesting though if someone would actually check that out?

If my math is correct (and I think it is), just the 10 yearly salaries listed equals $119,261,969. (That’s over 119 million dollars for 10 players averaging $11.9 million per player) If I remember correctly, the cost for the roster for just the New York Yankees in 2006 was about $250 million and the team lost in the first round of the playoffs.

Wow, we have money for some things!

Monday, November 20, 2006

Back windshield car jackings

I am posting the following information as a public service. I received it a few days ago as an e-mail. I can not verify the validity of the information. However, it sounds plausible. I sometimes am hesitant to post such information in case it gives others an idea not thought of. However, I think it is better to be forewarned than not to be in this particular case. Please always be cautious when in a vehicle.

“BACK WINDSHIELD CAR JACKINGS:

NEW WAY TO DO CAR JACKINGS (NOT A JOKE)


Heads up everyone! Please keep this circulating especially with the holidays coming.

You walk across the parking lot, unlock your car and get inside. You start the engine and shift into Reverse. When you look into the rearview mirror to back out of your parking space, you notice a piece of paper stuck to the middle of the rear window.

So, you shift into Park, unlock your doors and jump out of your car to remove that paper (or whatever it is) that is obstructing your view. When you reach the back of your car, that is when the car jackers appear out of nowhere, jump into your car and take off. They practically mow you down as they speed off in your car. And guess what, ladies? I'll bet your purse is still in the car. So now the carjacker has your car, your home address, your money, and your keys. Your home and your whole identity are now compromised!

BEWARE OF THIS NEW SCHEME THAT IS NOW BEING USED.

If you see a piece of paper stuck to your back window, just drive away, remove the paper later and be thankful that you read this e-mail.

I hope you will forward this to friends and family, especially to women.

A purse contains all kinds of personal information & identification documents, and you certainly do NOT want this to fall into the wrong hands.

Please keep this going.

Thank you.

Lieutenant Tony Bartolome
Bureau of Investigations

Saturday, November 18, 2006

SO WHAT!!!

“Parents want to ban gay penguin book” is the headline in the Peoria Journal Star 11/17/06, page C10. Quoting from the story: “Complaining about the book’s homosexual undertones, some parents of Shiloh Elementary School students believe the book—available to be checked out of the school’s library in this 11,000-resident town 20 miles east of St. Louis—tackles topics their young children aren’t ready to handle.

Their request: Move the book to the library’s regular shelves (I think the author means remove the book from the library’s regular shelves.—my addition) and restrict it to a section for mature issues, perhaps even requiring parental permission before their child can check it out.

At least for now, the district’s chief isn’t budging. Though a panel of school employees she appointed suggested the book be moved and require parental permission before it is checked out, Superintendent Jennifer Filyaw says “And Tango Makes Three” will stay put—at the advice of the district’s attorney who says moving it might be legally challengeable censorship.”

“ … Moving it might be legally challengeable censorship.” SO WHAT!!! I might win a Nobel Peace Prize some day too. Think about this so called attorney’s advice. Don’t move the book because it might be censorship. What if the librarian had placed an X-rated film on the library self? The school must leave that film on the self because it might be legally challengeable censorship???? What nonsense!!!

What if another “sweet” book contained a graphic section (graphic as only writers in the U.S. seem to be able to write) which depicts a person murdering a young child, cutting that dead child into pieces, and eating that dead child? Would the brilliant attorney advise the school district to keep the book on the self to avoid a possible legally challengeable case of censorship??? What nonsense!!! Who in the world wants five-year-old children to be exposed to all the possibilities that can be covered in books and film??? (Besides libertines, of course.)

The parents in that school system have every right to demand something be done. They have every right to control what their five-year-old children read, watch, and are exposed to. That is one of the primary roles of a parent—to protect their children. If the school refuses to support them, they have options.

Take this to the school board. Vote the members of the school board, who refuse to act responsibly, out of office. Sue the school board and the district for providing inappropriate materials without proper controls. And finally, if necessary, remove your child from the school system.

Theoretically, we are still a democracy. Parents have just as much right to demand the removal of inappropriate material as the libertines have the right to demand it remain. Parents need to protect their children. That is their responsibility. If the school is not responsive, they have the right to take the necessary legal steps to protect their children.

They not only have the right; they have the responsibility to protect their children. No wonder more and more parents are opting for either home schooling or private schools that understand the necessity of common sense when dealing with young children and their parents. Parents are searching for schools that do not buckle under to the ACLU and other libertine groups and people.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

The 2006 election results, part 2

Yesterday I wrote that a basic tenet of political thought is that in non Presidential elections the Party of the President normally loses members in Congress. Similarly, the Party of the newly elected President tends to gain membership in Congress. I then reported on the make up of Congress from 1928 through 1966. Tonight, I will continue from 1968 to the present.

To recap, in 1964 Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson won the Presidency with over 60% of the vote. The Democrats controlled Congress with hefty majorities. Although the Democrats lost some members in the off-year election of 1966, they still had a 57% majority in the House of Representatives and a 64% majority in the Senate.

However, the Vietnam Conflict was also growing more serious. The election in 1968 resulted in the election of Republican President Richard M. Nixon and a continued decline in the Congress for the Democrats. In the non Presidential election of 1970, the Democrats gained members in the House but continued to lose members in the Senate.

Year >>> House members >>> Senate members

1968 >>>>> 55.9% D. >>>>>>>>> 58.0% D.
1970 >>>>> 58.6% D. >>>>>>>>> 54.0% D.

In the Presidential election of 1972, Republican Richard M. Nixon was reelected President and the Democrats lost members in the House but gained in the Senate in a reversal of the 1970 election results. In the 1974 off-year election, the Democrats gain members in both houses of Congress.

1972 >>>>> 55.6% D. >>>>>>>>> 56.0% D.
1974 >>>>> 66.9% D. >>>>>>>>> 61.0% D.

In the 1976 election, the Democrats regained control of the Presidency, had a slight gain in the House, and remained the same in the Senate. Two years later, the Democratic membership in both houses decreased slightly.

1976 >>>>> 67.1% D. >>>>>>>>> 61.0% D.
1978 >>>>> 63.7% D. >>>>>>>>> 58.0% D.

In 1980 after a terrorist attack on an U.S. embassy, Republican Ronald Reagan was elected President. The Democrats lost membership in the House and lost control of the Senate for the first time since 1952. The next election saw an increase of Democrats in the House and the same number of Democrats in the Senate.

1980 >>>>> 55.9% D. >>>>>>>>> 46.0% D.
1982 >>>>> 61.6% D. >>>>>>>>> 46.0% D.

In 1984, Republican Ronald Reagan was reelected and the Democrats lost membership in the House but gained one Senator. In the 1986 off-year election, the Democrats slightly increased their House majority and regained control of the Senate after six years in Republican hands.

1984 >>>>> 58.2% D. >>>>>>>>> 47.0% D.
1986 >>>>> 59.3% D. >>>>>>>>> 55.0% D.

In the Presidential election of 1988, the Republicans retained control of the Presidency but the Democratic control of the Congress remained virtually the same with only a very slight increase in the House. In 1990, the Democrats slightly increased their control of both houses of Congress.

1988 >>>>> 59.8% D. >>>>>>>>> 55.0% D.
1990 >>>>> 61.4% D. >>>>>>>>> 56.0% D.

In the election of 1992, the Democrats regained control of the Presidency, had a slight decrease in their majority in the House, and a slight increase in their majority in the Senate. However, things drastically changed in Congress in the off-year election of 1994. The Democrats lost control of Congress for the first time since 1952. It was also the first time since 1952 that the Democrats did not control the House of Representatives.

1992 >>>>> 59.3% D. >>>>>>>>> 57.0% D.
1994 >>>>> 46.2% D. >>>>>>>>> 47.0% D.

In 1996, the Democrats reelected Bill Clinton as President, had a slight increase in House members, but had a small decrease in the Senate. The off-year election brought a slight increase in the House for the Democrats while the Senate remained the same.

1996 >>>>> 47.4% D. >>>>>>>>> 45.0% D.
1998 >>>>> 48.5% D. >>>>>>>>> 45.0% D.

The election of 2000 resulted in the election of a Republican to the Presidency, the House membership remaining the same for the Democrats, but the Democrats barely recaptured the Senate when an elected Republican changed to an Independent after the election. (I seem to remember this occurring. My source listed the Republicans at 50 Senators and the Democrats at 50 Senators. If a Republican did not change to an Independent, then the Republicans controlled the Senate because the Republican Vice President would have a tie breaking vote to give the Republicans a majority. Either way, the Senate was very close to being in deadlock.) In the 2002 election, the Republicans increased slightly their control of the House and retook the Senate.

2000 >>>>> 48.5% D. >>>>>>>>> 50.0% D.
2002 >>>>> 47.8% D. >>>>>>>>> 48.0% D.

Republican President George W. Bush was reelected in 2004 and the Republicans increased their control in Congress by a small margin. Of course as we know, the Republicans just lost control of Congress with the conclusion of the 2006 election.

2004 >>>>> 47.1% D. >>>>>>>>> 44.0% D.
2006 I don’t have the exact percentage breakdown on this.

In the forty years from the election of 1968 to the next election in 2008, the Republicans have controlled the Presidency for 28 years. The Democrats have controlled the Presidency for 12 years. In the 28 years that the Republicans have controlled the White House, they have only controlled both houses of Congress for, at most, six years. (Six years if the Republicans also had 50 Senators in 2000 which, as I’ve stated, I think a Republican changed to an Independent to prevent that from happening.) In the mean time, in the 12 years that the Democrats controlled the Presidency, they have only controlled both houses of Congress for six years.

What then are the conclusions? It seems that the American voters, since the 1968 election during the Vietnam Conflict, prefer a divided government. When the Democrats controlled the White House, they only controlled both houses of Congress half the time. For the Republicans the results are even worse. Although they have controlled the White House more, they have controlled both houses of Congress far less often—less than 25% of the time.

Furthermore, wars don’t seem to be beneficial for the Party that controls the White House. I must admit that I was surprised when the elder George Bush lost the election in 1992 just after winning the Gulf War the year before. I though the quick conclusion of that war would insure his reelection. (Not coincidently, 1991 was the best year I ever had in the stock market with my investments increasing 46%. Who said the economy was bad?) Of course, the war in Iraq certainly had some influence in the 2006 election although not to the extent claimed by the mass media. (See the next paragraph.)

So, it seems that to those who understand the political system in the U.S., the results of the current election should come as no surprise. The voters have opted for more divided government. The vote fits the pattern of the last 40 years. No great Democratic miracle occurred. It is the continuation of the same recurring pattern.

Consequently, the real contest is just beginning—the 2008 Presidential election!

(The source for the membership in Congress is: “Partisan Breakdown of Seats in Congress”, Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft Corporation, 2006.)

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

The 2006 election results

It’s time for a history lesson. The off-year election was a week ago yesterday. Did the voters react in a revolutionary manner to the Iraq war? Would the Republican Party have done well if it wasn’t for Iraq? Did the voters pronounce the Democratic Party as the savior for the nation? Did unusual circumstances produce historically unusual results?

A basic tenet of political thought is that in non Presidential elections the Party of the President normally loses members in Congress. Similarly, the Party of the newly elected President tends to gain membership in Congress. Let’s look at the historical record.

However, before reviewing the election history of the United States, let’s briefly mention the experience of Winston Churchill. “Winston Churchill … (is) widely regarded as the greatest British leader of the 20th century. Churchill is celebrated for his leadership during World War II (1939-1945). His courage, decisiveness, political experience, and enormous vitality enabled him to lead his country through the war, one of the most desperate struggles in British history.” (“Winston Churchill,” Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft Corporation, 2006.)

In Great Britain, the Prime Minister, who is similar to our President, is not elected by the people directly. The Prime Minister is elected by the majority party or a coalition of parties if no one party has a majority in Parliament. Therefore, the Prime Minister almost always has a majority in Parliament. If a Prime Minister loses the majority in Parliament, a new member becomes Prime Minister.

Winston Churchill was first selected Prime Minister in 1940 after Great Britain and Germany went to war in 1939. In 1945 when the war was won and Great Britain was saved, Winston Churchill’s party LOST the election and Churchill was removed as Prime Minister. Churchill’s party won the war and LOST the first election after the war. What a shock! Victory led to defeat at the polls. Oh, democracy is filled with surprises or not. In all, Winston Churchill served as Prime Minister twice—1940-1945 and 1951-1955.

Looking at the American experience:

In 1928 after the Presidential election, the Republican Party controlled both the Presidency and both houses of Congress. The stock market nose dived in 1929 and not surprisingly the Republican Party lost membership in both houses of Congress in the 1930 election although they still controlled both houses.

Year >>> House members >>> Senate members

1928 >>>>> 61.9% R. >>>>>>>>> 58.3% R.
1930 >>>>> 50.1% R. >>>>>>>>> 50.0% R.
(In 1930 one member was an Independent: there were 48 Republicans and 47 Democrats in the Senate.)

In 1932, the Democratic Party won the Presidency with Franklin D. Roosevelt and overwhelmingly won both houses of Congress.

1932 >>>>> 72.0% D. >>>>>>>>> 61.5% D.
1934 >>>>> 74.0% D. >>>>>>>>> 71.9% D.

In the 1934 election, the Democratic Party which just became the majority party two years before actually increased their majorities in both houses.

In 1936, Franklin Roosevelt won reelection and the Democrats in a Presidential year also increased their membership in both houses. 1936 was the year that the Democratic Party had the greatest percent of Democrats in Congress from 1928 to the present.

1936 >>>>> 76.6% D. >>>>>>>>> 78.1% D.
1938 >>>>> 60.2% D. >>>>>>>>> 71.9% D.

In the off-year election of 1938, the Democrats lost over 16% of their members in the House and about 6% in the Senate.

In the Presidential election of 1940 before our involvement in World War II, President Roosevelt was reelected for an unprecedented third term. At the same time, the Democrats gained slightly in the House and lost a few members in the Senate. In the off-year election the Democrats lost members in both houses.

1940 >>>>> 61.4% D. >>>>>>>>> 68.8% D.
1942 >>>>> 51.0% D. >>>>>>>>> 59.4% D.

During the war, another election was held in 1944. President Roosevelt was elected for a fourth term. The Democrats gained members in the House and remained the same in the Senate.

1944 >>>>> 55.9% D. >>>>>>>>> 59.4% D.

Then, the non Presidential election of 1946 occurred. The war had been won. The Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency since 1932. And lo and behold, THE DEMOCRATS LOST BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS. They won the war and lost the first Congressional election after the war. Oh, democracy is filled with surprises or not.

1946 >>>>> 43.2% D. >>>>>>>>> 46.9% D.

The Democrats lost over 12% of their membership in the House and almost 13% in the Senate. What in the world happened? They won the war and lost the election!!!

In the election of 1948 Democratic Presidential candidate Harry S. Truman shocked the so-called experts by winning the Presidency. The Democrats also easily regained control of Congress.

1948 >>>>> 60.5% D. >>>>>>>>> 56.3% D.

The results: over a 17% increase in membership in the House and over a 9% increase in membership in the Senate.

1950 >>>>> 53.8% D. >>>>>>>>> 50.0% D.

In the off-year election the Democrats lost membership in both houses of Congress but remained in control.

In 1952 during the Korean Conflict, the Republicans won the Presidency and won both houses of Congress.

1952 >>>>> 49.0% D. >>>>>>>>> 47.9% D.

In 1954, the Democrats regained control of Congress with a Republican as President.

1954 >>>>> 53.3% D. >>>>>>>>> 50.0% D.
(In both 1950 and 1954, one member of the Senate was an Independent. There were 48 Democrats and 47 Republicans in both
1950 and 1954.)

In 1956, Republican President Eisenhower won reelection but the Democrats slightly increased their control of Congress.

1956 >>>>> 53.8% D. >>>>>>>>> 51.0% D.

In the off-year election, the Democrats who did not control the Presidency significantly increased their control of Congress.

1958 >>>>> 64.9% D. >>>>>>>>> 65.3% D.

In 1960, the Democrats regained control of the Presidency but lost some members in Congress.

1960 >>>>> 60.0% D. >>>>>>>>> 64.0% D.

In the election of 1962, the Democrats lost four house seats but gained three Senate seats.

1962 >>>>> 59.4% D. >>>>>>>>> 67.0% D.

In the election of 1964, the Democrats retained control of the Presidency and increased their membership in both the House and the Senate. In the off-year election of 1966, the Democrats lost membership in both houses but retained control.

1964 >>>>> 67.8% D. >>>>>>>>> 68.0% D.
1966 >>>>> 57.0% D. >>>>>>>>> 58.0% D.

What conclusions can be drawn from the elections from 1928 through 1966? The political pattern holds true: in non Presidential elections the Party of the President normally lost members in Congress. Similarly, the Party of the newly elected President tended to gain membership in Congress. It is not a perfect pattern but it is consistent. The Presidential Party loses members in Congress in off-year elections. The winning Presidential Party gains members in Congress.

Also, wars tend to result in a change in parties both in Congress and sometimes in the Presidency. In the off year election of 1946 the Democrats lost Congress even though they were the party in power at the successful conclusion of World War II. The Democrats lost both Congress and the Presidency in the middle of the Korean Conflict.

(Tomorrow: 1968 to the present)

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Tips for Handling Telemarketers

I received the following as an E-mail last month. I am posting it as a public service. I do not necessarily endorse these methods and don’t actually know if they work or not. I post it for your consideration and information.

I did not know the reason behind the “no one there” calls although I have received them. I don’t know for certain if it is true but it does seem plausible. Can you imagine the number of spouses who may have thought that an affair was going on because of a call and then no response on the other end of the line? I believe a song was even written about such an occurrence in the 1960’s, 19970’s, or sometime in the past before the modern wonder of self dialing machines.

Anyway, here are the:

Tips for Handling Telemarketers

Three little words that Work!!

1) The three little words are: “Hold on, Please”

Saying this, while putting down your phone and walking off (instead of hanging up immediately) would make each telemarketing call so much more time consuming that boiler room sales would grind to a halt. (The problem with this, of course, is that the telemarketer is not at fault. He is just trying to make a living. It may not be the greatest method to make a living, but it is legal and they can’t help that it is an annoyance to most consumers.—my addition)

Then when you eventually hear the phone company’s “beep-beep-beep” tone you know it’s time to go back and hang up your handset, which has efficiently completed its task.

These three little words will help eliminate telephone soliciting.

2) Do you ever get those annoying phone calls with no one on the other end?

This is a telemarketing technique where a machine makes phone calls and records the time of day when a person answers the phone.

This technique is used to determine the best time of day for a “real” sales person to call back and get someone at home. (This should be illegal!—my addition)

What you can do after answering, if you notice there is no one there, is to immediately start hitting your # button on the phone, 6 or 7 times, as quickly as possible. This confuses the machine that dialed the call and it kicks your number out of their system. What a shame not to have your name in the system any longer!

3) Junk Mail Help:

When you get “ads” enclosed with your phone or utility bill, return these “ads” with your payment. Let the sending companies throw their own junk mail away.

When you get those “pre-approved” letters in the mail for everything from credit cards to 2nd mortgages and similar type junk, do not throw away the return “postage paid” envelop. It cost them more than the regular 39 cents postage “IF” and when they receive them back. It costs them nothing if you throw them away! The postage was around 50 cents before the last increase and it is according to the weight. In that case, why not get rid of some of your other junk mail and put it in these cool little, postage-paid return envelops.

(The problem with this is that we have a pretty effective postal system which is much cheaper than most of the rest of the world. Part of the reason for that is all the junk mail that goes through the system. If businesses stop using junk mail, it may result in higher postage prices for all of us. We may end the inconvenience of junk mail and end up paying more because we stopped that inconvenience.—my addition)

(If you return a blank application with your name on it, make sure you write on the application that you do not want their product and to not send any more applications. Make a copy of it for your record.—my addition.)

THIS JUST MIGHT BE ONE E-MAIL THAT YOU WILL WANT TO FORWARD TO YOUR FRIENDS.

Monday, November 13, 2006

Senator Kennedy responds?

I posted the following blog on October 11, 2006.

I am sending a letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The letter is tonight’s post.

To the Honorable Senator

I write a political blog: www.christiangunslinger.blogspot.com. On October 10, 2006 I wrote about an article that appeared in our local paper that morning. It stated that the Judiciary Committee was considering a shield law to allow reporters to withhold the source of stories that are published. The example given in the article was the disclosure of secret grand-jury testimony by two reporters that has now resulted in their being given jail time for refusing to reveal their source of that secret testimony. The purpose of my commentary was to refute the arguments given in the original news story. I have enclosed the material which incorporates both the original article and my comments.

I have these two basis questions for the Judiciary Committee members. Why would the Senate want to permit anyone who has violated a federal law to be protected from prosecution for that violation? Why would the Senate want to allow individuals who are purposely withholding vital information for that prosecution to decide for themselves what can be withheld and what can not be withheld? If the federal law dealing with grand-jury testimony (or any similar law) is not valid, change the law! If it is valid, why would the Senate want to allow select individuals (i.e., reporters) to decide for themselves when a valid law should be ignored and when it should be enforced. It does not make sense to me! Why should media personnel have that kind of discretionary choice and power? I would appreciate an answer because I’m sure others have the same concern.

I will post on my blog any and all replies I receive. I will, no doubt, comment on each reply sent. I will also note on my blog those who have not responded. (As with a Supreme Court decision, if members wish to sign off on a position presented by another member, I will identify that action as having occurred.) I would suggest that at the minimum, the two basis questions be answered. Please don’t attempt to skirt the questions. I will point out the techniques employed in your response(s). An example of my comments to a letter from a Senator, my own Senator Durbin, can be found on my blog (www.christiangunslinger.blogspot.com). It was posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 and is entitled “Senator Durbin Responds.” (It may be listed on the blog as Sunday the 11th—the blog does not give the time and date as I actually physically do the posting.)

I realize we are nearing the end of the current election cycle. Therefore, I will begin posting on November 13, 2006. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Have any of the current members of the Judiciary Committee responded? I received a letter from Senator Edward Kennedy last week. What did he have to say in relation to my two questions? NOTHING! The letter was a reply about immigration which I discussed on the blog in May and June. To be honest, I don’t remember what I specifically sent to Senator Kennedy although it may have been a copy of the post on June 6th entitled “The Kennedy Test.” In that blog I suggested he donate some of his property to selected illegals before donating the United States to illegals. If the letter was a response to that post, he did not mention the test. One night I may post his response, but not tonight.

I have received nothing from the other Judiciary Committee members. If I do and it took Senator Kennedy five months to reply to immigration, I will post them. Until then, no committee member has answered my questions. Although the membership will change in January slightly because of the election, the current members of the Judicial Committee include:

Democrats:

Patrick Leahy >>>>>> Vermont
Edward Kennedy >>>>> Massachusetts
Joseph Biden, Jr. >> Delaware
Herbert Kohl >>>>>>> Wisconsin
Dianne Feinstein >>> California
Russell Feingold >>> Wisconsin
Charles Schumer >>>> New York
Richard Durbin >>>>> Illinois

Republicans:

Arlen Specter >>>>>> Pennsylvania
Orrin Hatch >>>>>>>> Utah
Charles Grassley >>> Iowa
Jon Kyl >>>>>>>>>>>> Arizona
Mike DeWine >>>>>>>> Ohio
Jeff Sessions >>>>>> Alabama
Lindsey Graham >>>>> South Carolina
John Cornyn >>>>>>>> Texas
Sam Brownback >>>>>> Kansas
Tom Coburn >>>>>>>>> Oklahoma

I will let you know if any members eventually respond. Stay tuned.
Congratulations Morton Volleyball

Congratulations to Morton High School’s varsity girls’ volleyball team. The Morton team advanced to the State of Illinois championship round—final eight—for the first time since 1981. It was only the fourth time that a Class AA school from this area has advanced to this round. The last time was in 1991. The Morton team lost to the eventual State Champions. Again, congratulations Morton volleyball.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Autralia got it right

I received the following E-mail the day after the election. I am printing it in its entirety without necessarily endorsing it in toto. I don’t have a source for the original information because none was given. Take the content for what it is worth.

Australia got it right!! Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you", he said on national television.

"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia: one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, THAT IS FALSE! If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option", Costello said. Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country.

Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that, "Muslims who did not want to accept local values should clear off. Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off", he said.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques Quote: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians." "However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia. However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of Australia being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language, and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.”

"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language! Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture. We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask; is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us. If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like “A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.

We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others. This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'."

"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."

Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, American Citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voting the same truths!!

SEND THIS TO EVERYBODY YOU KNOW



To me, this is basically a statement that Australia has in the past and the present leaders desire to follow the “melting pot” approach instead of the new, some claim improved approach of “diversity and uniqueness.” (SEE my post of January 23, 2006 entitled “’Melting pot’ vs. diversity.”) As for me, I’d rather have the “melting pot” concept.
Autralia got it right

I received the following E-mail the day after the election. I am printing it in its entirety without necessarily endorsing it in toto. I don’t have a source for the original information because none was given. Take the content for what it is worth.

Australia got it right!! Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you", he said on national television.

"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia: one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, THAT IS FALSE! If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option", Costello said. Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country.

Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that, "Muslims who did not want to accept local values should clear off. Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off", he said.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques Quote: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians." "However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia. However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of Australia being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language, and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.”

"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language! Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture. We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask; is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us. If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like “A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.

We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others. This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'."

"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."

Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, American Citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voting the same truths!!

SEND THIS TO EVERYBODY YOU KNOW



To me, this is basically a statement that Australia has in the past and the present leaders desire to follow the “melting pot” approach instead of the new, some claim improved approach of “diversity and uniqueness.” (SEE my post of January 23, 2006 entitled “’Melting pot’ vs. diversity.”) As for me, I’d rather have the “melting pot” concept.

Friday, November 10, 2006

If I owned the newspaper

Tonight is a milestone of sorts. This is my 301st posting. Less than a year and one half ago, I began this blog on July 13, 2005.
At that time, I wrote the following two paragraphs to begin the blog.

“Moved back to Illinois last year from Tucson, Arizona. I have always been politically involved. After reading the local newspaper and sending in a few letters to the editor, I was dissatisfied with the news coverage and the editorial content. I had a few letters published and a few that were not. I thought the paper was biased in its presentations.

In political science terms, a gunslinger is someone who comes in and cleans up or operates a political campaign that isn’t going well. That’s what I hope to do. Give the local news an alternative voice from a Christian perspective. I don’t mind debating. If alternative sides to an issue are discussed usually the truth comes out.”

The front page headline on November 1, 2006 in the Peoria Journal Star declares “Journal Star for sale.” The newspaper, whose content I originally reacted to as I began writing this blog, is now for sale. If the paper is sold, the new owners may move the content even farther to the libertine side, may keep it at approximately the same position, or may move it closer to the moral position that I support.

I thought it might be interesting to give some of the things I would do if I purchased the paper. For those who are not familiar with the Peoria Journal Star this might not be too relevant except that some of it may pertain to your own local paper.

I would dismiss the editorial writers presently employed by the paper. I think their viewpoint is out of line with the majority of the people in Central Illinois. There is no reason why the editorial staff should be a carbon copy of the viewpoint of the area. However, they also should not be too far a field which I believe they are at the Journal Star. It costs the paper readership. Even though it is the only daily paper in town, there are alternatives. People tend to not read papers that are consistently contrary to their own point of view. People also tend to not trust the content under such circumstances, for obvious reasons. A newspaper has tremendous power to control what information is available and how it is presented. For the sake of unbiased presentation of the news, the editorial staff would be gone.

Pam Adams would be gone too. It seems obvious that she is blatantly sexist and racist. If a Caucasian male had written the same sexist, racist blather that she writes, he would have been dismissed long ago. Sexism and racism are sexism and racism regardless of the gender and race of the writer. She would be history.

The mix of the national columnists would be drastically changed. The paper has added a conservative columnist since I moved to Illinois. However, there are far too many columns from libertine journalists for this more conservative area. I probably don’t read a majority of the columns printed because they are filled with the same lies, half truths, and ignorance over and over again. More conservative, more moral, and more intelligent would be the requirement of the day.

I would greatly expand the forum for letters to the editor. I would remove many of the restrictions. I would change the philosophy to “thou shalt not edit.” I would envision the letters forum to be a complete section of the daily paper. Let the people express themselves. Let the debate begin.

To make room for the expanded “letters forum” section, I would lose much of the fluff that is now present in daily papers that distract from their function of (shock, shock) reporting the news. I don’t care which so called “star” is now out of the closet, declaring his homosexuality, and that he is loud and proud. He/she has serious problems if he is proud of his sin and broadcasting it to the world. I don’t care if he is doing what to whomever. I don’t care who is pregnant but unmarried. I don’t care who is shacking up with whom. I don’t care for the whole promotion of “Sodom and Gomorrah” as if it was normal and acceptable. It is not and never will be to GOD.

“Doonesbury” would be history. It isn’t particularly funny, the author lies at will, and he is transparently a libertine. Other comics where the author believes he is a great political commentator would also be history. I read the comics to be entertained not to be subjected to political propaganda. I am quite capable of political thought without help from the comic section of the paper.

Gone would be “Annie’s Mailbox.” I would sum up each daily dose of “I can’t think for myself so would you please think for me” by publishing this: Some people have a problem. They should seek counseling which will cost thousands of dollars, will not solve the problem, but they might feel better except for the loss of the money. Better yet my advice would be: turn to the LORD JESUS CHRIST and your problem will not matter much in the scheme of your personal salvation and spending eternity in Heaven with GOD.

I can think of nothing more arrogant than I small number of hired editorial writers telling me how to vote my vote. The endorsement of candidates would be history and would not return. Why do these people think they are qualified to tell me how to vote?
Which brings me to the second major problem with elections. Newspaper reporters lie. Not so much with direct lies as misrepresentation or omission of pertinent information. For example, Jim Kolbe who just retired as a U.S. Congressman was a practicing homosexual before he was first elected to Congress. Newspaper reporters in Tucson knew that information. They knew that information because they hung out at the same homosexual establishments. That information just might be information that would influence a person’s vote. The newspaper reporters suppressed the information from the public even as the paper identified him as married.

To insure that the information presented was information approved by the candidate, I would have each candidate write their own article about their background and political stance on the issues. If they give incorrect information, the newspaper can address those issues separately, the other candidates can address those issues, and the letter forum can address those issues. I know from personal experience that reporters misrepresent the facts during a political election. That would end. The newspaper’s responsibility is to present the facts accurately; not to distort the information presented to help candidates they support. Endorsements would end permanently!!!

In short, much more accurate reporting of events and much less fluff!!! Newspapers just might sell some papers and increase circulation. They sure aren’t now with what they are presently doing.

Public service instead of public advocacy.

Public service instead of public fluff.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

CAN THESE PEOPLE READ

“Voters signal Obama Support” is the headline in the Peoria Journal Star on November 2006, page A1.  The subhead reads “59 percent say they would cast ballot for senator if he ran for president in 2008.”  The story is by Dana Heupel of Copley News Service.  The first four paragraphs state:

“Three out of five Illinois voters would support U.S. Sen. Barack Obama if he runs for president in 2008, a new Copley poll shows.

But only half think the time is right for the newly risen political star to shoot for the nation’s highest office.

In the statewide survey, taken Monday and Tuesday, 59 percent of those polled said they would cast their ballots for the Illinois senator if he were the Democratic candidate for president.  Twenty-eight percent said they would not, and 13 percent were unsure.

When asked whether Obama should run in 2008, however, 50 percent said he should, 39 percent said he should not and 11 percent were unsure.”

Wrong!  Wrong!!  Wrong!!!  Can’t they read?  By “they”, I mean both the writer of the article and the person who wrote the subhead.  Fortunately, not only was the story printed but so were the two pertinent questions asked in the poll.  The actual questions are not always given although they should be since the wording of the question is important in relation to the answer given.

One survey question according to the article was: “Senator Barack Obama has been mentioned as a possible Democratic candidate for president in 2008.  Do you think Obama should run for president in 2008, or not?” (page A3)  The other question according to the article was: “If Obama was the Democratic Party candidate for president in 2008, would you consider voting for him or not?” (page A1)  Do you recognize the error in the article?  I would hope so even if the editor obviously did not!

In the article, the author wrote: “59% of those polled said they would cast their ballots for the Illinois senator if he were the Democratic candidate for president.”  THE POLLING QUESTION DID NOT ASK THAT!  The question asked: “WOULD YOU CONSIDER VOTING….”
CONSIDER VOTING!!!  

There is a different between considering to vote for a person and actually declaring that you would vote for that person.  I might consider voting for any candidate on the ballot.  I would not actually vote for every candidate on the ballot.  

So, I ask again: CAN THESE PEOPLE READ?        

This is yet another example of why you can’t believe what you read in a newspaper.  If the article did not also include the actual questions asked in the poll, you would have no way of knowing that the information given in the story was false.  And, without question, it is false!    

So, was it deliberate or are there at least three different people (or at least, three different functions being performed—write, edit, write the subhead) who just can’t read.  

CAN THESE PEOPLE READ?

TV trash

I’m changing what I am writing about for the blog.  As long as I can remember, I have always awoken before the sun rises.  In the summer I wake up earlier than during the autumn period when day light savings time is still in force.  Since we have returned to the regular system with the sun rising earlier, I’ve been awake earlier.  This morning I was up by 4:30am and posted the blog at about 5:30am since I was getting a busy signal both Monday night and the first time I tried Tuesday morning.

I was in the kitchen by 6am and turned on the morning news on Peoria’ NBC channel WEEK.  At approximately 6:15am while not concentrating on the TV, I heard the following commercial.  Since I was not paying close attention at the start of the commercial, I’m not quoting it exactly but the concepts are valid.

The commercial was for a “Dr. Phil” segment that was to air later that day.  I gathered from the commercial that the segment was part two of a program with the first part having been shown on Monday.  A little girl is heard saying that “he touched me inappropriately.”  (The girl did not use the term inappropriately but that is the concept involved.)  DR. Phil is then heard angrily declaring “If I receive a video tape with a little girl saying ‘he touched me inappropriately’ what am I suppose to do?”

Ah.  What should Dr. Phil do?  Let’s think about what should be done.  I’m thinking.  I’m thinking.  I’m thinking.  Let’s see.  What about this.  TURN THE TAPE OVER TO THE POLICE!  If someone has done something criminally wrong, isn’t that what one is suppose to do!  But, it seems from the commercial; Dr. Phil has decided to turn the episode into a national TV media circus.

What is wrong with the media in this country?  Does everything have to be a “Jerry Springer Show?”  If criminal activity did occur, how difficult would it be to prosecute after being aired on national TV?  Is Dr. Phil the appropriate person to determine criminal activity?  Why was the tape sent to Dr. Phil?  How did it get taped?  Was this just a natural outburst by the girl while other wise being taped or was the tape staged?  What total nonsense!  What sensationalism!  What trash!

No under thinking people don’t watch much TV.  It all seems to be aimed at the lowest common denominator.  What an indictment for our country.  What a trashing commercial.  What a trashy TV show.  What trash!!!          

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

PETITION TO DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD



To give taxpayer money to any abortion provider is inappropriate. Yet, the federal government is providing millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood every year. Particularly for the many Americans who object to abortion on moral grounds, this use of taxpayer dollars is reprehensible. We strongly support Senator David Vitter’s “Title X Family Planning Act” (S.2206), which would eliminate Planned Parenthood funding. Please give your full support to this legislation. Thank you.





Signed:_______________________________






Name:_________________________________


Address:______________________________


City:____________________________________


State, zip:___________________________





Although Planned Murderhood does not directly receive money from the federal government to fund abortions, the organization does indirectly. Each year they receive millions of dollars that they can use for other purposes which permits the “organization of unborn baby murderers” to divert money to their abortion activities. This bill, if passed, will prevent them from receiving federal funds for other purposes.

The mailing address for Senate members (the bill is now before the Senate) can be found at www.senate.gov.

Concerning the election tomorrow:

PRAY

VOTE
PRAY

“The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective”
James 5: 16b

“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.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)

Monday, November 06, 2006

In a Republican gubernatorial primary in the 1980’s in Arizona, the Arizona State Speaker of the House was running against an individual who owned a used car dealership.  All the public opinion polls published by the mass media showed that the Speaker of the House would easily win the primary election.  He did not.

In the Presidential election of 1948, the public opinion polls showed that Harry S. Truman would lose the election.  He did not.  Why the inaccuracy?


The headline for an article printed in the Peoria Journal Star (October 15, 2006, page B3) reads “Poll puts Blagojevich (Illinois Democratic governor running for reelection against Republican Judy Baar Topinka—my addition) lead at 14 percent.”

The headline for an article printed in the Peoria Journal Star (November 2, 2006, page A1) reads “Poll: Blagojevich just ahead of Topinka.”  The subhead reads “Copley News sampling finds candidates separated by 4 percentage points.”  How did Republican challenger Judy Baar Topinka gain 10 percentage points in less than three weeks?  Did she pick up 10 percentage points?

What will be the final election result?


I’ve said this before.  It is worth repeating:  


A PUBLIC OPINION POLL HAS NEVER VOTED IN AN ELECTION!


A PUBLIC OPINION POLL HAS NEVER VOTED IN AN ELECTION!


A PUBLIC OPINION POLL HAS NEVER VOTED IN AN ELECTION!



No one who has opposition has yet won in the electoral process.  Few basketball “experts” predicted that Bradley would defeat both Kansas and Pittsburg during the NCAA tournament.  Some “experts” even complained that Bradley was not qualified to be a part of the tournament.  Few experts, after the regular season, predicted that the St. Louis Cardinals would win the World Series this year.  The vote on Tuesday is the only true test of the support each candidate has for public office.  The vote Tuesday is the only public opinion poll that counts.  Your vote does make a difference.  VOTE!


My vote for the Illinois Governor race:


There are four choices:

  • Don’t vote at all for Governor.  At least one conservative group is supporting this option.  I have a hard time not voting for every position.  I considered this choice and have rejected it.  By not voting, I allow only those who do vote to make the decision.  A decision that is far too important to not be involved in.  Not voting is the same as giving up.  I try not to do that.  I will be voting for the office.
  • Vote for the Green Party candidate.  The Green Party traditionally is even more libertine than the Democratic Party.  Plus, third party candidates rarely actually win.  A vote for a third party candidate is normally the same as not voting although such a vote might change the outcome of the election.  Third Party voting in 1992 and 1996 might have been one of the reasons Bill Clinton won twice.  I’m ashamed to say that I voted for him both times.  I’m going to try to not make the same mistake of helping the PARTY OF SIN to win by my vote.  I will not be voting for the third party candidate.
  • Vote for Democratic governor Blagojevich.  That WILL NOT HAPPEN.  He is one of the most irresponsible governors I have ever known or read about.  He creates programs, almost as a bribe to the people, but does not adequately fund them.  Appearance becomes more important than substance.  He issues obscene executive orders that would not be passed by the legislature.  He is a supporter of the murder of unborn babies.  He will not receive my vote.
  • Vote for Republican candidate Topinka.  This unfortunately is the lesser of the three evils.  I did not vote for her in the primary.  Since there is no fourth candidate, she will reluctantly receive my vote.  If she supports evil, we will need to vote her out of office in four years.  Four years with her though will not be as evil (that unfortunately is a sad commentary) as four years with the other two candidates.  Topinka will grudgingly receive my vote.

Whomever you decide to vote for, vote Tuesday.  No public opinion poll will be voting.  You, as a citizen of this nation, will make the final decision.  Not voting is also a decision.  It is a decision to allow others to vote for you.  Pray for guidance.  Vote accordingly.  Remember:


“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.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)        

    

Saturday, November 04, 2006

Iraq, part 2

I finished my exercise regiment earlier Friday evening than normal.  I typically don’t watch the national evening news.  However, I turned it on.  I think it was NBC which was doing a story on what the Democrats would do if they won a majority of the House and Senate.  (When I turned on the TV it was on CBS.  I turned it to NBC but I don’t remember for sure if the story was on CBS and then I turned it or if I turned it and then watched the story.  Until I heard the story line I wasn’t paying attention.  I do think it was NBC though.)  One of the goals given was “redeploy the troops in Iraq.”  (Of course, this goal was not questioned by the reporter.)    

I don’t exactly understand what the Democrats mean by redeploy and the reporter didn’t define it.  Do they mean just change the locations of the troops in Iraq, increase or decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove the troops from Iraq?  However, this I do know.  Unless someone has rewritten the Constitution of the United States, Congress does not possess the power to redeploy anything!!!  The last time I checked, the President of the United States was the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.  Is Congress going to amend the Constitution or do they just expect the Supreme Court to do that for them?

Congress does have control of the budget theoretically even though, in fact, the President normally gets what he desires.  Can you envision this?  Congress cuts off the funds necessary to fight in Iraq.  (You think the President reacted to John Kerry’s ridiculous comment about education and ending up in Iraq.)  Imagine the furor that would occur if that actually happened.  The President would immediately claim that the Democrats were endangering the lives of our troops for political reasons.  Do you really believe the Democrats would risk such an accusation?

No.  The truth is that, regardless of who controls Congress, as long as the President wants troops to be in Iraq, troops are probably going to be in Iraq.  Congress might complain.  Congress might win some small concessions.  However, Congress is not going to do anything that will give the President the excuse to claim that they are endangering the lives of our troops.  It just will not happen.  

If it does, it will no doubt be political suicide for the Democrats and they know it.  Compare calling the members of the armed forces illiterate and doing something that will lead to the accusation that the troop’s lives are endangered because of the political games of Congress.  It would be political suicide!!!  Even libertine Democrats aren’t going to risk that type of accusation.        

With all the complaining of libertine Democrats, I think it’s important to ask the following question.  What, if anything, has the fighting in Iraq accomplished?  Let’s see if any accomplishments can be identified.

  • A brutal, dictatorial regime has been overthrown.

  • Saddam Hussein, the leader of that regime, has been captured and placed on trial for crimes against the people of the nation.    

  • A new, democratically elected government has been placed in power in Iraq.

  • Major leaders of Al-Qaida have been killed or captured.

  • United States territory has not been attacked since 9/11.

  • We are battling the enemy on their territory rather than within the United States.

  • We have lost fewer men in the years of fighting than we lost in less than one month of fighting in the Battle of Iwo Jima.

  • We are slowly but surely rebuilding the nation of Iraq.

  • We are winning the military fight.

The war has not gone perfectly.  No war that lasts more than a few days goes perfectly.  We are also fighting a different war than normal.  The enemy uses terror.  The enemy deliberately murders civilians.  The enemy doe not wear uniforms.  The enemy does not carry around signs declaring we are terrorists.  However, by any reasonable, logical standard, the enemy is losing.  

In fact, the enemy is relying upon our losing our patience.  The enemy is relying on help, intended or not, from our own mass media and President Bush’s political opposition.  Spain was attacked immediately before an election and the nation voted into power the opposition party.  The opposition party withdrew from the coalition.  The enemy would like nothing better than that to happen in the United States as well.  The question is: are we so gullible as to fall into the same trap as the people of Spain.  The stated goal of the enemy is to DESTROY US!!!  

Sometimes, when I’m feeling mean, I think that the Democrats should win control of the government.  Let’s see how they would save the nation.  They had done so well in the last fifteen years before the change in power in Congress in 1994.  But then, I quickly change back to rational thought.  If you want a party that murders unborn babies in control, you will get what you deserve.

A political cartoon was printed in the Peoria Journal Star on October 1, 2006, page A4.  A man was in a living room reading a book to a little child seated next to him.  The title of the book was “Dems Fairy Tales.”  He read the following: “So we immediately withdrew from Iraq and all the terrorists quit and we all lived happily ever after.”  THAT IS A FAIRY TALE!!!  IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.  NOT NOW; NOT EVER.  THIS ONE IS PREDICTABLE.

“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.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)    

Friday, November 03, 2006

Iraq

Almost 7,000 men killed in battle in just under a month.  Almost one third of the 60,000 man army either killed or wounded.  All to capture an area that measured about six miles by two miles.  A prediction of future casualties in Iraq?  No!  A past war?  Yes!   What was the military thinking?  Who made such a disastrous military decision?

“Two defensive zones … offered especially difficult going.  No attempt was made to flank the defenders … —a fact which caused some persons to criticize American generalship as being over-conservative.  The return to base of one Marine division which was later badly needed also offered a basis for censure.”  “For nearly three months the fight continued before the last enemy pockets were eliminated.  Final casualties were put at … over 11,000 American dead with about 32,000 wounded.”1.  What was the military thinking?  Who made such a disastrous military decision?  Was the President voted out of office?

How could America suffer such casualties and not react negatively to such inept military planning.  Almost 7,000 men killed in less that a month in one battle zone!  Over 11,000 men killed in three months of fighting in one battle zone.  For what?  Don’t the leaders know how to lead our nation and prevent such tragedies?  Shouldn’t every last one of them be voted out of office?

“[The] War … ended … barbarism and vanquished totalitarian power that threatened to conquer the globe.  The cost of the war was immense.  Allied military and civilian losses were 44 million; those of the [enemy] 11 million.  The United States lost almost 300,000 people in battle deaths….”  “The U.S. government spent more than $300 billion on the war effort….”2.

Do you recognize the two battles?  Do you recognize the war?  Do you remember your American history?  Did you learn any American history?  (Or, did you spend your time in American history building a replica of an Indian village.  I’m sorry.  I couldn’t help myself.  As a social science major and one time teacher I get upset with what is promoted as the progressive teaching of American history.)   The first battle where almost 7,000 Americans were killed in less than one month was the Battle of Iwo Jima. (“Iwo Jima”, Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. [DVD]. Redmond Wa: Microsoft Corporation, 2006.)  The second battle where over 11,000 men were killed was the Battle of Okinawa. (1. “Okinawa”, Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft Corporation, 2006.)   Two battles that cost about 18,000 American lives to capture two islands in the Pacific.  The war, of course, was World War II. (2. “World War II”, Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft Corporation, 2006.)   The victorious side lost 44 million people.  The U.S. lost almost 300,000 people.  The vanquished lost 11 million.  It cost more than $300 billion in the 1940’s.  Maybe we should have surrendered because the financial cost and the loss of live were too great!  NOT!!!!!!!

There has not been a war in American history that lasted for more than a few days that has not been criticized and condemned by some people—often large numbers of people.  Everyone with hindsight as their guide seems to think they could have done better.  The problem, of course, is that those who are making the decisions don’t have the benefit of hindsight.  The problem, of course, is that we are fighting an enemy that is also trying to win and be victorious.  

WAR is not a soccer match where the contest has a time limit and after the contest we all shake hands and go home.  The enemy is trying to kill us to the best of their ability.  We are trying to kill them to the best of our ability.  This is WAR not some sports contest.  Wouldn’t it be nice if our side actually realized that we are at WAR?  

We are at WAR and it was not a WAR of our choosing.  Libertine Democrats do you realize this—we are at WAR!  Voters do you realize this—we are at WAR!  Do you really believe that the terrorists will lay down their arms and stop fighting if we leave Iraq?  Do you really believe that???  

We entered World War II after the Japanese attacked us.  We declared war on both Japan and Germany.  Then, lo and behold, we placed the major emphasize of our efforts on defeating Germany and not in defeating Japan.  Was President Roosevelt criticized for declaring war on Germany when they had not attacked us?  Of course he was.  Was President Roosevelt criticized for concentrating on Germany instead of Japan with our war efforts?  Of course he was.  Did critics complain that the financial cost was too great?  Of course they did.  Did critics complain that the loss of life was too great?  Of course they did?  Did critics complain that mistakes were being made and things should have been handled better?  Of course, they did?  Is all of this eerily familiar?

Were the voters in 1944 smart enough to reelect President Roosevelt and his majority in Congress?  Yes!  Are the voters today smart enough to realize that we are at WAR and that withdrawal from Iraq will not end the war on terror?  I pray that we are.  No man knows the immediate future.  However, the terrorists have declared that the United States is the “Great Satan!”  The terrorists have declared that their ultimate goal is to destroy the United States.  

Why would they stop fighting if we pull out of Iraq?  Would not that action embolden them to press on to their goal of our destruction?  What solutions have the libertine Democrats presented other than withdrawal and our stopping the fight in Iraq?  Do you really believe that will end terrorist actions that have occurred at least since 1979?

We were, at one time, a nation who refused to lose.  Have we become so fat, have we become so decadent, have we become so materialistic, have we become so impatient, have we become so blind that we refuse to accept that we are at WAR?  Would we rather appease terrorists who wantonly murder the innocent because fighting for our own freedom and the freedom of others is too costly?  We will get a change to help answer those questions on November 7.  Vote; but vote wisely.  Our very existence, as we know it, may depend on the outcome of this election.

We can fight terrorists today or we can fight terrorists tomorrow.  Theoretically, we might even live in peace.  However, it might well be peace as established by Muslim terrorists because libertine Democrats will have given our nation away.  Be sure of this, the terrorists have declared that THEY WANT US DEAD!!!!!

Hey, of course, it might all be an act.  President Bush may have lied about the fact that terrorists murder innocent civilians.  President Bush may have lied about the fact that terrorists chop off the heads of prisoners.  The terrorists really just want our understanding.  They really believe in the same things that libertine Democrats do.  They just want to join hands and say “can’t we all just be friends.”  Right?      
      

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Libertine Democrats & terrorists

On Sunday morning at 8:00a.m. before leaving for worship, I listen to a Bible program on radio station 1350. Normally, I leave the radio on after the end of the program at 8:30a.m. On the next program, the speaker presented a blistering attack of the Muslim religion including their use of violence to achieve their aims.

Of course, we are now at war with terrorists who identify themselves as Muslim and who proclaim that they intend to establish Muslim influence throughout the world. It got me to thinking. If the terrorists should win their attempt to gain control and impose their will on societies, what would they do to maintain that control? Would they embrace the libertine Democrats who seem to believe that their success is of little concern? I don’t think so!

Consider the espoused beliefs of the Muslim terrorists compared to the espoused beliefs of the libertine Democrats.

Libertine Democrats believe it is acceptable to murder unborn babies.

What is the belief of the Muslim terrorists?

Libertine Democrats believe that homosexual behavior is a civil “right” protected by the Constitution.

What is the belief of the Muslim terrorists?

Libertine Democrats believe that there should be a separation of church and state.

What is the belief of the Muslim terrorists?

Libertine Democrats believe that GOD should be removed from the public sphere.

What is the belief of the Muslim terrorists?

Libertine Democrats believe that freedom of speech includes the use of obscene language, public displays of nudity, and the violation of a law to emphasize a person’s opposition to that law.

What is the belief of the Muslim terrorists?

Libertine Democrats believe it makes no difference how people dress.

What is the belief of the Muslim terrorists?

Libertine Democrats claim to believe in democracy.

What is the belief of the Muslim terrorists?

I think you get the idea. It seems to me, that any comparison of the beliefs of libertine Democrats and that of the Muslim terrorists would demonstrate that in many cases those beliefs are miles and miles apart. So, if the Muslim terrorists gain control, what would they do about libertine Democrats?

My guess is that libertine Democrats could not appease the Muslim terrorists. The libertine Democrats would have to change their position on issues, at least publicly, or the Muslim terrorists would take appropriate action. They might anyway just because for terrorists it is always a good idea to remove possible opposition before it has a chance to develop.

Do you think libertine Democrats would meet the same fate from Muslim terrorists as civilians and soldiers have in the past? Certainly, Muslim terrorists have not hesitated to murder those who oppose them. Too bad libertine Democrats don’t believe in GOD and therefore don’t believe in prayer. If the Muslim terrorists win, they just might need both!

Do you think the libertine Democrats have thought this out? Perhaps, they should be the one group most vocal against Muslim terrorists. But then, perhaps they have allowed their hatred of all things related to George Bush to cloud their thinking. But then, that would require them to think rationally. That might not be possible for people who believe the murder of unborn babies is a “constitutional right.”

“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.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)