Thursday, November 30, 2006

flow into your kids

Did you know that the word "influence" literally means "to flow into"? That gives a whole new meaning to the idea of influencing our kids. We, as parents, will literally "flow into" our children as they grow and mature under our care. We had better make sure that we are a positive influence! Here are some great resources:

All Pro Dad ( --This is an organization founded by Tony Dungy and Family First ( Both websites will give you access to free resources to help you become a better parent.

John Rosemond ( has worked with families, children and parents since 1971 in the field of family psychology. He has written books, he writes a weekly column, and his website contains a wealth of information that will help parents. All of Rosemond's material is rooted in common sense and traditional values; parenting like your Grandma did it!

Point Man: How a Man Can Lead His Family, by Steve Farrar (available at This is the best book I have ever read about how to be a better father.

Make sure that what you send "flowing into" your kids isn't toxic waste. The job you do as a parent will impact the world for generations.

the wisdom of gen. george patton

What a phenomenal leader General George Patton was! The above link will take you to the real, unsatitized story behind "The Speech" made famous by George C. Scott in the movie Patton. There is so much in the speech that is appropriate to world affairs today. You can link to the entire transcript, but how about some of these excerpts:

"Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all the time....the very idea of losing is hateful to an American."

"Sure we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they get whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a snake!"

"From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don't give a G__d__ about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder WE push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed."

Patton spoke the truth to his troops and to anyone else he happened to be speaking to. He instinctly knew that the truth would keep his troops alive and win the war. We need more leaders today like Gen. Patton.

history's grace period for the greatest nation in the history of the world

There has never, in the history of the world, been a country that has amassed as much power and wealth as the United States, or used it for as much good as the United States. In short, the United States is the greatest nation in the history of the world. According to John L. Perry (go the the above link) however, history demands greatness of great nations, and history's patience just might be running out on the United States.
According to Perry, "No nation in history....has given, gladly given, of its own riches to feed the hungry, clothe the destitute and heal the stricken as much as has the United States." We have openly and freely invited others from around the globe to join us, assimilate into our "melting pot," and enjoy "the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." We have become great because we have strived to accomplish great things.
Will this continue to be so? I don't know. The column authored by Mr. Perry raises interesting points concerning that very question. Read it and see what you think.

the adventures of jonny quest

The Adventures of Jonny Quest is one of my all time favorite TV shows, and now my second grade son is hooked on this classic cartoon. Jonny Quest ran on ABC in prime time for one season (1964-65) before it was cancelled. I've heard various commentators say over the years that it was cancelled because it was considered to be too violent, but the truth is that the show was just too expensive to produce. ABC couldn't charge enough for advertising to turn a profit. Just look at those original episodes. That was extremely high-tech, detailed animation for that era, and it cost a lot of money to put each episode on the air.
After the show was cancelled, ABC recouped their money by selling syndication rights to the other networks beginning in 1967, and The Adventures of Jonny Quest became a regular part of Saturday morning TV from 1967-1972.
It was during those years in syndication that the show became such a source of controversy. It's a violent cartoon. Gun fights, high-tech weapons of mass destruction, fist fights and murder were all pretty commonplace on each episode, and all of the usual suspects came out in force against the show. Action for Children's Television said that the cartoon was damaging to impressional youngsters, and various Christian organizations petitioned for the show to be cancelled. They succeeded.
You might be curious as to why I, a strong Christian conservative, let my children watch Jonny Quest. The short answer is---because it's a great show! It's got action, it's exciting, it's intelligent and the good guys always win. I look at all of the crapola on TV today and it just makes me sick. The violence that you see on TV today is gratuitous, it's gory and explicit, and it's in your face. It's the same kind of junk you see in video games. That stuff they show on TV today will rot your brain and kill your soul. There's no way I would let my kids watch that stuff.
Jonny Quest is different. Each episode shows you very clearly that there are good guys and there are bad guys, and there is no confusing the two. Good triumphs over evil, and traditional American values like courage and bravery and honesty are celebrated in every episode. I want my kids to experience that. Jonny and his friend Hadji are brave, smart, resourceful and inquisitive. Dr. Quest routinely outsmarts the evil Dr. Zinn, and Race Bannon kicks butt! Besides, how can you not like a cartoon that features such a cool dog like Bandit? Jonny Quest is awesome!
OK, how about some trivia?
---The voice of the original Jonny Quest was done by 17-year old Tim Matheson (think about that the next time you watch Animal House, Fletch, or a West Wing rerun).
---John Stephenson was the original voice of Dr. Quest. Stephenson was also the voice of the TV show Dragnet who always said, "Ladies and gentlemen, the story you are about to see is true. Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent." He also played the minister to Fred and Wilma in Viva Rock Vegas.
---The inspiration for Jonny Quest was the old-time radio serial Jack Armstrong.

do zambonis have cup holders?

You can't make this kind of stuff up, sports fans. Fact is truly stranger than fiction!

romans 8:22-27 (new living translation);&version=51

God, we are weak and locked in sin. Please strengthen our hope and our faith. Send your Holy Spirit to pray on our behalf for your blessings in this world, and for our salvation as your adopted children. In your Son Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

top 10 list--my son's favorite tv shows

Let's take a break from all of this seriousness. My oldest son is 7--second grade--and I have found that his favorite TV shows are a lot different than that of his friends. I think he gets this from me. Here are his 10 favorite TV shows:
1. Gunsmoke
2. Bonanza
3. The Lone Ranger (Do you see a pattern here? He loves westerns!)
4. The Rifleman
5. Jonny Quest (I bought the DVD box set of the 1964-65 season of this classic cartoon, and we both enjoy it!)
6. The Suite Life of Zack and Cody (He lost me with this one. It's a real unintelligent Disney show.)
7. Sponge Bob Square Pants (Now we're back together. Sponge Bob is great!)
8. Popeye (He just discovered the old 50's era cartoons on the Boomerang Network and really likes them.)
9. Star Trek (This was just a western set in outer space. Why wouldn't he like it?)
10. Josh and Drake (This is another really lame Disney show. Can't Disney do funny stuff anymore that is half way intelligent?)

There's his list. I'll be back tomorrow with some really cool Jonny Quest trivia. What a great show!

who are the most evil people in the world?

---George Bush
---Dick Cheney
---Karl Rove
---Anyone at FOX News more conservative than Alan Colmes (and they don't like him much, either)
---Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, specifically, and conservative talk radio hosts in general
---Christian Conservatives
---Black Conservatives
---Hispanic Conservatives (OK, anything conservative)
---National Rifle Association
---Anyone who tried to save Terri Schiavo's life
---Anyone opposed to embryonic stem cell research
---Oil companies
---Anyone who seeks to lower taxes
---Anyone who doesn't believe that abortion is the single most sacred right women possess and, therefore, cannot be limited or regulated in any way, shape or form

---Anyone who kills, maims or destroys in the name of Allah
---Murderers and rapists
---Anyone who harms a child
---Any team playing against the Green Bay Packers (OK, that's from my personal list, and I'm just joking. Sort of.)

Who would you rather be? Who would you rather have running our country--conservatives or liberals?

philippians 4:10-14 (the message);&version=65

God, I can make it through anything in you. Please, for all who read this, strengthen our faith and transform our hearts so that we could find the recipe for happiness, just as Paul did.
In your Son Jesus' name I pray. Amen.

an excellent blog

This is an excellent blog from Drew in Nebraska that honestly and clearly examines the issues facing us today. I highly recommend it!

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

1 corinthians 2 (the message);&version=65

Heavenly Father, send your Holy Spirit to all who read this so that we all would be able to openly commune with you and become more spiritually alive.
In your Son Jesus' name I pray. Amen.

what a fool believes

But what a fool believes he sees
no wise man has the power to reason away.
What seems to be
is always better than nothing.
There's nothing at all
but what a fool believes he sees.---The Doobie Brothers, 1978

1.)....that it's OK to kill unborn babies, but it's not OK to execute murderers and rapists.
2.)....that it's OK to use violence to silence conservative speech, but it's not OK to cause discomfort to encourage captured terrorists to confess.
3.)....that it's OK to dip a cross in urine and excrement and display it as art on taxpayer-funded property, but it's not OK to display the Ten Commandments in a federal courthouse.
4.)....that it's OK for Ted Kennedy to drown Mary Jo Kopechne, and it's OK for Bill Clinton to rape Juanita Broderick, but it's not OK for Mark Foley to talk about having sex with male pages.
5.)....that it's OK for the federal government to override state law so that kids can have abortions, but it's not OK for the federal government to intervene to save Terri Schiavo's life.
6.)....that an all-white college fraternity represents racism, but an all-black fraternity represents diversity.
7.)....that American soldiers fighting in Iraq are "terrorists" but Islamofascist jihadists who blow up American cities are "revolutionary freedom fighters."
8.)....that conservatives are evil because we oppose taxpayer subsidized universal health care.
9.)....that WalMart is evil because, through their skillful use of the free market, they are able to provide privately funded health coverage and cheap medicines to thousands of poor working class Americans who ordinarily couldn't afford either. Re-read #8 and just try to keep your head from exploding. I dare you.
10.)....that the 1st Amendment protects liberal Congressmen when they call the president a terrorist while "speechifying" on the floor of the U.S. Congress, but that the same amendment prohibits praying in the name of Jesus Christ on the floor of that same Congress--a practice, by the way, that was supported by George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

another doomed liberal strategy

By now, everybody is aware of the shifting dynamics of 21st Century media. The traditional liberal mainstream media (CBS, ABC, NBC, major metropolitan newspapers) are losing viewers/readers by the thousands and, therefore, are losing influence. A new non-traditional media has risen up (talk radio, the blogosphere, FOX News) and is rapidly gaining influence. It's no coincidence that the non-traditional media is largely conservative or, in the case of FOX News, at least gives conservative opinion equal footing with liberal opinion. I get my news from the blogosphere, talk radio, FOX News and The Indianapolis Star. Over the last several months, I have noticed something interesting in the Indy paper.

Dennis Ryerson, the editor of the Indy paper, writes a weekly column, and he frequently writes about the fact that traditional newspapers have to "evolve" if they are going to survive in the 21st Century marketplace. The Star has greatly expanded their website ( and they have added blogging to the site to invite reader talkback. They have launched a new program where readers of the Star will become "news gathering partners" of the paper. Readers now have a forum online to suggest story ideas. The letters-to-the-editor section has been greatly expanded, and each of the paper's opinion columnists now has their own blog and published email address so that readers can talk back directly to the columnist and participate in group discussion threads. Ryerson has written about all of these developments in his columns as an attempt to more completely integrate technology into the news reporting process, and to more fully engage the more technologically-savvy 21st Century consumer. These same developments are happening throughout the mainstream media. All of the major TV networks have improved their websites and offer viewer feedback and blogging.

I read all of his explanations, and I observed the changes as they happened, and then it hit me. Now I understand! Ryerson, and like-minded liberals throughout the media, believe that the phenominal success of talk radio and the blogosphere are due to audience participation. Talk radio hosts like Hannity and Rush and Savage take phone calls from their listeners, making the listener part of the show. Anyone can blog and become part of the "media." The mainstream media apparently believes that all they have to do is to open up discussion, encourage feedback, and their numbers will improve.

In the words of that great philosopher Lee Corso, "Not so fast, my friend!" As usual, the libs just don't get it. Didn't the liberal minority see how things worked out with Air America? Don't they see what's happening to the mainstream media, even as they continue to "evolve" and mimic certain traits of the non-traditional media? It's not about the superficial! The non-traditional media outlets are growing because they promote conservative thought, opinion and truth. A majority of Americans believe in conservatism. The mainstream media ignores, belittles and scorns conservatism. Figure it out, sports fans! It ain't that deep! The latest ploy by the mainstream media will fail, just as Air America did, and the truth of principled conservativism will continue to advance.

Monday, November 27, 2006

the wisdom of reagan conservatism expressed by newt

I don't know if Newt Gingrich will run for president in 2008, but he'll get my vote if he does. There's nothing I can add to his thoughts in the above link. Read for yourself.

thankfulness and happiness

Rush Limbaugh was discussing an interesting subject this afternoon. The topic was 'happiness.' Specifically, El Rushbo was discussing such questions as "What makes a person happy?" and "Are there many happy people in the world?" and "Can money buy happiness?" I was somewhat surprised to hear Limbaugh's take on such matters. For a guy who usually locks right on to the truth and who is normally pretty insightful, The Great MahaRushie sounded fairly discombobulated as he sought to explain the truth as he saw it. First he said that the phrase "money can't buy happiness" is a myth perpetrated by the wealthy so that we commoners don't feel bad about not being rich. Then he said that true happiness comes from within your own heart and soul--you just have to go in and get it. Then he said that money really will mess you up if you let it. The poor guy was all over the map and never did get to the real truth. That's OK; even the great ones strike out once in a while.
The link above will take you to a Thanksgiving column written by Jeff Jacoby for the Boston Globe back in November of 2000. This column should be required reading in every schoolhouse and in every church in America. Parents should teach the lessons contained in this column to their kids, and not just at Thanksgiving. The complete, very simple truth contained in this column is summed up in the following words:

Gratitude is nothing less than the key to happiness.
For this penetrating insight into gratefulness, I am grateful to Dennis Prager, author of the shrewd and perceptive ''Happiness is a Serious Problem.''
''There is a `secret to happiness,''' Prager writes, ''and it is gratitude. All happy people are grateful, and ungrateful people cannot be happy. We tend to think that it is being unhappy that leads people to complain, but it is truer to say that it is complaining that leads to people becoming unhappy. Become grateful and you will become a much happier person.''
This is a keen observation, and it helps explain why the Judeo-Christian tradition places such emphasis on thanking God. The liturgy is filled with expressions of gratitude. ''It is good to give thanks to the Lord,'' begins the 92nd Psalm. Why? Because God needs our gratitude? No: because we need it.
Learning to be thankful, whether to God or to other people, is the best vaccination against taking good fortune for granted. And the less you take for granted, the more pleasure and joy life will bring you.

This is profound wisdom right here, boys and girls! Making more money won't make you happy. Accumulating more "toys" won't make you happy. Meeting the right woman/man won't, all by itself, make you happy. Partying with the "cool kids" or wearing the "right" clothes or driving the "right" car or losing weight or gaining weight or landing the perfect job---none of those things will, in and of themselves, bring you happiness. What will bring you happiness? Being grateful for what you have will bring you happiness. Giving thanks for the blessings God has bestowed on you will bring you happiness. Spending your time looking outside yourself and counting your blessings rather than getting all wrapped up in self absorbed "stinkin' thinkin' " will bring you happiness. Reflecting God's love so that you are a "light of the world" to all who so desperately need that light will bring you happiness.
Pretty simple, right? Why don't we all just get on with it and be thankful? Well, because it's so unbelievably hard for us as sinful humans to be grateful for anything. Sin gets in the way of gratitude by creating self-pity and envy and greed and pride and feelings of entitlement. You can't possibly be thankful if you have all of that other crud bubbling around inside you.
I guess what we need to do is to spend time each day reading God's Word and praying to God that He would make us wiser and more grateful for the blessings He has given us.

It is good to praise the LORD and make music to your name, O Most High,
to proclaim your love in the morning and your faithfulness at night,
to the music of the ten-stringed lyre and the melody of the harp.
For you make me glad by your deeds, O LORD; I sing for joy at the works of your hands.
How great are your works, O LORD, how profound your thoughts! --
Psalm 92:1-5

Sunday, November 26, 2006

is this indiana or massachusettes?

The great state of Indiana has always been a reliable red state. The term "Hoosier values" has always meant principled conservatism. Much to my horror, however, this great red state has morphed into the kind of blue state that would make Nancy Pelosi proud. All of the mayors in Indiana's largest cities are Democrat. Indiana's Congressional delegation has swung to the Democrats. The latest travesty? Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, the very definition of a RINO (Republican In Name Only), has just announced a tax increase to fund health insurance coverage for an additional 200,000 Hoosier adults. Here's how the complicated (Daniels calls it "nuanced") plan works.
According to Daniels, Indiana has the second highest rate of smoking in the U.S., and the third highest rate of cancer deaths. The Daniels plan would increase the state cigarette tax by anywhere from 25 cents per pack to 50 cents per pack(it's already 55.5 cents). The Guv says that the higher tax would fund state-subsidized health care coverage for as many as 200,000 adults. His goal is to have the Hoosier taxpayer foot the bill for health insurance for anyone at 200% of the poverty level and below. Governor RINO also says that the higher tax would help reduce the number of smokers in Indiana and improve our health.
OK, I know that I am just a wooden-headed conservative, but I am somewhat corn-fused about the new tax hike. First question---If the new tax successfully reduces the number of smokers in Indiana, won't the overall revenue generated by the tax begin to decrease? Second question---If the tax revenue generated by the cig tax declines, how does Governor RINO propose to cover the shortfall? With another tax? Third question---Why is it any of the governor's business if Hoosiers want to smoke? I ask this question as a non-smoker (I have never in my life smoked a cigarette) but also as something of a Libertarian on this issue. Fourth question---When did Ted Kennedy become governor of Indiana? Good grief! If this is how a Republican is going to do us, what is the purpose of voting? My-Man-Mitch is demonstrating that same kind of bassackwards liberal "reasoning" that has proved to be so disastrous in times past. What's next? An extra 50 cent tax on my Egg McMuffin and Breakfast Burrito to keep me from being such a fat slob? A 75 cent tax on a DQ milkshake to help me keep me from looking like the offspring of John Candy and Jackie Gleason? A $1 tax on a bottle of Captain Morgan to discourage drinking (if he does that, I'm storming the governor's mansion!)?
Hey, Mitch! Let me 'splain somethin' to you. A whole bunch of liberal Republicans were thrown out of office in November all across the country. Do you want to be next? Just keep at it with the tax increases for liberal social engineering programs, and you will be out on the street faster than you can say "Lincoln Chaffee!"

Thursday, November 23, 2006

the real meaning of christmas

December 22, 2005
A Sword Will Pierce Your Heart: The Dark Side of Christmas.
By Amy Wellborn

About a year ago, my husband and I traveled across the chilly cornfields of Indiana to the frigid cornfields of Ohio to have our younger son baptized.
It was not quite, but almost, spur of the moment. A bishop, an old friend of my husband's, would be visiting his mother for a few days after Christmas, and yes, he could certainly squeeze a baptism in. The parish church was available, the bishop's sister and mother would be witnesses, and there you have it: insta-baptism.
Perfect timing. A baptism is a happy occasion centered on a baby. Christmas is another happy time centered on a baby, and a fine opportunity to focus ourselves on the vaunted Real Meaning of Christmas. Babies, love, and family. Comfort, joy, and peace.
But perhaps not so fast.
The discussion about Christmas in our society is endless and loud. The self-proclaimed defenders of Christmas go about daring salespeople to wish them "Happy Holidays," boycotting businesses that sell "Holiday Trees," and reminding one and all that Jesus is the Reason for the Season.
Which he is. But I say that many of the Defenders of Christmas have it almost as wrong as the secularists. Their vision of Christmas — centered on words, a rather generic baby, and nostalgic visions of families and fireplaces — actually gets no closer to the real Real Meaning of Christmas than do generic wishes for peace and joy in this holiday season.
What they forget, neglect or conveniently ignore is what we can not-too-dramatically call the Dark Side of Christmas.
The really traditional Christian remembrance of the Nativity is not about sweetness. It is about awe, fear, and trembling, and it is shot through with hints of suffering to come.
Mary, with a scandalous pregnancy. Joseph, courageous enough to take her on despite it. A birth among farm animals. The threat of death, from the very start, necessitating flight. Mary, told by the prophet Simeon that because of her son, her soul will be pierced by a sword (Luke 2:35).
We view the elements of the story in a nostalgic haze — how sweet to be born with the goats. But is it? Is it sweet? Would you want to give birth among goats?
How charming that Mary and Joseph had to wander before and after the birth of the child. Charming until you remember the reasons why, the doors shut in the face of a heavily pregnant woman, the threat of death from a jealous king.
Look at it closely, with clear eyes. At every turn in this story of this baby there is threat and fear and powers circling, attempting to strike at the light.
We might forget, we might wrap up Christmas in good cheer, but Christian tradition doesn't. It's striking that the next day — the very next day — after Christmas, the Church remembers not glad tidings, angels, and shepherd boys, but a bloody death by stoning. St. Stephen it is, the first Christian martyr.
St. Stephen is followed by St. John on December 27th, who may not have met a violent death, but who, the tradition tells us, died in a prison of sorts, in exile for his faith, far away from the "civilized" powers that had sent him there.
December 28th brings us back to babies, but with no relief — it is the Feast of the Holy Innocents, remembering the children Herod ordered slaughtered, according to Matthew's gospel, in his rabid fear of the rival king.
The message is clear and hard: Following this baby, as he reaches to us from the resin manger, looking out at us with the soft-eyed cattle and docile sheep, comes at a price.
There is an edge to Christmas, a harshness, and a different kind of promise than that implied by the easy words of peace and glad tidings. It is a mystery, all of it. The Word made flesh indeed, but into a world that was from the beginning set against it, that sought with every bit of strength at hand to stay in the darkness.
So it was that our baby's baptism was on that day, December 28, the Feast of the Holy Innocents. The heart skips a beat now. Not so fitting, perhaps, as we contemplate the lovely soft living baby being washed, but in the shadow of sorrow.
My baby's baptism in Ohio was, according to earthly judgment, a disaster. The weather was miserable, icy, and cold. No one's cameras would work. The bishop decided we might as well immerse the baby fully, which was okay with us, but turned out to be not okay with the baby, who commenced screaming his lungs out at the unexpected bath, and not okay either with the bishop's elderly mother, who was quite horrified. And circling around us the whole time was our three-year-old, who seemed to have absorbed the demons driven out of his brother during the exorcism part of the rite, and who would not, in the face of many and varied threats, be still. He raced like — yes — a demon, in and around the church, constantly, through the whole affair. I've helped out at many baptisms in my work in parish ministry but this one was, I think, the worst.
But perhaps it was more fitting than it first appears. Trivial problems, yes, but still an apt metaphor for the Christian life begun there, and yet to come for Baby Michael: not the warmth of a tidy, neat manger scene, with everyone gathered in comfort, calm, and peace, but something startling and new, a shock to the system, entered upon in a world of frustration and discord, circled by forces intent to disrupt.
Glad tidings of comfort and joy, and Merry Christmas indeed. But without awareness of the risk of discipleship, and the reality that the baby in the manger ends up hanging on a cross, those words have about as little power to change the world as "Happy Holidays."

Amy Welborn is the author of 12 books, most recently of The Catholic Woman's Book of Days. She blogs at

a thanksgiving message from billy graham

This year as we observe our season of thanksgiving, let us be grateful not only in word but also in deed. Let our gratitude find expression in a resolve to live a life more unselfish and more consecrated to Jesus Christ.When we sit around our tables laden with sumptuous delicacies, let us not forget that nearly a billion people around the world will go to bed hungry. As we enjoy the comforts of our cozy homes, let us not forget that great numbers have no homes to go to. When we step into our modern cars, let us not forget that many people in the world cannot afford even a bicycle.As we go to our churches to thank God for material and spiritual blessings, let us remember that millions have never heard the Gospel of salvation. Let us remember the servants of God in many parts of the world who deprive themselves in order to take the Gospel to the multitudes who have not yet been reached with the message of Christ.In the Lord’s Prayer as recorded in the sixth chapter of Matthew we read, “Give us this day our daily bread” (Matthew 6:11, NKJV). Scripture teaches that the good things of this life are the gifts of God, and that He is the provider of all our blessings. James declares that “every good gift ... is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights” (James 1:17, NKJV). Isaiah says that wisdom is the gift of God. The knowledge that builds our great scientific instruments is a gift from heaven.Some people have asked, “Why should those who have plenty pray, ‘Give us our daily bread’?” Even those favored with plenty should pray this way in order to have a blessing upon their provisions and to teach them their continued dependence upon God.Christ said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4, NKJV). That is a word of blessing. Although the bread be in our hand, yet the blessing is in God’s hand, and it is obtained from His hand only by prayer. If God withheld His blessing, nothing we have would do us any good. Our food would not nourish us and our clothes would not warm us.One of the frightening passages in the Bible is found in Psalm 106:15. It reads, “He gave them their request, but sent leanness into their soul” (NKJV). Many people have riches today as a result of greed and covetousness; but their souls are lean, their hearts are cold toward God, their consciences are dulled and their minds are blinded. They know spiritual poverty here, and the moment they die they will know material poverty as well.The very prosperity that we know should lead us to repentance, and we should give humble thanks to God. Jesus said, “How hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God!” (Mark 10:24, NKJV).Christ taught also that from everyone who is given much, much shall be required. Some day God will ask for an accounting of our stewardship. A great percentage of the wealth of the nations of the world is being expended on alcohol, gambling, entertainment, cosmetics and overeating. A very small percentage of the national income goes to churches. We are enjoying the bounty that God has bestowed upon us, but often we are biting the hand that feeds us.The Bible teaches that God delights in giving and that He gives even to His enemies. Men and women spread nets and snares for their enemies, but God spreads a table. The dew forms on the thistle as well as on the rose. The rain of God’s mercy falls upon the worst of people. God puts bread in the mouths that are opened against Him. God feeds millions, and they fight against Him. He gives them bread, and they give Him rebellion. Not only do the ungrateful millions forget His mercies, they abuse Him. The Lord said to Jeremiah, “When I had fed them to the full, then they committed adultery” (Jeremiah 5:7, NKJV).God gives people wisdom, and they serve the devil with it. He gives them strength, and they waste it in fornication. He gives them food to eat, and they lift up their heel against Him. They are like Absalom who, as soon as David his father had kissed him, plotted treason against him.However, the Bible warns that a day is coming when those who sin against their Giver and abuse God’s royal favors will face a terrifying judgment. They will scream for mercy and call for the rocks to fall on them and hide them, but they will not escape the wrath of God. All of God’s giving ought to drive us to thanksgiving. He is the founder and provider of all our blessings and is entitled to all our acknowledgments. The Bible says that all the rivers come from the sea and there they return again. So all our gifts come from God, and to Him must all our praises return.We are told in Psalm 119:165 that peace is also the gift of God. He has a formula for peace. His formula is in the person of His Son, Jesus Christ, whom He has designated as Prince of Peace. The nations of this world have rejected the peace that God offers. They plan and build for war. Yet there are millions of people around the world who do have peace at this moment, because they have found the secret of peace. They have peace in their hearts, as the Bible teaches: “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:1, NKJV).The real war in which men and women are engaged is a war of rebellion against God. This rebellion has brought about destruction, suffering, misery, frustration and a thousand and one ills to the population of the world. God longs to see this rebellion cease. He has sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to the cross as a demonstration of His love and mercy. He asks us to come to that cross in repentance of our sins and submission of our will to Him. He promises a peace treaty for all who will come by faith.Several years ago I received a letter from a man who said that he had been on the verge of alcoholism. His home had broken up, and twice he had been on the brink of committing suicide. With this deep need in his soul, he came to one of our Crusade meetings. As he sat among the thousands of people, he felt lonely and miserable. He hated himself and despised God. He made fun of Cliff Barrows as he led the singing. When the offering was taken he thought, “What a racket!” When I stood to preach, he sneered.This man was a University of California graduate who had taken several speech courses. He said that during the first five minutes I broke every law of speech he had ever learned. Yet even as I spoke, another Voice began speaking to his soul. That night I preached on the text, “What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?” (Mark 8:36, NKJV). At the invitation, this man who had cursed God and made fun of his wife’s churchgoing felt himself pulled out of his seat by an irresistible power. Tearfully he made his way to the front of the auditorium to stand with the others, indicating his need for repentance and asking to receive Christ as Savior.He wrote, “That night I made my peace with God. I never dreamed what a transformation would take place in my life. I lost all taste for alcohol. My business is prospering. I am back with my family, and we are enjoying daily Bible readings and prayers. I have joined the church and was recently asked to teach a Sunday school class. I wish to thank you, but most of all I want to give thanks to Him who died on the cross to make it all possible.”Thanksgiving? Yes. Let us get on our knees humbly and thank God for the blessings He has given us, both material and spiritual. They have come from His hand. Let us not neglect to thank Him.

Bible verses marked NKJV are taken by permission from The Holy Bible, New King James Version, copyright ©1979, 1980, 1982 Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publishers, Nashville, Tenn. ©Billy Graham Evangelistic Association

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

who shot j.r.?

November 21, 1980----350 million people around the world turned on their TV's to find out who shot J.R. The prime-time drama "Dallas" was one of the most-watched shows on TV, and the previous season's cliffhanger finale ensured that millions more would watch the 1980-81 premier. The March 21 season finale showed J.R. Ewing (Larry Hagman) getting shot, but it took 8 months to find out "who done it." For the record, it was Kristin Shepard, J.R.'s wife's sister and his former mistress, who fired the near-fatal shot.

This is my last post until the weekend. Happy Thanksgiving everybody. May God bless us and keep us healthy, happy and safe this holiday season. May God change our hearts and make us more thankful for the wondrous blessings He has bestowed upon us. May God bless America, and transform us into "one nation under God", just as we were in the days of the Pilgrims. And am I allowed one selfish prayer request? May God bless Brett Favre and heal his body in time for the Monday Night game against Seattle, so that the Pack might slay the evil Seahawks!

HAPPY THANKSGIVING! Just one last link before I go.

the real story of thanksgiving

During the reign of King James I in early 1600's England, the official state-sponsored religion of that country was the Church of England. The church, as well as the worship processes and expressions of that church, were completely controlled by the government. Two major groups opposing the practices of the Church of England formed. They were the Puritans and the Separatists. The goal of the Puritans was to purify/reform the church from within. The Separatists believed that it was necessary to completely separate from the church because of the depth of corruption they found within the church. They also saw no hope of ever being able to freely express their love for God within the stuffy, restrictive regulations of the church. A very influential group of Separatists formed in the town of Scrooby, and the authorities in the Church of England soon began to feel threatened by this group. Harrassment followed, and the Scrooby Separatists began to feel threatened. Some of the leaders ended up being executed, and others were fined, imprisoned or tortured. By 1609, the Separatists knew that they would have to flee, so they banded together and made the journey to Leyden, Holland.

The Separatists truly appreciated the religious freedom they found in Holland. They were able to worship God in that country in a profoundly personal way with no government interference, and for that they were thankful. After almost 10 years in Holland, however, the Separatists had become troubled by the loose morals in their new home. The government of Holland didn't interfere with the Separatists and their religious practices because that government wasn't particularly concerned with the moral or religious behavior (or lack thereof) of their citizens. The Separatists were especially concerned about the effect that kind of loose atmosphere would have on their children. Kind of like raising kids in Vegas or New Orleans, I suppose! Several of the Separatist leaders began to explore the possibility of voyaging across the Atlantic to "the new world."

Take a moment to think about that. Think about how insanely dangerous a voyage like that would be, and understand that the Separatists knew about the danger. Then wrap your mind around the fact that they were willing to risk everything, including their lives, to move their families to a place where they could worship God in an environment that wouldn't corrupt them. That's amazing.

The Separatists prayed and they fasted and they debated and the prayed some more, and God spoke to them. They set sail on the Mayflower on Sept. 6, 1620.

I won't go into a lot of detail about the voyage. History has adequately covered the unbelievable trials endured by the Pilgrims during their voyage. There were 102 passengers, including 33 children. They were at sea for 65 days before they finally caught a glimpse of land. The Pilgrims were so overcome with joy and thankfulness that they dropped to their knees to pray and to sing praises to God. They celebrated by reading Psalm 100:
1 Shout to the Lord with joy, everyone on earth. 2 Worship the Lord with gladness. Come to him with songs of joy. 3 I want you to realize that the Lord is God. He made us, and we belong to him. We are his people. We are the sheep belonging to his flock. 4 Give thanks as you enter the gates of his temple. Give praise as you enter its courtyards. Give thanks to him and praise his name. 5 The Lord is good. His faithful love continues forever. It will last for all time to come.

After giving thanks to our Heavenly Father who had delivered them to this new world, the leaders of the Pilgrims began the task of creating a government to maintain order in the community they were about to establish. The document they put together was, of course, the Mayflower Compact. This marked the first time in recorded history that free and equal men had volutarily covenanted together to create their own new civil government. The covenant said:

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."
Can there be any doubt as to what the purpose of these first "Americans" was? In the tradition of both the Old and the New Testaments, the Pilgrims had made a covenant with God and with each other to live their lives and order their government according to God's will, for the purpose of advancing the Kingdom of God. That, my friends, is the foundation of America!

All of the history books talk about how brutal that first winter (1620-21) was. By March of 1621 almost half of the Pilgrims that had stepped off of the Mayflower had died from starvation, disease, or exposure. Of course, we all learn about how Samoset and Massasoit of the Algonquins and the Wampanoags, and Squanto (the lone surviving Pautuxet from that area) all assisted the Pilgrims with hunting, fishing, farming and trapping. The Indians were instrumental in helping the Pilgrims survive. But that's not the end of the story.

In November of 1621, another ship unexpectedly arrived from England with 35 passengers, and they brought no supplies. The winter of 1621-22 was just as brutal as the previous winter and starvation began to set in but God miraculously carried all of the Pilgrims through to the spring. Nobody died. Spring and summer came and went, and the winter of 1622-23 again saw supplies and food run out and starvation set in. The Pilgrims seemed unable to produce enough food to last through the brutal New England winters. I wonder, do you know why?

It seems that when the Pilgrims originally landed, they established a system of communal property. Any food grown/caught/produced was put into the community storehouse and everybody followed the precept "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Of course we recognize that as socialism, or collectivism, or modern liberalism, or the Democrat agenda for 2007-08. Guess what? It didn't work. I know that fabulous geniuses like Dennis Kucinich would become thoroughly discombobulated by this revelation, but the truth is that collectivism destroys work ethic, creativity, and production. Wow! Ain't that a kick in the head! (Sorry Dean!)

Would you like to take a wild guess what the Pilgrims did? By spring of 1623, the leaders of the Pilgrims knew that one more winter would probably kill all of them. William Bradford, the governor of the colony, prayed and fasted along with the rest of the leadership group, and God revealed the answer to him. Bradford divided up all of the land into individual family plots. He instructed each family to produce as much food as they needed for their own family, and the concept of collectivism was abolished. What Bradford established in its place was the idea of private ownership of property and a free market system. Capitalism was born on this continent in 1623! Guess what the result was? The Pilgrims produced more food than they ever had before, they ate like kings throughout the winter, the colony flourished in the spring/summer of 1624, and they never looked back. August 9, 1624, according to Bradford's diaries, was the date of the biggest Thanksgiving feast they had ever had.

The true story of Thanksgiving provides the perfect illustration of what makes America great, and it really ties together the whole mission of my blog. The Pilgrims founded their new colony on the love of God and the teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. They had the wisdom to recognize that the system of collectivism was destined to fail, and they replaced it with the system of the free market that the great president Ronald W. Reagan revitalized 360 years later. They understood that the powers of government, ideally, should come from "we the people" and they created just such a system. This Thanksgiving, I am thankful for the example set by those Pilgrims. I am thankful for their faith, their courage and their wisdom. I am thankful that the colony that they founded almost 400 years ago has grown into the greatest nation on earth, and that I and my family were put in this nation by God. "The Lord is good. His faithful love continues forever. It will last for all time to come."

Sunday, November 19, 2006

charlie rangel is right

I would be willing to bet any amount of money that the sentence "Charlie Rangel is right" has never before appeared on a blog containing the words "Christian" or "conservative" in its title. That's what I do, though. If someone speaks the truth, I don't care what their political beliefs are, I will support them in the truth.
Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y. said Sunday that he believes that the United States needs to reinstitute the draft in order to adequately keep up with our military commitments and to deter politicians from carelessly launching wars. I don't care for Rep. Rangel. I don't like his political beliefs and I don't think that he is a particularly honest man, but I agree 100% with his views concerning a draft. I have believed for some time that we need to bring back the draft, and I'll tell you why.
A majority of Americans have come to believe that national defense is the job of "other people's kids." National defense is something we hire "other people" to do. We have way too many Americans who incorrectly believe that the military is for those kids who are social misfits, academically unsuccessful, and who have no other prospects. They are wrong, but that is the common misperception. Over the last 30 years, we as a country have lost the belief that national defense is a shared responsibility that we all have to sacrifice for. One of the biggest blunders that Pres. Bush made as president was when he told America after 9/11 that the best thing we could do was to go on about our lives and leave national security to the "experts." This is a big reason why he has so little support for the war in Iraq. "We the people" have no ownership of the war on terror. We have not been called on to share the sacrifice. We have been allowed to forget how important it is to take the fight to the Islamofascists over there, rather than sit back and wait for them to blow up our cities.
I have 3 children, ages 7 (boy), 4 (girl), and 16 months (boy). I am well aware of the fact that if the draft came back, my kids would be affected. Whether you want to face the facts or not, we are in the beginning years of World War III, and it will not end anytime in my lifetime. A draft means that my children would probably be put in harm's way, and that thought just crushes me. My head tells me, though, that a draft is the right thing to do. I am in the minority with this opinion. Any politician who ran for office proclaiming that he would work to reinstitute the draft would be defeated. I know all this, yet the truth is the truth. Our great nation has become soft. We are becoming a nation of people unwilling to make the hard choices based on what is right and what is wrong. Our future has never been more uncertain.

Saturday, November 18, 2006

"the oldest and wisest"---1988

President Ronald Reagan
Conservative Political Action Conference
Washington, DC
February 11, 1988

Thank you very much. It's great to be here tonight, and I'm delighted to see so many old friends. And now let's get right to it. First, there's the INF treaty. How do you think I felt when Gorbachev called a week and a half ago and asked me if our first group of on-site inspectors could be the Denver Broncos' pass defense? (Laughter.) And then along came the House vote on Contra aid—I felt so terrible, I nearly called Dan Reeves and John Elway to tell them what a rough week I'd had.
But seriously, while the Denver Broncos are all terrific athletes and people, each one of us has to congratulate the Washington Redskins. Believe me, the House action on the Contra vote was a missed chance at a victory for peace in Central America. It's great to know there are some people in Washington who play to win. And believe me, I'll be getting back to that topic in a few minutes.
By the way, something odd happened just before I got here tonight that I think you should know about. I got a message from Dave Keene reminding me that this was the eve of Lincoln's birthday—and suggesting I go upstairs and check on the ghost in Lincoln's bedroom. I did. And what do you know, there was Stan Evans dressed as Abe Lincoln. And he kept saying, "Listen to Jesse Helms."
Actually, I do want to thank you for that warm welcome, but I hope tonight isn't going to be like what happened to that fellow I knew back in Hollywood in those movie days—and, oh, how I hope I have't told you this one before.
We had an actor that was in Hollywood, and he was only there long enough to get enough money to go to Italy, because he aspired to an operatic career. And then after some time there, in Milan, Italy, where he was studying, he was invited to sing at La Scala—the very spiritual fountainhead of opera. They were doing Pagliacci, and he sang the beautiful aria, Vesti La Giuba. And he received such thunderous and sustained applause from the balconies and the orchestra seats that he had to repeat the aria as an encore. And again the same sustained, thunderous applause. And again he sang Vesti La Giuba. And this went on until finally he motioned for quiet, and he tried to tell them how full his heart was at that reception—his first time out. But he said," I have sung Vesti La Giuba nine times now. My voice is gone. I cannot do it again." And a voice from the balcony said, "You'll do it 'till you get it right." Well, let's get it right tonight. And let's start where we should start.
A couple of weeks ago, I talked about the state of our Union, and tonight I'd like to talk about something that I think in many ways is synonymous: the state of our movement. During the past year, plenty of questions have been asked about the conservative movement by some people who were surprised to find out back in 1980 that there was such a thing. I mean a powerful new political movement capable of running a victorious na-tional campaign based on an unabashed appeal to the American people for conservative ideas and principles.
Well, we conservatives have been in Washington now for a while and we occasionally need to remind ourselves what brought us here in the first place: our unshakable, root-deep, all-encompassing skepticism about the capital city's answer to the UFO, that bizarre, ever-tottering but ever-flickering saucer in the sky called "The Prevailing Washington Wisdom."
And, right now, some of the Potomac seers are saying we con-servatives are tired; or they're saying we don't have a candi-date, some of those candidates in the other party saying how easy it's going to be to win the presidency for their liberal agenda because they can run on, of all things, this administration's economic record. Boy, have I got news for them. They're seeing flying saucers again. I've even got a quote for them. It's from Napoleon-the morning of Waterloo—at breakfast with his generals. This is true. He said, "I tell you what—Wellington is a bad general. The English are bad trips. We'll settle the matter by lunchtime."
Well, my fellow conservatives, I think that's exactly what this year is about-settling the matter by lunchtime. Letting the liberals in Washington discover once again the lesson they refuse to learn. Letting them know just how big our election year will be because of booming economic growth and indi-vidual opportunity; and how big an election year ball and chain they've given themselves with a seven-year record of opposition to the real record. But, most of all, letting them know that the real friends of the conservative movement aren't those entrenched in the capital city for 50 years; the real friends of the conservative movement are an entity that gets heard from in a big way every four years and who, I promise you, are going to be heard from this year. I'm talking about those who, if the case is aggressively put before them, will vote for limited government, family values, and a tough, strong foreign policy every single time. I'm talking about those believers in common sense and sound values, your friends and mine, the American people.
You see, those who underestimate the conservative move-ment are the same people who always underestimate the American people. Take the latest instance. As I mentioned, in recent months some people—and I'm not mentioning any names because I don't want to build up any candidacies before New Hampshire but you know who they are-have actually taken it upon themselves to prove to the American people that they've been worse off under this administration than they were back in the Carter years of the '70s.
Now I agree with you, this takes some doing. How do they manage it? Well, you see, any statistical comparison of the two recent administrations would start with 1977 to 1981 as the budget years of the last administration, and 1981 to 1987 as the pertinent years for this one. Now, that sounds reasonable enough. But our opponents have a new approach, one that would have embarrassed even the emperor's tailors. They take the years 1977, to up to 1983—and then they stop. So you see, not only do 1984 and 1985 not get counted in their database, but they include in this administration's economic record four years of the last Democratic administration. As columnist Warren Brookes pointed out in an article published in the Washington Times, "All of the foreshortened Reagan gains are nullified by the Carter losses, so they look like no gains at all, or, worse, losses." Our successes, in short, are buried under the last administration's failures.
But the truth is otherwise. Because under the last administra-tion real per capita disposable income rose at only one percent annual rate, only half the two percent rate of increase under this administrations gain that has totaled 12.4 percent in six years. Under the last administration, median family income declined 6.8 percent while under this administration it went up 9.1 percent. Or take the real after-tax labor income per hour, If you use the approach adopted by our liberal critics, you see a 4. 5 percent decline. But the truth is that that figure fell 8.5 percent under the last administration and we turned this around and accounted for an 8.9 percent increase.
Under the last administration, the average weekly wage went down an incredible 10 percent in real terms, which accounted for the worst drop in postwar history. Here again, we've stopped the decline. And that's not to mention what all this has meant in terms of opportunity for women, for blacks, and minorities, the very groups our opponents say they most want to help.
Well, since the recovery began, 70 percent of the new jobs have been translated into opportunities for women; and black and other minority employment has risen twice as fast as all other groups. Minority family income has also increased at a rate over 40 percent faster than other groups. In addition, since 1983, 2.9 million people have climbed out of poverty, and the poverty rate has declined at the fastest rate in more than 10 years. So, think for a moment on what these statistics mean and the kind of political nerve and desperation it takes to try to sell the American people on the idea that in the 1980s they never had it so bad. The truth is, we're in the 63rd month of this non-stop expansion. Real Gross National Product growth for 1987 was 3.8 percent, defying the pessimists and even exceeding our own forecast—which was criticized as being too rosy at the tirne—by more than one half percent. Inflation is down from 13.5 per cent in 1980 to only around 4 percent or less this year. And there's over 15 million new jobs.
So, believe me, I welcome this approach by the opposition. And I promise you, every time they use it, I'Iljust tell the story of a friend of mine who was asked to a costume ball a short time ago-he slapped some egg on his face and went as a liberal economist.Now the reason I spell out these statistics and stress this economic issue should be very clear. You know that some cynics like to say that the people vote their pocketbook. But that's not quite the point. Economic issues are important to the people not simply for reasons of self-interest. They know the whole body politic depends on economic stability; the great crises have come for democracies when taxes and inflation ran out of control and undermined social relations and basic institutions. The Amer-ican people know what limited government, tax cuts, deregula-tion, and the move towards privatization have meant. It's meant the largest peacetime expansion in our history, and I can guarantee you they won't want to throw that away for a return to budgets beholden to the liberal special interests.
No, I think the economic record of conservatives in power is going to speak for itself. But now let's turn to another area. For two decades we've been talking about getting justices on the Supreme Court who cared less about criminals and more about the victims of crime, justices who knew that the words "original intent" referred to something more than New Year's resolutions and fad diets. And then, seven months ago a seat opened on the Supreme Court. And even before our first nominee was announced, a campaign was planned unlike any that has ever been waged for or against a judicial nominee in the history of our country. And let me acknowledge once again my admiration for one of the courageous defenders, not only in our time but in all time, of the principles of our Constitution, yes, of its original intent-judge Robert Bork.
One of America's most cherished principles-the independence and integrity of our judiciary-was under siege. And the American people, who have always been with the ultimate guarantors of the Constitution, began to say with clarity and finality, it must never happen again. So when I nominated a judge who could as easily have been my first nominee, there was hardly a peep of protest. And judge Kennedy is now going to be justice Kennedy. And since our opponents won't, I'll let you in on a secret-judge Kennedy will be just the kind of justice that you and I've been determined to put on the Court. Anyway, any man who teaches law school in a tri-corner hat and a powdered wig is okay by me on original intent. (That didn't work out quite like Pres. Reagan envisioned. Nobody's perfect!)
Let's look at how far and how successfully we've carried the battle into the lower courts. just look at the statistics on criminal sentencing. In few places can you see more clearly the collapse of the liberal stranglehold on our courts. The most recent statistics show federal judges imposed prison sentences that averaged 32 percent longer than those handed down during 1979. Robbery sentences were 10 percent longer; drug offenses 38 percent longer; and weapons offenses 41 percent longer.
The great legal debates of the past two decades over criminal justice have, at their root, been debates over a strict versus expansive construction of the Constitution. The Constitution, as originally intended by the framers, is itself tough on crime, and protective of the victims of crime. For so long the liberal message to our national culture was tune in, turn on, let it all hang out. And now they see conservatives taking the lead as our nation says "no" to drugs, and "yes" to family, and "abso-lutely" to schools that teach basic skills, basic values, and basic discipline. And it's no wonder that our nation admires a man who believes in teaching values in education, and talks turkey to teachers, parents, and educators such as our Secretary of Education, Bill Bennett.
And so I say to you tonight that the vision and record that we will take aggressively to the American people this November is a vision that all Americans, except a few on the left, share. A vision of a nation that believes in the heroism of ordinary people living ordinary lives; of tough courts and safe streets, of a drug-free America where schools teach honesty, respect, love of learning and, yes, love of country; a vision of a land where families can grow in love and safety and where dreams are made with opportunity. This is the vision; this is the record; this is the agenda for victory this year.Well, that's the record then on the economy and the social issues. Now, let's turn to foreign policy.
I want to be clear tonight about the vote on Contra aid. It was a setback to the national security interests of the United States, and a sad moment for the cause of peace and freedom in Central America. Until now the carrot-and-stick approach has worked in forcing a communist regime to relax some of its repression. But now, the action by the House of Representatives rerooves one part of that formula and goes only with the carrot. The effect of this vote then was to thrust the promises of democracy of the Sandinista communists—the kind of promises that no communist regime in history has ever carried out, and that this regime was likely to carry out only under continued pressure. The effect of this vote was to rest the hopes for peace and democracy in Central America purely and simply on the word of the communist regime in Managua. This course is, and I repeat, a risk to America's national security.
But you know, I read something the other day and it's worth a note here. One of those opposing aid to the freedom fighters said it was important to get a 20-vote margin. Well, as you know, it was nothing like that—if we could have turned around four or five votes, we would have won. Last week's vote was not the final word, only a pause. Last week, the bad news was the lost vote in the House. But the good news was our support in the Senate and the overwhelming number of House Republicans who voted with us and those 47 Democrats who braved the threats of reprisals to vote for Contra aid.
So, let me make this pledge to you tonight: we're not giving up on those who are fighting for their freedom-and they aren't giving up either. I'll have more to say on this in a few weeks. For now, I'll leave it at this: get ready-the curtain hasn't fallen, the drama continues. While we're on foreign policy, let me turn for just a moment to what I said in that December interview while Mr. Gorbachev was here. You know, Ben Wattenberg was one of the journalists there, and he brought up a speech I made back in 1982 to the British Parliament. And he asked me if what I really was saying was what I said in England: that if the West remained resolute, the Soviets would have to, at some point, deal with their own internal problems and crises, that the tides of history are shifting in favor of the cause of freedom. Well, I believed then, and I believe now, that we must consider what we're seeing-or the steps in that direction. This hardly means accepting the Soviets at face value. Few of us can forget what that has led to in the past. FDR was quoted as saying during his dealings with Stalin—with the Soviets in '44: "Stalin doesn't want anything but security for his country and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world democracy and peace."
Well, no, there is no room for illusion. Our guard is up, our watch is careful. We shall not be led by-or misled by atmospherics. We came to Washington with a common-sense message that the world is a dangerous place where the only sure route to peace and the protection of freedom is through American strength. In no place has this thesis of peace through strength been tested more than on the matter of intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF). In deploying over 400 SS-20s, with over 1,200 warheads, against our friends and allies in Europe and Asia over the past decade, the Soviets were playing a highstakes game of geopolitical blackjack. The prize was Europe-the strategy, discredit America's deterrence and undermine the NATO alliance. But we and our allies turned over a winning hand, deploying in Europe Pershing II and ground-launched cruise missiles that provided an effective counter to the new Soviet missiles, and Moscow finally stopped upping the stakes.
What I would like to see is for some of those who've been praising our INF treaty to show they've learned its true lesson and vote to maintain an adequate defense budget, our work on a strategic defense against ballistic missiles, and, yes, aid to the freedom fighters in Nicaragua.
And while we're on the subject of our nation's defense-you know, there's a man I want to talk about tonight who said once that "the definition of happiness was service to a noble cause." No one has done that better, and tonight I salute Cap Weinberger for all he's done for America.
But at the same time we must not look at any single step alone—we must see not just the INF treaty but also the advance of SDI and, most important, the growing democratic revolution around the globe against totalitarian regimes. We should engage the Soviets in negotiations to deter war and keep the peace. But at the same time, we must make clear our own posi-tion, as I have throughout these negotiations. In sitting down to these negotiations, we accept no moral equivalency between the cause of freedom and the rule of totalitarianism.
And we understand that the most important change of all is this: that containment is no longer enough, that we no longer can be satisfied with an endless stalemate between liberty and repression. That arms reduction negotiations, development and testing of SDI, and our help for freedom fighters around the globe must express the clear goal of American foreign policy. To deter war, yes. To further world peace, yes. But, most of ail, to advance and protect the cause of world freedom so that some day every man, woman, and child on this Earth has as a birth-right the full blessings of liberty.
We've seen dramatic change in these seven years. Who would have guessed seven years ago that we would see tax rates drop from 70 percent to 28 percent, the longest peacetime economic boom in our history, or a massive shift in world opinion toward the ideas of free enterprise and political freedom?
I know some of you are impatient with the pace of this change. But if I might repeat a story I told when I addressed you for the first time as President-I had the pleasure in appearing before a Senate committee once while I was still Governor. And I was challenged there because there was a Republican president in the White House at the time, who'd been there for some tirne-and why hadn't we corrected everything that had gone wrong. And the only way I could think to answer him is, I told him about a ranch many years ago that Nancy and I acquired. It had a barn with eight stalls in it, in which they kept cattle-cows. We wanted to keep horses. Well, the accumulation within the stalls had built up the floor to the place that it wasn't even tall enough for horses in there. And so there I was, day after day, with a pick and shovel, lowering the level of those stalls, which had accumulated over the years. And I told this senator who'd asked that question that I discovered that you didn't undo in a relatively short time what it had taken some 15 years to accumulate.
We have not only been undoing the damage of the past; we've put this nation on the upward road again. And, in the process, the differences between the liberals and conservatives have become clear to the American people. We want to keep taxes low, they want to raise them; we send in budgets with spending cuts and they want to ignore them; we want the balanced budget amendment and the line-item veto and they oppose them; we want tough judges and tough anti-crime legislation, they hold them both up in the Congress.
You'd be surprised how many judges are waiting out there before they-so that they have to pass on them before they can take their office, and they've been waiting for months. We want a prayer amendment, they won't let it come to a vote in the House; we stress firmness with the Soviets, they try to pass legislation that would tie our hands in arms negotiations and endanger our defenses. But I say, we have a program and a plan for the American people-a program to protect Amercian jobs by fighting the menace of protectionism, to move forward at flank speed with SDI, to call America to conscience on the issue of abortion on demand, to mention, as I did in my State of the Union Address, the overwhelming importance of family life and family values.
That's a case to take to the American people. That's a fighting agenda. I intend to campaign vigorously for whoever our nominee is, and tonight I ask each of you to join me in this important crusade. Let's ask the American people to replenish our mandate. Let's tell them if they want four more years of economic progress and the march of world freedom, they must help us this year. Help us settle the matter before lunchtime. Help make 1988 the year of the Waterloo liberal.
I just have to add here, when you look at the figures overall—that they have the nerve even to still be out there and campaign-ing. (Laughter)
We mustn't just think that electing the president is enough. We've been doing that for more than half-a-century. We have-in the 50 years between 1931 and 1980, only four years in that period was there a Republican majority in both houses of the Congress—two years in Eisenhower's regime, two years in Truman's. But for 46 of those 50 years, they controlled the Congress. Every Democratic president, except for those two years, had a Democratic Congress. Every Republican president had a Democratic Congress, except for those two years in Eisen-hower's regime. And now, in the last seven years added to that-yes, for six of those years we had one House. But except for the four years, for 58 years it will be our opponents holding the House of Representatives, where so much legislation and authorization for spending and so forth comes in. And in all those 58 years, there have only been eight single years in which there was a balanced budget. So, who's at fault for the deficit today?
Back when the great society-when the war on poverty began, which poverty won—from 1965 to 1980—in those 15 years, the federal budget increased to five times what it had been in '65. And the deficit increased to 38 times what it had beenjust 15 years before. It's built-in, it's structural. And you and I need to get representatives not only in the Executive Branch, but out there in the legislature, so that we can change that structure that is so built-in, and that threatens us with so much harm.
Well, I've gone on too long for all of you here, but I just wanted to—I couldn't resist, because you're the troops. You're out there on the frontier of freedom. One young soldier over there in Korea—one of our men—saluted me when I visited there, and very proudly said, "Mr. President, we're on the frontier of freedom." Well, so are you.
Thank you. God bless you all.

© 2006 The American Conservative Union. .1007 Cameron Street. .Alexandria, VA 22314.

psalm 112

Psalm 112 (New International Reader's Version)
New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
Copyright © 1996, 1998 by International Bible Society
Psalm 112
1 Praise the Lord. Blessed is the one who has respect for the Lord. He finds great delight when he obeys God's commands. 2 His children will be powerful in the land. Because he is honest, his children will be blessed. 3 His family will have wealth and riches. He will always be blessed for doing what is right. 4 Even in the darkness light shines on honest people. It shines on those who are kind and tender and godly. 5 Good things will come to those who are willing to lend freely. Good things will come to those who are fair in everything they do. 6 They will always be secure. Those who do what is right will be remembered forever. 7 They aren't afraid when bad news comes. They stand firm because they trust in the Lord. 8 Their hearts are secure. They aren't afraid. In the end they will see their enemies destroyed. 9 They have spread their gifts around to poor people. Their good works continue forever. They will be powerful and honored. 10 Evil people will see it and be upset. They will grind their teeth and become weaker and weaker. What evil people long to do can't succeed.

Friday, November 17, 2006

mccain urges gop to return to its "common-sense conservative roots"

"We lost our principles and our majority. And there is no way to recover our majority without recovering our principles first."----John McCain, Nov. 16, 2006

You'll have to excuse this Christian conservative for not joyfully leaping onto the ever-evolving McCain bandwagon. Any mention of his name makes me break out in a rash, so I'm under doctor's orders not to support "The Maverick." (Was that McCain starring with James Garner in the 1950's TV show?)
In all seriousness, just who does this guy think he's kidding? McCain is to principled conservatism what Bill Clinton is to marriage fidelity. McCain is to Reagan what Hillary is to Ann Coulter. In fact, McCain IS Hillary! They both lie. They both talk out both sides of their mouth, depending on the audience. They both have wicked tempers, they are both insane, and neither one of them is a conservative. Ohhh nooo! Could it be that McCain and Hillary are the same person? Just like Michael and Janet Jackson are really the same person? This calls for an investigation!
OK, Senator McNuts, here are the facts. You were against the Bush tax cuts before you were for them. You allowed your campaign co-chairman, Warren Rudman, to call Christian conservatives "imbeciles" and you never denounced or disciplined him. You are against repealing Roe v Wade. You have never supported the National Right to Life Committee. You have voted in favor of using tax money for experiments that use the body parts of aborted babies. You voted for Steven Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the Supreme Court. You support campaign finance regulation that spits on the 1st Amendment. You co-wrote an immigration bill with "The Swim Coach"--Ted Kennedy-- that gives amnesty to illegals. Have I missed anything? Can you show me one single difference between you and Kerry, or Gore, or "Tadpole Teddy", or Pelosi, or Hillary? John McCain is more full of ____than the basement of an outhouse. He is a liberal and, if he secures the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, he will take the party right off the cliff.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

the gop civil war---the first shots have been fired

I have stated that there is going to be a war for the heart and soul of the Republican party between the principled Reagan conservatives and the liberal wing of the GOP. Well, the opening shots have been fired, and battle lines are being drawn.
Sen. Mel Martinez, R--Fla., has been chosen as the new head of the Republican National Committee. Although the 1st-term senator has earned a perfect 100% score from the American Conservative Union, he is decidedly to the left when it comes to illegal immigration and border security. Sen. Martinez favors amnesty for illegals and open borders so that more illegals can come for their free amnesty. That's not the kind of guy I had in mind when I said that the GOP must start picking principled Reagan conservatives to lead the party.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was unanimously selected as the Senate minority leader on Wednesday. Now that's what I'm talking about! Democrats describe him as a ruthless partisan warrior. He is a Reagan conservative to the core, and he is proud of it. This is the kind of leader we need in the Senate!
There will be ups and downs, and there will be lots of rhetoric and "speechifying" on both sides over the next two years. Make no mistake, this is a fight for the heart and soul of the GOP and, for the sake of the party's future, the true conservatives must win!

"blue dog" democrats and the 110th congress

This is a fascinating article about the possibility of so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats (conservative Democrats) aligning themselves with the GOP on various issues in the 110th Congress. According to Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla., the Blue Dogs number 44 strong, or about 20% of the incoming Democratic majority. The Blue Dogs lean to the right on social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and gun rights, and they are strongly conservative on fiscal issues such as balancing the budget and reducing the federal debt. The opinion expressed in the article is that these Blue Dogs will side with conservative Republicans on such issues and stall the progressive agenda outlined by the more liberal Democrats such as Charlie Rangel, John Murtha, and Nancy Pelosi.
This is all very interesting, but I remain skeptical. Pelosi was unanimously voted into the Speaker's chair by her fellow Democrats. Pelosi contributed financially to all of the Blue Dog campaigns. She has authority over committee assignments. To my way of thinking, they are bought and paid for. I don't see any of them biting the hand that feeds them. As with all things, we shall see, but history shows that it is a rare politician, especially a Democrat politician, that operates out of principle and not out of blind political ambition.
This article does, however, illustrate one very basic truth about politics. The Democrats who were swept into office to claim the majority ran, for the most part, on a conservative agenda. They ran to the right of many of their Republican opponents. They "out-righted" the right! The American voter will vote conservative every day of the week, and twice on Sunday, so the road back to the majority for the GOP is clear. Stop messing around, and get back to the basics of principled Reagan conservatism. Defeat the forces of liberalism that are currently such a cancer in the GOP ranks. Be true to the American people by being true to conservatism, and the voters will reward you.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

the hard cold facts support the "oldest and wisest"

Over the course of the last week, I have used the words of Pres. Reagan to illustrate what is wrong with the modern GOP, how the Republicans lost the election, and what can be done to fix the problems. I'll quickly summarize the points made by Reagan:
1. A significant majority of Americans believe in the principles of conservatism. Only a small minority believe in modern liberalism, which is more accurately called "collectivism."
2. The liberal faction of the GOP will lead the party to disaster. They must be defeated.
3. If the Republicans hold fast to the tenents of principled conservatism, and consistently govern according to those principles, the people will overwhelmingly support them.

Is Reagan right? The hard cold data says that he is. Let's look at the numbers, shall we?
This is a link to an article about the results of an October CNN poll. The poll found that 54% of Americans believe that government is trying to do too many things that are better left to individuals and private business. The poll also found that 51% of Americans believe that promoting traditional values is an appropriate activity for government. Keep in mind, this isn't a poll commissioned by Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence In Broadcasting Network. This is a CNN poll. If the poll results favor conservatives, believe it!
This is a link to an article about the Battleground polls that, among other things, ask Americans about their political leanings. The results have been remarkably consistent in this decade. 59% of all Americans describe themselves as "conservative" or "very conservative." 36% of all Americans describe themselves as "liberal" or "very liberal." The implications of these numbers are staggering. If the GOP staunchly supported principled conservativism in their words and actions, and never wavered in their conservatism, they would never lose an election.

Reagan, as always, had the right answer. The modern GOP must become the home of principled conservatism and the defender of traditional values. They must "brand" themselves as the commonsense alternative to the secular progressives in the Wingnut Party. Conservatism is the answer to the question; the solution to the problem. If the GOP wants to reestablish their majority in both houses of Congress, and if they want to keep the White House, Reagan Conservatism is the roadmap they have to follow. All other roads lead to defeat, and the implosion of all that is good and right in America.

Monday, November 13, 2006

more lessons from "the oldest and wisest"

Wisdom has been defined as the understanding of what is true, right or lasting. There is no greater example of true wisdom in the modern political era than Ronald Wilson Reagan. The link found above will take you to a transcript of the speech Reagan made on March 1, 1975 to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). The previous November had been just as disastrous to the Republicans as the 2006 election. The GOP lost 48 seats in the House and 4 seats in the Senate that year, due in large part to the Watergate scandal. Republicans were doing a lot of soul searching in the wake of the well-deserved whuppin' they received at the hands of the Democrats, and Reagan, as usual, saw very clearly what the solutions were. This speech should be required reading for all Republican politicians. I guarantee Mike Pence has read it. The modern GOP is about to endure a civil war, and the outcome of that war will determine who the winners of the 2008 election will be. If the more liberal Republicans win, the Republicans who believe in Bush's "compassionate conservative" drivel, then the Democrats will continue to win elections. If the Mike Pence/John Shadegg/Mitch McConnell conservative Republicans win the war, then this "new Democrat era" will be very short-lived indeed. This battle for the heart and soul of the GOP will be the most important battle we face over the next two years. If conservatives lose this battle, then we will have to resign ourselves to the fact that the GOP is a lost cause and third-party options will have to be explored. Truthfully, I don't think that will happen. Conservatism has truth on its side, and the truth always, eventually, wins.

Sunday, November 12, 2006

sir elton john provides a teachable moment

Organized religion fuels anti-gay discrimination and other forms of bias, pop star Elton John said in an interview published Saturday.
"I think religion has always tried to turn hatred toward gay people," John said in the Observer newspaper's Music Monthly Magazine. "Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays."
"But there are so many people I know who are gay and love their religion," he said. "From my point of view, I would ban religion completely. Organized religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."

Use the link above to read the entire article, but certainly the entire message of the article is contained in this quote. When I read secular progressive drivel such as this, I try to learn from it. The lesson I learn from this quote is that there are very real differences between Christian conservatives and secular progressives.

Clearly, I am a Christian conservative. I am also a big Elton John fan. I have seen him in concert 6 different times starting in 1978. I own most of his CD's, and I own a concert DVD box set. I am well aware of his lifestyle, but I don't care. I believe that homosexuality is a sin, but it's a sin that is no different than divorce or adultery. Elton John's sexuality does not prevent me from admiring the man as a musician and a performer. Quite frankly, his sexuality is none of my business. I don't know of any prominent Christian conservative in the country who believes that homosexuality should be outlawed. If there was one, I would be a strong opponent. Sexuality is none of the government's business.

Now, that is very different from being against gay marriage. Most Christian conservatives believe that the gay marriage issue is a ploy by gay activists to coerce government into sanctioning homosexuality as no different than any other form of sexuality. It's not enough for government to be neutral on the issue. Secular progressives want government to mainstream homosexuality as a matter of public policy. Elton John even takes that one giant step further when he says that government should ban organized religion because it opposes the secular progressive agenda.

Do you see the difference? Let's summarize.
1. Elton John, a committed secular progressive and a gay political activist, wants to ban organized religion. Christian conservatives have no desire to ban homosexuality.
2. According to secular progressives, it is hateful and intolerant for Christians to disapprove of homosexuality because of our religious beliefs. On the other hand, secular hatred directed towards Christians is the ultimate in sophisticated, nuanced thinking.
3. "Liberal tolerance" is an oxymoron. There is no political doctrine on this earth more hateful or more intolerant than modern liberalism, or secular progressivism.
4. Liberalism is a cancer of the heart, soul, mind and spirit. It renders a person unable to differentiate between good and evil, fact and fiction, or tolerance and intolerance. It is a disease that breeds hatred and intolerance in the soul, and there is no more striking example of that sad fact than the Elton John interview.

Now, when is Elton's next concert tour? I want to be first in line for tickets!

Friday, November 10, 2006

gop autopsy results

The Club for Growth is a national network of over 39,000 men and women, from all walks of life, who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom.
The Club for Growth exists to encourage, and make possible, the enactment of pro-growth economic policies by the federal government. The primary tactic of the Club for Growth PAC has been to provide financial support from Club members to viable pro-growth candidates to Congress, particularly in Republican primaries.
As stated on their website, the goals for the Club for Growth are:
1. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent
2. Death tax repeal
3. Cutting and limiting government spending
4. Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts
5. Expanding free trade
6. Legal reform to end abusive lawsuits
7. Replacing the current tax code
8. School choice
9. Regulatory reform and deregulation

The Club For Growth just released some very interesting data from a survey they took before the election that supports everything I have been saying about how the GOP has lost their way. The link is:
The GOP has two choices. They can recognize how poorly they have performed the last 6 years and use that knowlege as a catalyst for change. Or they can continue down the path of big-government liberalism, right off the cliff. That's why it is crucial to change the party leadership.

respect and recognition for those who have served

Veterans Day 2006---By VFW Commander-in-Chief Gary Kurpius
America’s armed forces are at war in two theaters: Afghanistan and Iraq. This fall marks the fifth anniversary of the Afghanistan War; operations in Iraq have been under way for well over three years. Already, 1.3 million GIs can call themselves veterans of these conflicts. So what does the nation owe this newest generation of warriors? What comes to mind immediately are respect and recognition. They are placing their lives on the line for a society largely unable to identify with their sacrifices. With those in uniform constituting the mere fraction of 1 percent of the population, it is the least the public can do. This lack of a shared sense of sacrifice is a subject that occasionally comes up in newspaper print, but not often enough. Consequently, it is imperative to note some of the related commentaries. “This is one of the most challenging and uncomfortable subjects in American society—the lack of shared responsibility, across all social and economic classes, in the nation’s defense,” Dan Rodricks wrote in the Baltimore Sun. “We support the troops, but most of us have no interest in seeing our own families engaged directly. “The point is, one part of America is fighting this war and making all the sacrifices while the rest of us go about our business, concerned but hardly strained. … In fact, those in uniform and their families are being asked to make sacrifices on top of sacrifices.” As Rodricks said, “We have a great divide in this country—between the military culture and the civilian culture, and it has never been more pronounced than it is right now.” Ben Stein, writing in the New York Times, asked: “Now, who’s fighting for us in the fight of our lives? Brave, idealistic Southerners. Hispanics from New Mexico. Rural men and women from upstate New York. Small-town boys and girls from the Midwest. Do the children of the powers on Wall Street resign to go off and fight? Fight for the system that made them rich? Fight for the way of life that made them princes? Surely, you jest.”The theater in which one fights has no bearing on the value of his or her service. Frank Schaeffer, co-author of AWOL, makes this clear. “The act of volunteering to be sent wherever your country needs you must be acknowledged as a priceless gift from the individual citizen to his or her country,” he wrote in the Baltimore Sun. “This gift’s morality doesn’t depend on the rightness or wrongness of any war, but on the soldier’s high-stakes commitment to the value of our democratic experiment.” VFW members have the rare opportunity to bridge the “great divide” mentioned earlier. As war veterans, we have the obligation to serve as emissaries on behalf of today’s warriors. By spreading the message of respect/recognition, we can make the public understand the real meaning of Veterans Day.

Veterans Day
Veterans Day is an opportunity to publicly commemorate the contributions of living veterans. Armistice Day officially received its name in America in 1926 through a congressional resolution. It became a national holiday 12 years later by similar congressional action. If World War I had been "the war to end all wars," November 11 might be still called Armistice Day. Realizing that peace was equally preserved by veterans of World War II and Korea, Congress decided to make the day an occasion to honor all those who have served America. In 1954 President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a bill proclaiming November 11 as Veterans Day. (Historically, the first Veterans Day parade was held in 1953 in Emporia, Kansas.) A law passed in 1968 changed the national commemoration of Veterans Day to the fourth Monday in October. It soon became apparent, however, that November 11 was a date of historic significance to many Americans. Therefore, in 1978 Congress returned the observance to its traditional date.

today in history--1975

On November 10, 1975, an ore carrier sank in Lake Superior during a November storm, taking the lives of all 29 crew members. Later that month, Gordon Lightfoot (main page) - inspired by an article in Newsweek Magazine - wrote what is probably his most famous song: Wreck Of The Edmund Fitzgerald (song clip). He wrote the song as a tribute to the ship, the sea, and the men who lost their lives that night. When asked recently what he thought his most significant contribution to music was, he said it was this song. In spite of its unlikely subject matter, it climbed to #2 on the Billboard pop charts and it remains one the most stirring topical ballads ever written and a highlight of every Lightfoot concert.

c1976 by Gordon Lightfoot
Original recording on Summertime Dream, Complete Greatest Hits, and Songbook boxed set
Rerecording (live in studio) on Gord's Gold Volume 2

The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
of the big lake they called "Gitche Gumee."
The lake, it is said, never gives up her dead
when the skies of November turn gloomy.
With a load of iron ore twenty-six thousand tons more
than the Edmund Fitzgerald weighed empty,
that good ship and true was a bone to be chewed
when the "Gales of November" came early.
The ship was the pride of the American side
coming back from some mill in Wisconsin.
As the big freighters go, it was bigger than most
with a crew and good captain well seasoned,
concluding some terms with a couple of steel firms
when they left fully loaded for Cleveland.
And later that night when the ship's bell rang,
could it be the north wind they'd been feelin'?
The wind in the wires made a tattle-tale sound
and a wave broke over the railing.
And ev'ry man knew, as the captain did too
'twas the witch of November come stealin'.
The dawn came late and the breakfast had to wait
when the Gales of November came slashin'.
When afternoon came it was freezin' rain
in the face of a hurricane west wind.
When suppertime came the old cook came on deck sayin'.
"Fellas, it's too rough t'feed ya."
At seven P.M. a main hatchway caved in; he said,
"Fellas, it's bin good t'know ya!"
The captain wired in he had water comin' in
and the good ship and crew was in peril.
And later that night when 'is lights went outta sight
came the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.
Does any one know where the love of God goes
when the waves turn the minutes to hours?
The searchers all say they'd have made Whitefish Bay
if they'd put fifteen more miles behind 'er.
They might have split up or they might have capsized;
they may have broke deep and took water.
And all that remains is the faces and the names
of the wives and the sons and the daughters.
Lake Huron rolls, Superior sings
in the rooms of her ice-water mansion.
Old Michigan steams like a young man's dreams;
the islands and bays are for sportsmen.
And farther below Lake Ontario
takes in what Lake Erie can send her,
And the iron boats go as the mariners all know
with the Gales of November remembered.
In a musty old hall in Detroit they prayed,
in the "Maritime Sailors' Cathedral."
The church bell chimed 'til it rang twenty-nine times
for each man on the Edmund Fitzgerald.
The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
of the big lake they call "Gitche Gumee."
"Superior," they said, "never gives up her dead
when the gales of November come early!"
Free Counter