It seems Peoria has hit the national spotlight again, and as usual, not for anything we did right.

As pastors and teachers, Catholic bishops are supposed to lead their flock in sharing the love of God with our neighbors. So why did a Catholic bishop in Peoria, Illinois, just use his Sunday homily to compare President Obama to Hitler and Stalin?

Bishop Daniel R. Jenky of Peoria launched a vicious tirade against politicians who disagree with the bishops’ views on health care reform, culminating in the outrageous claim that “Barack Obama seems intent on following a similar path” to Hitler and Stalin, who “would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open.”

This kind of hateful and incendiary rhetoric is inappropriate coming from anyone—but it’s simply outrageous coming from a religious leader in a position of public trust. Bishop Jenky needs to hear immediately that reasonable people are appalled by his remarks.

Now of course, MoveOn.org wants you to sign a petition, which is a reasonable request if you are so inclined. They’re easy to find, and if you would like to sign it, please do. But I actually have another point to make here, and I hope you will bear with me.

Over a year ago, when C. J. Summers was publishing the Peoria Chronicle on a regular basis, I submitted a Guest Editorial concerning some actions by the Peoria City Council. C. J. returned it to me because I referenced Nazi’s in the article, along with a lengthy sermon on why he would not publish an article with a reference to the Nazi’s because of a journalism rule which states the reference is overused and inaccurate. All well and good, I edited the article and it ran. So case closed, right? Wrong!

C.J., if you are so outraged and incensed about using the Nazi party as the inaccurate descriptor of actions and persons, where is your outrage now? You were so careful to research your latest article on the highway versus rail fiasco, an argument that has little to no merit since people do not ride trains, yet when a Catholic Bishop runs amok with a statement as offensive as this, you are silent. I would think, since I know you are not in danger of excommunication, you would be all over this shameful event, imploring the good readers to speak out against such an unreasonable and unwarranted attack on the President of the United States. Especially when what Bishop Jenky is really asking for is government sanctions of religious beliefs.

If the Catholic Church had any say in it, Roe V. Wade would be thrown out, abortions would be illegal, as would any form of contraceptive, and we would be back to the days of women being second class citizens. As a Christian, I abhor the act of abortion, but it is not my body, nor is it my decision. Perhaps the day will come when people arrive at the conclusion to practice safe and responsible sex, but until such a day comes, abortion and birth control are necessary evils. Most of us reasonable people figured out that letting religious institutions dictate the way government operates is a bad idea back in the 1700′s. I’m sure you’ve heard of some of those events, like the American Revolution, the French Revolution, etc., etc.

C.J., I’m disappointed to say the least. You rant and rave about government decisions, yet when a local church official makes a statement that is both incendiary and flagrantly inaccurate…well, I guess that’s what you call journalistic discretion. You decide to publish what you want people to hear.

I know at least a few of you do, judging from comments made on my blog and other sources, but I’m kind of concerned that most of us “sane” (for lack of a better term) individuals don’t seem to be on the same page here. One comment about passing concealed carry laws and allowing 17 year old black males to “defend themselves” against overzealous white vigilantes has me particularly concerned.

For the benefit of the uninformed who were cheated out of a decent education in high school, here is the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now, by the wording of that amendment, the reason for people to have firearms is to protect themselves from aggression. Since a militia is defined as civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army, this would pretty much cover just about anyone who isn’t wearing a uniform. And since the 14th Amendment has stated that all people in this nation are to be regarded as equals (I know, saying it doesn’t make it so, but that is another can of worms we can discuss later), then why would we need to pass extra laws to state teenage black males should have special consideration to keep and bear arms?

The first part of this Amendment is the part I’d like to focus on for a moment, if you will bear with me. Specifically the word “militia“, and further the part about being trained. Obviously training would include the mechanics of the weapon, how to aim it, how to load it, how to clean it…etc. But since the definition included above says “civilians trained as soldiers“, is this really the training we are discussing?

When I was in the military, and when I was a reserve and military police officer in the San Diego area, I received the training mentioned above for a variety of weapons. I learned to aim properly, care for and clean the weapons, and how to secure them when they are not in use. But I also learned the rights and responsibility of using a firearm.

You see, in order to have a firearm, it is not enough to simply know how to use it, but much more important to know WHEN to use it, and when not to. Simply thinking you might be threatened or being afraid is not enough. You need to justify the use of “deadly force” before you use it.

Deadly force is generally defined as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. In order for deadly force to be justified there must be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or other innocents. Deadly force is that force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm.
The use of force is generally illegal unless it fits within the strict requirements of one of the four legal justifications. They are: self-defense, defense of a third person, crime prevention, and law enforcement. Each of these areas has specific requirements that must be met to avoid criminal liability. You may only use the amount of force that is reasonable and necessary in the situation.. This is judged by what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances. In a self-defense situation, it is only when the aggressor uses or attempts to use deadly force that you have the right to respond with deadly force.

Without getting into specifics, this would appear to mean that the individual holding the firearm in any given situation is burdened with a tremendous responsibility to be sure the situation warrants the use of deadly force. But this also begs the question: “Is it reasonable to assume that a person acting under duress in any of the situations mentioned above is capable of responsible, dispassionate action?”.

Since we employ people to cover the areas of Crime Prevention and Law Enforcement, and there are already procedures to hold them accountable for their use of deadly force (i.e., laws, civilian review boards, internal affairs protocols, etc.), let’s concentrate on the use of deadly force in the first two circumstances: Self Defense and Defense of a Third Person.

Self Defense has several legal definitions, depending on the state or country you live in, but I think we can reasonably agree in this discussion we are talking about defending ourselves from someone who is intent on doing us physical harm. One example I can think of is a man or woman who is concerned about a number of muggings and robberies occurring in an area who arms him or herself with a firearm to avoid being injured. If the person in question is attacked, and the attacks which have occurred prior to this instance have resulted in serious bodily injury or death, does that person then have the right to use deadly force?

You might think the answer is yes, but what if the criminal flees as soon as he sees the gun? Is the person being attacked still entitled to use that deadly force? Since the use of deadly force is for self defense, and since the threat of bodily harm no longer exists, would that shooting be justified?

I could go on and on with examples, and we could argue all sorts of variables, but I think the point to be made here is it takes responsible ownership of a firearm to fully comply with the intent of the law.

So back to the idea of arming 17 year old persons and sending them into the street under the protection of concealed carry laws. Personally, I think that is a horrendous idea, sort of like the mayor of Detroit several years back who wanted to arm young men and send them out in the streets. Or the mayor of the small town in Texas who made it mandatory for citizens to be armed. Firearms are not toys, and they should not be handed out indiscriminately. But the firearms themselves are not the problem.

Firearms are tools, mechanisms which in the right hands can provide food, stave off danger, and defend against violence. But it is ultimately the individual who is holding the firearm who is held accountable for their actions. To issue a license to an untrained, uneducated person is to invite chaos and murder. At 17, most of us have tempers which are fueled by knee jerk reactions to supposed insults, real or imagined. We often lack the emotional discipline to restrain ourselves, which is probably the greatest reason I can think of to restrict concealed carry laws to those individuals who have successfully passed a rights and responsibilities course.

By the way, this is the primary reason I am a member of the NRA. This organization is adamant in their belief that firearms should be available to persons who understand the responsibility of ownership and use.

“I think the issue is: if there wan’t an outcry in the social media world, WE would never have know anything about this. To say we don’t know YET, is absurd. If it wasn’t forced we wouldn’t know anything in the first place. Our justice system is a joke as it stands, so that the prosecutors ‘said’ they didn’t have a case of a black kid being murdered, doesn’t prove anything. All those things need to be brought to a jury, altho that doesn’t necessarily mean justice either. The stereotypes don’t do anything to help this case, either in the media or the courtroom, for Trayvon or Zimmerman. The fact that there were crimes committed in the area and this kid was wearing a hoodie (in 75 degree RAINY weather) have no correlation with each other. And the idea of drugs has ‘just’ been thrown into the mix. Why is Trayvon’s body undergoing a toxicology test and Zimmerman never was tested for anything? Additionally, I think a fatal gunshot wound is assault injury enough. You mentioned the video – do you see any wounds on Zimmerman? Questions? Yes, that need to be addressed in a court of law.”
From a discussion group, typical of many posts I have read.

I have been following this for a few days now. Several points have been made that are valid, others not so much. The facts:

(1) An armed vigilante reported a suspicious person in his neighborhood while acting as an agent for the police and was instructed not to follow the suspect.
(2) Said vigilante disobeyed orders and followed and confronted the suspect.
(3)The suspect was shot and there was no reason that has been given to shoot him.
(4) The objective of the police at this point is to attempt to cover their asses by backing the vigilante in order to save their neighborhood watch program.

Their attempts to vilify the victim only show how racist and vile they are. Since the agent for the authorities disobeyed orders, I would think they would have thrown his ass to the wolves long ago and cut their losses, but because the victim is young and black, and they fear young black men with any power over their own lives, they are attempting to justify this shooting. It is disgusting, it is reprehensible, and the killer must be brought to justice. To think that any other factor than racist hate is the issue here is absurd. Trayvon deserves Justice. His family deserves Justice, and unless Justice is served, this nation deserves what happens.

The two candidates varied little in their stances, but there were a couple of points that seemed important. One was the topic of Term Limits, which Woodmancy supports and Waterworth opposes. Woodmancy believes that Term Limits would be the first step in returning this nation to a Citizen Government and eliminate Career Politicians. Waterworth believes that having fresh congressmen in office every three terms would make them more susceptible to “big money” influences. Another would be the trade deficit, which both agree is a topic to be tackled, but Waterworth seems to think this would be the way to turn the economy around, while Woodmancy believes the way to tackled the trade deficit is to educate the public on buying choices and therefore reduce the influx of foreign goods.

Both candidates appear to support President Obama in most topics concerning the rebuilding of infrastructure and the saving of Social Security and other “entitlement” programs. However, one statement by Mr. Waterworth concerning President Obama’s health care program “Its the Christian thing to do.” tends to concern me. While I am a Christian and support Christian morality, our political system needs to be a non-partisan, non-dogmatic affair. I would rather Mr. Waterworth support these programs because they are the right ones to support.

But one thing was missing, and perhaps that is the main point. Twice before Steve Waterworth has run for this office, and twice before he has lost. What I was looking for is the answer to the question, “What makes you electable this time?” It is a question I have asked several times without a decent response. Matthew Woodmancy is an underdog on many levels, to be sure. But Matt is a young person who admits to his past mistakes, is atoning for those mistakes, and has shown himself to be knowledgeable on the issues that appear to be important in this election.

To top it off, I understand that someone has begun a “Robo-call” campaign against Woodmancy. These automated calls emphasize his past, and do not address the issues of the campaign. In short, Woodmancy has become such a threat to Waterworth that whoever is supporting Waterworth (and I do not believe this has come from the candidate himself) is so convinced that he is unelectable that they are willing to shell out hard cash to smear Woodmancy and emphasize his past to the voters. That is mud-slinging, the worst kind of politics. And I would be loathe to support a candidate who uses these sorts of tactics, either by consent or ignorance.

So we are all on the same page, this is one definition of Decency found on the web. (There are many others, but basically they all contain the same information.)

>de·cen·cy
n. pl. de·cen·cies
1. The state or quality of being decent; propriety.
2. Conformity to prevailing standards of propriety or modesty.
3. decencies

a. Social or moral proprieties.
b. Surroundings or services deemed necessary for an acceptable standard of living.

Now, I am probably just flapping my jaws here, but being decent means I don’t prejudge another’s actions until all the FACTS are in. I wasn’t the arresting officer, I wasn’t on the scene, I wasn’t in the car, and I wasn’t a witness. To my knowledge, neither was the individual who is assuming the woman is guilty without all the facts beyond the media. And that is not only a mistake, it is Indecent.

Indecency is when you prejudge without all the facts. It is a lot like prejudice or discrimination. In this case, it is akin to being a vigilante, a person with no regard for the rule of law or the system of government under which we live. A person who, unwittingly or not, is advocating “Lynch Mob” mentality instead of letting the system do its job is a person who would be willing to set fire to a neighbor’s house if they were caught dealing drugs. Granted, it is a tempting thing to do, but doing it make you an arsonist, and perhaps a murderer.

Indecency is a slippery slope, just like prejudice or discrimination. Once it is “okay” to prejudge some people and not others, once it is okay to obey some laws and not others, like say walking in the street instead of using the sidewalk, or walking across private property without the permission of the owner, the individual begins to think, “Well, its not really that important.” Once the law is not important, the police become just another thing to keep you down. Once the law is not important, you begin to think society is not important. And the end result is what we have in many areas of the country today. People who respect nothing and continue to justify anything.

At the end of the movie “Bonfire of the Vanities”, Morgan Freeman addresses an unruly courtroom and tells people that decency “is what your grandmother taught you. Its in your Bones!”. I think he was addressing something I was taught by my parents many, many years ago. They used to call manners Common Decency. Perhaps it is uncommon now, but I would like to think it is still there.

In 2010, U. S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro of Massachusetts made a similar ruling. Yesterday’s ruling falls at the heels of a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court that California’s Proposition 8, which makes illegal same sex marriage in California, is also unconstitutional. It seems the message of the Judiciary is clear. President Clinton was wrong. DOMA is wrong!

It also seems that people are starting to realize gay Americans are entitled to the same rights as all Americans. What is upsetting to me is why has it taken this long? We continue to nitpick and haggle over “Citizen’s rights”, when it is obvious. The Declaration of Independence did not equivocate, and neither should we.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created Equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…

Pretty plain, isn’t it? The authors, when they penned this note to the British, they went through at least two drafts before they came to language they could all agree on. And while the political infighting led to a document less than satisfactory (slavery was shamefully allowed in the new nation, women were not allowed to vote or hold office, etc.), the principles remain the same. Are they Utopian in nature? Of course they are, and because they are people are likely to look at them and try to explain away the better parts to some weakness of character or undue sympathy. But the principles are what they are.

It is time we start that to realize to deny rights in this nation to anyone is to deny them to everyone. We can no longer afford the human failing of intolerance to continue to segregate us. We are at a critical time in our history, and we need the best and brightest of all of us, not the chosen few. We need men and women who are able to own up their mistakes and work forward to overcome the problems we have, just as they have overcome their own. We need men and women from all walks of life, from all groups represented in this great nation, to lead, to envision, and to overcome the greed and corruption of career politicians. We need vision, we need diversity, and above all, we need participation. The apathy of the American voter has led us to these circumstances. The involvement of people who care can change it. But only when we agree that every American citizen is endowed with those “unalienable rights!”

I am amazed the same people who want to talk about using the system and respecting the law never want to give the guys with obvious errors in their past the benefit of a doubt. Let me clue you in on something. Our system of justice says that once someone has paid their debt to society, the slate is wiped clean unless they continue to screw up. Officially, this is called recidivism. That’s if the man or woman continues to screw up. If they don’t, they are deemed fit to return to society.

As far as Matt goes, I can tell you a few things that may or may not surprise you. For one, he isn’t owned by anyone. He has no great political favors outstanding, owes no one in politics, and is not beholding to any company, corporation, or PAC for any reason. For another, he went into his race knowing it would be an uphill battle, and is still standing there, with a clearly posted platform he has not backed off on since he started his campaign. Lastly, he is not only running for office and holding down a full time job, but also caring for his invalid grandmother and standing by his mother in her battle against cancer, a battle that recently included brain surgery.

If you want to talk about issues and answers, lets talk about issues and answers. If your only reason to print an article is to further defame someone, then not only are you pursuing the path of sensationalism and dirty politics, but you are obviously unable to cite any real objections to the man’s qualifications or platform.

Of particular note was Republican candidate Tom Pliura (R), running for the State Senate for the 51st District. Instead of the normal intro and bio, he instead began with a diatribe in favor of Term Limits and a return to Citizen Government. “I’m running because I am fed up!” It was refreshing because the remainder of the candidates had little to say about why they were running, although plenty to say about what needs to be fixed.

In fact, the catch words of “Fiscal Conservative” came up in almost every candidate’s presentation. Dan Brady (R), the incumbent from the 88th District, spoke passionately instead of being accessible to his constituency. Keith Sommer (R), the Illinois House Incumbent from the 106th District, bemoaned the size of government, emphasized the need to fight Obamacare, and applauded State Farm for hiring veterans. Bill Mitchell (R), currently the incumbent for the 87th District, showed up in a sweater and blue jeans, claiming he had another event that would be outdoors and apologized for being dressed “down”, then proceeded to tell us this upcoming election was one of the most important in decades. He claimed that Public Assistance programs have grown by 96% in the last 10 years, and left us with the question, can we afford it?

Three of the five candidates for the newly formed 106th district were also available. Tom Bennett (R), had no qualms about telling us he has recently been endorsed by the Illinois Farm Bureau, and is in favor of Concealed Carry. He wants to make Illinois more “Business Friendly” to keep the businesses we have and attract more. Richard Thomas (R), a Nurse and outspoken advocate for Fiscal Conservation, was at least entertaining. He has an excellent manner about him and a firm handshake. Brian Gabor (R) was the last of the three to speak, and is a solid proponent of smaller government and lower taxes. He also wants to make Illinois more business friendly.

You may have noticed with the exception of the two candidates for the 18th Congressional District, all of the other candidates were Republicans. Seems like sort of a stacked deck to me. Or, perhaps, the rumors are true and the Democrats have written off the 18th Congressional District. The incumbent, Aaron Schock, did not appear, although there was a placard for him at the atrium at corporate headquarters after the meeting.

Overall, the event was nice, but only a few individuals dropped by the breakfast, and just a few managed to drop by the atrium at corporate headquarters.

So I went to a screening of “Inside Job” last night, and was incensed by the content of the movie. Charles Ferguson who wrote, produced and directed the film, has created a film that should piss you off. If he is correct, the United States government is complicit with various firms of Wall Street in perpetrating the single largest financial fraud in history. Not only have the criminals escaped with their proceeds, something we passed laws to prevent racketeers from doing, but to date not one of these criminals has been punished, tried, or even indicted for their crimes.

There’s a full synopsis on Wiki, just click the link above. I’m not going to bore you with the details here, but there is one item in particular that puzzles me. Obama claimed he would return fiscal responsibility to our government, that he would insist the wealthy pay their share of taxes, and the guilty would be punished.

Now that should mean he would clean house, starting with the Treasury and the Cabinet, don’t you think? So why is Timothy Geithner Secretary of the Treasury? Why is Lawrence Summers the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of the National Economic Council? Both of these men have questionable background in the events that surrounded the collapse of 2008. Both of these men figure prominently in “Inside Job”.

I do have one important question for Mr. Ferguson. If your documentary is this important, if this information is so vital to the millions of Americans who need it, then why are you charging for it? If I know a bridge is out, and I see people heading for that bridge and say nothing unless I am paid for that information, what does that make me?

I am not questioning the validity of the information. But I do question the motives of anyone who wants to profit to do good.

The same is true of the often misquoted line from Timothy in the New Testament, “Money is the root of all evil.” In fact, the statement is : “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (1 Timothy 6:10, KJV.) I guess something gets stuck in our heads and we just keep repeating it. Or is it something else, something a bit more insidious?

Now, I’m not going to start some great conspiracy theory of the Illuminati or some other secret group that is dedicated to keeping the lower classes in their place. But you have to wonder why thoughts like these are constantly put in our heads. I mean if you take the misquotes as ideals of capitalism, then we must be out of our minds to continue as capitalists. Especially when you consider that money is power in our modern world. An accurate quote from Baron John Acton is:”Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” The baron was speaking of monarchies at when he said this, but the saying can be applied to wealth in this century. And the evidence is abundant.

The 2010 Supreme Court decision of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is the latest step of the wealthy and privileged to exert their power in the form of Political Action Committees, or PACs, over the poor by claiming the right to act as private citizens under the First Amendment. This flawed decision means a corporation can spend as much money as it chooses to promote the candidate of their choice, regardless of the qualifications or political affiliation of the candidate. Wealthy individuals as well, although barred by Federal Election rules from making single massive contributions to a candidate, can now give without limitation to these PACs. At the very least, this places the candidates who do not favor corporate policies at a disadvantage, since they will not receive the same funding as the favored candidates. At worst, this allows the wealthy and the corporations to inevitably place a stranglehold on the U. S. Congress that will lead to the only benefits for the wealthy and nothing for the poor.

Am I being an alarmist? Hardly. If you look at the trends around the country to curtail the rights of workers and the middle class, you can see the signs. We now have 23 states with Right To Work laws, laws that prevent unions from building their funds to fight unfair management practices. The argument is that unions are no longer needed to defend workers because the NLRB and OSHA are government agencies with the purpose of protecting labor. But a closer examination of this argument shows these agencies are simply administrative and have no real power to intervene. Their recommendations end at congress, if the corporation is unwilling to accept them, and if the congress is filled with corporate elected representatives, I am sure you can imagine what will happen to those recommendations.

So the bottom line to all this? We need to elect men to office who are willing to re-balance the laws of this nation to level the field for all. In order to do this, three fundamental goals must be accomplished.

1. Term limits must be imposed on all members of congress. Career politicians are much more subject to corruption and are much harder to catch. They learn the “ins and outs” of accepting PAC and Special Interest money without being caught. They learn to deceive, and once they learn that, someone has something over their head. To quote the plaque on Colson’s wall during the Nixon administation, “When you’ve got ‘em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.”

2. The Citizen’s United ruling must be overturned. Whether this be by an amendment to the Constitution specifically limiting the rights of the individual to mean the individual citizen, or by an attorney who is capable of arguing this through the Supreme Court, the idea of Corporate Personhood needs to be eliminated.

3. Eliminate the tax shelters and Social Security caps for the wealthy. It seems to me unconscionable those who have benefited most from living in a free nation by the labor of those who have provided their income are unwilling to contribute their fair share of revenues. Exercising our legal right to tax fairly, and eliminating caps on Social Security earnings for the individual will not significantly affect the lifestyle of the wealthy, but it will help this nation to provide vital services which are in danger of being cut to the millions of Americans who need them.

There are other issues to be addressed, but these three will level the field, and return us to what the founders intended … A Citizen Government!