liberal hypocracy knows no bounds

Are there any limits whatsoever to the hypocracy of the devotees of modern liberalism? Let's look at some examples.
1. Pres. Bush re-nominated 5 conservative justices to the federal bench and urged the Senate to quickly confirm them when they reconvene next week. Democrat Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called the nominees extremely divisive and promised to block their confirmation. None of these 5 nominees have ever been accused of a crime or any impropriety at all. They are all people of high character, but the Democrats don't want them as federal judges. Compare that to the fractured fairy tale of Alcee Hastings. Hastings was a federal judge in Florida when, in 1989, he was convicted by a Democrat-controlled Senate of accepting a $150,000 bribe in 1981 in exchange for a lenient sentence and of lying about the situation at his own trial. Shortly after Hastings was removed from the federal bench he was elected by the good liberals in his district to the U.S. House. Today, he will become the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee if the Democrats win the House in November. Why are liberals OK with Alcee Hastings, but not with the honorable people nominated by Bush?

2. Liberals are all over Mel Gibson about racism. They have ripped into people like Trent Lott and Rush Limbaugh before. We have all heard about these incidents, but we don't hear about Sen. Robert Byrd, (D.) W. Virginia using the "N" word. We don't hear about Hillary calling Ghandi a "gas station operator" in St. Louis. We don't hear about Democrats filibustering civil rights legislation in the 60's. What a bunch of frauds!

It is vitally important that Republicans get out the vote in November or these clowns will end up running the show!

stalin called them "useful idiots"

www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060829/LIVING/608290305&SearchID=73255340325202

The above link will take you to an article about a book published by the Presbyterian Publishing Corp. entitled "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11." The book was written by David Ray Griffin, an ordained minister in the Disciples of Christ denomination and a retired teacher from the United Methodist's Claremont (Calif.) School of Theology. The book accuses Pres. Bush of orchestrating 9/11 in order to promote the American empire and to establish a demonic regime here at home. Obviously, no clear-thinking American would believe one word of this tripe, but the publishing of this book is troublesome, nonetheless.
What does it say about the state of the Christian Church in America when a mainstream church publishing house decides to print such incendiary lies? Particularly when the stated goal of the author is to destroy the American republic as it currently exists and to replace it with a one-world government. Stalin was right on the money!

how to negotiate with terrorists

http://hurricaneharry.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-to-negotiate-with-terrorists.html

Hurricane Harry has a fantastic blog on Blogspot.com, and the above link will take you to what I think is the most brilliant piece of writing I have ever read about how we should be dealing with terrorism. Hurricane Harry included this link in his comment to my Lee Hamilton post from August 28, and I just wanted to feature it here in a way that would draw more attention to it. H.H.'s narrative raises a number of strong issues.

1. History shows us conclusively that talking/negotiating/appeasement won't work in the war on terror. It is guaranteed to fail, but liberals continue to believe in it. Why? The short answer is--it depends on the liberal. I believe that liberals can be divided into two categories. The first category is the Lee Hamilton-type of liberal. These liberals love their country and have integrity; they just don't happen to possess the wisdom necessary to get to the right answers on most of the issues, including terrorism. That doesn't make them bad people; it just makes them wrong.
The second category is the Jimmy Carter-type of liberal. The people in this category are despicable, treasonous, reprehensible human beings who hate America and all of the foundational principles of American republicanism. They believe that America is the root cause of all evil in the world, so they are hell-bent on destroying America with the intent of submitting us to one-world government. That can't happen if America is strong. These liberals support appeasement precisely because it would destroy us.

2. How does being a "peacemaker" fit in with utterly destroying our enemies? Doesn't the Bible command us to strive for peace, love our enemies and turn the other cheek? Aren't we expected to negotiate and appease by God? No, I don't think so. I believe that more than a few American Christians misunderstand what the word "peace" means. Make no mistake, if we refuse to aggressively combat terrorism in the name of peace, we won't get peace. Islamofacism has declared war on us and they will fight us to the death, whether we defend ourselves or not. Look at the Sudan for a real ugly picture of what that looks like! If we are to achieve real and lasting peace, we must utterly destroy Islamofacism. Every trace of this evil must be wiped off the face of the earth. If that means using nuclear weapons against our enemies, then we must have the courage to do that. If that means turning Tehran into a parking lot, then we must not waver. We will not have peace until Islamofacism is eliminated.

I am reminded of a great scene from the movie The Untouchables, starring Kevin Costner, Sean Connery, Robert DeNiro, and Andy Garcia. Connery explains "the Chicago way" to Costner, and I think it is applicable here.
Then what are you prepared to do? If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way because they're not going to give up the fight until one of you is dead....They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way....Are you ready to do that?

liberalism will get us killed

www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060828/OPINION/608280320/1002

The link above will take you to an op-ed written by former U.S. Congressman Lee Hamilton of Indiana. Mr. Hamilton is a Democrat who served in the U.S. House from 1965-1999. Currently he serves as the director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington D.C. Before I discuss the article, I need to make clear my personal thoughts about Mr. Hamilton. Lee Hamilton, a liberal Democrat, is one of the finest men who has ever served in the Congress. He is a good and decent man of integrity, and he served the citizens of south-central Indiana with honor. Mr. Hamilton is a man who loves God, America, and his family and you will never hear me say anything negative about the man's character.
Now, having said that, please allow me to say that Mr. Hamilton is flat-out wrong with the opinions he expresses in his column. To summarize, Mr. Hamilton says that the U.S. must lead by example in terms of reducing the world's nuclear arsenals. In other words, if we expect countries like North Korea or Iran to get rid of their nukes, we must first get rid of ours.
With all due respect to this good and decent man, that kind of thinking is childish and will get us killed! How many times does the strategy of appeasement have to be proven wrong before liberals finally get it? Will liberals ever gain the wisdom necessary to understand that evil on the scale of Islamofacism must be met with overwhelming force in order to destroy it? Apparently the cancer of liberalism also destroys wisdom. Mr. Hamilton is a very intelligent man, but he clearly doesn't have the ability to discern what the right course of action is in our war against terrorism.

liberalism and christianity

On several different occasions on this blog, I have talked about how one of the goals of the secular progressive--the modern liberal--is to wipe out all public expressions of Christian faith in our culture. Ann Coulter, as I have discussed on this site, calls liberalism a godless religion, and I believe that she is right. I have presented evidence on this site to prove the validity of this belief, and the liberal readers of this blog have responded angrily that I am wrong. Well, today, we have more proof.
Rasmussen Reports, an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion polling information, has released the results of a new poll concerning the religious beliefs of Americans. I put a lot of stock in what Rasmussen has to say because they are the most accurate polling outfit in the nation. They were the only polling firm to accurately project both George Bush's and John Kerry's vote totals for the 2004 election within half a percentage point of the actual results. Here is what Rasmussen says on the subject of religion in America.
Rasmussen asked Americans from all 50 states if they believed in the Bible as literal truth. The 4 states with the highest percentage of respondents answering yes were Alabama and Arkansas (75% in both states), West Virginia (70%), and Tennessee (68%). All four of those states are red states that voted for Bush. By the way, 54% of Americans nationally responded yes to that question. The northeast region of the U.S. had the lowest percentage of people who said they believed that the Bible was literal truth. In Vermont and Massachusetts, 22% of the respondents believe that the Bible is literal truth. That's a pretty big difference, isn't it? It seems that the more liberal a state is, the less belief there is in that state in the truth of the Bible.
The stats I listed above don't surprise me at all. Modern liberalism has no use for God, the Good News of Jesus Christ, or the teachings of the Bible. That's not to say that all liberals are atheists, or anything of the sort. I know liberals who are devout Christians, but they are in the minority. Let me give you some stats, however, which did surprise me.
In Arkansas, 83% of Republicans and 75% of Democrats believe that the Bible is literal truth. In Alabama, the percentages are strikingly similar. It seems that the Christian conservative portion of the population in those states have had a positive effect on the more liberal ones. Or perhaps liberalism just isn't strong enough in those states to lead people away from God.
Now let's look at the liberal counterparts to those two red states. In Vermont, 14% of Democrats and only 37% of Republicans believe in the literal truth of the Bible. In Massachusetts the percentages are almost identical. Even more surprisingly, a full 44% of conservatives in Massachusetts don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible, as compared to 41% who do. The lesson here is that we as Christians must constantly go to God in prayer, asking for His strength and wisdom so that we do not get sucked into the godless beliefs of the world. Lesson #2 is that, if we prayerfully follow Jesus' command to go into all the world and tell people the Good News of Jesus Christ, God will use us to make a difference in the lives of others.

the benefits of camping

What a great weekend! My wife and I took 2 of our kids (the 1-year old stayed with grandparents) on a weekend camping trip in Monroe County, Indiana with 4 other families from church. Monroe County is the home of Bloomington, Indiana University, and Midwest liberalism, but it is also the home of Lake Monroe, beautiful forests, and great campgrounds. It's a great place to get away from the trials and tribulations of the modern world.
As good a time as the adults had, the camping experience was even better for the kids. Combined, there was a total of 10 kids, ranging in age from 2-7. When we first arrived, I was somewhat dismayed to find that our cabins were equipped with satellite TV. Of course, the kids were ecstatic, because they couldn't bear the thought of missing even one episode of Sponge Bob Square Pants. We outlawed the TV during all daylight hours and told the kids that we were on this trip to fish and hike and swim and play outdoors. And don't you know, an amazing thing happened to our kids. They temporarily forgot about their "electronic attachments" and became true "outdoor kids" for the weekend. We went fishing at Lake Monroe. We swam and had a group squirt gun fight at the campground swimming pool. We played football and we hiked and we cooked out and we all grew closer to each other and to God during this amazing weekend. And we accomplished all of this without the aid of indoor electronics. What a blessing!

you have got to be kidding me!!!!!

http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=dw-littleleague082306&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Link to this story and try to tell me that we are not rapidly closing in on the end times foretold in Revelations! I can't even offer a comment on this story--my mind is too numb from the sheer stupidity of this Dan Wetzel guy who wrote the story. Read it and see for yourself.
This will be my last post till next week. We are leaving town tomorrow for a weekend family camping trip with some other families from church. Camping in beautiful Monroe County, Indiana--it doesn't get any better than that! Fishing, swimming, hiking, campfires, breathing fresh country air---priceless! Have a great weekend, y'all!

essential reading for those who seek the truth

There are three columns that appear on www.townhall.com/columnists/ that are absolutely essential reading for people who are at all interested in truth. The first column to link to is written by Thomas Sowell and is entitled The Point of No Return? Sowell's column outlines in fairly harsh terms the threat we currently face from Islamofacism and the danger we face in relying on appeasement to deal with that threat. When voters go to the polls this November, and again 2 years from now, we must make very sure that the people we vote for, regardless of political affiliation, understand that we cannot negotiate with terrorists and who have the courage to do what is necessary to safeguard our national security.
The second column is written by David Limbaugh and is entitled Democrats: Avoiding the Flow Chart. Limbaugh talks about how the GOP is still likely to hold control of both houses of Congress because the Democrats haven't offered any plan whatsoever with regards to protecting national security. Limbaugh does a great job in this column of holding up, side by side, the actions, plans, and statements of each party to show that the Democrats are absolutely clueless with regards to the Islamofacist threat we face today.
The third column is written by Chuck Colson and is entitled Islamic Facists? Colson does a great job of cutting through the political correctness and the liberal gobbledygook that is so prevalent today to highlight the reality of Islamofacism.
Because we live in a republic, "we the people" are going to be "The Deciders" (to quote a very 'misunderestimated' Texas rancher in the White House) with regards to how we deal with this evil called Islamofacism. It is our responsibility to be as informed as possible about the threat and to respond accordingly.

veeck, as in wreck, and eddie gaedel

The most famous stunt in baseball history occured on August 19, 1951 at Sportsman's Park in St. Louis. Bill Veeck, owner of the dreadful St. Louis Browns, hired a stage performer named Eddie Gaedel to pinch hit that day against the Detroit Tigers. Gaedel stood all of 3 feet 7 inches tall and weighed in at an imposing 65 pounds. His uniform number that day was 1/8, and, instead of regulation baseball shoes, Gaedel wore little elf slippers with the toes turned up. St. Louis manager Zach Taylor sent the diminutive Gaedel up to the plate in the bottom of the 1st inning to pinch hit for Frank Saucier. Tiger manager Red Rolfe protested, but Taylor produced an official contract signed by all concerned and filed with the American League office, so Gaedel was allowed to bat.
Veeck had instructed Gaedel to crouch as low as possible at the plate, and to not swing his little toy bat at any of the pitches. In his low crouch, Gaedel had a strike zone that measured only 1-1/2 inches, so it was next to impossible for Detroit pitcher Bob Cain to throw strikes. Gaedel walked on four straight pitches, and was promptly removed for pinch runner Jim Delsing. The crowd gave Gaedel a standing ovation, but American League president Will Harridge was less than amused. He denounced the stunt as an affront to the dignity of the game and voided Gaedel's contract the next day.
Veeck continued to employ Gaedel in later years for various non-playing stunts. In 1959, for example, Gaedel and 3 other little people dressed up as Martians and presented "ray guns" to White Sox players Luis Aparicio and Nellie Fox at a game at Comiskey Park.
The short life of Eddie Gaedel came to a sad and tragic end in June of 1961. By this time, Gaedel had become a raging alcoholic and was not in particularly good health. He was mugged in Chicago and died of a heart attack at the young age of 36.

the difference between cats and dogs, continued....

My post from August 13, entitled "The Difference Between Cats and Dogs", generated such wildly inaccurate response that I decided to address the inaccuracies in a new post. I have found that the distorted worldview of the typical secular progressive, as represented in the comments by Anonymous and Bukko, are very useful in that they present us with a teachable moment (I know how much you love that phrase, Bukko!). Let the lesson begin!
I already responded to the comments by Anonymous regarding the secular progressive position on religion in the public square, so I won't rehash that. I will respond, however, to the comments of both of them regarding the "poor" in America. Anonymous makes the comment that, since many of America's poor are single mothers, they wouldn't have the time, the money, the inclination, or the intelligence to continue their education in hopes of landing a better job. Bukko goes even further when he says, "Two countries, two sets of people, but one thing in common: these impoverished buggars were too disorganised to ever get it together. They drank too much booze, did drugs, were stupid, mentally ill, or just too scattered to ever get up the ladder. Yet they were still humans, some of God's creations, if you want to see them that way." Wow! I'll admit that I spent quite some time this week re-reading those comments, just to make sure that I wasn't somehow misinterpreting them. It's pretty clear to me that these two fine liberals view the poor as somewhat less than human. I don't ever want to hear another lecture on how "compassionate" liberals are. One more example of a liberal lie.
The best way to proceed is to outline how the Christian conservative views the poor, and how the Christian conservative believes that "we the people" should respond to the problems of the poor. First, the Christian conservative believes that there is a very big difference between the world's definition of "poor" and America's definition of the word "poor." Simply put, poor people outside the "friendly confines" of the U.S.A. would think they had died and gone to heaven if they were as wealthy as America's poor. 97% of America's poor own a color TV, and 50% own two color TV's. 75% of America's poor own a car, and 50% own their own home. 90% of the world's poor, outside the U.S., have NOTHING. They are in a 24/7 battle for survival. So it's important to understand that, although we do have a very real obligation to help the poor in this country, it's also important not to lose perspective.
Second, the Christian conservative views ALL people, rich or poor or in between, as a human being created by God. They are our neighbor, and we are commanded to love our neighbor as much as we love ourselves. We take that command very seriously.
Third, the Christian conservative believes that assistance to the poor is best handled by "we the people" on an individual basis, and corporately through our churches and local government. We believe that the federal government has no business whatsoever in giving any aid at all to the poor. Why is that? Because every single federal assistance program ever created has wasted billions of dollars giving financial aid to people who didn't need it. Because federal assistance creates more poor people. Because federal assistance takes away all incentive to work to move up the economic ladder. Because federal assistance doesn't work. It is the business of the church to take care of the poor in their communities, and the church is very effective at it. We (my family and I) participate, through my church, in a program called Interfaith Hospitality Network. IHN brings shelter, meals, and support services to families without homes. You can read more about IHN at www.nihn.org/ihn/ihn.html, and I encourage you to do so. We regularly serve as a host family. This means that we come to the church to meet the families as they return from the job training/placement programs and home search programs they attended during the day. We provide and prepare the evening meal, and we all sit down and share that meal together. We interact with the adults, play games with the kids, and pray together. It is a wonderfully successful program, and it is a blessing for all of us. The vast majority of the families sheltered by IHN go on to find their own homes, and jobs which provide sufficient compensation to maintain those homes.
Do you want an example of how federal welfare works? In New York City, 11% of all African-Americans over the age of 16 receive SSI and welfare, and only 53% hold jobs. Compare that to black Caribbean immigrants of the same age living in NYC. Only 6% receive SSI and federal welfare, and 66% hold jobs. Why? Because Caribbean immigrants are barred from government assistance for 2 years after they come here. They have to get jobs. Interesting, eh?
In a nutshell, the Christian conservative believes that helping the poor is a command given to us directly from God, and we want to do it the right way. Giving that responsibility to the federal government is not "doing it the right way."

mainstream media bias, continued...

By now, everybody in America knows about the Joe Lieberman/Ned Lamont primary battle. It would be almost impossible not to know about it; the media has been hyping that one, tiny primary in one, tiny state as a national referendum on Bush war policy for months. The outcome of that primary was the lead story in most major media outlets nationwide. In the aftermath of the primary, the media has continued their wall-to-wall coverage of this tiny primary election by doing post-mortem analysis on Lieberman's political future, the effect of this tiny primary election (less than 300,000 total voters, all of whom are Democrat and who don't like Bush) on GOP chances in November, and predictions for Lieberman/Lamont II. I think it's safe to say that, by now, everybody in America has heard of Ned Lamont.
Raise your hand if you have ever heard of Jonathan Tasini?......I don't see any hands out there. Don't tell me that all of you have missed the wall-to-wall media coverage of Jonathan Tasini! Well, the term "wall-to-wall media coverage" might be a little bit of an exaggeration. Actually, there has been ZERO media coverage of Jonathan Tasini. Mr. Tasini happens to be the far-far left senatorial candidate running against Hillary Clinton in the New York Democrat Primary, coming up on Sept. 12. He has the public endorsements of Medea Benjamin of Code Pink, actress Susan Sarandon, and filmmaker Barbara Kopple, among others. Why, then, has he been barred by NY1, New York's 24-hour news channel, from participating in the Town Hall Debate with the other candidates that they are broadcasting? Why has Tasani been ignored by The New York Times? Is it possible that the mainstream media feels they have a vested interest in making sure that Queen Hillary wins reelection to the Senate? After all, if she were to be defeated in the primary, and not even make it to the November election, her 2008 Presidential Campaign would be on life support. Heck, her presidential bid would be DOA! Tasani has complained loud and long about what he calls the "Big Media Censors", but to no avail.
Don't get the wrong idea here. I am not a Jonathan Tasani fan. If he's being supported by people like Susan Sarandon and Code Pink, that tells me evrything I need to know about Tasani, and none of it is good. That's not the point, though, is it? Big Media chooses to cover Lamont like he's the most important political figure of the 21st Century because they are mad at Lieberman for supporting "Bush's War." They can afford to sabatoge Lieberman because he has no future in the Democrat Party and everybody knows it. Big Media chooses not to sabatoge Hillary, because they consider her to be a viable candidate for President in 2008. Very interesting. Sometimes media bias raises its ugly head the highest when the media is at its quietist.

an educated view of freedom of the press

"Liberty of the press consists in the right to publish, with impunity, truth, and with good motives and for justifiable ends, whether it respects government, magistry, or individuals."---James Kent, New York Supreme Court Justice, 1804

James Kent (1763-1847) was one of the most influential and respected jurists and legal scholars of his time. He graduated from Yale in 1781, after helping to establish the Phi Beta Kappa society there in 1780. After graduation Kent became a practicing attorney in Poughkeepsie, NY. In 1793 Kent became the first professor of law at Columbia University. From 1793 to 1822, Kent also served as a New York State Assemblyman, State recorder, judge of the New York State Supreme Court, Chief Justice of the same court, chancellor of New York, and a member of the State convention to revise New York's constitution. Kent will be long remembered for his Commentaries on American Law, published in four volumes from 1826-1830. Truly, James Kent was one of the great legal minds of the 18th and 19th Centuries.

Take a close look at how James Kent defines freedom of the press. Does he say that freedom of the press means that the press can print/broadcast anything they want for whatever reason they want? Does he say that there are no limits whatsoever on the freedom of the press? Does he say that it's OK for a major newspaper to reveal classified national defense programs to the world, after the government asked them not to? Does he say that it's OK for the press to engage in a relentless and never-ending campaign to undermine a war they don't agree with and a president that they hate? No, no, and no, to all of the above. Kent invokes limiting concepts that are completely foreign to today's mainstream media; concepts such as "truth" and "good motives" and "justifiable ends." Please keep James Kent's quote locked in your mind and think about it often as you examine what the mainstream media has to offer us in the days, weeks, months and years to come.

this day in history....

Read more about all of the following at www.historychannel.com, This Day In History:

8/17/1962--- East German guards gun down a young man trying to escape across the Berlin Wall into West Berlin and leave him to bleed to death. It was one of the ugliest incidents at one of the ugliest symbols of the Cold War.

8/17/1987--- Rudolph Hess, Nazi leader Adolph Hitler's former deputy, was found dead, apparently from suicide, in Spandau Prison in Berlin. He was 93. Hess was a devout believer in Nazism and a participant in Hitler's failed "Beer Hall Putsch" in 1923.

8/17/1987--- American journalist Charles Glass escaped his kidnappers and was rescued. He had been held hostage by the terrorist organization Hezbollah for 62 days.

8/17/2006--- The president of Lebanon has ruled out disarming Hezbollah, in direct defiance of UN Resolution 1701. His reasoning? Hezbollah was the only Arab force who "stood up to Israel."

Friends (and everybody else), why is it that there are so many people around the globe, and here at home, who can't see that there is good and there is evil in this world, and who can't seem to learn the lessons that history attempts to teach us? Why is it that there are so many people who can't recognize who the good guys are and who the bad guys are?
"I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing."--Jimmy Carter, 1970's era failed president and 21st Century traitor

There is a false, and very dangerous, belief among liberals that no culture, no group of people, can be viewed as any worse than another. Well, let me take that back. Liberals do believe that there is one group of people that is the root of all evil worldwide, and that would be the people of the United States of America. We currently have, in my opinion, a very dangerous situation developing in the U.S. The liberal minority, with their distorted worldview, is the loudest, most vocal group in this country. The more conservative majority has been largely silent, content to believe that "everybody is entitled to their own opinion", and "there's two sides to every story", and "I just wish this Iraq thing would go away."

8/17/2006--- Federal judge Anna Diggs Taylor, a U.S. District Court judge in Detroit who was originally appointed by Jimmy Carter, ruled that the government's warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to the program. This is the same NSA program that was so crucial in foiling the recent 9/11 style airline bombing terrorist plot. The ACLU had filed suit in this court on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who said that the NSA program made it difficult for them to do their jobs. There is virtually no public outcry over this unconscionable decision.

I'm going to make a prediction. I will say right up front that I hope this prediction is just as wrong as my recent Lieberman/Lamont prediction, but I fear it's not. I believe that there will be another massive Islamofacist terrorist attack on U.S. soil. After all, we have to be right 100% of the time, they only have to be right once. I believe that we will realize in the aftermath of that attack that all of the liberal catterwalling over the last 5 years about "civil rights for terrorists" and "Bush lied/soldiers died" and "cut and run" and "He preyed on our fears!!!" has undermined our national security. It will be at that point that the more conservative majority of our country will wake up and demand that conservatism take the lead, but it will take the deaths of thousands to make that happen, and that's a tragedy!

"Have you forgotten how it felt that day
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away?
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside
Going through a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?
Darryl Worley

this morning's sermon and the indy crime rate

For those of you who aren't local, you may not know that as of this weekend the homicide death toll in Indianapolis stands at 95. It's the bloodiest year Indy has had since 1998. Although Indy is being governed by a Democrat mayor (for the first time in at least 50 years), you might be surprised to hear me say that the homicide problem transcends normal partisan pillow fighting. In other words, this isn't a Democrat problem, or a Republican problem. The factors that have converged to create a "perfect storm" of sorts resulting in all of this violence have been percolating for at least the last 20 years under the watch of both parties. This ain't about politics!
I don't live in Indy, but I have occasion to visit periodically, so their issues affect me. This morning in church, our pastor talked briefly about the Indy homicide rate. He related to us that he had spoken with an IPD detective earlier this week (our pastor used to be the police chaplain for IPD) and that he had asked the detective if he had any idea what was causing the sudden surge in shootings. The detective told our pastor that a new gang had moved onto the scene on the East Side, and that this gang was trying to muscle in on the drug trade there. Result--Wild West Time on Indy's East Side. The detective then told our pastor something that really struck a chord with me. He said to our pastor, "There's really more to it, though, than just a new gang. These young men (the vast majority of both the victims and the shooters have been young, black males) living on the near East Side are abandoned souls. Most of them never knew their fathers. Many of them don't even have a connection with their mothers. They have no one positive to imitate." The pastor went on and related this story to the sermon topic of "The Imitation of Christ", but my mind got stuck (sorry pastor!) on this story. These young men have no one positive to imitate.
I believe that God's original creation of this earth had a perfect symmetry to it. God is perfect and God is love. God created man in His own image in order to exist in a perfect loving relationship with man. God would love man with a love impossible for us to comprehend. Man would worship and love God totally and completely, and would submit to God's rule. In turn, God would provide us with guidance and blessings in all aspects of our lives. Man would reproduce, and would teach their children about God's perfect love and about making God the center of our lives. Our children would learn by following our example, by imitating us. That's the way everything was designed to work, until man messed it all up by giving into temptation and sin. After that, man became increasingly inclined to make himself the center of his own world. We want to do things our own way.
Now, here we are in 2006. A shockingly large percentage of American males apparently thinks it's OK to make babies, but to then take no responsibility for those babies. What are these children supposed to do? How are they supposed to learn how to be civilized members of society if they have no positive role models? Where are the fathers?
Those who know me, know that I am real big on effective parenting. The top two priorities in my life are being a good husband and being a good father. We have 3 kids (7--boy; 4--girl; 1--boy) that my wife and I are committed to raising in a way that would please God. Dads, it is absolutely vital that we spend quality and quantity time with our kids. We have to teach our sons what it means to be a Christ-like man. We must demonstrate to our sons how to love our wives in the way God commands. We must demonstrate to our sons what it means to be the spiritual leader of our families in the way directed by God. We must show our sons how to become the man that God wants them to be.
We must teach our daughters how to be a Christ-centered woman. Through our unconditional love, we must teach them that they are worthy of Christ-like love so that they will never accept anything less. We must, through the way in which we love them and our wives, show our daughters that they are beautiful, unique creations of God and that their beauty shines both inside and out.
We must, with God's loving help and guidance, protect our sons and daughters as best we can from Satan's grasp. We must teach them how to pray, and how to read the Bible, and how to worship God, and how to totally and completely rely on God's love and mercy. We must teach our children how to love God with their entire beings, how to love others as much as they love themselves, and how to tell others about the Good News of Jesus Christ. We must imitate Christ so that our children may imitate us, and so learn to imitate Christ themselves. We must do these things, Dads, for the sake of our children and for the future of our nation.

the difference between cats and dogs

Yesterday I outlined what it means to be a Christian conservative. In Point 15 of the part on conservatism, I stated that modern liberalism (or secular progressivism; the terms are interchangable) is entirely antithetical to the teachings of Christianity, the foundational principles of the American republic, and the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. I would like to go into more detail tonight on that point to show that Christian conservatives and the modern liberal are as different as cats and dogs.
It is important to understand that secular progressivism is actually a blending of two philosophies: secular humanism and progressivism. The Democrat Party of the 21st Century has been hijacked by this blended movement, which is why most Americans who identify themselves as Christian will not vote Democrat. This is a fact, by the way, that the Democrat Party has just recently acknowledged and has paid some lip service to.
According to www.secularhumanism.org/ (website for The Council For Secular Humanism), "Secular humanism is a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life. Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation." The website goes on to say that "the Council for Secular Humanism campaigns for a more secular and ethical society. It presents the case for understanding the world without reference to a god, and works to separate Church and State and defend the rights of people who do not accept religious beliefs." Also, "The Council For Secular Humanism promotes rational, human-based viewpoints on important social and ethical issues. In particular, it tackles issues where traditional religion obstructs the right to self-determination, for example, freedom of choice in sexual relationships, reproduction, and voluntary euthanasia. The Council also promotes critical thinking about supernatural and paranormal claims." I think you could safely interpret that last sentence as a reference to the teachings of Christianity. Now, my purpose here is not to debate the merits of what secular humanists believe; there will be plenty of time for that in a future post. I'm just quoting right from the source to illustrate the major differences I am talking about. That's secular humanism, and clearly it is a very different thought process than Christianity.
The second part of the philosophy of modern liberalism is progressivism. Let's outline what the progressive believes and contrast that with the beliefs of the Reagan Conservative, outlined in last night's post. I think we would all be better served if you read for yourselves what the modern progressive believes. Go to www.congressionalprogressivecaucus.org/ and click the link on the left-hand sidebar labeled "Progressive Promise." That will bring you to a page that lists 27 foundational principles of the progressive movement. Again, I don't intend to get into the relative merits of any of these promises. Just compare the mindset revealed by these 27 principles with the mindset revealed by the conservative principles I outlined last night. The conservative and the progressive view the world in two completely different (perhaps even incompatible) ways. As an example, just look at the very first principle listed. It says that the Congressional Progressive Caucus promises "To uphold the right to universal access to affordable, high quality healthcare for all." The conservative would say, "What right? Where is that 'right' found in the Constitution? If a person wants affordable, high quality healthcare then they should stay in school, get an education, and then go to work for a company that provides affordable, high quality healthcare. That's the way that tens of millions of Americans of every race, color and creed go about it every day." You see why it's real hard for there to be any compromise between the people on both sides of this issue, don't you?
Let's wrap up tonight's post by summarizing the basic beliefs of the secular progressive, then you can compare to the Christian conservative. The secular progressive believes that....

1. there is no room for traditional Christian beliefs in a modern society. The beliefs of Christians obstruct the right of the human to decide for himself/herself how best to live, and they qualify as no more than silly superstition.
2. society is best served if all expressions of Christian faith are eliminated from the public square. Any public expression of Christian faith is an affront to all rational, reasonable people.
3. humans are best guided by reason and logic, and not by an irrational belief in some sort of "heavenly ghost."
4. their political beliefs are a natural extension of their beliefs concerning religion.
5. the Constitution is a constantly evolving document which must be continually reinterpreted according to our current beliefs about right and wrong.
6. there is no such thing as "right and wrong." There is only valid progressive thought and invalid conservative thought. Sort of like--"Rule #1: The progressive is always right. Rule #2: Whenever the progressive is wrong, refer to Rule #1."
7. the powers of government must be centralized in an unelected federal judiciary populated by secular progressive judges.
8. the role of the federal judiciary is to ensure that the rights of the various special interest groups that we have assigned "victim status" to are elevated above the rights of the tyrannical majority.
9. the central government must have the power to redistribute wealth and property so that the "disadvantaged" are properly cared for. This is best accomplished by imposing high tax rates on the "advantaged" in order to fund government entitlement programs.
10. all of our wants and needs can best be provided for by a large central government that creates taxpayer-funded programs which then dole out various goods and services to satisfy those wants and needs. After all, government has a limitless capacity for doing good, provided that everyone in government shares the same secular progressive beliefs.
11. America is the root cause of most of what's wrong with the world today. America is directly responsible for global warming, world hunger/poverty/disease, and Islamic terrorism. America is the single biggest human rights violator in the world today. America is evil because America is too rich, too powerful, too arrogant, and too big. It is absolutely vital that American power and sovereignty be reigned in by global rule, led by the United Nations. The world would be an infinitely better place with a weaker America that tried to fit in better with the global village.

Like I said before--The differences between Christian conservatives and secular progressives are like the differences between dogs and cats. The secular progressive is a whole different breed of cat.

sports talk--this day in history

Today in Sports History:

1910-- Dodgers and Pirates play to an 8-8 tie; both have 38 at bats, 13 hits, 12 assists, 2 errors, 5 strikeouts, 3 walks, 1 passed ball, and 1 hit by pitch. SPOOKY!!
1934-- Making a farewell appearance in Boston, Babe Ruth draws a record 46,766 fans, with an estimated 20,000 turned away, at Fenway Park, the place where he began his career as a pitcher 20 years before.
1963-- Stan Musial announces he will retire at the end of the year.
1964-- Mickey Mantle homers from each side of the plate in the same game for the 10th and final time, a major league record, as NY beats the White Sox 7-3 at Yankee Stadium.
1974-- Nolan Ryan strikes out 19 and walks only 2 as the California Angels defeat the Boston Red Sox 4-2.
1977-- For the second straight day, Manny Sanguillien foils a no-hit bid. Today's single is off the Oriole's Jim Palmer, who settles for a two-hit 6-0 shutout. Yesterday's hit was off Mike Torrez, who finished with a two-hit 3-0 victory for the Yankees.
1986-- Don Baylor of the Boston Red Sox set an American League record when he was hit by a pitch for the 25th time of the season. That season was also the first of 3 consecutive seasons-with 3 different teams-that Baylor made it to the World Series. (The Red Sox in 1986, the Twins in 1987, and the A's in 1988. His A's were the only one of the 3 to win)
1990-- The US beats Jamaica 5-1 in the World Soccer Cup. Truthfully, I could care less (soccer is nothing more than cross country with a ball, and about half as exciting watching paint dry) but it did give me the opportunity to insult a sport I couldn't give two hoots about. (I wonder---Do they play soccer in Austrailia? If dingos steal my soccer ball, is there a penalty? Will there be any movies about the whole tragic affair? Will the dingo be awarded a cap? Just wondering.)

let's review--what it means to be a christian conservative

In the title of this blog, and also in the profile section, I identify myself as a Christian Conservative. I also state in the profile section that if we as a nation don't recommit ourselves to the principles of Christian Conservatism, which were in fact the founding principles of this country, and turn away from the secular progressivism that threatens to fatally infect us, then the United States is doomed. It would be worthwhile, I think, to review what I believe it means to be a Christian Conservative.

As a Christian, I believe that...
1. God is our Heavenly Father, the Author of life, and the Creator of all that is in heaven and earth. He created all people in His image.
2. Jesus Christ is God's one and only Son, and one with God.
3. Jesus was born of a virgin, lived as fully human and fully divine on this earth, was crucified on the cross, died, was buried, and on the third day was raised from the dead. He did all of this as the Perfect Sacrifice for our sins, so that all who believe in Him could have eternal life in paradise.
4. Jesus gave us the perfect blueprint for living our lives. Specifically, He said that we were to love God with our entire beings, that we were to love other people as much as we love ourselves, and that we were to spread the Good News to all of the world.
5. God sent His Holy Spirit to convict us of sin, to transform our hearts in God's sight, to help us remember the Word of God, to help us lead godly lives, to give us spiritual gifts for the edification of belivers, to guarantee our eternal life with God, and to empower us to be witnesses for our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
6. we are commanded to hate sin, but love the sinner.
7. my Christian faith is more important than my political beliefs. In other words, it's Christian Conservative, not Conservative Christian. We must be Christians first, last and always, and then we can be conservatives.

As a conservative, and, specifically, a Reagan Conservative, I believe that...
1. my political beliefs are a natural extension of my religious beliefs. Simply put, I do not believe that we should look to politics and government for our salvation. I do believe that we must look to God and His Son Jesus Christ for our salvation, and then work like crazy for the salvation of the governed.
2. "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 are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its power in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."--Thomas Jefferson said it better than I ever could.
3. in the words of Ronald Reagan, "Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of God is acknowledged."
4. the Constitution says what it means and means what it says. In other words, let's have none of this rubbish about a "Living Constitution."
5. the Constitution was written to protect us from the possibility of our government taking our God-given rights away from us.
6. the principles of federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, popular sovereignty, majority rules, protection of the God-given rights of the minority, and the rule of law are all woven into the very fabric of our Constitution and must be followed to the letter with no deviation.
7. the judicial branch was always intended to be the weakest of the three branches.
8. the republic cannot survive without a religious and moral citizenry who in turn elect virtuous leaders.
9. life and liberty are only secure so long as our property rights are secure.
10. prosperity is highest in a free market economy with minimal government regulation and low taxes.
11. government, for the most part, should leave us alone and stay out of our lives.
12. we have allowed our federal government to become almost uncontrollable in areas of our lives that it was never intended to have power over. We have allowed that to happen because "we the people" have decided that "Mommy and Daddy Government" must provide for our every want.
13. There is good, and there is evil in this world. When the forces of evil threaten us, the evil must be defeated.
14. America is a "tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here (legally). Quote comes from Ronald Reagan's Farewell Address, except for the word legally, which I added.
15. modern liberalism, or secular progressivism, is a cancer that is threatening to destroy our nation and our world. It is a philosophy that is entirely antithetical to the teachings of Christianity, the foundational principles of the American republic, and the beliefs of our Founding Fathers.

That, my friends, is Christian conservatism in a nutshell. Over the next week or so I will give examples of specific issues that the United States is dealing with, and show how those issues can best be resolved through the philosophy of Christian conservatism.

God bless the fathers, each and every one of us!

"...if you ask me, I mean, a Dad is an irreplaceable person in a girl's life. Think about it! There's a whole day devoted to celebrating Fathers. Just imagine someone's life without a Father. Never buying a Father's Day card, never sitting on their Father's lap, never being able to say 'Hi Dad!', or 'What's up Dad?', or 'Catch you later Dad!'. I mean, a baby's first words are always 'Da-Da', aren't they?"----Lindsay Lohan in The Parent Trap

"One night, a father overheard his son pray: 'Dear God, please make me the kind of man my Daddy is.' Later that night, the Father prayed, 'Dear God, please make me the kind of man my son thinks I am.' "---Anonymous

Ten Ways To Be An All Pro Dad (from www.allprodad.com)--- Love your wife, spend time with your children, be a role model, understand your children, show affection, enjoy your children, eat together as a family, discipline with a gentle spirit, pray and worship together, realize you are a father forever.

mike douglas dies on his 81st birthday

Mike Douglas, the wonderfully talented host of the afternoon talk show bearing his name, died this morning. Today was his 81st birthday.
During those years that "The Mike Douglas Show" ran (1961-1982), Douglas did about 6000 shows (most of which were 90 minutes) that featured 30,000 guests from every field imaginable, including 8 former, present or future presidents.
Douglas once said of his show, "People still believe that "The Mike Douglas Show" was a talk show, and I never correct them, but I don't think so. It was really a music show, with a whole lot of talk and laughter in between numbers."
For those of you who remember "The Mike Douglas Show", I'm sure you will have as many fond memories of it as I do. May God bless Mike and his family.

lessons in national security and conservatism

Over the past 36 hours or so, the world has become a "classroom". We here in the United States, as well as citizens of the other countries of the free world, are the students. Our "professors" are the proponents of both liberalism and conservatism, found in the worlds of academia, the media, and politics. The name of this vitally important course that we find ourselves immersed in is "Who Is Better Able To Protect Us--Liberals Or Conservatives?". What I would like to do here is to provide you with links to some of the "lessons" that have been presented so far.
Lesson #1 can be found at www.foxnews.com. On the right hand side of the home page you will see the box labeled "Free Video." Click on the link that says "click here for more video." That brings up the foxnews.com Free Video Player. Click on the link that says "National" and then click on the box with the picture of Rudy Guiliani. You will be able to see the video of the Hannity and Colmes interview with the former New York mayor. The video is refreshing in one sense, in that there is no yelling or screaming or interrupting. It offers the viewer the opportunity to see very clearly the difference between the conservative worldview and the liberal worldview. You will be able to see that Mr. Guiliani becomes a little frustrated with Alan Colmes, because Colmes just doesn't get it. Islamofacism has been determined to destroy Israel, the United States, and every other part of the Christian or Jewish world since at least the 1970's. In other words, the war on terror has been going on a lot longer than 9/11/01; we just weren't fighting back. Islamofacism hates us, not because of anything we have done, but because of who we are. We are "infidels" who must be converted, or killed. Negotiation/appeasement is impossible. This is a must-see video.
Lesson #2--Earlier this week, Connecticut Democrats voted to purge Joe Lieberman from the party, for the sole reason that he supports the war in Iraq. Now, mind you, Sen. Lieberman has been very vocal in his opposition to many parts of the war on terror in general. This lines him up with the far left of the Dems. He has fought against the most successful parts of Bush's anti-terrorism strategy, such as the NSA wiretapping, mining of phone records, etc. He just happens to believe that the war in Iraq was the right thing to do, so he has become "unclean", a leper in the eyes of the Democrat establishment. His opponent, Ned Lamont, opposes every part of the war on terror and supports our complete surrender in the fight. In light of recent events, who do you think is right? This is a "test question" we can't afford to get wrong.
Lesson #3--Three links to look at:
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0%2C%2C1840841%2C00.html

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51483

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/8/11/172237.shtml?s=ic

You will find both liberal and conservative opinions concerning the war on terror in these 3 links. Sen. Harry Reid (D) reveals a profound misunderstanding of the realities of a post-9/11 world when he talks about how the American people won't be fooled by the Republicans saying that they are stronger on national security. I have news for the delusional senator from Nevada. The anti-terrorism programs Pres. Bush put in place have worked, in spite of all attempts by the left to sabatoge those programs. The cooperation that Bush has been able to create among the leaders of the free world led to intelligence sharing that absolutely prevented another 9/11. This in spite of the liberal fiction that our president is a modern-day Lone Ranger who has no support from anyone else in the world. We are not cleaning up airplane wreckage and body parts scattered along the Atlantic Seaboard today, precisely because we have a president who, like "America's Mayor" Guiliani, clearly recognizes the threat we face and is determined to eliminate that threat.

a textbook full of lessons

http://boortz.com/nuze/200608/08102006.html#alert

I don't always agree with everything Neal Boortz has to say. He's way too libertarian on some issues for my taste, but for the most part I do find that Boortz makes a lot of sense. The above link is must-read material. It is an absolute textbook on why the American electorate would be foolish to ever vote liberals back into power. I would go so far as to say that the survival of our country would be endangered by a return to power of the forces of liberalism. Go through this page from the Boortz web site, explore what's offered there and try to tell me that liberals have any clue whatsoever as to how to govern in this post 9/11 world.

one picture is worth a thousand words

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060807.html

Look at the picture, read the accompanying information, and then just try to discuss Al Gore's new sci-fi flick with a straight face. Wow!

dodging a whole bunch of bullets!

By now, everybody has seen the news about the 21 Islamofacist terrorists who were arrested by Great Britain. It seems that they were plotting to blow up 10 airplanes enroute from Britain to the U.S. sometime later this week. Their capture was the result of a cooperative effort between British and American intelligence. Phone calls by the terrorists were intercepted thanks to the "controversial" NSA wiretapping program. Another 9/11-type disaster was averted because George Bush and Tony Blair had, and continue to have, the courage and the wisdom to stay the course in their fight against Islamofacism, in spite of the withering criticism they are blasted with on a daily basis. Thank God for men of courage! They are few and far between in these uncertain times. To the Anti-Bush Brigade that occasionally checks into what I'm writing, I would say this: Your side of the political divide will become completely irrelevent unless you come up with a competent national security plan to counter what the president is doing. The American people will not vote for a slate of candidates whose entire platform can be summed up in three words (We Hate Bush!). You will have to do a little better than that if you expect to make a difference.

On a somewhat different note (although I will streeeetch to make a connection!), today is the 30th anniversary of the arrest of Son of Sam (David Berkowitz) in New York City. Read all about it at:
www.historychannel.com/today/.

As I read the History Channel account, several questions popped into my head:

1. How long would Berkowitz's killing spree have lasted if the NYPD had approached his mayhem the same way that liberals want to approach the war on terror? In other words, tackling the problem through negotiation and appeasement. Thankfully, the NYPD is the greatest police force on the face of the earth, so they approached the deaths in the right manner. They put together the Omega Squad and worked 24/7 to restore law and order in New York. God bless the brave men and women of the NYPD!
2. Supposedly, Berkowitz has accepted Christ into his heart while in prison. If that is true, I confess that, because I am an imperfect, sinful human, I have mixed feelings. In my head, I know that if we truly accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, he will forgive every sin we have ever committed, or will commit in the future. I know that, I believe that, and I am grateful for that. In my human heart, though, I wonder how in the world Son of Sam can expect to live in heaven for eternity with God. When God calls me home, I know that he will open my mind and heart to His perfect wisdom, and for that I am also grateful.
3. The History Channel site mentions that NYC endured a horrific heat wave that summer. There was even a 25-hour blackout in mid-July. Now wait just a ding-dong minute! I thought that global warming didn't start until the day that George Bush was inaugurated! Someone needs to 'splain this to me!

when you're wrong, you're wrong

Well, don't I look clueless after Joe Lieberman lost to Ed Lamont yesterday! Easy come, easy go. It certainly isn't the first time I have been wrong about something. Clearly, I underestimated the passion and the voter turnout among the lunatic fringe of the left in Connecticut. The wingnuts got out the vote and they gave a good and decent man a swift kick in the pants. I find that to be a little bit sad.
What's amusing, though, is how those same wingnuts are interpreting that one particular primary as a nationwide referendum on the war in Iraq and on the competence of George Bush. Not so fast, my friends! take a look at the following links:
www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/8/9/150505.shtml and;

www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/8/8/232848.shtml?s=lh

The first link is for a column by Dick Morris and the second link is for a column by Ed Koch. They're not part of the vast right wing conspiracy are they? They provide analysis of the Lieberman/Lamont outcome and predictions for November. Some highlights:
1. Lamont received 140,000 votes yesterday, compared to 130,000 for Lieberman. The Lamont votes came from people who passionately believe that Bush and Lieberman are evil, and that Lamont is the savior of Connecticut Democrats. It's not likely that he will receive substantially more votes in November (according to Morris).
2. It is likely that 1 million people will turn out for the November election in Connecticut. According to Morris, Lieberman will retain the 130,000 he got yesterday, plus a substantial number of GOP and independent votes. It seems that the GOP candidate is a deadbeat, degenerate gambler. Republican voters won't be as likely to vote for him as they would for Lieberman.
3. Koch believes that Lieberman's loss will energize the more sane members of the Democrat Party, and that they will rally around Lieberman.
Very interesting! By the way, in the Michigan 7th District GOP primaries, staunch conservative challenger Tim Walberg defeated moderate incumbent Joe Schwartz. It will be interesting to see how that race shakes out.

lieberman will win

I am going to take a shot at political forecasting here. I predict that Joe Lieberman will defeat Ned Lamont today in Connecticut. The good people of Connecticut won't throw a great statesman like Lieberman out of office. remember you heard it here first!

let there be light! 8/8/88

On August 8, 1988, the great city of Chicago saw an event that had never happened before--the Chicago Cubs played a night game at Wrigley Field. The venerable old ball park had been the only park in the majors without lights, but that all changed in 1988. The Cubs played the Philadelphia Phillies on that historic night, but the game was rained out in the 4th inning. The first official game under the lights was the next night, Aug. 9, against those same Phillies. Some baseball observers thought that the Cubs had been at a competitive disadvantage because they had played all of their home games in the heat of the day. The theory was that being able to play more home games in the cool of the night would make the Cubs stronger and more competitive. Guess what? Lights didn't help! Oh, well, a day (or night) spent in Wrigleyville still ranks as one of life's great pleasures!

what the world needs now...fewer parks and more bars

Al E. Polin Park is a little half acre park just a few blocks north of downtown Indianapolis. It has playground equipment designed for kids 6 and under, and grass to run on and roll around on. Because the park is small, and because it doesn't have a basketball court, the older kids who play more aggressively go to another, bigger park nearby. This has allowed Polin Park to become something of a safe haven for the many single moms and their smaller children who live in this poor, predominately black neighborhood. Well, I should say, this used to be a safe haven. The playground equipment has been dismantled and the announcement has been made that this little spot of greenery in downtown Indy will be turned into a parking lot. Why in the world would somebody want to take a treasure like Polin Park and destroy it?
Well, it just so happens that the park is adjacent to the Julia M. Carson Government Center, which houses the Center Township Trustee's office. It also houses the campaign headquarters for Rep. Julia M. Carson (D), Indiana, a proud member of both the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus. According to Carl Drummer, the Center Township Trustee, the decision has been made, with the blessing of Rep. Carson, to open a full service bar/restaurant in the Carson Government Center, and they will need additional parking for that bar. Mr. Drummer told The Indianapolis Star that the new bar, which he will be the landlord of, will be "a place where African-American professionals can go after work and relax and network and and enjoy one another's company." The people in the neighborhood who used to play in the park will just have to find somewhere else to play, because the new bar needs parking spaces.
I'm a fairly inquisitive guy, and when I read this story, several questions came immediately to mind. Such as:
1. Is it legal to put a bar in a government office? I truly don't know the answer, but I'm curious.
2. Assuming that it is legal, is it a good idea to put a bar in a government office? Is it a smart thing to do? I don't think so, but I invite other opinions.
3. What new duties will the Township Trustee have as the landlord of the bar? Will it detract from his constitutional duties as the trustee?
4. What about the money angle? If the bar doesn't succeed, are the taxpayers of Center Township on the hook at all? Does the Trustee get additional compensation?
5. BIG QUESTION--Who in the world thinks that it's a good idea for local government to turn a park into a parking lot for a bar?
6. BIG QUESTION II-- I thought liberals were real big on the environment? How does that square with turning a park into a parking lot?
7. LAST BIG QUESTION--Carl Drummer says that the bar is for African-American business professionals. Does that mean that white folks aren't allowed? What should be the reaction to Mr. Drummer's exclusionary attitude? What would the reaction be if Indy's white mayor announced that a new bar was being built at the City-County Building for white Indianapolis professionals?
I am going to be very interested to see how this whole incident plays out. See the link below for the full story.
www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060807/NEWS01/608070402

what do al gore and gene roddenberry have in common?

Apologies in advance, all of you liberal devotees of "Al Gore's Church of the Rising Sun." Here are some more facts to debunk all of those very convenient lies Big Chief Broken Thermometer is spreading around.
Everybody "knows", don't they, that the recent heat wave is proof positive that Pres. Bush must be impeached before global warming cooks us up like a bag of microwavable popcorn? Right? Not so fast, my friends, to quote the great geophysicist Lee Corso. From June 1-August 31, 1930, Washington D.C. had 21 days of plus-100 degree weather. All-time heat records were established on 9 of those days, and they haven't been broken yet. That same summer of 1930 also marked the beginning of the longest drought of the 20th Century. In 1934, dry regions stretched from New York and Pennsylvania across the Great Plains to California. A "dust bowl" covered almost 50 million acres in the south-central plains during the winter of 1935-36. That was 70 years ago sports fans!
You know what I think happened? I think that the evil Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush cabal got into Mr. Peabody's Wayback Machine with Sherman, and time traveled back to the '30's to screw up their weather, just like they are doing today! Or maybe it just gets hot in June/July/August and the temperature fluctuates up some years and down other years. What are your thoughts, all ye liberal troglodytes?

a faithful and righteous man

Now that all of the NFL training camps are in full swing, and the exhibition games have started, ESPN and NFL Network are showing the official 2005 highlight films for each of the NFL teams. Today I watched the Indianapolis Colts 2005 highlights, and was reminded of what an emotional roller coaster sports is. The Colts won their first 13 games, and then lost 3 of their next 4 games, including the stunning playoff loss to the Pittsburgh Steelers. As disappointing as those losses were to the Colts and their fans, they don't compare to the devastating loss suffered by Head Coach Tony Dungy and his family. The week before Christmas, Dungy's oldest son, James, committed suicide in his Tampa apartment. Unless you have actually experienced the death of a child, it is impossible to fully comprehend the unspeakable pain the Dungy family must have endured. I have 3 kids, and I know that if something happened to one of them it would be like having my soul torn out of my body.
From this horrible tragedy, however, emerged an amazing story. Dungy had left the team and was in Florida with his whole family grieving and making funeral arrangements. Obviously, he wasn't in constant touch with the media during that time, but he was communicating with the Colts management and players, as well as former players, coaching collegues, and family friends. Many of those people did talk to the media, and they all told the same story. They had talked to Dungy, hoping to offer him some small words of comfort during this excruciating ordeal. Without exception, they all said that Dungy comforted them. Colts Fuhrer Bill Polian (locals will understand that reference) held a press conference where he talked about how amazingly strong and upbeat Dungy was, and how Dungy had actually been a comfort to him. Polian commented that Dungy was strengthened through his Christian faith and that he (Dungy) was holding up better than anyone could possibly imagine. Dungy resumed his full workload with the team the week after the funeral and finished out the season coaching the Colts.
On the morning before Super Bowl XL, Tony Dungy was the featured speaker at the Athletes in Action breakfast at the Marriott Renaissance in Detroit. When he told the crowd that he was going to talk about the lessons he had learned from his three sons, the crowd fell silent. It had only been 5 weeks since James' funeral. You can read much more about Dungy's comments at www.suffering.net but I would like to "spotlight" one particular quote here.
"People ask me, 'How did you recover so quickly.' I'm not fully recovered. I don't know that I ever will be. It's still very, very painful, but I was able to come back because of something one of my good Christian friends said to me after the funeral. He said, 'You know James accepted Christ into his heart, so you know he's in heaven, right?' I said, 'Right, I know that.' He said, 'So, with all you know about heaven, if you had the power to bring him back right now, would you?' When I thought about it, I said, 'No I wouldn't. I would not want him back with what I know about heaven.' That's what helped me through the grieving process. Because of Christ's Spirit in me, I had that confidence that James is there, at peace with the Lord, and I have the peace of mind in the midst of something that's very, very painful. That's my prayer today, that everyone in this room would know the same thing."
When I read Hebrews 11, I don't see Tony Dungy's name listed as one of the great heroes of faith, but he certainly qualifies as a modern day hero of faith.

the great stem cell debate

I have made the comment on several occassions that about half of everything you read in the mainstream media is made up. The global warming myths are a great example of that. Another great example concerns the debate over stem cell research. In the days surrounding Pres. Bush's veto of the embryonic stem cell research bill, I have been stunned by the dishonesty of the media as they attempt to sway public opinion on this very important issue. I'm going to list for you the most egregious lies on this topic from the left and their PR wing in the media, and I will show you what the facts really are.

1. Pres. Bush vetoed legislation allowing embryonic stem cell research. Wrong! Embryonic stem cell research is completely unrestricted in the U.S., and it will continue to be unrestricted. The bill that Pres. Bush vetoed would have provided government (that means taxpayer) funding for that research. You can look it up!
2. Embryonic stem cell research has made significant progress in finding cures to many diseases. Wrong! Embryonic stem cell research hasn't resulted in any progress in curing disease or healing the human body. In contrast, there are currently 73 different diseases that are being successfully treated using adult stem cells. Stem cells from placentas and from umbilical cords can be used to successfully treat 70 different genetic illnesses. How about that Dr. Hwang Woo Suk!
3. Conservatives who oppose embryonic stem cell research care more about scraps of protoplasm than they do about fellow humans who are sick and disabled. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Conservatives care about life! For everybody!! Let's deconstruct this myth. First, embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of human embryos. Conservatives view that as murder. Second, conservatives believe that it is immoral and real cruel to the sick and disabled to sink millions of dollars, and our faith and hope, into research that has produced exactly zero results, especially when there has been so much success using adult stem cells, cord blood, and placentas. If "we the people" are going to foot the bill for research that could result in cures for paralysis, etc., we want that research to be successful.
4. Liberals who oppose Bush's veto are more compassionate and caring for their fellow man than are the evil conservatives. That's a load of manure! Liberals have turned the Democrat Party into the "Death Party." Liberals are hell-bent on advancing embryonic stem cell research precisely because it involves the destruction of human embryos. Liberals don't care in the least whether or not the research is successful, they just love to kill embryos! Why else would liberals insist that all federal money be poored into the one branch of stem cell research that has been the least successful? It's all about the death, baby!

take the test

Here's some fascinating reading that even includes a short test. I highly recommend it.
www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=061406B

the first will be last, and the last will be first

Then Peter said to Him, "We have given up everything and have followed You. Then what will we have?" Jesus said to them, "For sure, I tell you, when all the earth will be new and the Son of Man will sit on His throne in His shining-greatness, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, and judge the twelve family groups of the Jewish nation. Everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands because of Me, will get a hundred times more. And you will get life that lasts forever. Many who are first will be last. Many who are last will be first."---- Matthew 19: 27-30 (New Life Version)

Clarence "Chip" Hoosier was a "nobody" in the eyes of the world, but he was a great man and a faithful servant in the eyes of God. Chip Hoosier was a devoted husband, father, and grandfather. As a deacon at St. Bridget's Catholic Church in Indianapolis, he was also a strong spiritual leader for his church family. At 9:45 ET Wednesday night, 57-year-old Chip Hoosier, a cab driver, was shot to death in his Yellow Cab and robbed of the few dollars he had in his pocket.
This story won't make national news. Mr. Hoosier wasn't a young, white, pretty, blonde, blue-eyed female, so Greta Van Susteren of FOX News won't be setting up a command post on Indy's West Side for "wall-to-wall coverage." You won't see breathless updates about Mr. Hoosier on CNN, MSNBC, or any of the other "alphabet" purveyors of liberalism. Don't you dare, however, make the mistake of thinking that Mr. Hoosier's life didn't matter. His life mattered a great deal, and he will continue to matter even after his untimely death.
Mr. Hoosier was called by God to minister to the hungry and the needy. He was in charge of his church's food pantry. He donated the use of his cab to take those in need to the doctor, to school, to work, or to church. He used his cab to deliver supplies from the food pantry to the hungry. His job as a cab driver became the "vehicle" for his ministry, and he worked tirelessly to fulfill God's three basic commands to us: love God with your entire being, love other people as much as you love yourself, and spread the Good News of Jesus Christ to all the world. Clarence "Chip" Hoosier lived a life worthy of mention in the same breath as other great heroes of faith, as talked about in Hebrews 11. Now he lives with God in His perfect, heavenly home. Please pray for the family, friends, church, and ministry of Mr. Clarence Hoosier.

http://wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5237593 will link to video and the full story.

Aug. 4, 1944

Acting on a tip from a Dutch informer, the Nazi Gestapo captured 15 year old Anne Frank and her family in a sealed-off area of an Amsterdam warehouse. The Franks had been in hiding there for 2 years because they feared being deported to a Nazi concentration camp. See link:
www.historychannel.com/today/

There are a lot of parallels between the story of Anne Frank and the events of the 21st Century. Anne and her family were in hiding because of an unspeakable evil that was trying to destroy them. World opinion was against the Jews in the years leading up to WWII. Most of the world thought that this unspeakable evil led by Adolph Hitler could be bargained with, negotiated with, and appeased. The Franks received invaluable help from concerned Christians. The Jews had factions within their own communities--kapos (Jewish Nazi police), their Judenrat (Council of Elders administrating Nazi policy), and other assorted collaborators and informants--who believed that it was possible to "make nice" with the Nazis to ensure their survival. They were fatally wrong. Let's not forget the lessons of the past as we deal with the complexities of the present and the future.

In a second world war, we learned there is no isolation from evil. We affirmed that some crimes are so terrible they offend humanity itself. And we resolved that the aggressions and the ambitions of the wicked must be opposed early, decisively, and collectively, before they threaten us all. That evil has returned, and that cause is renewed.----Pres. George W. Bush on 11/10/01

Tonight, I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve, for the children whose worlds have been shattered, for all whose sense of safety and security has been threatened. And I pray that they will be comforted by a power greater than any of us, spoken through the ages in Psalm 23: "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me."---Pres. George W. Bush on 9/11/01

...and now for the untruth

Just as it's important to take notice when a man like Ed Koch speaks the truth (see the post below), it is also important refute the liberal lies that are so often fed to us as if they were the gospel truth. A great example is a recent column by Anna Quindlen concerning "chaos" in Iraq. Let's go through the column step by step and see if we can't refute each of the "untruths" she calls facts.
www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060730/3062618.asp

She begins her column by questioning the conservative position that if America "cuts and runs" from Iraq, chaos will be the result. Quindlen's point is, "So what? Chaos already reigns in Iraq." To buttress her point, she points to the "fact" that a 14 year old girl was raped and murdered by 5 U.S. soldiers. This supposed "fact" has not as yet been proven. As I have said many times before, about half of everything one reads in the mainstream media is made up. How sure was the mainstream media that the Duke lacrosse team was guilty of rape? That was a "fact", wasn't it. Well, it was a fact until we found out that it wasn't a fact and that the "victim's" story had more holes than a golf course. I would prefer to let the investigation play out before we make a judgement on those soldiers. Quindlen points to bombs going off in neighborhoods and civilians being shot on a bus to further support her claim of chaos. Clearly, according to Quindlen, there's just too much "chaos" and it's all our fault.
We could go round and round arguing about whether or not all of this "chaos" is acceptable or not, and we would just end up right back where we started. I would like to pose a different question---Do Quindlen and her liberal friends believe that Iraq was better off with the "ordered structure" of the Saddam regime? There certainly wasn't any of that dreaded chaos under Saddam, was there? Everybody knew right where they stood, and life was tranquil, and 70 innocent people (on average) were murdered every day by their own government. The dreaded "chaos" that Quindlen whines about, the murderous "chaos" that liberals say is so bad for Iraqi civilians, would take over 120 years to kill as many people as were murdered by the Saddam regime! How can Quindlen insinuate that Iraqis are worse off now?
Later in the column, Quindlen trots out the liberal "oldies but goodies"-- Bush lied, soldiers died, WMD were never found, poor dumb Americans were lied to so often by Bush that we are all hoplessly confused today, thank goodness for the tireless liberal media stepping in to help us poor saps sort the whole mess out. Quindlen and her comrads just refuse to acknowledge the fact that over 500 chemical and biological weapons have been found, as well as yellow cake uranium, chemical weapons labs and the like. All of this has been well documented, but liberals refuse to see.
Quindlen talks about the congressional debate last month concerning withdrawal, and pooh-poohs it as nothing more than political posturing. FACT--The "cut and run" question was put to a vote, and it was soundly defeated by Republicans and Democrats alike. That's what we call "bipartisanship."
At the very end of the column, Quindlen does a flip that would make John Kerry and Cirque de Sole proud. She says, "Iraq may even be better off." Huh? I thought she had spent the previous 10 paragraphs saying that Iraq is not better off! So which is it? This little sentence was so reminiscent of John Kerry's whoppers, that I had to laugh! I suppose even a committed liberal like Quindlen has to tell the truth once in awhile. Then she says that it is America that is worse off, obviously ignoring the fact that American soil and American interests haven't been attacked by terrorists since 9/11. She must have forgotten about "the good old '90's" when those kinds of terrorist attacks were so much more commonplace.
It is the duty of conservatives all across our country to know the truth, and to speak the truth. The liberal lies being spread by the "cut and run" crowd, and their willing accomplices in the mainstream media, must be countered with the truth.

god bless ed koch!

Ed Koch, former U.S. Congressman and former mayor of New York, is no conservative. He has views on various topics (particularly social issues) that I disagree with. It's important, however, to celebrate when a national figure as prominent as Mr. Koch speaks the truth. Link to www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/7/28/131856.shtml to view Mr. Koch's July 29 column concerning Israel and Hezbollah. Mr. Koch doesn't mince words. He says that Israel is acting correctly, and would be justified in being even tougher in their response. He condemns Hezbollah for the cowardly way in which they hide behind innocent women and children. This column is "must-reading", especially for those who still cling to the delusion that appeasement/negotiating can take the place of military action in dealing with Islamofacism.

let's lighten the mood a little bit

Everybody (including me) is so serious all of a sudden! Let's lighten things up a little bit with my 10 strongest opinions (I am a pretty opinionated guy, after all). Kind of like a Letterman Top 10 List! Here we go with Hondo's 10 most strongly held beliefs:

10. The 1975-76 Cincinnati Reds was the greatest baseball team of all time. Their Most Important Player (contrary to popular opinion) was 1B Tony Perez. Rose, Bench and Morgan got more media attention, but Perez was the "straw that stirred the drink." After the Reds traded Perez for the '77 season, they immediately circled the drain, and didn't make it back to the World Series until 1990.
9. Guys like Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, Carlos Santana and Joe Walsh are rightly considered to be historic guitar players and great makers of music, but, daggone, where's the love for Toy Caldwell? He ranks every bit as high as any of these other legends.
8. Jim Rockford (James Garner) and Barney Fife (Don Knotts) are the 2 greatest TV characters of all time. Brenda Johnson (Kyra Sedgewick from The Closer) and Vic Mackey (Michael Chiklis of The Shield) are 3rd and 4th.
7. There is nothing in the world as fun as sitting outdoors and watching a baseball game. Any baseball game.
6. Old Comiskey was the greatest ballpark I have ever watched a game in, followed closely by old Bush Stadium in Indianapolis.
5. Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th Century. He ended stagflation, he restored American pride and hope after the disastrous Carter administration, he lowered taxes, he strengthened our military and our national defense, and he ended the Cold War. All in a day's work for a great conservative! In all of history, only George Washington and Abraham Lincoln rank above Reagan.
4. Our Founding Fathers were Christians, not Deists. They built this country on the rock-solid teachings of the Bible.
3. We as a country have a choice. Do we follow the principles of Reagan conservatism towards peace and prosperity, towards life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Or do we follow the principles of modern liberalism towards socialism, secular progressivism, economic disaster, crippled national security, and one-world government under the United Nations?
2. I believe in God's love for us, the Good News of Jesus Christ, the foundational principles of the American republic, the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, the clear-thinking common sense of Reagan conservatism, and the relationship between all of the above.
1. Romans 10:4-10 (The Message): The earlier revelation was intended simply to get us ready for the Messiah, who then puts everything right for those who trust him to do it. Moses wrote that anyone who insists on using the law code to live right before God soon discovers it's not so easy--every detail of life regulated by fine print! But trusting God to shape the right living in us is a different story--no precarious climb up to heaven to recruit the Messiah, no dangerous descent into hell to rescue the Messiah. So what exactly was Moses saying?
The word that saves is right here, as near as the tongue in your mouth, as close as the heart in your chest. It's the word of faith that welcomes God to go to work and set things right for us. This is the core of our preaching. Say the welcoming word to God--"Jesus is my Master"--embracing, body and soul, God's work of doing in us what He did in raising Jesus from the dead. That's it. You're not "doing" anything; you're simply calling out to God, trusting Him to do it for you. That's salvation. With your whole being you embrace God setting things right , and then you say it, right out loud: "God has set everything right between Him and me."

let's try that link again

The link I provided in my response to Kevvyd about global warming didn't "link up" properly. Here is the link again:
www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Conservative Lesson #17--One conservative truth will trump a thousand liberal lies.

take a deep breath, part 2

Let's talk some more about my recent posts. I have one quick comment to close out the Mel Gibson saga, then we'll talk about global warming.
True Confession Time: I am an ex-Fall Down Drunk who retired from the "Bar Wars" 10 years ago. During those years that I was on "active duty", I logged enough miles drunk driving to qualify for the Indy 500. A former "wingman" of mine from the Bar Wars was killed drunk driving last Christmas. He never retired from "active duty." Today, I look back on those days and I thank God that I am still alive. I am ashamed of the illegal, immoral, and really stupid things I used to do, and I am thankful beyond measure for God's forgiveness. Do I know Mel Gibson's heart? No. Do I know if his apologies are sincere? No, but he expressed such remorse in his statement that I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Is Gibson just trying to cover his a--, because he spewed Anti-Semitic garbage at the policeman? I don't know. I wasn't there. I do know that many, many members of the mainstream media hold a grudge against Gibson because of the success of Passion. I also know that about half of what you see/hear in the mainstream media is made up. I'll hold off on making any bold pronouncements on Gibson's remarks until we find out what the truth is. If it's true that he made all of those bigoted comments to the officer on the scene, Gibson will deserve our scorn.
On to global warming. Ann Coulter talks in her book about how liberals "believe" in global warming with a religious intensity, and I think we can see proof of that here. All of the claims about global warming are based upon computer models that attempt to predict what the weather will do in the future. Those computer models are based solely upon the data that scientists plug into the models. That data consists of information culled from the history of weather, and of beliefs the scientists have about the future trends of the weather. Can't you see (as Toy Caldwell would say) what this says about the computer models? The models can be made to say anything the scientists want them to say, and they get paid to come to a certain conclusion. I'm certainly not going to take the word of a serial liar like "Broken Thermometer" Gore on the subject. We must be very careful as we discuss this topic, because the goal of many of the devotees of global warming around the globe is to weaken the U.S. economically and militarily. many of them also have as their goal a subordination of U.S. sovereignty to one-world governance. None of the above is good for we the people of the United States.

some of y'all need to take a deep breath!

Well, to quote fom Henry Martin's comment, I sure did stir up a can of worms with my views on global warming and Mel Gibson. There were so many comments (most of which hit at least one liberal talking point) that I thought it best to respond in a whole new post.
Let's start with Mel Gibson. Tim accused me of "pointing my finger at liberals." I guess he came to that conclusion because I called Gibson a "standup conservative" and because I ridiculed the saints of the liberal religion--the Kennedy family and Bill Clinton. Well, let's look at the facts. Gibson is a conservative, right? Gibson didn't give any B.S. excuse for his actions, did he ("I had a bad reaction to medication" or "The cops lied" or "I was sleepwalking")? No. He told the truth, he expressed remorse and shame for his actions, he made no excuses, and he stands ready to accept his punishment. By definition that makes him a standup guy. The examples I used of people who didn't "stand up" did happen to be mostly liberal, but only because they were the most obvious examples to spring to mind. Feel free to supply conservative examples of Clinton-esque or Kennedy-esque behavior if it warms your liberal hearts to do so.
Dan said that I trivialized drunk driving. This is a perfect example of what I call liberal warfare. Dan the Liberal is upset that I am not jumping on the bandwagon to hang Gibson, so he takes the GIANT LEAP to "Hondo trivializes drunk driving." That's not true, and nothing in my original post even suggests that it is true. What Gibson did was illegal, immoral, and horribly wrong. He should be punished as the law prescribes. He should also be admired because, contrary to another untruth in Dan's comment, Gibson went against the normal Hollywood response (excuses, excuses, excuses) and actually expressed shame, remorse and repentance. There were some other comments left by "anonymous" (it doesn't take a CSI detective to see who "anonymous" is!) that fall under the category of "ignorant, mindless bigotry." I won't dignify those with a response. I will leave some responses to certain specific comments--you can look at those if you wish.
Well, I hear my kids stirring around in the other room, so the rest of my comments will have to wait until later today. It's time for Daddy to fix breakfast. Duty calls!