For years, my wife, Nancy, and I have picketed abortion clinics. We have had some interesting experiences, which I would like to share with you.
The responses from the traffic on the streets to our picketing with Pro-Life signs has been about equally divided between positive approval of our activities by thumbs-up signs and other less mentionable finger signals of disapproval. One abortionist tried to hit us with his car as he was coming out of his office parking lot. Another angry man pulled a knife on Nancy several years ago. Some have thrown paint balls at us—-fortunately for us, the paint balls did not burst. Several people have stopped to yell at us and argue with us about our beliefs concerning life issues. Their arguments are always of a rather crude and un-thought-out nature, mostly because they have not taken the time to organize their thoughts well. They almost always bring up the issue of “It’s a woman’s body; she can do as she sees fit with it.” This argument, of course, is easy to refute; but, alas, our vocal opponents never seem to be convinced. One man stopped, approached one of our fellow picketers, grabbed his sign and tore it up. Then he raced off in his car. We, of course, called the Lakewood police; and they apprehended him before he had gone four blocks. He was brought into court, fined $100, and required to pay for the destroyed sign. In these confrontational situations, we always call the police; and they have always protected us.
On the other side of the leger, we have also had people park their cars, and come over to us to express their appreciation of what we are doing. Some of them have offered to take us out to lunch, and others have brought us hot chocolate on cold days. One restaurateur invited us to eat at his pizza shop free, which we did on many occasions.
Most recently, a teenaged boy, who was obviously homeless, crossed Union Avenue with his elderly homeless companion deliberately to tell us that he and his friend approved of our street message. Then the boy reached into his pocket and gave us
89¢. It was like receiving the widow’s mite!
We picket every Monday morning from 11 AM to 12 noon. We have counted the cars and multiplied by the average number of people per car. We have calculated that in one hour, we expose our signs to 3000 people. We hope that we are doing some good on the street; at the least, we are helping to keep the Pro-Life message alive and well in our community. Come out and help us some time!
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
The Purpose of Music
“The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the glory of God and the refreshment of the soul. If heed is not paid to this, it is not true music but a diabolical bawling and twanging.” Johann Sebastian Bach 1685-1750
Monday, December 13, 2010
Will More Taxes or Less Taxes Help the Country?
Democrats are convinced that the United States needs more taxes to dig us out of the current recession, unemployment problem, and run-away national debt.
Nancy Pelosi claims that the "tax cuts for the rich" cannot be continued because it would be "too costly." Former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey says, "Demagoguery beats data" in politics, here are some data to help us evaluate the Democrat claim.
The first big cut in income taxes came in the 1920s, at the urging of Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon. He argued that a reduction of the tax rates would increase the tax revenues. What actually happened?
In 1920, when the top tax rate was 73 percent, for people making over $100,000 a year, the federal government collected just over $700 million in income taxes-- and 30 percent of that was paid by people making over $100,000. After a series of tax cuts brought the top rate down to 24 percent, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income tax revenue--and people making over $100,000 a year now paid 65 percent of the taxes.
How could that be? The answer is simple: People behave differently when tax rates are high as compared to when they are low. With low tax rates, they take their money out of tax shelters and put it to work in the economy, benefitting themselves, the economy and government, which collects more money in taxes because incomes rise.
High tax rates which very few people are actually paying, because of tax shelters, do not bring in as much revenue as lower tax rates that people are paying. It was much the same story after tax cuts during the Kennedy administration, the Reagan administration and the Bush Administration.
The New York Times reported in 2006: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year."
This country needs LESS taxation, not more!!
(This blog post was excerpted from Thomas Sowell, Townhall.com, 11/16/10)
Nancy Pelosi claims that the "tax cuts for the rich" cannot be continued because it would be "too costly." Former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey says, "Demagoguery beats data" in politics, here are some data to help us evaluate the Democrat claim.
The first big cut in income taxes came in the 1920s, at the urging of Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon. He argued that a reduction of the tax rates would increase the tax revenues. What actually happened?
In 1920, when the top tax rate was 73 percent, for people making over $100,000 a year, the federal government collected just over $700 million in income taxes-- and 30 percent of that was paid by people making over $100,000. After a series of tax cuts brought the top rate down to 24 percent, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income tax revenue--and people making over $100,000 a year now paid 65 percent of the taxes.
How could that be? The answer is simple: People behave differently when tax rates are high as compared to when they are low. With low tax rates, they take their money out of tax shelters and put it to work in the economy, benefitting themselves, the economy and government, which collects more money in taxes because incomes rise.
High tax rates which very few people are actually paying, because of tax shelters, do not bring in as much revenue as lower tax rates that people are paying. It was much the same story after tax cuts during the Kennedy administration, the Reagan administration and the Bush Administration.
The New York Times reported in 2006: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year."
This country needs LESS taxation, not more!!
(This blog post was excerpted from Thomas Sowell, Townhall.com, 11/16/10)
Monday, December 6, 2010
Common Sense at the Airport Body Scanner
I have just passed through the Transportation Security Administration passenger inspection routine at the Denver and Detroit airports; and I have some advice to offer my readers.
The body scanning devices being used in airports are low voltage X-rays that read the scan by backscatter from the radiation contact. They deliver about the same amount of radiation as an ordinary chest X-ray; there is a difference, however. The scanners at the airport do not deliver deeply penetrating ionizing radiation—all of the radiation is concentrated in the skin and the tissues immediately under the skin. Therefore, the radiation exposure is concentrated in that area, resulting in a significant amount of damaging radiation there—more than a chest X-ray. The scan reader sees the body in what appears to be its naked state.
The people running the scans told me that there is no ionizing radiation exposure, but they are mistaken in this matter. The scanners are X-ray machines.
In going through the airports, I have opted to have the “pat down” instead of the body scanner. That procedure was more invasive than the “wand” procedure used to check passengers who fail the metal detector test; but I did not find it to be offensive or objectionably invasive. For this reason, I recommend that my readers refuse the body scanner and have the “pat down.” My wife, also, chose to have the “pat down;” and she did not find the procedure offensive, either.
It was interesting to me that in Detroit, the airport had provided a Muslim woman to do the “pat downs” for other Muslim women. This was obviously because Muslim women are taught to demand higher levels of modesty than other women. I am fairly sure that most women feel modest, too. We seem to think in this country that Muslims deserve special privileges. Never mind the fact that if it were not for Muslims and their suicide bombs, there would not be any bomb danger in airplanes in the first place.
The body scanning devices being used in airports are low voltage X-rays that read the scan by backscatter from the radiation contact. They deliver about the same amount of radiation as an ordinary chest X-ray; there is a difference, however. The scanners at the airport do not deliver deeply penetrating ionizing radiation—all of the radiation is concentrated in the skin and the tissues immediately under the skin. Therefore, the radiation exposure is concentrated in that area, resulting in a significant amount of damaging radiation there—more than a chest X-ray. The scan reader sees the body in what appears to be its naked state.
The people running the scans told me that there is no ionizing radiation exposure, but they are mistaken in this matter. The scanners are X-ray machines.
In going through the airports, I have opted to have the “pat down” instead of the body scanner. That procedure was more invasive than the “wand” procedure used to check passengers who fail the metal detector test; but I did not find it to be offensive or objectionably invasive. For this reason, I recommend that my readers refuse the body scanner and have the “pat down.” My wife, also, chose to have the “pat down;” and she did not find the procedure offensive, either.
It was interesting to me that in Detroit, the airport had provided a Muslim woman to do the “pat downs” for other Muslim women. This was obviously because Muslim women are taught to demand higher levels of modesty than other women. I am fairly sure that most women feel modest, too. We seem to think in this country that Muslims deserve special privileges. Never mind the fact that if it were not for Muslims and their suicide bombs, there would not be any bomb danger in airplanes in the first place.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
U.S.A. Today Looks Like Rome Yesterday
As President Obama steps down the leadership role of America in world affairs and emphasizes domestic priorities, he begins to look very much like the emperors of the latter part of the Roman Empire.
Rome was the only world superpower in the late 2nd Century, A.D.; but 100 years later Rome was terminally ill, weakened first by internal corruption and unsustainable spending and then destroyed by the emergence of multi-polar contenders for power. Roman currency had been debased; and inflation was out of control. In those 100 years, the Roman bureaucracy grew about 35 fold. Military spending and commitments were scaled back, and Roman citizens were demanding all sorts of government programs to give them the things they desired. Moral life was deteriorating and Roman citizens were being entertained by the most horrible, violent, and degraded forms of sport.
External forces sensed Rome’s weakness, including its shrinking military and its lack of will. Persia’s ruler judged an unusually favorable peace offering from Rome as a reason to attack rather than negotiate. Other enemies reached the same conclusion.
By the mid-5th Century, multiple powers contended for world leadership; and it took 1000 years before the world matched the stability, technological progress, and prosperity enjoyed under Rome’s leadership.
Do you see any similarity of the United States to the situation that pertained in ancient Rome?
(This blog post was excerpted from a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal 11-2-10 by Mike Hall of Gainesville, Fl.)
Rome was the only world superpower in the late 2nd Century, A.D.; but 100 years later Rome was terminally ill, weakened first by internal corruption and unsustainable spending and then destroyed by the emergence of multi-polar contenders for power. Roman currency had been debased; and inflation was out of control. In those 100 years, the Roman bureaucracy grew about 35 fold. Military spending and commitments were scaled back, and Roman citizens were demanding all sorts of government programs to give them the things they desired. Moral life was deteriorating and Roman citizens were being entertained by the most horrible, violent, and degraded forms of sport.
External forces sensed Rome’s weakness, including its shrinking military and its lack of will. Persia’s ruler judged an unusually favorable peace offering from Rome as a reason to attack rather than negotiate. Other enemies reached the same conclusion.
By the mid-5th Century, multiple powers contended for world leadership; and it took 1000 years before the world matched the stability, technological progress, and prosperity enjoyed under Rome’s leadership.
Do you see any similarity of the United States to the situation that pertained in ancient Rome?
(This blog post was excerpted from a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal 11-2-10 by Mike Hall of Gainesville, Fl.)
Saturday, November 20, 2010
The Bathroom Bill Comes Home to Roost
The American Family Association of Pennsylvania has contacted the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to protest its recent decision to allow men and women who have not undergone sex reassignment surgery to identify as the sex of their choice on drivers’ licenses and state-issued identification cards.
“[In late August] media reports indicated that PennDOT has changed its policy concerning those sexually confused individuals who believe they were born in the wrong body,” said Diane Gramley, president of the group. However, she said the issue is not addressed on the government Web site.
In response to the policy change, Gramley wrote a letter to Department of Transportation secretary Allen D. Biehler. She included the account of a Western Michigan University nursing professor. The woman found a man who thinks he is a woman standing naked next to her in the shower area of a health club. The victim wrote that she felt violated and worried about her dignity and privacy, even having nightmares that the man was in her house.
“As we noted in the letter to PennDOT,” Gramley said, “citizens should at minimum be able to trust their state government to tell them the truth. This is a fundamental honesty-in-government issue.”
(The above was copied from the American Family Association Journal December 2010 p.7.)
It should be noted that this kind of transgender threat to women’s shower rooms is legal in Colorado according to the recent Senate Bill 200, which passed the legislature and Governor Bill Ritter’s signature in June 2010. http://bit.ly/dsVEMC
“[In late August] media reports indicated that PennDOT has changed its policy concerning those sexually confused individuals who believe they were born in the wrong body,” said Diane Gramley, president of the group. However, she said the issue is not addressed on the government Web site.
In response to the policy change, Gramley wrote a letter to Department of Transportation secretary Allen D. Biehler. She included the account of a Western Michigan University nursing professor. The woman found a man who thinks he is a woman standing naked next to her in the shower area of a health club. The victim wrote that she felt violated and worried about her dignity and privacy, even having nightmares that the man was in her house.
“As we noted in the letter to PennDOT,” Gramley said, “citizens should at minimum be able to trust their state government to tell them the truth. This is a fundamental honesty-in-government issue.”
(The above was copied from the American Family Association Journal December 2010 p.7.)
It should be noted that this kind of transgender threat to women’s shower rooms is legal in Colorado according to the recent Senate Bill 200, which passed the legislature and Governor Bill Ritter’s signature in June 2010. http://bit.ly/dsVEMC
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Illogical Result at Planned Parenthood
A clearly distressed new mother, seeking to take leave of her newborn under North Carolina’s Safe Surrender law, made the mistake of leaving the child outside the entrance of her local Planned Parenthood clinic. Tragically, the premature infant did not survive the abandonment; it died on the doorstep.
The clinic’s reaction was, to put it gently, twisted. With its workers apparently distraught after having encountered the dead infant, the clinic closed its doors the following day and sought counseling for staff members who witnessed the child’s last moments. Employees whose business it was to snuff out the lives of infants just weeks or months younger than this poor abandoned child needed counseling when they witnessed an unvarnished reminder of their trade. It figures.
(The above account was copied from First Things November 2010 p87.)
It seems to this writer that, logically, they should have rejoiced at the death of another baby, since that is the product of their business. Except…for the fact that they did not make any money from this one.
The clinic’s reaction was, to put it gently, twisted. With its workers apparently distraught after having encountered the dead infant, the clinic closed its doors the following day and sought counseling for staff members who witnessed the child’s last moments. Employees whose business it was to snuff out the lives of infants just weeks or months younger than this poor abandoned child needed counseling when they witnessed an unvarnished reminder of their trade. It figures.
(The above account was copied from First Things November 2010 p87.)
It seems to this writer that, logically, they should have rejoiced at the death of another baby, since that is the product of their business. Except…for the fact that they did not make any money from this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
