Sunday, October 29, 2006

the passing of a legend

Red Auerbach, the Hall of Fame coach and architect of the Boston Celtics dynasty of the late 50's and the 60's, died of a heart attack yesterday. He was 89. Go to the link for a whole package of tributes to this basketball legend.
Auerbach was one of my heroes growing up, and as I have gotten older I have learned to appreciate him even more. He was honest, he had integrity, he demanded accountability from everyone in the Celtics organization, and he was the greatest winner in the history of the sport. He was also a devoted husband and father and was fiercely loyal to his family and friends. The sport of basketball has lost a great champion , and his family and friends have lost a great man. He will be sorely missed.

Saturday, October 28, 2006

what happens if the democrats win in november?

If the Democrats win control of either the House or Denate, or both, in November, you can bet on all of the following being part of their agenda:
1. Raise taxes on everybody and everything.
2. Surrender in Iraq, give up on the war on terror.
3. Turn over all national security and foreign policy decisions (Iran, North Korea, Islamofacism, border security, etc.) to the United Nations.
4. Bog down the Bush administration with bogus charges, wild accusations and endless investigations.
5. Legalize human cloning and expand embryonic stem cell research. Make the right to unlimited abortion on demand a federally-protected right for women of all ages. Legalize gay marriage. Provide unlimited federal funding (that mean's the people's money confiscated via taxation) for all of the above.
I don't believe that a majority of Americans support that kind of an agenda. If you go to the following link:
you will find a lot of great information pertaining to the possibilities of a Democrat win in November. It makes for good Halloween reading!

the wisdom and character of pres. reagan

Pres. Ronald Wilson Reagan's Farewell Address to the Nation, although given in 1989, is still relevant today. We the people of the 21st Century would do well to heed his warnings and to follow his direction.

Farewell Address to the Nation

January 11, 1989

My fellow Americans:

This is the 34th time I'll speak to you from the Oval Office and the last. We've been together 8 years now, and soon it'll be time for me to go. But before I do, I wanted to share some thoughts, some of which I've been saving for a long time.

It's been the honor of my life to be your President. So many of you have written the past few weeks to say thanks, but I could say as much to you. Nancy and I are grateful for the opportunity you gave us to serve.

One of the things about the Presidency is that you're always somewhat apart. You spend a lot of time going by too fast in a car someone else is driving, and seeing the people through tinted glass -- the parents holding up a child, and the wave you saw too late and couldn't return. And so many times I wanted to stop and reach out from behind the glass, and connect. Well, maybe I can do a little of that tonight.

People ask how I feel about leaving. And the fact is, ``parting is such sweet sorrow.'' The sweet part is California and the ranch and freedom. The sorrow -- the goodbyes, of course, and leaving this beautiful place.

You know, down the hall and up the stairs from this office is the part of the White House where the President and his family live. There are a few favorite windows I have up there that I like to stand and look out of early in the morning. The view is over the grounds here to the Washington Monument, and then the Mall and the Jefferson Memorial. But on mornings when the humidity is low, you can see past the Jefferson to the river, the Potomac, and the Virginia shore. Someone said that's the view Lincoln had when he saw the smoke rising from the Battle of Bull Run. I see more prosaic things: the grass on the banks, the morning traffic as people make their way to work, now and then a sailboat on the river.

I've been thinking a bit at that window. I've been reflecting on what the past 8 years have meant and mean. And the image that comes to mind like a refrain is a nautical one -- a small story about a big ship, and a refugee, and a sailor. It was back in the early eighties, at the height of the boat people. And the sailor was hard at work on the carrier Midway, which was patrolling the South China Sea. The sailor, like most American servicemen, was young, smart, and fiercely observant. The crew spied on the horizon a leaky little boat. And crammed inside were refugees from Indochina hoping to get to America. The Midway sent a small launch to bring them to the ship and safety. As the refugees made their way through the choppy seas, one spied the sailor on deck, and stood up, and called out to him. He yelled, ``Hello, American sailor. Hello, freedom man.''

A small moment with a big meaning, a moment the sailor, who wrote it in a letter, couldn't get out of his mind. And, when I saw it, neither could I. Because that's what it was to be an American in the 1980's. We stood, again, for freedom. I know we always have, but in the past few years the world again -- and in a way, we ourselves -- rediscovered it.

It's been quite a journey this decade, and we held together through some stormy seas. And at the end, together, we are reaching our destination.

The fact is, from Grenada to the Washington and Moscow summits, from the recession of '81 to '82, to the expansion that began in late '82 and continues to this day, we've made a difference. The way I see it, there were two great triumphs, two things that I'm proudest of. One is the economic recovery, in which the people of America created -- and filled -- 19 million new jobs. The other is the recovery of our morale. America is respected again in the world and looked to for leadership.

Something that happened to me a few years ago reflects some of this. It was back in 1981, and I was attending my first big economic summit, which was held that year in Canada. The meeting place rotates among the member countries. The opening meeting was a formal dinner for the heads of government of the seven industrialized nations. Now, I sat there like the new kid in school and listened, and it was all Francois this and Helmut that. They dropped titles and spoke to one another on a first-name basis. Well, at one point I sort of leaned in and said, ``My name's Ron.'' Well, in that same year, we began the actions we felt would ignite an economic comeback -- cut taxes and regulation, started to cut spending. And soon the recovery began.

Two years later, another economic summit with pretty much the same cast. At the big opening meeting we all got together, and all of a sudden, just for a moment, I saw that everyone was just sitting there looking at me. And then one of them broke the silence. ``Tell us about the American miracle,'' he said.

Well, back in 1980, when I was running for President, it was all so different. Some pundits said our programs would result in catastrophe. Our views on foreign affairs would cause war. Our plans for the economy would cause inflation to soar and bring about economic collapse. I even remember one highly respected economist saying, back in 1982, that ``The engines of economic growth have shut down here, and they're likely to stay that way for years to come.'' Well, he and the other opinion leaders were wrong. The fact is, what they called ``radical'' was really ``right.'' What they called ``dangerous'' was just ``desperately needed.''

And in all of that time I won a nickname, ``The Great Communicator.'' But I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: it was the content. I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation -- from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I'll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery, a rediscovery of our values and our common sense.

Common sense told us that when you put a big tax on something, the people will produce less of it. So, we cut the people's tax rates, and the people produced more than ever before. The economy bloomed like a plant that had been cut back and could now grow quicker and stronger. Our economic program brought about the longest peacetime expansion in our history: real family income up, the poverty rate down, entrepreneurship booming, and an explosion in research and new technology. We're exporting more than ever because American industry became more competitive and at the same time, we summoned the national will to knock down protectionist walls abroad instead of erecting them at home.

Common sense also told us that to preserve the peace, we'd have to become strong again after years of weakness and confusion. So, we rebuilt our defenses, and this New Year we toasted the new peacefulness around the globe. Not only have the superpowers actually begun to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons -- and hope for even more progress is bright -- but the regional conflicts that rack the globe are also beginning to cease. The Persian Gulf is no longer a war zone. The Soviets are leaving Afghanistan. The Vietnamese are preparing to pull out of Cambodia, and an American-mediated accord will soon send 50,000 Cuban troops home from Angola.

The lesson of all this was, of course, that because we're a great nation, our challenges seem complex. It will always be this way. But as long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours. And something else we learned: Once you begin a great movement, there's no telling where it will end. We meant to change a nation, and instead, we changed a world.

Countries across the globe are turning to free markets and free speech and turning away from the ideologies of the past. For them, the great rediscovery of the 1980's has been that, lo and behold, the moral way of government is the practical way of government: Democracy, the profoundly good, is also the profoundly productive.

When you've got to the point when you can celebrate the anniversaries of your 39th birthday you can sit back sometimes, review your life, and see it flowing before you. For me there was a fork in the river, and it was right in the middle of my life. I never meant to go into politics. It wasn't my intention when I was young. But I was raised to believe you had to pay your way for the blessings bestowed on you. I was happy with my career in the entertainment world, but I ultimately went into politics because I wanted to protect something precious.

Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: ``We the People.'' ``We the People'' tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us. ``We the People'' are the driver; the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which ``We the People'' tell the government what it is allowed to do. ``We the People'' are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past 8 years.

But back in the 1960's, when I began, it seemed to me that we'd begun reversing the order of things -- that through more and more rules and regulations and confiscatory taxes, the government was taking more of our money, more of our options, and more of our freedom. I went into politics in part to put up my hand and say, ``Stop.'' I was a citizen politician, and it seemed the right thing for a citizen to do.

I think we have stopped a lot of what needed stopping. And I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.

Nothing is less free than pure communism -- and yet we have, the past few years, forged a satisfying new closeness with the Soviet Union. I've been asked if this isn't a gamble, and my answer is no because we're basing our actions not on words but deeds. The detente of the 1970's was based not on actions but promises. They'd promise to treat their own people and the people of the world better. But the gulag was still the gulag, and the state was still expansionist, and they still waged proxy wars in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Well, this time, so far, it's different. President Gorbachev has brought about some internal democratic reforms and begun the withdrawal from Afghanistan. He has also freed prisoners whose names I've given him every time we've met.

But life has a way of reminding you of big things through small incidents. Once, during the heady days of the Moscow summit, Nancy and I decided to break off from the entourage one afternoon to visit the shops on Arbat Street -- that's a little street just off Moscow's main shopping area. Even though our visit was a surprise, every Russian there immediately recognized us and called out our names and reached for our hands. We were just about swept away by the warmth. You could almost feel the possibilities in all that joy. But within seconds, a KGB detail pushed their way toward us and began pushing and shoving the people in the crowd. It was an interesting moment. It reminded me that while the man on the street in the Soviet Union yearns for peace, the government is Communist. And those who run it are Communists, and that means we and they view such issues as freedom and human rights very differently.

We must keep up our guard, but we must also continue to work together to lessen and eliminate tension and mistrust. My view is that President Gorbachev is different from previous Soviet leaders. I think he knows some of the things wrong with his society and is trying to fix them. We wish him well. And we'll continue to work to make sure that the Soviet Union that eventually emerges from this process is a less threatening one. What it all boils down to is this: I want the new closeness to continue. And it will, as long as we make it clear that we will continue to act in a certain way as long as they continue to act in a helpful manner. If and when they don't, at first pull your punches. If they persist, pull the plug. It's still trust but verify. It's still play, but cut the cards. It's still watch closely. And don't be afraid to see what you see.

I've been asked if I have any regrets. Well, I do. The deficit is one. I've been talking a great deal about that lately, but tonight isn't for arguments, and I'm going to hold my tongue. But an observation: I've had my share of victories in the Congress, but what few people noticed is that I never won anything you didn't win for me. They never saw my troops, they never saw Reagan's regiments, the American people. You won every battle with every call you made and letter you wrote demanding action. Well, action is still needed. If we're to finish the job, Reagan's regiments will have to become the Bush brigades. Soon he'll be the chief, and he'll need you every bit as much as I did.

Finally, there is a great tradition of warnings in Presidential farewells, and I've got one that's been on my mind for some time. But oddly enough it starts with one of the things I'm proudest of in the past 8 years: the resurgence of national pride that I called the new patriotism. This national feeling is good, but it won't count for much, and it won't last unless it's grounded in thoughtfulness and knowledge.

An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn't get these things from your family you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed you could get a sense of patriotism from the popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special. TV was like that, too, through the mid-sixties.

But now, we're about to enter the nineties, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren't sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven't reinstitutionalized it. We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs production [protection].

So, we've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion but what's important -- why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those 30 seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, 4 years ago on the 40th anniversary of D - day, I read a letter from a young woman writing to her late father, who'd fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, ``we will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did.'' Well, let's help her keep her word. If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual.

And let me offer lesson number one about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.

And that's about all I have to say tonight, except for one thing. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the ``shining city upon a hill.'' The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, 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 the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.

And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was 8 years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

We've done our part. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for 8 years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger, we made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.

And so, goodbye, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Note: The President spoke at 9:02 p.m. from the Oval Office at the White House. The address was broadcast live on nationwide radio and television.

great wisdom from all pro dad

If you are a parent, you should read this. We talk a lot about missionaries in our churches, but I think that term is misunderstood. There are millions of "missionaries" in our world today who probably don't think of themselves as missionaries. They are called "parents." There isn't a more important mission in the world than the mission we are called to as parents. This is where the "rubber meets the road"; this is where the "game is won or lost"; this is (insert favorite sports cliche). We must teach our children to love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength; we must teach our children to love others as much as they love themselves; we must teach our children to live as "lights of the world." All Pro Dad is a great resource for parents who wish to follow God's guidelines for successfull parenthood.;&version=31

sing to the Lord every day!

David's Psalm of Thanks-- 1 Chronicles 16:7-36

7 That day David first committed to Asaph and his associates this psalm of thanks to the LORD :
8 Give thanks to the LORD, call on his name; make known among the nations what he has done. 9 Sing to him, sing praise to him; tell of all his wonderful acts.
10 Glory in his holy name; let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice.
11 Look to the LORD and his strength; seek his face always.
12 Remember the wonders he has done, his miracles, and the judgments he pronounced,
13 O descendants of Israel his servant, O sons of Jacob, his chosen ones.
14 He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth.
15 He remembers [b] his covenant forever, the word he commanded, for a thousand generations,
16 the covenant he made with Abraham, the oath he swore to Isaac.
17 He confirmed it to Jacob as a decree, to Israel as an everlasting covenant:
18 "To you I will give the land of Canaan as the portion you will inherit."
19 When they were but few in number, few indeed, and strangers in it,
20 they [c] wandered from nation to nation, from one kingdom to another.
21 He allowed no man to oppress them; for their sake he rebuked kings:
22 "Do not touch my anointed ones; do my prophets no harm."
23 Sing to the LORD, all the earth; proclaim his salvation day after day.
24 Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous deeds among all peoples.
25 For great is the LORD and most worthy of praise; he is to be feared above all gods.
26 For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens.
27 Splendor and majesty are before him; strength and joy in his dwelling place.
28 Ascribe to the LORD, O families of nations, ascribe to the LORD glory and strength,
29 ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name. Bring an offering and come before him; worship the LORD in the splendor of his [d] holiness.
30 Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
31 Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad; let them say among the nations, "The LORD reigns!"
32 Let the sea resound, and all that is in it; let the fields be jubilant, and everything in them!
33 Then the trees of the forest will sing, they will sing for joy before the LORD, for he comes to judge the earth.
34 Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever.
35 Cry out, "Save us, O God our Savior; gather us and deliver us from the nations, that we may give thanks to your holy name, that we may glory in your praise."
36 Praise be to the LORD, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting. Then all the people said "Amen" and "Praise the LORD."

Thursday, October 26, 2006

interesting pre-election analysis

Christ light shines vs canada apostasy

This is a great article from the blog "The Conservative Voice." You will find a link to the blog on the sidebar, but the above link will take you to the specific story. Christ's Light shines brightest in the darkness! Enjoy!

liberal dishonesty and michael j. fox

By now, everybody, I'm sure, has become aware of the Michael J. Fox/Rush Limbaugh controversy. The liberal drive-by media, true to form, is trying to turn this story into a personal battle between the Evil, Arrogant Rush Limbaugh and the thoroughly-likable Marty McFly/Alex P. Keaton. As usual, the drive-by media has the story wrong. This is a story of liberal dishonesty and the predictable attempt by the left to suppress opposing viewpoints by any means necessary. Let's go through the story point-by-point, leave out the emotion, and stick to the facts.
1. Michael J. Fox has recorded campaign commercials for several Democrat candidates around the country--Rep. Benjamin Cardin (Senate candidate in Maryland), Claire McCaskill (Senate candidate in Missouri) and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle (running for re-election). In each of the spots, Fox makes the claim that the GOP opponents of each of these candidates are opposed to stem cell research, and that a vote for the GOP is a vote against the poor victims of such horrific diseases as Parkinson's Disease. Fox has Parkinson's, and in the commercials his symptoms are extremely pronounced. You can visibly see the shakes and tremors, and it is heartbreaking to watch. I like Michael J. Fox, I'm a fan, and it is tragic that he has been stricken at such a young age with this disease. There is just one problem:
2. These campaign ads are not telling the truth. They are dishonest. None of the Republican candidates criticized by Fox are against stem cell research. All of them fully support adult stem cell research, and research using umbilical cord blood. Another way of saying that is, the GOP candidates fully support the only successful forms of stem cell research. What they do oppose is embryonic stem cell reasearch, which has produced zero success since its inception. Be that as it may, none of the GOP candidates support criminalizing embryonic stem cell research. They just don't want to expand it or provide federal funding for it. Those are the facts, and they are beyond dispute.
3. Rush Limbaugh discussed this issue on his hugely successful radio show, and made all of these very same points. Immediately, the liberal media screamed that El Rushbo was mean, that he ridiculed Fox, and that Limbaugh was aginst finding a cure for diseases. None of this is true. What Limbaugh did say, in addition to the points I have already made, is that he thought that Fox was either off his meds, or was "acting" to exaggerate his symptoms. He based this opinion on the fact that Fox's symptoms are not so pronounced when you watch him in shows like "Boston Legal." As it turns out, Fox freely admits that he temporarily goes off his meds when he testifies before Congress, or when he speaks out publically about Parkinson's. He wants people to see for themselves an unfiltered picture of the ravages of this disease. Limbaugh was right.
4. All of the hullabaloo over this story clearly illustrate several basic truths about liberalism.
Truth #1---Whenever liberals want to persuade you to take a certain position on a certain issue, they will select a spokeperson who, in some way, is a "victim", and they will tell conservatives that, because of the "victim status" of the spokesperson, dissenting opinion is prohibited.
Truth #2--Liberals do this because they know that a majority of Americans are somewhere on the right side of the political spectrum, and that this majority would never voluntarily support the cockamamie liberal agenda. Therefore, liberals must use deception, sleight of hand, and subterfuge to advance their agenda.
Truth #3--The louder liberals scream, the more sure you can be that they have been caught in a lie. It's like the old joke--"How can you tell when a liberal is lying? Their lips are moving, and they are hysterical!"
In a future post, I will focus on the stem cell debate in Missouri, and the fight over Constitutional Amendment 2--The Stem Cell Initiative. That name is dishonest, by the way. The initiative is actually a proposed amendment that would legalize human cloning, but that's a story for a future post.

so this is what liberals mean by a "living constitution!"

New Jersey's State Supreme Court has ordered their State Legislature to craft legislation extending the rights of marriage to gay couples, and the court has imposed a 180 day deadline to pass the law. The vote was 4-3, but don't let that fool you. The only reason the 3 dissenters voted against the decision is because they didn't think the decision goes far enough. Honest! read the article for yourself.
There are many things about the article and the court decision that just blow my mind. Let me give you an example.

"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for New Jersey's four-member majority. Translated, that means, "Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution! The law means what we say it means!"

Along that same line, does it strike anyone else as bassackwards that the judicial body of New Jersey is ordering the legislative body of New Jersey to pass a certain law? Friends, friends friends! We must stop the madness! It is not the job of the judicial branch to pass laws. That is the defined job of the legislative branch. I was heartened to read the quote in the article from Assemblyman Richard Merkt, R-Morris, who vowed to have the justices impeached. Mr. Merkt said, "Neither the framers of New Jersey's 1947 Constitution, nor the voters who ratified it, ever remotely contemplated the possibility of same-sex marriage." He's right. Now I don't believe that he any chance in the short term to accomplish impeachment. After all, Republicans are the minority party in both houses of the New Jersey legislature. I'll tell you what will happen, though. New Jersey Republicans will use this as a campaign issue in future elections. Republicans know that there is not one single state in the contiguous 48 (I'm not so sure about Alaska and Hawaii) where a majority of the people are in favor of gay marriage. If New Jersey Republicans are not timid about campaigning on this issue, they could take the majority in both houses during their next election cycle. Then they could successfully impeach and remove any secular progressive judge that ignored the law and their constitutional obligation to faithfully uphold the law.

independent verification of the truth i spoke

Take a look at my post from yesterday, Oct. 25, entitled, "The Racism of Democrats--The Greatest Story Never Told." After you read that, go to the following link:

The author of that column is Roland S. Martin. Biographical/background information about Mr. Martin can be found at:

Perhaps I was on to something with my post. It appears that Mr. Martin would at least partially agree.

stick a fork in them--they're done!

It's all over but the shouting, sports fans! The GOP will lose a few seats in the House and the Senate, but they will retain control of both houses in November. The Democrats, as usual, have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, so that all that remains is for the Democrats to decide what lame excuse they will use this time for their defeat.
How do I know this? I know this because it has become clear that the Democrats have run out of money for the critically important campaigning that remains to be done. They have thrown in the towel on some races that they thought they had wrapped up just one short month ago. They are becoming even more shrill, if that is possible. And the GOP base has been energized by the race-baiting, the attack ads, and such, which means that GOP turnout should be pretty good. God bless America!

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

the racism of democrats--the greatest story never told

FACT: A Republican President freed the slaves, despite the murderous, nation-splitting opposition of Southern Democrats.
FACT: A Republican Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866--Democrat President Andrew Johnson vetoed the bill.
FACT: 80% of House Republicans and 82% of Senate Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Only 63% of House Democrats and 69% of Senate Democrats voted for the bill.
FACT: Sen. Robert Byrd, D-Virginia, is a former member of, and recruiter for, the Ku Klux Klan. The most senior member of the U.S. Senate filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 hours.
FACT: Sen. Byrd was assisted in his filibuster effort by Sen. Al Gore Sr., D-Tennessee. Gore was the leader of the "Segregationist Democrats."
FACT: Former President Bill Clinton (Democrat) frequently praises former Senator J. William Fulbright, D-Arkansas, and former Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus (Democrat) as two of his most influential mentors. Both were proud Segregationist Democrats. Faubus was the governor who refused to obey Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower's executive order to desegregate Arkansas schools. Eisenhower had to call out the U.S. Army to enforce desegregation in Little Rock.
FACT: Senate Democrats resorted to creating a bogus sexual harrassment claim against Clarence Thomas to keep him from sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, says that Thomas has been an "embarrassment" to the Supreme Court, and compared one of Justice Thomas' dissenting opinions to the writings of an 8th grader. Go to the following link and judge for yourself:

Today, the target of Democrat racism is Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele, an African-American conservative. Go to this link:

Read about the racial invectives hurled at Mr. Steele. Ask yourself 4 very important questions:
1. When have you ever heard a Republican spew filth like this?
2. What do you think the reaction of the drive-by media would be if a Republican ever did say ignorant stuff like this?
3. Why does the drive-by media ignore Democrat racism?
4. Is it any wonder that we are starting to see an erosion of the African-American support for the Democrat Party?

FACT: If the Democrats lost just 5% of the black vote, they would never win another presidential election. If they lost 10% of the black vote, the Democrat Party would become irrelevent. If they lost 20%--just one in five black voters--of the black vote, the Democrat Party would cease to exist. Nationwide, African Americans are becoming increasingly frustrated with Democrat positions on gay marriage, school voucher programs, abortion and high taxes. Knowing all of that, you would think that Democrats would be a little more careful with their words. I suppose that the inbred racism and bigotry of the Democrat Party is something that they just can't change.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

liberal hypocracy knows no bounds

On Monday, Oct. 23, Al Gore appeared in Berkley, CA to "change people's minds on the climate crisis and to support Prop 87" (Gore's words). Prop 87 is a ballot imitiative that would tax the oil companies to raise $4 billion for green energy projects. He was riding in a "100 miles per gallon" Toyota Prius.

The Prius was part of a motorcade that included 3 motorcycles, 2 limos, and a Dodge Ram 1500 light duty truck. Hmmmm....

Also, I wonder what kind of mileage the airplane that Gore flew in on gets?

Maybe, Gore finally realizes that the whole global warming thing is a myth. After all, how reliable could climate predictions for the next 50 years really be when the accuracy of the local 5-day forcast is a 50-50 proposition?

Monday, October 23, 2006

modern liberalism and the culture of death

I've said it before and I will continue to say it until my dying day. Modern liberalism, or secular progressivism, is a disease of the heart, soul, and mind. It renders the victim completely unable to differentiate between right and wrong, fact and fiction, good and evil, justice and injustice. Back in August, I wrote about the basic beliefs of the secular progressive, and it's not pretty:

Link to the article at the top and you will see why it is so vital that Christian conservatives get off the bench, into the game, and fight with all of our strength against this evil that is destroying so many innocent lives. How can we profess to having God's love within us if we do any less?

Sunday, October 22, 2006

here is the Word of God for the people of God; thanks be to God!

Jude 1 (The Message)
The Message (MSG)
Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson

Jude 1:1-2 "I, Jude, am a slave to Jesus Christ and brother to James, writing to those loved by God the Father, called and kept safe by Jesus Christ. Relax, everything's going to be all right; rest, everything's coming together; open your hearts, love is on the way!
3-4 Dear friends, I've dropped everything to write you about this life of salvation that we have in common. I have to write insisting—begging!—that you fight with everything you have in you for this faith entrusted to us as a gift to guard and cherish. What has happened is that some people have infiltrated our ranks (our Scriptures warned us this would happen), who beneath their pious skin are shameless scoundrels. Their design is to replace the sheer grace of our God with sheer license—which means doing away with Jesus Christ, our one and only Master.
5-7 I'm laying this out as clearly as I can, even though you once knew all this well enough and shouldn't need reminding. Here it is in brief: The Master saved a people out of the land of Egypt. Later he destroyed those who defected. And you know the story of the angels who didn't stick to their post, abandoning it for other, darker missions. But they are now chained and jailed in a black hole until the great Judgment Day. Sodom and Gomorrah, which went to sexual rack and ruin along with the surrounding cities that acted just like them, are another example. Burning and burning and never burning up, they serve still as a stock warning.
8 This is exactly the same program of these latest infiltrators: dirty sex, rule and rulers thrown out, glory dragged in the mud.
9-11 The Archangel Michael, who went to the mat with the Devil as they fought over the body of Moses, wouldn't have dared level him with a blasphemous curse, but said simply, "No you don't. God will take care of you!" But these people sneer at anything they can't understand, and by doing whatever they feel like doing—living by animal instinct only—they participate in their own destruction. I'm fed up with them! They've gone down Cain's road; they've been sucked into Balaam's error by greed; they're canceled out in Korah's rebellion.
12-13 These people are warts on your love feasts as you worship and eat together. They're giving you a black eye—carousing shamelessly, grabbing anything that isn't nailed down. They're—

Puffs of smoke pushed by gusts of wind;
late autumn trees stripped clean of leaf and fruit,
Doubly dead, pulled up by the roots;
wild ocean waves leaving nothing on the beach
but the foam of their shame;
Lost stars in outer space
on their way to the black hole.

14-16 Enoch, the seventh after Adam, prophesied of them: "Look! The Master comes with thousands of holy angels to bring judgment against them all, convicting each person of every defiling act of shameless sacrilege, of every dirty word they have spewed of their pious filth." These are the "grumpers," the bellyachers, grabbing for the biggest piece of the pie, talking big, saying anything they think will get them ahead.
17-19 But remember, dear friends, that the apostles of our Master, Jesus Christ, told us this would happen: "In the last days there will be people who don't take these things seriously anymore. They'll treat them like a joke, and make a religion of their own whims and lusts." These are the ones who split churches, thinking only of themselves. There's nothing to them, no sign of the Spirit!
20-21 But you, dear friends, carefully build yourselves up in this most holy faith by praying in the Holy Spirit, staying right at the center of God's love, keeping your arms open and outstretched, ready for the mercy of our Master, Jesus Christ. This is the unending life, the real life!
22-23 Go easy on those who hesitate in the faith. Go after those who take the wrong way. Be tender with sinners, but not soft on sin. The sin itself stinks to high heaven.
24-25 And now to him who can keep you on your feet, standing tall in his bright presence, fresh and celebrating—to our one God, our only Savior, through Jesus Christ, our Master, be glory, majesty, strength, and rule before all time, and now, and to the end of all time. Yes."

i love ed koch!

There are certainly many issues that I disagree with Ed Koch on---socially, he is way too liberal for me---but I find that there are many things that I do agree with him on. Koch calls himself a "liberal with sanity", and differentiates himself from the mental midgets and radical wingnuts that currently control the Democrat Party. The above links are for his 4 most recent columns, as found on I confess that I felt somewhat nauseated when he stated in one of the columns that he supports Hillary for president in 2008, but there is a whole lot of true wisdom to be found in the rest of his writings. This ranks as "must-read" political commentary.

the truth will set you free

Juan Williams is an NPR senior correspondent and a FOX News contributor. He's a little liberal for my taste, but I do enjoy listening to him because his positions are always very well thought out and because he's not part of the "Hate America" crowd.
The link will take you to a article about his new book, entitled "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Deadend Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--And What We Can Do About It". I would encourage you to read it.
The part of the article that really resonated with me was at the very end, where Williams referenced a Pew Research Center poll that found that 66% of all African-Americans agree with the 75% of white Americans who say that too many blacks are too dependent on the government. That is a very telling statistic, and it should scare the living daylights out of Democrats. If the GOP could siphon off as much as 5% of the black vote in future presidential elections, the Democrat Party would cease to exist. I guarantee that will blacks will abandon the Democrat Party and come back home to the GOP, if the Democrats don't give up on their anti-democracy positions on affirmative action, school voucher programs, and high taxes.

Friday, October 20, 2006

how can we make a difference if we aren't different?

"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men. You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." Matthew 5:13-16

Those of us who call ourselves Christians have to understand that we are commanded by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to make a difference in this world. These Bible verses from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount make it very clear that we fulfill that command by being different than the world. The fundamental problem in our world today, in my opinion, is that we Christians are not following Jesus' command to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. We are not following our mandate to be different than the world.
The notes in my Study Bible say that if a lamp doesn't help people see, it is useless. The purpose of our light is to show other people how to find God and how to live for Him. The notes in my Study Bible say that there are lots of ways that we hide our light. We can become complacent and satisfied with what we have done in the past. We can let stubborness, resentment or disobedience dim our light. We can stay quiet, instead of speaking out against sin and injustice. We can fail to explain our light to others, or ignore the needs of others. On the other hand, our light shines brightest when we follow Jesus' three most important commands to us, which are:
1. Love God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength.
2. Love other people as much as we love ourselves.
3. Tell others about the Good News of Jesus Christ.

Make no mistake about it, there is a war raging in our world today, and I'm not talking about any military conflict. The war I'm talking about is a war between God and Satan. The Bible tells us that "the fix is in." The outcome of the war is not in doubt because, when Jesus died for our sins, and then was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven, Satan was defeated. The only question now is--What side will you take? Satan is still working feverishly to capture as many souls as he can before the final judgement, but we can be assured that, if we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior, He will guard us and save us from Satan's grasp.
Knowing all of this, what are our responsibilities as Christian conservatives? I will list what I believe our responsibilities to be.
1. Understand that the principles of Christianity, as articulated by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and the principles of conservatism, as articulated by our Founding Fathers and, 200 years later, by Ronald Wilson Reagan, fit together like hand and glove. If anyone wishes to debate me on that point, I would welcome the opportunity.
2. Understand that we have an absolute obligation to be missionaries to our families. If you are a parent, that means that you have a sacred duty to lead your children to Christ. Be constantly in prayer that God will use you to lead your family to Jesus. Spend time each day reading the Bible so that you will be equipped with God's Holy Word as you minister to your family. Know with 100% certainty that, by leading you family to Jesus, you are having a profound effect on this generation, and future generations as well.
3. "Any time you have an opportunity to make a difference in this world and you don't, then you are wasting your time on Earth."---Roberto Clemente. "Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can."---John Wesley. In other words, it is a personal responsibility to fulfill God's commands, not a government responsibility.
4. Use your time, your talents, and your treasure to fully support the following priorities:
a. The acknowledgement of God in all aspects of our culture-- Noah Webster wrote (1823), "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people." Thomas Jefferson wrote (1781), "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"
Go to links:
Can there be any doubts as to what the Founding Fathers wanted in this regard for our country? Christian churches, and the members of those churches, have the same right to engage in politics that anyone else has, but further, are specifically protected from exclusion from the public square based on the content of their speech. As Patrick Henry said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been offered asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
b. The sanctity of human life-- Almost 50 million unborn babies have been "aborted" (that means "killed" or "slaughtered") since Roe v. Wade. No statistics are available to show how many human lives have been "euthanized" (another very sanitized word that means "killed" or "slaughtered") but we do know that the forces of secular progressivism are working feverishly to make both abortion and euthanasia acceptable, mainstream parts of our culture. Another way of saying that is that the forces of Satan are desperately trying to get us to accept the extermination of "inconvenient life" by convincing us that it's all about "choice" or "quality of life" instead of murder. Ronald Reagan said, "Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn baby is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is. And thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
c. The right of a child to a traditional family-- There is not one, single study that has ever been done that shows that children tend to fare better in non-traditional families than they do in traditional families (male husband, female wife, children). The forces of secular progressivism would have you believe that the need for a traditional, Bible-based family structure is passe', antiquated, unenlightened, and oh so very "yesterday." They say that, as a society, we have "evolved" way beyond our old fashioned mores. They are wrong. Children raised in a Bible-based, Christ-centered, traditional family are less likely to experiment with drugs or sex, are less likely to suffer from psychological ailments, and are more likely to grow into healthy (psychologically, physically, and spiritually) adults. Heterosexual monogamy is central to the nature of civilized life. So is a commitment to stay married and to fight against divorce. The abandonment of human morality by government is the first step towards the vile oppression that we see in so many other cultures around the world. Pres. Reagan said, "Through love and instruction, discipline, guidance, and example, we learn from our mothers and our fathers the values that will shape our private lives and our public citizenship.."
d. The right to liberty and property-- All that we have is a gift from God. Government has no right to forcibly take away from us anything that God has blessed us with, unless we the people voluntarily consent to giving the government authority in this regard. The false religions of "environmentalism", "global warming", "growth management", "affirmative action", "globalism", "multiculturalism", and "economic equality" are nothing more than strategies by the devotees of modern liberalism to confiscate liberty and property from the majority in order to empower the minority. This strategy goes against everything the Founding Fathers believed, and it violates the teachings of Christianity.
e. National sovereignty--- Liberals believe that U.S. troops should only be deployed at the direction of the U.N. Liberals believe that American jurisprudence should be based on the whims and beliefs of the world, and not a written Constitution. Liberals believe that foreign nations have the right to establish our immigration policies, and that these same foreign nations have the right to colonize vast portions of our nation for the purpose of exporting their poverty/crime/social ills to us for us to deal with. Again, none of this is consistent with the teachings of the Bible or the beliefs of our Founding Fathers.
5. Openly celebrate, and support those who celebrate with you, 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.
God bless each and every one of you, and God bless America!

it takes a lot of nerve to be a jesse jackson wanna-be!

How much nerve does it take to publically extort $25 million dollars from a major American city? How much nerve does it take to unabashedly exploit the record number of homicides in Indianapolis for the purpose of increasing personal wealth? Fifty liberal African-American ministers demanded that the city of Indianapolis cough up $25 million or they will disrupt the construction of Lucas Oil Stadium. The actions of these vipers are so vile on so many different levels that it is hard to know where to start. I suppose we should start with some questions?
1. Has there ever been a government-funded social program that ever had a positive impact on crime? Specifically, has there ever been a community-based youth program, or job training program, or family services program, or gun violence program, or substance abuse program, that ever made any difference whatsoever in the crime rate of a city? Until someone shows me otherwise, I will say that the answer is no.
2. If Indianapolis had $25 million just laying around (which they don't, thanks to the incompetent leadership of Democrat Mayor Bart Peterson), don't you think that it would be better spent on additional police patrols in high-crime areas?
3. Is there some kind of "Jesse Jackson Academy" that liberal black ministers go to for the purpose of learning the art of the "shakedown?" Is it necessary to speak in rhymes while perpetrating the shakedown, or is that a technique solely reserved for Jackson?

I read stories in the paper like this and I get so frustrated! These Jesse Jackson Wanna-Be's, in their thousand-dollar suits and their fancy cars, have the audacity to demand that government slide a portion of the people's money into their already-bulging pockets, or else they will derail a project that will add 4000 new jobs to Central Indiana and provide additional funding to Indianapolis Public Schools. Bishop T. Garrott Benjamin of The Light Of The World Christian Church has the nerve to label this job-creation package as a "symbol of our oppression." I think of people like Medgar Evars and Emmett Till and James Chaney and Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner and Martin Luther King, Jr. and little Denise McNair--authentic martyrs of the civil rights movement--and I just want to throw up when I see these modern-day Pharisees bastardize the cause that these previous heros died for. I am so glad I don't live in Indianapolis, because I am fairly certain that the gutless wonder they have for a mayor will succumb to the shakedown.

Monday, October 16, 2006

more wisdom and truth from el rushbo

This is a fascinating bit of Limbaugh wisdom. He refers to the latest Battleground poll, which shows that over 60% of Americans consider themselves conservatives, while only a third of Americans consider themselves to be liberal. He talks about the desparate Democrat strategy to use the mainstream media to discourage GOP voter turnout in November. He references a couple of recent newspaper articles which are already providing the Democrat spin on why they will lose in November. Even the Democrats know that they have no shot at winning unless Republicans stay home.
Bukko asked a really asinine question in one of his comments about how I could even stand to vote Republican. I'll tell you exactly why. First, I looked at everything the GOP has done in the last 6 years that I don't like:
1. Out of control spending and expansion of the federal bureauacracy
2. No Child Left Behind
3. Failure to secure the borders
4. Failure to stop illegal immigration
5. Harriet Myers (was Bush drinking again at this particular moment?)
6. Way too many mistakes in the handling of Iraq, although I do believe that Bush did the right thing in attacking Iraq

Then I look at the things that the GOP did that I agreed with:
1. Strongly committed to the war on terror
2. The economic policies have absolutely saved us from a Depression.
3. Conservative judicial nominees
4. Vetoed embryonic stem cell research funded with tax dollars
5. Thwarted passage of the Fairness Doctrine
6. No terrorist attacks on American soil or against American targets on foreign soil since Bush became president.

Finally, I look at what the Dems will do if they take power:
1. Spend millions investigating Bush for bogus criminal charges
2. Possible impeachment
3. Cut and run
4. Raise taxes
5. Pass the Fairness Doctrine
6. Block appointment of conservative judges
7. Surrender in the war on terror
8. Surrender on the illegal immigration issue
9. Raise gas prices through increased taxes on oil companies
10. Prosecute innocent soldiers on bogus war crimes charges

Friends, it is an easy decision for me. I will vote Republican because they most closely represent the values that I find to be important.

Friday, October 13, 2006

it's only funny because it's true!

There's nothing I can add to this. If you're conservative, you will laugh. If you're liberal, you have no sense of humor, so you will just be disgusted. Have a great weekend!

"the speech"---ronald reagan charts the course for modern conservatism

Address on behalf of Senator Barry Goldwater, delivered by Ronald Reagan
Rendezvous with Destiny
October 27, 1964

This is a verbatim transcript of "The Speech," given as a portion of a pre-recorded, nationwide televised program on behalf of Barry Goldwater, Republican candidate for the presidency. It ranks as one of the greatest political speeches of all time, because it caused America to completely rethink the role of government in our lives. Modern conservatism was born with this speech. If you are an honest seeker of truth and wisdom, read this speech.

Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.
I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used "We've never had it so good."
But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend $17 million a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We have raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations in the world. We have $15 billion in gold in our treasury--we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are $27.3 billion, and we have just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.
As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in doing so lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well, I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.
Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are! I had someplace to escape to." In that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a "greater government activity in the affairs of the people." But they have been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves--and all of the things that I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say "the cold war will end through acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says that the profit motive has become outmoded, it must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state; or our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century. Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the president as our moral teacher and our leader, and he said he is hobbled in his task by the restrictions in power imposed on him by this antiquated document. He must be freed so that he can do for us what he knows is best. And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me--the free man and woman of this country--as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"--this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.
Now, we have no better example of this than the government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming is regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we have spent $43 in feed grain program for every bushel of corn we don't grow.
Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater as President would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he will find out that we have had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He will also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress an extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He will find that they have also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.
At the same time, there has been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There is now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.
Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but who are farmers to know what is best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.
Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights are so diluted that public interest is almost anything that a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes for the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he is now going to start building public housing units in the thousands where heretofore we have only built them in the hundreds. But FHA and the Veterans Administration tell us that they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosures. For three decades, we have sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency. They have just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over $30 million on deposit in personal savings in their banks. When the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.
We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they are going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer and they've had almost 30 years of it, shouldn't we expect government to almost read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?
But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater, the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we are told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than $3,000 a year. Welfare spending is 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We are spending $45 billion on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you will find that if we divided the $45 billion up equally among those 9 million poor families, we would be able to give each family $4,600 a year, and this added to their present income should eliminate poverty! Direct aid to the poor, however, is running only about $600 per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.
So now we declare "war on poverty," or "you, too, can be a Bobby Baker!" Now, do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add $1 billion to the $45 million we are more program to the 30-odd we have--and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs--do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain that there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We are now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps, and we are going to put our young people in camps, but again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we are going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person that we help $4,700 a year! We can send them to Harvard for $2,700! Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.
But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who had come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning $250 a month. She wanted a divorce so that she could get an $80 raise. She is eligible for $330 a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who had already done that very thing.
Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we are denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we are always "against" things, never "for" anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.
But we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those who depend on them for livelihood. They have called it insurance to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified that it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is $298 billion in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble! And they are doing just that.
A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary...his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee $220 a month at age 65. The government promises $127. He could live it up until he is 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now, are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis so that people who do require those payments will find that they can get them when they are due...that the cupboard isn't bare? Barry Goldwater thinks we can.
At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provisions for the non-earning years? Should we allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under these programs, which we cannot do? I think we are for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we are against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program was now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.
In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate planned inflation so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents' worth?
I think we are for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we are against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among the nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we are against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in Soviet colonies in the satellite nation.
I think we are for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We are helping 107. We spent $146 billion. With that money, we bought a $2 million yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenyan government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought $7 billion worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth. Federal employees number 2.5 million, and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force is employed by the government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury, and they can seize and sell his property in auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier overplanted his rice allotment. The government obtained a $17,000 judgment, and a U.S. marshal sold his 950-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work. Last February 19 at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-time candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.
As a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration. Back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the part of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his party, and he never returned to the day he died, because to this day, the leadership of that party has been taking that party, that honorable party, down the road in the image of the labor socialist party of England. Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? Such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment. Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men...that we are to choose just between two personalities.
Well, what of this man that they would destroy? And in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear. Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well, I have been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I have never known a man in my life I believe so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.
This is a man who in his own business, before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan, before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provided nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by floods from the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.
An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas, and he said that there were a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. Then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was this fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in the weeks before Christmas, all day long, he would load up the plane, fly to Arizona, fly them to their homes, then fly back over to get another load.
During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life upon that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all of the other problems I have discussed academic, unless we realize that we are in a war that must be won.
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer--not an easy answer--but simple.
If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender.
Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he would rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance. This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits--not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.
Thank you very much.


billy graham evangelistic association

The following two Q and A's come from Billy Graham's syndicated newspaper column, "My Answer." The entire Billy Graham Evangelistic Association website is fantastic, and there is a link to the site on the sidebar. I highly recommend it.

Q: I admit I'm not a believer, but I am an honest seeker. My problem is that I was trained as a scientist, and I just can't bring myself to believe in something I can't prove (like God). People tell me just to take God on faith, but I can't. What would you say to someone like me? — R.Y.

A: Dear R.Y.,The first thing I'd do is commend you for your honest desire to know the truth about God. Down inside, you sense there must be more to life than you know right now, and you aren't content to ignore it. Perhaps Jesus had people like you in mind when He said, "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you" (Matthew 7:7).No, you can't put God in a test tube and "prove" He exists the same way you can prove a chemical exists (although nature's laws bear witness to His wisdom and power). But that doesn't mean faith is an illogical leap in the dark (as some have suggested). The reason is because God wants us to know Him—and He has made this possible by revealing Himself to us.How did He do this? He did it in a way that staggers my imagination: He became a man! Do you want to know what God is like? Look at Jesus Christ, because He was God in human flesh. If you have never done so, read carefully through one of the Gospels (such as John). As you do, ask God to show Himself to you as you discover Jesus for yourself.Then don't be afraid to commit yourself to Him. Over the years I have met many outstanding scientists who were also strong believers in Christ. My prayer is that you will.

Q: I just started college a few weeks ago, and my problem is that hardly anyone here seems to take God seriously. Some even laugh at Him. I grew up in a strong Christian home and I still believe in Christ, but why do so many intelligent people reject Him? This puzzles me. — F.C.

A: Dear F.C.,It is true that many intelligent people today reject Christ—but this isn't the whole story. It has been my privilege over the years to know many leading scientists and scholars who were deeply committed to Jesus Christ, and this is still true.I have often asked myself why some people have a hard time believing in Christ, especially when there is so much evidence for God's existence in the world around us. One major reason, I believe, is pride. Pride makes us think that we are the center of the universe, and that we don't really need God. But pride can be very dangerous, because it blinds us to our faults and our spiritual needs. The Bible warns, "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall" (Proverbs 16:18).Spend time each day with God through prayer and the study of His Word, the Bible. In addition, ask God to lead you to other Christians on your campus. You need their fellowship—and they need yours. Above all, ask God to keep you close to Himself, and to guard your heart and mind against Satan's deceptions.In addition, seek God's will for your future. During the next few years you will probably make a number of life-changing decisions. No matter what others around you do, make it your goal to follow Christ in everything.

10/13/1863---a lot of this sounds familar

What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun. (Eccles. 1:9)

On this day in 1863, Ohio voters sent Clement Vallandigham to a resounding defeat in the fall gubernatorial election. As leader of the Copperheads, or antiwar Democrats, Vallandigham was an important and highly visible critic of the Republican's war policy, particularly the emancipation of slaves.
Vallandigham was elected to the House of Representatives in 1858. He was a Democrat and disapproved of slavery, but he admired Southern society and disagreed with starting a war over the issue of slave emancipation. He advocated states rights and generally agreed with most Southern political views. When the war began, he became a vociferous critic of both the method and the war aims of the Republicans. As the war turned bloodier and it became clear that a Union victory would take years, Vallandigham began to gather supporters, and he became recognized as the leader of the Peace Democrats, or Copperheads. When the Lincoln administration began to curtail civil liberties, Vallangigham's criticism placed him in increasing jeopardy. In spring of 1863, General Ambrose Burnside issued Order No. 38, which stated that public criticism of the war would not be tolerated. Vallandigham defied the order, and he was arrested on May 8. He was tried on charges of "expressing treasonable sympathy" with the enemy, and he was found guilty by a military tribunal in Cincinnati. He was banished to the Confederacy on May 25, 1863.
After a short stay there, Vallandigham relocated to Windsor, Ontario, and, despite his exile, mounted a campaign to become the Ohio governor. Elections were a barometer of the Northern war effort. In 1862, voters expressed dissatisfaction with President Lincoln by sending many Democrats to Congress. However, in 1863, after key Union successes at Vicksburg and Gettysburg, the voters increased Republican control of both houses. In Ohio, Vallandigham lost by more than 100,000 votes out of a half million ballots cast. He returned to the United States in 1864 and continued his criticism of "King Lincoln," as he called the president. Lincoln ignored him, but Vallandigham helped write the 1864 Democrat platform. By insisting that a statement be included declaring the war a failure and calling for an immediate end to fighting, Vallandigham helped ensure a Democrat defeat.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

where are the heroes?

The Pacers situation makes me mad, but also a little sad. When I was a kid I had heroes in the sports world who were worthy of admiration. John Havlicek, Bill Russell, Tony Perez, Joe Morgan, Roberto Clemente, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Walter Payton--these were guys who were worthy of admiration. Their deeds matched their athletic prowess. Clemente gave his life helping his fellow man.
Who will my kids look up to? Who are the heroes of today? Certainly I hope I am a positive role model for my kids, just as my father was for me, but kids need "outside" heroes, too. They need someone to root for that's not going to turn a westside strip club parking lot into the O.K. Corrall. They need people to cheer for who won't fail drug tests or beat up a woman or father 10 kids out of wedlock or hang out with hookers or assault a teammate. I don't see very many choices out there and that makes me sad.

now, for a little self-criticism

I am somewhat embarrassed and a little irritated with myself over my post from Oct. 6 entitled "thank goodness for the second amendment!". In that post, I talked about the latest scandal facing the indiana pacers and, specifically, Steven Jackson.

In that post, I made three points, and I stand by points 2 and 3. I was right on the money with those comments. It is point 1 that has me bothered. In that point, I referred to Jackson and his buddies as "victims", I applauded Jackson for using a gun to "defend himself", and I celebrated the existence of the second amendment. Not so fast on that "victim" part. As it turns out, Jackson was one of the instigators in the fight. The facts are that Jackson, Tinsley, "Snap" Hunter and Marquis Daniels had another guy with them, a friend of Tinsley's named Raymel Mattox. Mattox got into an argument at the strip club with two brothers named "Dino" and "Fingers" Williford over the attentions of one of the lovely "entertainers." Mattox hit Fingers, Dino came to his brother's defense, and the fight spilled into the parking lot. At this point, Mattox knocked Fingers down and began pummeling him. Steven Jackson joined in and began kicking Fingers. This might be the appropriate time to tell how "Fingers" Williford got his nickname. Both of his arms stop at the elbow, and he has two deformed fingers growing from each of the stubs. He is also only 5 ft. tall. In other words, Steven Jackson (6-8, 218 pounds) and Raymel Mattox were kicking the sh_ _ out of a handicapped dwarf. Nice! After getting in a couple of vicious kicks to the body, Jackson went to his car, got his gun, fired off a couple of shots into the air (35 other people were in the parking lot at the time), strapped the gun to his waist a' la Marshal Dillon, and came back to knock Fingers around a little more. Fingers' brother, Dino, ran to his car, fired it up and hit Jackson, who flew clear over the top of the car. When Jackson hit the ground he came up shooting, cracking off 3 more shots into the air. That's what we know today. The Marion County Prosecuter, Carl Brizzi, told reporters this morning that Jackson's story to police last weekend turned out to be a little less than truthful (read: total B.S.). That's why Brizzi formally indicted Jackson this morning on a felony charge of criminal recklessness and misdemeanor charges of battery and disorderly conduct. Jackson faces up to 3 years in the hole on the felony charge and 1 year apiece on each of the other two charges. He also faces up to 93 days in jail in Michigan for violating probation on the charges stemming from the Detroit brawl 2 years ago.
I am embarrassed because I accepted as fact the initial news reports about the incident. I know from years of experience that the media very seldom gets a major, breaking story right in the initial moments. They usually disseminate a whole lot of false information (intentionally and unintentionally both) in the beginning stages of the story, and then catch up to the truth sometime later. I know this, yet I believed the fiction that Jackson was a victim and a positive poster child for the NRA. Ain't I the foolish one!
If you are at all interested in this story, you can check out for coverage.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

let's criticize bush for awhile

True Christian conservatives are intellectually honest. We are not forever wed to a particular political party. We are, in fact, deeply committed to the governmental ideals espoused by our Founding Fathers and to the teachings of God's Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It just so happens that the modern Republican Party is more committed to those principles than is the Democrat Party (Democrats, in fact, are diametrically opposed to all of the above), so Christian conservatives do tend to vote Republican. When a Republican goes against those principles, however, it would be dishonest not to criticize the Republican in question. That leads me to President Bush and the summit he has convened on school violence.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush made the comment that, "When people hurt, government has to move." That comment almost made me lose my lunch! It reveals the fact that Pres. Bush, contrary to conventional wisdom, is not a conservative. He is a moderate, big-government, strong-defense, low-tax Republican. His daddy calls that being a "compassionate conservative." I say there is nothing conservative about it. The concept of federalism is embodied in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." That seems pretty clear to me, but not to Pres. Bush.
Pres. Bush's goal with this summit is to come up with a federal plan/program/bureauacracy that will "solve" the problem of school violence. I've got news for the president. First of all, the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the right to get involved in the education of our children in any way, shape or form. Second, government can't solve the problem. So, with that in mind, what should the President have said?
The President should have issued a call to all Christians everywhere to pray to God for peace in our schools. He should have called for prayer seeking God's forgiveness of our sins as a nation, and he should have called for Christians to pray for our children to be blessed and protected. Prayer is the most powerful, most effective weapon we have against the evil that so often brings death and tragedy to our schools. Government is not the solution, God is.
President Bush should have quoted from the book of Habakkuk in the Bible. The prophet Habakkuk cried out to God in despair about the evil that surrounded him in those ancient times. Why did evil and wickedness so often seem to be successful, while goodness and righteousness seemed not to succeed? God answered that true justice would reign eventually, and that we should not become discouraged by the evil in this world. God is in control and He will bless those who are faithful to him and who continually seek Him in prayer and in His Holy Word.
President Bush could have called for a national period of mourning and repentence for our sins, and for continuous prayer for God's blessings. Instead, he called for more taxpayer-funded bureauacracy that will bloat the federal government and that will be unsuccessful in solving the problem. That, my friends, is a national tragedy.
Free Counter