Whose Morals?

Yesterday, the public hearing -- the one and only public hearing -- regarding the anti-gay amendment was held in Madison.

According to an article in this morning's Journal Sentinel, Jenny Baierl said, "I'm concerned the state is going to determine what is morally acceptable for my child to be taught in sex education and not allow me to be the ultimate authority."

Excuse me, but who said that allowing gay marriage would take away your ability to determine what is morally acceptable for your children? That isn't even a logical statement. Drinking is legal in this state and it doesn’t stop me from informing my children about the evils of alcohol. So, if you don’t want your children to support gay marriage, then tell them not to and don’t support it yourself. But, don’t take away my ability to live my life with dignity and in a legal matrimonial state because YOU don’t agree with it.

If you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t have one.

Hate-monger Mark Gundrum said the bill was drafted to address only "legal status" and didn't get into specific benefits, as laws and amendments in other states have. The intent was to prevent the state only from creating a new kind of marriage recognized in Wisconsin, Gundrum said.

"If a private hospital wants to have a policy allowing visitation for someone, there's nothing to prohibit that," he said.

Yeah and there is nothing to prohibit them from barring the life partner of someone gay, either.
Such as in the case of “Michael Thomas, a Health and Family Services administrator for Manitowoc County, choked back tears as he talked about his former partner who he said was shot - in front of Thomas - because he was gay; Thomas was kept from him in the hospital.
‘He died alone in a room with me peering through the glass because they wouldn't let me be with him," Thomas said. After 20 years with a new partner, he said, "I don't want the same thing to happen again.’”

So, don’t tell me that an anti-gay amendment somehow protects families and marriages – all it does is harm the gay families that are out there.

Amen, I say to you, if you support this amendment, you are only showing your own fear and hatred of gay people. Period. You aren’t protecting anything, but your own ability to legalize hatred and contempt.

God Bless

Below is the list of co-sponsors of the anti-gay amendment. This was released by a pro-family group. First, I'd like to point out the obvious -- they are all Republicans. Second, I'd like to point out that not ONE OF THESE PEOPLE should be called PRO-FAMILY!!! Not one. Anyone who blocks someone else's ability to become a family, cannot be considered pro-family. There are over 100 rights that gay people have that they will lose if this passes. I urge all Wisconsinites to contact these un-American, non-Christian and anti-family representatives and tell them to pull their sponsorship of the anti-gay, anti-American and anti-family amendment.

Either they pull their sponsorship or you're pulling your vote...(This won't work on Cathy Stepp, she's not running next year.)

Co-sponsors included Senators Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend), Ted Kanavas (R-Brookfield), Alan Lasee (R-De Pere), Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin), Joe Leibham (R-Sheboygan), Tom Reynolds (R-West Allis), Carol Roessler (R-Oshkosh), Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center), Cathy Stepp (R-Sturtevant), and Dave Zien (R-Eau Claire) and Representatives Sheryl Albers (R-Reedsburg), Joan Ballweg (R-Markesan), Garey Bies (R-Sister Bay), Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon), Stephen Freese (R-Dodgeville), John Gard (R-Peshtigo), Mark Gottlieb (R-Port Washington), Scott Gunderson (R-Waterford), Eugene Hahn (R-Cambria), J A Hines (R-Oxford), Mark Honadel (r- South Milwaukee), Michael Huebsch (R-West Salem), Jean Hundertmark (R-Clintonville), Suzanne Jeskewitz (R-Menomonee Falls), Samantha Kerkman (R-Burlington), Steve Kestell (R-Elkhart Lake), Joel Kleefisch (R-Oconomowoc), Judy Krawczyk (R-Green Bay), Rob Kreibich (R-Eau Claire), Frank Lasee (R- Green Bay), Daniel LeMahieu (R-Oostburg), Gabe Loeffelholz (R-Platteville), Thomas Lothian (R-Williams Bay), Terri McCormick (R-Appleton), Dan Meyer (R-Eagle River), Phil Montgomery (R-Ashwaubenon), Terry Moulton (R-Chippewa Falls), Jeff Mursau (R-Crivitz), Stephen Nass (R-Whitewater), Lee Nerison (R-Westby), Ann Nischke (R-Waukesha), Al Ott (R- Forest Junction), Carol Owens (R-Oshkosh), Jerry Petrowski (R-Marathon), Mark Pettis (R-Hertel), Don Pridemore (R-Hartford), Scott Suder (R-Abbotsford), Debi Towns (R-Janesville), John Townsend (R-Fond du Lac), Karl Van Roy (R-Green Bay), Robin Vos (R-Racine), and Mary Williams (R- Medford).

God Bless

Rights

So, I'm a little confused. You see, some of the people who support the right to carry a concealed weapon claim that it is because their rights are being infinged upon if they cannot carry a concealed weapon.

But, what about my rights? What about my right to walk down the street and feel safe because no one is carrying a concealed weapon -- legally? I mean, more murders are committed in concealed carry states, more crimes against persons are committed in concealed carry states, so if I am living in a concealed carry state, how can I possiblily feel safer?

Where are my rights to not have to wonder if my next door neighbor -- the one who doesn't like me -- has a gun under his coat?

Don't my rights count?

I guess they don't, because the same people who are angry at the thought that they are losing some right by not being able to pack a pistol are angry at the thought that gays and lesbians will be allowed to marry. Their claim is that somewhere this is infringing on their rights. I'm not sure how, but we'll go with it.

Apparently, (although not in all cases) if you want concealed carry and you support the anti-gay amendment, the only rights about which you care, are your own.

How mighty Christian of you.

God Bless.

Wisconsin - Today's the Day

I just wrote a terrific post regarding the Anti-gay marriage ban that the legislature will be deciding on today. I wrote about how you shouldn't be fooled by the hatred of the right wing and how gay marriage won't harm straight marriages, etc. And, somehow, I lost it all by trying to select my whole post to change the font! The whole thing. And, of course, I was writing off the top of my head, so I didn't have any notes or anything to go by.

I'd just like to say that the right wing is wrong on this issue. Gay marriage will not hurt anyone and it would improve the lives of countless people. This is rhetoric it's the truth. Anyone, who would support an amendment that restricts someone else's rights, has hate in their heart. Plain and simple -- hate. That right-wing crap about love the sinner, hate the sin. That's coming from the same people who brought you "9/11 happened because of gays and lesbians" and "the hurricane hit Louisiana because of gays and lesbians". Keep that in mind when you vote next November. Do you really want to throw your lot in with "those" people?

Jesus told us in Matthew what will happen during the final judgment and no where in there did He mention gays and lesbians. He did mention goats and sheep. Sheep look out for their fellow man and Goats don't. Sheep spend eternity with Jesus and Goats are sent to the fires of Hell. (Full passage below.) You need to decide, are you going to be a Sheep or a Goat? Will you vote against a ban that will harm your fellow human beings or will you throw caution to the wind and vote for it? Will you be able to look God right in the eye and say, "Yep, I dashed the hope of gays. I destroyed their families. I made it harder for them to protect their rights as human beings."?

Well, will you?

And, when you do, just where do you think you'll be standing when its all over?

God Bless

The Final Judgement

When the Son of Man comes in his glory with all of his angels, he will sit on his royal throne. The people of all nations will be brought before him, and he will separate them, as shepherds separate their sheep from their goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, "My father has blessed you! Come and receive the kingdom that was prepared for you before the world was created. When I was hungry, you gave me something to eat, and when I was thirsty, you gave me something to drink. When I was a stranger, you welcomed me, and when I was naked, you gave me clothes to wear. When I was sick, you took care of me, and when I was in jail, you visited me."Then the ones who pleased the Lord will ask, "When did we give you something to eat or drink? When did we welcome you as a stranger or give you clothes to wear or visit you while you were sick or in jail?"The king will answer, "Whenever you did it for any of my people, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you did it for me."Then the king will say to those on his left, "Get away from me! You are under God's curse. Go into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels! I was hungry, but you did not give me anything to eat, and I was thirsty, but you did not give me anything to drink. I was a stranger, but you did not welcome me, and I was naked, but you did not give me any clothes to wear. I was sick and in jail, but you did not take care of me."Then the people will ask, "Lord, when did we fail to help you when you were hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in jail?"The king will say to them, "Whenever you failed to help any of my people, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you failed to do it for me."Then Jesus said, "Those people will be punished forever. But the ones who pleased God will have eternal life." (Matthew 25:31-46)

Anti-Gay Amendment

"Yesterday, State Senator Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) and Representative Mark Gundrum (R-New Berlin) began asking lawmakers to cosponsor the amendment. The deadline for cosponsors is this Monday, November 21st." stated an email I received from the Human Rights Campaign.

Really? First, this is no surprise. The Republicans want to get this on the ballet in Nov. They want to secure a huge right-wing turnout in the 2006 election. They're hoping that this issue will be the one that will bring back a Republican Governor to this state.

Second, this amendment will ban civil unions -- completely. The supporters kept claiming that it wouldn't, but it will. Now, they're even admitting it. Do not be fooled by the instigators... First, this is only an issue because it is volatile, because it angers people. Otherwise, the right wing could care less. Example, Bush promised a National amendment, got elected and it went away. Second, this is hatred, plain, simple in you face hatred. Anyone and I mean anyone who would support an amendment banning one group of people from having the same rights as another group of people are filled with unmitigated hatred. Don't let them fool you. They hate gays. Deep down inside, they really hate gay people. They have even fooled themselves. Finally, don't even let them start to tell you that this is what God wants. God doesn't give a rat's ass if Gay people are allowed to marry -- He doesn't -- and if He does, may He strike me dead right now as I post this. May I die a horrible death while at my keyboard.

I'm still here.

Finally, contact your representatives, let them know that you elected them to lead this state, not to follow a hate-filled agenda.

Let's take back Wisconsin from the narrow minded, backwards, non-Christian and hate-filled people. Let's give it back to the people, you and me.

Make sure you contact your representatives and let them know just how you feel.

God Bless.

Thank a Veteran

After reading one of RepublicanVet's post, you would get the impression that liberals all hate the military and do not appreciate just what our fine military men and women have done, are doing and will do for us. That is a statement which I find very offensive.

I happen to be proud of my ex-Army, served honorably in WWII grandfather, Charles.

I'm proud of my retired Navy, served honorably in Vietname father, Keith.

And, I'm especially proud of my Marine, served in Iraq son, Brian.

I stand when the National Athem is sung -- even when I'm home and it's before a NASCAR race. And, I proudly salute the flag of our great nation, even when I'm mad at my government. I thank Vets that I meet on the street. I donate to Veteran's organizations. I know that I owe them a great debt that can never be repaid.

So, while you're out today, take the time to thank a Vet. They're the reason you can say what you say. They're the reason you can go to church on Sunday without fear of reprocussions. They're the reason that you can read my blog -- whether you agree with it or not.

May God keep our serving men and women close to his heart. And, may He keep those who have served even closer.

God Bless.

Who Hijacked Our Country

So, I'm minding my own business and randomly checking out some blogs and I come across this one "Who Hijacked Our Country."

So, I check out the profile and see that the owner of said blog claims to be being stalked by someone at this blog:

http://republicanvet.blogspot.com/. Well, telling me not to post on someone's blog is like telling me not to think of pink elephants! I'm definitely going to check it out and post something, if I feel driven. Might as well tell me not to breath. I have to put in my own two cents.

So, the very first post on this Republican Vet is ranting totally against liberals and making claims that all liberals rant and name call, etc, etc. This man is totally filled with more hate than even I can tolerate, so I skip that blog and start scrolling down. (BTW, he does have a nicely done webpage. Nice clean design.)

Anyway, I scroll down and he's ranting against his own twin brother and his mom, which I just don't understand, because I got the impression that he was a Christian and Christians do not publically rant against their brothers or mothers. I happen to have two brothers both very right wing, one I think isn't too bright because he can't ever answer why he feels the way he does -- I think he's just repeating what my parents and other brother says. My other brother does his research and, while I disagree with his conclusions, I can at least carry on a reasonable conversation with him -- well, most of the time.

My point is that I wouldn't publically proclaim that either of my brothers is a jackass or any other kind of ass. So, I left the below comment. Don't know if you're interested, but here it is.

"I'm curious on just how you can have Christian beliefs ("It doesn't make us moral, conservative or reaffirm our Christian beliefs.") when referring to gay marriage, but not have any when referring to your own family? (Saying "She's an idiot." in reference to your mother and "Someone told this fat ass that he matters to me, lol." in reference to your brother.) As far as the Bible states on the subject, one of the ten commandments is to honor thy mother and father. And, I realize you have some issues with your brother, but didn't Jesus say "Turn the other cheek?""

Have a nice day and...

God Bless

Concealed Carry Law in Wisconsin...

Concealed Carry Law in Wisconsin...

Are you as sick and tired of this law wasting our law makers' precious time as I am? Governor Doyle has all ready vetoed it and he'll veto it again.

The blog written by Owen on Boots & Sabers implies that only leftist people want this bill to not pass. This is not true. According to a recent survey conducted in Racine, 57% of Racine citizens do not support a concealed carry law.

One of the reasons that I even bring it up is because of this post from the Boots & Sabers blog. (Please click the link to read their blog. It will open in a new window.) Owen read the press release from The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence regarding this law and determined that 1) The Coalition does not know about which it is talking and 2) it is a leftist organization.

I didn't realize that only people on the left side of the aisle cared to prevent Domestic Violence and that people on the right side of the aisle didn't.

Anyway, I am continuing this blog on the assumption that you have read both the .pdf from The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence AND the Boots & Sabers reply.

Here's how I'm going to do this. What Owen wrote will be in Red and what The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence released will be in Blue (from where did I get that color scheme). Anyway, my responses will be in purple, because, well, that's my favorite color and it's my blog.

The Wisconsin Coalition wrote that:


as a largely unfunded mandate, it will raise taxes on Wisconsin residents

Owen wrote:

it is supported by fees and will not impact the tax burden.

I thought that Owen and I might agree on this, but I re-read the bill and it seems like the Department of Justice will have to do a lot of work to ensure that EVERYONE who has a Concealed Carry Permit or applies for one follows all of the guidelines. Just how will they
"revoke a license to carry a concealed weapon if the licensee no longer meets all of the requirements for licensure?"

The Wisconsin Coalition wrote:
unknown permit holders from other states will be allowed to carry concealed weapons here without any background check

Owen responded with:
Permit holders from other states would have had a background check in their own state.

Yeah, but that's not good enough for me. Some states have very laxed requirements for background checks. I don't agree that we should allow someone from Indiana enter our great state with a concealed weapon without a background check being performed here. I'd like to point out that of the 45 states that allow Concealed Carry Permits, 2 of them (Vermont and Alaska) do not require a permit. Vermont only processes a background check at the state level. Alaska processes a background check at the Federal level. Both states do not have either a requirement for a permit, nor do they require a waiting period.

The Wisconsin Coalition wrote:
the law enforcement officers will be placed at higher risk as the names of permit holders will remain private and confidential.

Owen responded with:
This presumes that permit holders would pose a greater threat to police officers than non-permit holders. Evidence from other states shows that concealed carry permit holders are statistically much less likely to commit any crime – much less a violent crime.

Owen, how do you know they won't? We're assuming that somehow people who wish to carry concealed weapons are more lawabiding than those who do not. Also, last I heard (and I'll look for the article), Wisconsin Law Enforcement was AGAINST the concealed carry. Maybe, they don't feel safe.

The Wisconsin Coalition wrote:
Law enforcement will not know who is lawfully carrying a weapon and who is not.

Owen responded with:
Permit holders are required to present their permit whenever they come in contact with a law enforcement officer. Although the officer would not know if a person was legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon without first identifying the person, neither would the officer know if anyone else is carrying a weapon legally or not. Possessing a permit does not pose any threat to either the public or the police.

Owen, please take the time to read the bill again. There isn't a provision for permit carriers to identify themselves to law enforcement officers. It is only "upon the request of a law enforcement officer". So, if the officer doesn't ask, they won't know. I would assume that most officers will not automatically remember to ask someone stopped for a speeding violation. Plus, it is almost a joke if the permit carry fails to display their license. It's a forfeiture of $25.00.

The Wisconsin Coalition wrote:

The notion that more guns will lead to increased safety is not only ludicrous, but also flies in the face of any credible research evaluating access to firearms, increased injury and safety.

Owen replied:
No it doesn’t. This group is referring to studies done in the controlled environment of a clinical setting. But the real world tells us that firearm ownership rates and crime rates are only marginally related. For instance, almost everyone in Alaska and Switzerland owns a weapon, but the crime rates are well below that of New Jersey or Britain. Culture has a far greater effect on these things than firearm ownership rates.

So, I did some checking. I wanted to know if there are less murders in states that allow Concealed Carry over those that do not. Since it is easy to identify the five states that do not allow Concealed Carry, I merely went through the population statistics and matched them up with states with a pretty close population. Example, I matched Illinois (population 12,419,293) with Pennsylvania (population 12,281,054). I realize that this isn't a perfect system, but it works.

The results that I received are as follows:

In the five states that do not allow Concealed Carry, there were a total of 24.1 murders per 100,000 people. In states that do allow Concealed Carry, there were a total of 27.4 murders per 100,000 people.

So, what does this tell us? Owen is partially correct. Whether or not your state allows Concealed Carry, you still have about the same chance of being murdered.

My conclusion would be that Concealed Carry does not necessarily make a state safer. If I had more time to research this, I could compare stats for other crimes, such as rape and and aggravated assault.

Now, before you comment that I must have jiggled with the figures, feel free to look them up yourselves. (Link opens in a new window.) Also, I'm uploading the spreadsheet I used to gather my totals. One more item on this, I looked up what states allowed Concealed Carry and compared their population. I didn't go out of my way to lean the results to one side. If I had wanted to do that, I would've chosen Missouri over Arkansas. They had 9 murders per 100,000 -- which is even higher than both Texas and California and both of those states have more than triple the population of Missouri!

Now, I wish I had more time to answer all of the points Owen brought up in his blog, but I don't. Please take the time to read both documents yourself and then contact your representative and tell them how you want them to vote.

Early Morning Comic

I signed up to receive comics in my email. I like to start the day with a good laugh.

Anyway, Nick Anderson drew an editorial comic showing a storm cloud in the shape of a question mark with the words 'Questions about run-up to war' chasing President Bush, who is riding a bicycle away from the cloud and looking"scared".

I think Mr. Anderson missed the mark. President Bush isn't scared of questions regarding the Iraq War. He isn't afraid to face them. He may not answer them -- He may choose to ignore them, but he isn't scared of them. President Bush does not feel that he was wrong about invading Iraq. He believes that 2,000 dead Americans is worth the democracy we have begun over there. If allowed to run free, President Bush would probably invade Iran and begin a democracy there, too.

Dubya, as he is disrespectfully called, truly and honestly believes that God told him to start the war in Iraq. He even said as much in response to Pat Robertson (who believes God told him that the war should not be started). President Bush honestly and to the core believes that he is on the side of justice and righteousness.

So, while I enjoy your editorial comics, Mr. Anderson, in this case, you missed the mark by a long shot.

God Bless.

Republican Criminals

Here's one that did make the updated list...

What's a girl gotta do to get noticed around here?

All Saints

Yesterday was All Saints Day -- for Catholics, All Saints is a holy day of obligation. That means, we have to go to church.
Anyway, the gospel reading was Matthew 5:1-11 which is commonly known as the Beatitudes. I have a lot of favorite Bible passages, but this one by far is my most favorite. This is the one where Jesus lets us know to hang in there.

1 And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. 2 Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:
3 “ Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn, For they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful, For they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart, For they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Father Chuck gave such a wonderful homily that I wish I could recreate it for you here. Anyway, the gist of it was that we can all aspire to be pure in heart or peacemakers. We can all aspire to become saints. Isn't that a nice thought?

God Bless

Just Testing

I see that Blogger.com actually lists the blogs that are updated on the front page. So, I just want to see if my blog appears on the list, because I haven't seen it appear so far.

So, that's it, folks. I just want to see if my blog appears!

And the answer is NO. My blog did not appear. Guess you have to be one of the lucy ones and my blog must not qualify. :-)

In case you're wondering, I used two different windows, one to post in and one to watch in. And I watched for two minutes.

Washrambler's Web Log

Washrambler's Web Log

Reporter's Private Notebook

I found this site while perusing blogspot. I thought it was interesting enough to pass it on.

Update

So, last night, I mentioned our difficulties with PRIMERICA and our debt consolidation. Well, I just wanted to fill you in on the latest happenings.

First, last night, I contacted AMERIQUEST and spoke with two gentlemen there -- Andy and Jason. Both men confirmed that it is not illegal for Primerica to give us our credit reports. In fact, Jason assured me that, even though it is not routine to give out credit reports for second mortgages, he would give it to us, if we went with Ameriquest. So, I gave Jason our information and he will be calling me back at 1PM today. I'll fill you in on whether or not it is a better deal.

Second, Cheryl went through our paperwork this AM from Primerica. They even say in there that they will provide us with our credit report.

I know that it might seem a little silly to not take a loan merely because of one issue, but if they are willing to lie and tell us that something they choose not to do is illegal, what else are they hiding? As I say, don't blow smoke up my skirt and tell me it is foggy!

Finally, one point. We've signed up for a SmartLoan with Primerica. Their representatives informed us that they were the only ones who offered this particular loan. Another fallacy.

According to Jason at Ameriquest, there are other companies who offer the same type of loan, even though they are rare and difficult to find.

Here's how the loan works -- in brief -- It should be noted that I am not a mortgage person and I do not have professional knowledge of how this works.

To continue...

You take our a loan and make arrangements to pay bi-weekly. So, say you take out a $10,000 loan for 10 years at 10% interest.

Your payment would be 132.15 per month and you would pay off the loan in 10 years. If you made the payments bi-weekly, your payments would still be 132.15 per month, but you would pay off the loan sooner -- roughly in five years.

I don't have a table with which I can demostrate, but I'll post one when I get one for you to see. Remember, I am not in a position to offer advice in this field, so you would want to double-check anything I have said.

God Bless.