Letter to the editor for mayor’s proposal to sell beer and wine
I suggest you check out the following website if you are a policy holder of Farmers Insurance Group or thinking about having them insure you in any capacity: www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com
.gif)
https://affiliates.visionforum.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=367
The above link is for a company—Vision Forum—that provides unique products for the family. I am an affiliate for the company and receive a small commission whenever someone uses this link and then makes an unreturned purchase while using the link. Check it out. I think you might like the products offered. I do. See my more complete explanation on my post of February 1, 2008 entitled “Affiliate program with Vision Forum.”
Based upon past historical data: 3,287+ UNBORN BABY MURDERS have occurred in the last 24 hours in the United States. See my post “BABY HOLOCAUST” posted January 22, 2008.
I’ve been involved in a problem one of my clients has with Farmers Insurance Group. My previous posts in relation to this problem were:
September 10, 2007 post: “Beware of Farmers Insurance Group”
September 11, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group’s response”
September 18, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company received the requested list”
September 19, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company’s response to the list”
October 16, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and my request for information”
November 27, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group does not respond to my request”
January 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group latest stall”
January 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group is sent a response”
January 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group pays some money”
January 19, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group continues to be obstinate”
January 26, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group receives another request”
February 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group shows how low they will go?”
February 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group: If I were going to respond to the final letter”
February 13, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and associated companies”
February 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and how others rate the company”
I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.
Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com
www.childpredators.com
www.lifedynamics.com
www.libertylegal.org
www.alliancedefensefund.org
www.searchtv.org
I’m changing the time table for posts again. I don’t usually concern this blog with local issues. However, our mayor has just announced that he intends to propose the selling of wine and beer in local grocery stores which at this time is not allowed. I wrote the following “letter to the editor” to our local newspapers which are both published once weekly. Since they are delivered on Wednesday, I’m posting the letter tonight since I always try to post “letters to the editor” so that readers can compare the letter written to the letter printed. The letter:
I was born and raised in Morton, moved after college, and moved back to Morton just over four years ago. I have a question for mayor Durflinger. Concerning allowing groceries stores to sell wine and beer, is Morton the community it is today because grocery stores could sell wine and beer or because they could not?
This proposal seems to be the beginning of an incremental creep to selling hard liquor in grocery stores and other similar establishments. Once wine and beer is allowed, it is only a matter of time before similar establishments demand “me too” so that they can compete with grocery stories. Then the next step is hard liquor. “Why not? We already sell beer and wine and ‘what is the harm?’”
The primary purpose of municipal government is to protect the members of the community not stimulate economic growth or increase the spendable revenue of the local government. A basic axiom of political theory, which is often violated today, is that government should not profit from and/or encourage the vices of man whether or not those vices are legal. That would include East Peoria profiting from gambling or Morton profiting from the selling of products that unquestionably are problematic.
I was a high school teacher in Illinois and a school board member in Arizona. Overwhelming, the major drug problem in almost any government school system was alcohol. I doubt if that has changed. Mayor Durflinger, as a former school superintendent, should know this. Increasing the availability of alcohol can only increase the accessibility of that drug for those who can not legally partake of it.
I knew a Tucson family, who neither drank alcohol nor kept it in their home, whose 12 year old daughter, along with friends, stole a bottle of liquor from a local grocery store. As the individual who successfully commandeered the alcohol, she was given the privilege of drinking first. A short time later, the friends knocked on the door of her parents. They, panic stricken, explained that the daughter was unconscious a few blocks away. Fortunately, the mother was an emergency room nurse and determined that she was not in serious danger.
The parents took pictures of their daughter passed out with her lifeless body face down in the dirt. Her father carried her to their home. She was required to personally apologize to the grocery store manager, pay twice the cost of the alcohol, was grounded for what she considered an exorbitant amount of time, and had her household duties greatly increased. Mayor Durflinger, if after this restrict is removed and a similar event occurs that leads to alcohol poisoning and/or death, are you and the village trustees going to assume partial responsibility but say we did it for the good of the community?
Mayor Durflinger, do you know that in the summer of 1965 three National Honor Society students (two of whom had just graduated) from MHS were murdered (my interpretation) by a teenage MHS driver who had illegally consumed alcohol? If a similar event occurs becomes of the increased accessibility to alcohol, are you and the village trustees going to assume partial responsibility but say we did it for the good of the community?
At a personal level, I will not support or vote for anyone who supports the proposed change. In another article dealing with home rule, trustee Vierling is quoted as saying, “If you can’t trust your village board, I don’t know who you can trust.” If the village board passes a proposal to allow beer and wine to be sold in grocery stores, I know who I can’t trust—the village board.
Perhaps mayor Durflinger should retire to spend more time with his family before some future family is not afforded an opportunity to spend time together because of the increased accessibility of alcohol for those who legally are not permitted to consume the substance. Actions have consequences. “The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray.”
I suggest you check out the following website if you are a policy holder of Farmers Insurance Group or thinking about having them insure you in any capacity: www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com
https://affiliates.visionforum.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=367
The above link is for a company—Vision Forum—that provides unique products for the family. I am an affiliate for the company and receive a small commission whenever someone uses this link and then makes an unreturned purchase while using the link. Check it out. I think you might like the products offered. I do. See my more complete explanation on my post of February 1, 2008 entitled “Affiliate program with Vision Forum.”
Based upon past historical data: 3,287+ UNBORN BABY MURDERS have occurred in the last 24 hours in the United States. See my post “BABY HOLOCAUST” posted January 22, 2008.
I’ve been involved in a problem one of my clients has with Farmers Insurance Group. My previous posts in relation to this problem were:
September 10, 2007 post: “Beware of Farmers Insurance Group”
September 11, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group’s response”
September 18, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company received the requested list”
September 19, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company’s response to the list”
October 16, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and my request for information”
November 27, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group does not respond to my request”
January 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group latest stall”
January 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group is sent a response”
January 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group pays some money”
January 19, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group continues to be obstinate”
January 26, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group receives another request”
February 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group shows how low they will go?”
February 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group: If I were going to respond to the final letter”
February 13, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and associated companies”
February 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and how others rate the company”
I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.
Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com
www.childpredators.com
www.lifedynamics.com
www.libertylegal.org
www.alliancedefensefund.org
www.searchtv.org
I’m changing the time table for posts again. I don’t usually concern this blog with local issues. However, our mayor has just announced that he intends to propose the selling of wine and beer in local grocery stores which at this time is not allowed. I wrote the following “letter to the editor” to our local newspapers which are both published once weekly. Since they are delivered on Wednesday, I’m posting the letter tonight since I always try to post “letters to the editor” so that readers can compare the letter written to the letter printed. The letter:
I was born and raised in Morton, moved after college, and moved back to Morton just over four years ago. I have a question for mayor Durflinger. Concerning allowing groceries stores to sell wine and beer, is Morton the community it is today because grocery stores could sell wine and beer or because they could not?
This proposal seems to be the beginning of an incremental creep to selling hard liquor in grocery stores and other similar establishments. Once wine and beer is allowed, it is only a matter of time before similar establishments demand “me too” so that they can compete with grocery stories. Then the next step is hard liquor. “Why not? We already sell beer and wine and ‘what is the harm?’”
The primary purpose of municipal government is to protect the members of the community not stimulate economic growth or increase the spendable revenue of the local government. A basic axiom of political theory, which is often violated today, is that government should not profit from and/or encourage the vices of man whether or not those vices are legal. That would include East Peoria profiting from gambling or Morton profiting from the selling of products that unquestionably are problematic.
I was a high school teacher in Illinois and a school board member in Arizona. Overwhelming, the major drug problem in almost any government school system was alcohol. I doubt if that has changed. Mayor Durflinger, as a former school superintendent, should know this. Increasing the availability of alcohol can only increase the accessibility of that drug for those who can not legally partake of it.
I knew a Tucson family, who neither drank alcohol nor kept it in their home, whose 12 year old daughter, along with friends, stole a bottle of liquor from a local grocery store. As the individual who successfully commandeered the alcohol, she was given the privilege of drinking first. A short time later, the friends knocked on the door of her parents. They, panic stricken, explained that the daughter was unconscious a few blocks away. Fortunately, the mother was an emergency room nurse and determined that she was not in serious danger.
The parents took pictures of their daughter passed out with her lifeless body face down in the dirt. Her father carried her to their home. She was required to personally apologize to the grocery store manager, pay twice the cost of the alcohol, was grounded for what she considered an exorbitant amount of time, and had her household duties greatly increased. Mayor Durflinger, if after this restrict is removed and a similar event occurs that leads to alcohol poisoning and/or death, are you and the village trustees going to assume partial responsibility but say we did it for the good of the community?
Mayor Durflinger, do you know that in the summer of 1965 three National Honor Society students (two of whom had just graduated) from MHS were murdered (my interpretation) by a teenage MHS driver who had illegally consumed alcohol? If a similar event occurs becomes of the increased accessibility to alcohol, are you and the village trustees going to assume partial responsibility but say we did it for the good of the community?
At a personal level, I will not support or vote for anyone who supports the proposed change. In another article dealing with home rule, trustee Vierling is quoted as saying, “If you can’t trust your village board, I don’t know who you can trust.” If the village board passes a proposal to allow beer and wine to be sold in grocery stores, I know who I can’t trust—the village board.
Perhaps mayor Durflinger should retire to spend more time with his family before some future family is not afforded an opportunity to spend time together because of the increased accessibility of alcohol for those who legally are not permitted to consume the substance. Actions have consequences. “The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray.”
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 4:49 AM
5 Comments:
Interesting idea. By simply removing all access to something its going to prevent people from obtaining it. I think they tried that with the prohibition.
The story of the 12 year old girl is tragic. However, do you not think that some of this blame should be placed on her? Or on her family? Being 12 years old, you are past the age of reason, you know right from wrong, and you will know the effects of alcohol. Why then was she punished not only breaking the law by stealing the alcohol, but also breaking the law by consuming the liquor whilst being underage. Does it matter where she got it from? She could have just as easily as stolen it from a friend's residence.
As for the parents, protecting your child from the danger of alcohol is a challenge. However, never allowing one to engage in it is often worse. This is the problem with the American alcohol laws. By forbidding alcohol to those under the age of 21, once they get their hands on it, they feel as though they have a shot of consuming that "forbidden fruit" and will take it in case the opportunity never arises again. This is the current issue with our country's universities.
My family took the approach of allowing me to drink at home in order to get me accustomed to what it is, and how it affects me. I also think that because my parents gave me the responsibility to look after myself I have become a stronger person and also hold responsibility for my own actions. By simply shielding people from something you risk the eventual destruction of that wall and all of the things that lay on the other side of it come rushing through.
I find it hard to agree with you that the government should take responsibility for the actions of others. We allow guns in this country, should the government take responsibility for allowing the sales of those? We also allow cars. People are killed by those everyday. Should the fact that the government allows the sale of cars also make them accountable for what individuals do? Same thing goes for knives, golf clubs, baseball bats, etc. Anyone can walk into a store and buy a knife. I mean, you don't even need any of the above to kill someone. You can do it with your own hands. Is the government responsible for allowing us to live?
I think the issue here is not the governments control, its more so the individuals responsibility for his/her own actions. The second we make the government responsible for everything is the second they outlaw everything.
Why is a 12 year old out wandering the streets? Where were the parents? Are the parents taking no responsibility for any of the incident?
Maybe the Child Protective Services should have been involved in the case.
Don,
It seems as though your main concern is that there will be more alchol abuse because grocery stores will sell it. I'd like to see where you got your facts on this. I understand that as a Christian, you feel you should at least say something. That's great, that's what we're put on this earth for. Maybe you should redirect your feelings and instead of critizing our mayor, you should volunteer with a youth group that helps teens with alcohl abuse. This can be said about most other issues that Christians face. Anyone can write letters about alcohol abuse, abortion, domestic abuse and so on, but it takes someone of real conviction to do something about it. I do not agree that anyone should not vote for someone just because of one issue. To me, that is short sighted and irresponsible as a citizen. What if the other candidate wants to put in an abortion clinic? Now, whom will you vote for? I think you get my point. I surprised would would "not support or vote for anyone who supports the proposed change", but you know or are friends with people that would allow their daughter to stell and drink alcohol illegally.
You seem to know quite a bit about the situation of a 12 year old girl that isn't yours. My guess would be that she is actually your daughter and not just a friends. Am I right? Your probably won't admit the truth of the situation.
Post a Comment
<< Home