I am not sure why I do this to myself.

Whenever Ralph Wiley writes something for ESPN, I always read it and then wonder why I keep reading his stuff afterward. Today's piece is about why the Lakers are beatable. In and of itself if you can get past him telling about how wonderful a ball player he is and pretending to be a hip, urban dude by using inexplicably poor grammar it is a good article. He has a great point about kids learning an important lesson in the NBA, there are TONS of guys who can shoot the ball but not so many that can get the shot off. So much of the NBA anymore is standing around watching one guy drive the lane.

Of course Wiley rambles off onto race issues, as if anything at all in the context of the article has anything to do with race. He just can't see the world around him because he is so consumed about perceived racism, and yet has the temerity to claim that HE alone has risen above racial issues, even referring to race some made up construct, at one point referencing >>>the other so-called "race,"<<<

So-called race? He then goes on to claim he is the black equivalent in sports journalism to Larry Bird, the guy on the outside looking in at a profession full of people of the "other so-called race". He claims that his being such a great writer and black "made you not a colleague but a threat." He claims people said that if he were white he would be just another writer. Hey Wiley, heads up: you ARE just another writer. I daresay if you WERE a white guy you would be unemployed because your writing is miserable. This may be the best line of all "One thing I did learn: I always could tell when I was writing well, because I would come in and nobody would speak to me."

Good Lord the arrogance of this guy! He has some good insights into the game and he has some great contacts, but you can't ever enjoy that because he is slapping you in the face with his angry black man routine. Maybe if you truly tried to just write instead of climbing on a soapbox about how wronged you are as a black man (who has a great job, writing for ESPN, appearing on TV, going to tons of sporting events for free, no doubt with a very nice house and very nice car) we could find out if you are as great a writer as you claim. Do you think that if someone who doesn't know you read your work without the racial overtones they would find it brilliant? I doubt it.

It's been a while...

How incredibly dumb is this? The Catholic church just doesn't get it apparently. Cardinal Law leaves Boston in disgrace, the poster child for the Catholic church failing to protect children and indeed perhaps partially complicit in the continued abuse by priests that they KNEW were molesting kids. The Boston archdiocese is a mess and is closing 65 more parishes.

So in response, they elevate Cardinal Law to a very visible and prominent post instead of squirreling him away somewhere. The Vatican is either completely ignorant of how this looks or is arrogantly assuming they are above the law (no pun intended) or both.

I found this article on Fox News fascinating.

Fox looks at a rather esoteric part of the publishing business, Bible proofreading. The company in question, Peachtree Editorial and Proofreading, just finished the proofreading of the newest conservative Bible translation, the Holman Standard Christian Bible. They spent over two years on the process, making sure the avoid errors like this one...

>>>A list hangs in the Gundens' office as a reminder of just how much rides on their work. The list, a collection of notorious typos found in the Bible, features one prominent error from a 1631 King James edition: "Thou shalt commit adultery."<<<

As cofounder June Gunden says, proofreading the Bible is a whole different story from proofreading a regular book...

>>>With an ordinary book, "you can put up with more because it's not something you're basing your whole life on," June Gunden said. "It's information, but it's not really life-changing information. It's not something you believe to be infallible."<<<

Interesting stuff. It is indeed a calling more than a job.

Another good article from FrontPage.com, this one by Frank Gaffney regarding the collective yawn from the media and the Left regarding the WMDs found in Iraq.

Gaffney has probably the best synopsis of the WMD issue I have seen...


>>>Rarely has this phenomenon been more in evidence than with respect to Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. Practically everyone – members of the Coalition’s intelligence services, the United Nations, even the French, Germans and Russians – recognized that, at one time, Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and a program for building nuclear devices. Since he never satisfactorily accounted for the complete destruction of the stocks of WMDs, like those he previously used in lethal attacks on Iran and his own Kurds, the only reasonable conclusion was that they continued to exist in some form, in unknown quantity. <<<

Everyone knows he had them, we couldn't prove he didn't and he refused to cooperate to let us look, so we had to assume he still had them (and I believe he did and they do). The John Kerry's of the world would just as soon take this crazed dictator at his word, right up until the checmical clouds enveloped Chicago, Tel Aviv or Boston.

Now the burden of proof is that we need to see STOCKPILES of the weapons, or as Gaffney puts it, the classic liberal tactic of moving the goalposts.

This isn't funny so much as ironic and sad. The radical Left is so clueless about what is really happening in this world. They seem to think that outside a few corporate boardrooms and Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch that everyone thinks the way they do.

Frontpage.com reports that a couple of British homosexual groups, "OutRage" and "Queer Youth Alliance" (you have to hand it to homosexual activists, they do love to come up with catchy names) went to a pro-Palestinian rally at Trafalgar Sqaure in London. They were apparently there to show solidarity with the Palestinians against those evil Zionists in Isreal, but also to ask the muslims to pretty please stop persecuting homosexuals. Lo and behold, the muslims were none too receptive or tolerant!

>>>As soon as they arrived at the square to members of the two groups were surrounded by an angry, screaming mob of Islamic fundamentalists, Anglican clergymen, members of the Socialist Workers Party, the Stop the War Coalition, and officials from the protest organizers, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC).

They variously attacked the gay activists as “racists”, “Zionists”, “CIA and MI5 agents”, “supporters of the Sharon government” and accused the gays of “dividing the Free Palestine movement”.<<<

Nothing worse than a crowd containing Islamic fundamentalists, commies and Anglican clergy! Some of the homosexual protestors carried signs saying "Israel: stop persecuting Palestine! Palestine: stop persecuting queers!"

I am guessing that the evil Israelis are far more tolerant of homosexuals than the gentle Palestinians.

A sad day for me...

Tonight is the final episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer spin-off Angel. I know, not exactly typical Christian fare and it often had objectionable material, but we loved both Angel and Buffy. With the end tonight, the franchise that is Buffy goes to it's final resting place: reruns on FX. Fare thee well to Angel, Lorne, Spike, Wesley and even annoying Connor. We have enjoyed it.

I came across this quote today on the webpage of Alpha & Omega ministries, seems especially apropos given the prior post about mormonism...

"For piety has no enemies more inveterate than those who have sincerely embraced a false religion, thinking it true." Theodore Beza

How correct! True believers in a false belief system, trying to replace truth with fervency.

It is always interesting to read the text of talks by Gordon Hinckley and other mormon leaders, you have to dig past the facade a little bit to get the real message. The best talks are those aimed strictly at a mormon audience, they kind of let their grey hair down a bit and talk more openly about what their church really believes.

Hinckley and Boyd Packer, one of the mormon "apostles", spoke at a 175th anniversary celebration of the restoration of the mormon priesthood. Some of the terminology they used is telling...

>>>"This authority can only be exercised in righteousness," <<<

>>>"Let the world do what it will. You have something the world does not."<<<

>>>He urged priesthood holders to keep the Word of Wisdom, which prohibits consumption of alcohol, coffee, tea and illicit drugs. "They will rob you of self-mastery," he said.<<<

>>>He said the restoration of the priesthood has created a "Kingdom of Priests." Priesthood holders are just ordinary men but are given power by the priesthood to proclaim the gospel to the world.<<<

There was lots of talk of "worthiness" and "righteousness". Christians know that none are worthy, none are righteous except Jesus Christ, which is why He and only He could serve as a sacrifice for our sins. The arrogance of mormonism says that I an worthy, I am righteous, I can enter the temple because I am more worthy than non-mormons because I don't drink coffee. Forget what the Bible says very clearly about legalism and dietary restrictions, we have a living prophet!

We see one of the telltale signs of a cult, the idea that they are more special than the rest of the world, they possess special knowledge, and that exclusivity helps to control them.

An interesting editorial from the Cincinnati Enquirer today (which may not be my hometown newspaper much longer...)on the medicating of our children to achieve perfect behavior.


A recent report from Medco, cited in the Enquirer:

>>>showed a 23 percent increase in use of behavioral medication for all children, including a 49 percent increase in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder drugs by children under 5. Now Americans spend more on drugs for ADHD and depression than they do on antibiotics, or asthma or allergy medications for children.<<<

This raises questions more questions. Why do we seek to medicate our children into submission? The report suggests the increased use because it is so effective. I have no doubt that dulling their senses slows them down, but I have a few other scenarios...


1) Our society spends so much time acquiring and consuming, we have little time for parenting. Both parents work to buy bigger houses, bigger SUVs and spend lots of money on kids in lieu of spending lots of TIME with them. This leaves parents woefully unequipped to deal with their children consistently, so it is easier to dope them up.
2) People are having children much later and as such have less energy to deal with rambunctious kids. I know that personally, since when we had our oldest child I was in college and 22 years old. I had a LOT more energy than I do with number 6 at 32 years of age.
3) Everyone seems to want the model child, perfectly behaved, active in a thousand activities, etc. While I insist that my children are polite and well mannered, I also recognize that 3 and 5 year old boys are wrecking machines so you have to take the good with the bad.

Are children today more prone to ADHD then they were 20, 30, 50 years ago? I doubt it. Perhaps it has more to do with all the sugar they eat and all the TV/video games they watch. As a child I barely watched TV, because there was nothing TO watch. PBS had some kids shows in the morning, but they were more educational and slower paced. You would never mistake Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, Captain Kangaroo and Sesame Street with Yu-Gi-Oh, Teen Titans or Rugrats.

Before you fill your kids with drugs to sedate them, try unplugging the TV. Or better yet, try to actually parent them rather than numb them.

Passing the buck, ducking the question, avoiding conflict?

I am not sure what fits best here. The highest court of the Presbyterian Church USA has refused to overturn a lower court's inexplicable ruling that Stephen van Kuiken was not in violation of church law when he married homosexuals, which is expressly forbidden by said churches bylaws. They clearly want to avoid any sort of stance on this issue, so they tried to weasel out of it by claiming that since he is no longer a Presbyterian, they have no authority in this case…

>>>The highest court ruled Tuesday that the Rev. Stephen Van Kuiken's resignation as a minister and church member put him outside church jurisdiction.
"There is no way that the court could hear a case involving someone who is no longer a Presbyterian," said Laurie Griffith, judicial process manager at Presbyterian headquarters in Louisville. <<<

Silly me, but the case in question has huge ramifications for the PCUSA. Van Kuiken WAS a Presbyterian minister when he violated church law and the lower court ruling was from a regional PCUSA church court. How is this possibly anything other than abdicating responsibility. Needless to say, van Kuiken sees this as a victory…

>>>Griffith said the dismissal leaves the Maumee ruling with no effect beyond the parties involved in the Van Kuiken case.
Van Kuiken disagreed and believes the ruling sets a precedent.
"It's like any other appeals court decision, in that it stands unless it's overruled by a higher court," he said.<<<

I have to agree with van Kuiken here, this DOES set a precedent and a dangerous one.

By their silence and refusal to act, the PCUSA has given tacit approval to it's ministers to flaunt their breaking of church law, as clearly the hierarchy has no backbone and lacks teeth. The phrase "paper tiger" comes to mind. How long can it be before the PCUSA slips away into shame and obscurity like the Episcopal church? Bible believing Presbyterians in the PCUSA need to find a new church home or make some changes fast.

Coming to a country and courtroom near you...

For all those who think that homosexual activists will be satisfied with "merely" getting the ability to marry legally, think again. Their agenda goes much deeper, and for proof we need look just a nation to the north away.

Canada has criminalized any sort of speech which may be interpreted as inciting violence against homosexuals. Given that that is a pretty broad concept, almost anything could potentially fall into that category, including preaching from the Bible. Think it can't happen? Here is what Canadian Christians say:

>>>"Pastors are afraid. They're afraid to preach on this subject," sad Janet Epp of the Buckingham Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. "Nobody wants to have the police come to their door." <<<

Think it can't happen here? Think again. Who would have thought five years ago, it the midst of the Bill Clinton "If it feels good do it" regime that we would be having homoerotic unions solemnized as marriages in Massachusetts. We already have the cries for more "hate speech" and "hate crime" legislation. The problem is in the interpreting of what constitutes hate speech. Think a federal judge wouldn't say that Romans 1 is hate speech? Think that denying a homosexual couple a marriage in a Baptist church isn't hate speech? Who knows, maybe the Bible itself will become hate literature and be banned in America. Think it can’t happen? Keep thinking that way and it will.

The First Amendment is teetering on the brink here, freedom of religious expression is about to give way to the absolute demand of tolerance of any behavior, no matter how perverse. The radical liberal fringe already tries to shout down it's opposition with invectives and lies. Soon they will have the full backing of the courts and police. It CAN happen here and it WILL happen here, unless Christians unite and say NO MORE!

What does it mean to be a Republican anymore?

I have been critical of Bush on a number of spending issues, but the other day he came out in opposition to a tobacco buyout to relieve tobacco growers. Living in a tobacco state, Kentucky, it has made a small splash around here. A number of GOP senators and candidates have tried to sway Bush on this issue and of course John Kerry is all for it.

My question is two fold. One, should we be in the business of propping up tobacco farmers? Now I can see the strategic need to have food crop and livestock growers stay in business, but tobacco is hardly a strategically important crop. Two, and on the same lines, how odd is it to spend all this money to help prop up tobacco growers when we turn around and spend billions to fight tobacco and treat tobacco related illnesses?

These are Republicans? Let the Democrats stick to the subsidy programs, we are supposed to be in favor of SMALLER government!

We ought not be propping up, buying out or otherwise interfering in the growing of tobacco. It kills people and serves no real purpose, so let it die and if need be use those funds to help farmers who grow food (although I would prefer we not prop them up at all, given the world farming situation it is vital we maintain our own food supply and not become dependent on foreign supplies)

Another excellent editorial from the Wall Street Journal, this one on the misuse of the Geneva Convetion by the ignoramous Left.

Much like the Patriot Act bogeyman, liberals cry about the Geneva Convention being broken while having no clue what it really says (for the record, neither do I but the editors of the WSJ have clearly read them)

These are bad guys we are holding, and while the sexual assaults and humiliation were beyond excuse and will be punished, minor interrogation IS permitted under the Geneva Convention, as is execution!

Before critics of the Bush administration go off about the Geneva Convention, they ought to give it a read.

Ann Coulter laying some smack down!

Liberals whine: "where are the WMDs?"

Ann puts them in their place!

>>>By "weapons of mass destruction," what liberals mean is: missiles pointed at Washington, D.C., with their "Ready to Fire" lights blinking ominously and their warhead payloads clearly marked "Weapons of Mass Destruction! Next Stop, The Great Satan America!"--basically what you might see on an episode of the original Batman TV series. When we didn't find that, the "Bush lied, kids died!" screaming began.<<<

She then goes on to detail what we HAVE found, and no doubt will continue to find.

I love me some Ann Coulter!

As I have come to expect, Dr. Albert Mohler lays it out very clearly today, a day of infamy as homoerotic unions are solemnized as farcical marriages in Massachusetts.

Dr. Mohler labels today, Monday May 17th, as a day of infamy, a cultural version of Pearl Harbor Day and September 11th. Many will no doubt take issue with his seemingly intemperate tone, but this is the most serious assault on Christian values and the foundation of our society in American history.

Dr. Mohler takes special aim at what he calls "religious enablers", those who encourage immoral and destructive behavior while blasphemously couching it in religious mantra designed to add legitimacy to what is an inherently illegitimate act. The attitude of these false preachers of a false gospel is evident in this statement…

>>>Rev. Steven Charleston acknowledged that opponents of same-sex marriage believe such unions will end civilization. "Perhaps they are right," he said. The Post reported that the congregation greeted that line with "wild applause."<<<

The radical homosexual movement and it's cheerleaders no longer even pretend to hide their intentions, that is to say the eradication of any moral code, the removal of God as authoritative over our lives. Marriage itself is anathema to them, as it smacks of authority and rules, right and wrong, morality. All those things they hate the most.

I feel terribly sorry for those homosexuals who have been encouraged by liberal theologians into perverting the will of God. We all sin, but forgiveness can only come when we renounce and seek forgiveness of those sins. By encouraging solemnized homoerotic unions, these false teachers lead people away from forgiveness into comfort with their sin. They sit in the pews listening to messages of forgiveness, but no concept of how to receive that forgiveness and what they are forgiven from! Indeed they are encouraged to live in sin, and given a chance to hide their shame behind religious trappings.

Leftist judges have arbitrarily created a right for homosexuals to wed out of thin air. We waited far too long after Roe V. Wade to act, and now it is so entrenched in our society that we will have a difficult time ever making headway against it. We must not be so lax in our defense of marriage or it will similarly be too late. Marriage may exist for a day, a year, a decade against this assault but if left unchecked it WILL fall. Dr. Mohler puts it in stark terms…

>>>None of this will be obvious in the media coverage today. Instead, reporters and analysts will tell the nation that happy couples were joined in homosexual marriages--and that marriage still stands. It will, of course--at least for a time. But, like a crack that begins in the corner of a window and then slowly spreads across the pane, marriage will suffer the slow death of a thousand insults. Once marriage no longer means the union of a man and a woman, it can and will mean anything. Once it means anything, it means nothing. Only those who define marriage by a transcendent standard will retain the cherished memory of what marriage once was--and among biblical Christians, what marriage must always be.<<<

Listen to that line again: "Once it means anything, it means nothing." Quite right. Homoerotic unions disguised as marriage lead to a standard where there is no standard and marriage ceases to mean anything at all.

I pray it is not too late.

Hoo boy!

Once more I am indebted to James Taranto from OpinionJournal.com's Best of the Web. Taranto draws attention to a Reuters news report that claims that the U.S. government is persecuting Greenpeace for political reasons (as opposed to the criminal actions they are carrying out)

Reuters states the following:

>>>As significant as the prosecution itself, are the implications, free speech campaigners say.

Not once since the Boston Tea Party have U.S. authorities criminally prosecuted a group for political expression.<<<

...which is ludicrous. As Taranto points out "The Boston Tea Party was held on Dec. 16, 1773--2 1/2 years before the U.S. existed."

Nice bit of reporting by Reuters!

A contrast in style...

CNN has an interview with Rebecca St. James who said she feels sorry for Brittany Spears. St. James has a great voice, is beautiful and brings a message of abstinance wherever she goes. Brittany is a "pop tart" who has continually made her act more trashy. How long before we have the Brittany playboy spread or her getting naked in a movie, because at the end of the day you can never be too raunchy for the pop culture. St. James music is timeless and she is succesful because of her talent, not her trashiness.

Hey where did that come from?

I thought the militant left assured us that Bush lied and there weren't any WMDs in Iraq (please ignore the Kurdish poison gas victims) Yet Fox News reports that an improvised bomb was set off today that contained sarin nerve gas, which I understand to be a WMD.

That can't be true, otherwise that might indicate that on the WMD issue, like pretty much every other issue, that Bush was right on target.

Even CNN is reporting it, so it can't be part of the right wing Fox News conspiracy.

>>>(Brig. Gen. Mark) Kimmitt said the artillery round was of an old style that Saddam Hussein's regime had declared it no longer possessed after the Persian Gulf War.<<<

Go figure!

Poor Teddy!

After his comparison of the U.S. Government to the regime of Saddam Hussein came out, understandably some people were upset about it. Did Kennedy apologize? Perhaps suggest that he may have been over the line? Try to clarify his position? Nope, he fell back on the old Hillary tool, the vast right wing conspiracy!

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: Here's what you said on May 11. I want to read a little bit of a comment about this abuse at the prison. "Shamefully now we learn that Saddam's torture chambers have reopened under new management, United States management." There are some critics who say you went way over the line on that, and, in fact, that was a woeful exaggeration. How do you respond to that?

KENNEDY: That is part of the Republican attack machine, and I reject it.


--CNN's "American Morning"
May 13, 2004

I understand that Presidential speeches are assembled by professionals, but I also know they are reviewed and edited by the President ahead of time. President Bush gave a speech the other day to the American Conservative Union that was simply magnificant. A couple of points...

First, the President is dead on when he stated that conservatives have been proven right on the ISSUES time and time again...


>>>Conservatives were right that the Cold War was a contest of good and evil. And behind the Iron Curtain people did not want containment, they awaited for liberation.

Conservatives were right that the free enterprise system is the path to prosperity, and that free enterprise is the economic system consistent with human freedom and human dignity.

Conservatives were right that a free society is sustained by the character of its people, which means we must honor the moral and religious heritage of our great nation.

These convictions, once defended by a few, are now broadly shared by Americans. And I am proud to advance these convictions and these principles as I stand for reelection in 2004.<<<

And this was just funny...

>>>When the non-partisan National Journal did his ratings, they found that my opponent had the most liberal record of all 100 United States senators. That's a heck of a feat.

It isn't very easy to make Ted Kennedy the conservative senator from Massachusetts.<<<

On the economy...

>>>This economy is strong, and it is getting stronger. Last month, America added 288,000 new jobs. Manufacturing jobs have increased for three straight months. Since August, our economy has added more than 1.1 million new jobs.

In the first quarter of 2004, the economy grew at a strong rate of 4.2 percent. And over the past year, economic growth has been the fastest in nearly two decades.

Business investment is up, inflation is low, mortgage and interest rates are near historic lows, the home ownership rate in America is the highest ever.

America's economy is the fastest growing of any major industrialized nation. The tax relief we passed is working.<<<

On the war on terror...

>>>This nation is strong and confident in the cause of freedom. We know that freedom is not America's gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world.

Because of our principled stand and clear speaking, today, no friend or enemy doubts the word of the United States of America. America and our allies gave an ultimatum to the terror regime in Afghanistan. The Taliban chose defiance, and the Taliban is no longer in power.

America and our allies gave an ultimatum to the dictator in Iraq. He chose defiance, and now, he sits in a prison cell.

September the 11th, 2001 taught a lesson I will never forget, and America must never forget. America must confront threats before they fully materialize.

In Iraq, my administration looked at the intelligence, and we saw a threat. Members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the intelligence, and they saw a threat. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence, and it saw a threat. As a matter of fact, the previous administration and Congress looked at the intelligence, and made regime change in Iraq the policy of the United States.

In 2002, the U.N. Security Council, yet again, demanded a full accounting of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs. They remembered what we remember. They remembered he attacked countries in his neighborhood. They remembered that he paid suiciders to kill innocent Israelis. They remembered he had ties to terrorist organizations. They remembered that he used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. As he had for over a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply with the demands of the free world. So I had a choice to make: Either trust the word of a madman, or defend America. Given that choice, I will defend America every time.<<<

President Bush went on...

>>>On national security, Americans have a clear choice. My opponent says he approves of bold action in the world -- but only if other countries don't object.

I'm for united action. I believe in building coalitions. We have built coalitions in Afghanistan. We have built coalitions in Iraq. We have built coalitions to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. But I will never turn over America's national security decisions to leaders of other countries.

Some are skeptical that the war on terror is really a war at all. My opponent said, the war on terror is far less of a military operation, and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation. I disagree. Our nation followed this approach after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. The matter was handled in the courts, and thought by some to be settled. And yet, the terrorists were still training in Afghanistan; they were still plotting in other nations; they were still drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States of America -- and war is what they got.<<<

He is right time and time again, and that is part of what infuriates liberals into such hatred against him. Wishful thinking won't stop terrorist...taking more money from tax payers doesn't help the economy.

This election is about taking us forward or moving us back. Back to the days of weak defense, ignoring terrorists as they take shots at us until it is too late. Back to higher taxes and bloated bureaucracy. The graves of the victims of September 11th tell the truth: After 9/11/01 WE CAN NEVER GO BACK!



(Hat tip to Russ Lipton!)

Unbelievable!

Fox News is reporting that U.S. Olympic athletes are warned against excessively jingoistic celebrations at the Olympics…

>>>“We are not the favourite kid in the room as a country,” said Bill Martin, the president of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC). “We are sensitive to the issue of flaunting and jingoism in its raw sense. This is going to be a tough Games for us as a country.” <<<

So maybe we should tell our athletes to run slower so they don't embarrass anyone else? As Bill Bennet pointed out this morning, will North Korea being flying their flag and celebrating? China? Syria?

>>>At a meeting of the USOC in New York this weekend potential members of the 550-strong team were given a series of recommendations warning them to avoid overtly jingoistic behavior.

“We are now discussing proper conduct at the Games,” said Darryl Seibel, a spokesman for the USOC. “Given the current international climate, we want to make sure our athletes are well advised and know what they might face in Athens.

“That doesn’t mean they should not celebrate when they win, or wave the flag. But what it does mean is that they should act appropriately given the international situation.” <<<

Isn't the whole point of the Olympics that athletes represent their country in competition against athletes from other countries? Don't they raise the nations flag and play the national anthem for the gold medal winners?

Are we to be ashamed of being Americans? I know some on the Left would say yes, but our athletes should be proud of their accomplishments and should be proud as can be to be American. We need to find a replacement for Bill Martin, perhaps someone who cares less about appeasing the dictators of the world and more about putting the best athletes in America in Athens.

Gee, with folks like this, how in the world did Dylan Klebold turn into a mass murderer?

The parents of Dylan Klebold, one of the two killers of Columbine High School were interviewed by David Brooks in the New York Times. What they said speaks volumes about why their son was able to do this and what sort of world we live in. Here are a few choice quotes…

>>>The couple took issue with people who say they forgive them for what happened. "I haven't done anything for which I need forgiveness," Susan Klebold said. <<<

Theological issues aside, they refuse to accept even the slightest responsibility for what happened. Unbelievable. Well not really, they are more like many parents than we care to believe.

>>>"He was hopeless. We didn't realize it until after the end," Tom Klebold said. <<<

No child is hopeless, but with parents that clearly have no clue what responsibility is they were pretty close.

>>> "I think he suffered horribly before he died," Susan Klebold said. "For not seeing that, I will never forgive myself." <<<

HE suffered horribly? What about the children who never went home that day, murdered by your son? Asking if anyone was a follower of Christ and then shooting those people. Gunning some down and not others. What of the horrors suffered by those killed, those who witnessed it and their families?

>>>The couple said they felt under siege after the shooting and never had a chance to grieve for their son. <<<

Again, waaah! No concern for others, the poor dears raised a psychopath mass murderer and THEY are the ones who were victimized!

>>> Tom Klebold said they hope to understand someday why the shooting happened.
"We're not qualified to sort this out. People need to understand this could have happened to them," he said. <<<

Not qualified? You are parents, none of us are qualified but we try our best to do what is right, not throw our hands up in hopelessness. Not my fault!

>>>The Klebolds said their son was set off by the "toxic culture" of the school, where athletes were worshipped and bullying was tolerated. <<<

Like every other school in American history? Truth hurts but kids have ALWAYS been bullied at school. The difference is other kids didn’t take it upon themselves to gun down schoolmates at random. It wasn’t just athletes they killed; they killed people just for being Christians.

What a narcissistic couple of people! No concern for those who were killed, no clue that maybe they should look introspectively into whether their parenting had anything to do with their child murdering his classmates in cold blood.

I feel confidant that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are reaping what they have sown in the fires of Hell.

Another proud moment for Ohio Democrats...

The perpetual love-hate relationship between the Ohio Democratic party and Jerry Springer takes a new twist today as Springer has been named one of the delegates from Ohio to the Democratic National Convention in July.

At least he will be right at home with the transvestites, homosexuals, perverts, freaks and weirdos that now make up the Democratic party.

Does the working Joe, average union guy even recognize the Democratic party anymore?

What a total fluff piece on mormon missionaries.

Now don't get me wrong, I have a special fondness for these young men, most of whom are very dedicated and living a pretty tough life. I spent at least a night, and often 2-3 nights, a week feeding and working with our local missionaries. In fact, we were most active in the church and supporting the missionaries when we decided to leave mormonism.

What is the real purpose of the mormon missionary effort? Who is it really targeted toward? I spent many an hour amongst the mormon missionaries, feeding them and driving them around to go on visits, saving them the mileage. The missionary program is a hugely wasteful venture. An enormous sum of money and pool of energy is used to reach relatively few people, the vast majority of which want nothing to do with them or the Book of Mormon. What is the goal then? I believe the missionary effort has little to do with proselytizing new members and everything to do with solidifying the hold on young men and women when they are at their most vulnerable to outside influence. Where do most new members come from? I am guessing from what I have seen that they are member or media referrals, not randomly contacted folks from door knocking.

Think about it: when mormon kids go on missions they are (for the guys) around 19. Typically they spend the first year out of high school still living at home and working hard to earn money for their mission. They spend the next 2 years in social sensory deprivation where all they hear is the mormon mantra. Almost everyone acted funny around the elders, kind of like people do around nuns. They don’t read books except their scriptures and “faith promoting” works ( a buzz word in the mormon world for books that reinforce the wavering hearts). No TV. No newspaper. Almost no contact with family and friends. All they know is what the church wants them to know. Most Christian kids are facing the world for the first time, often away at college when they are 18-22. Mormon boys are pounding the pavement and the girls are waiting for them to come home so they can get married.

There is camaraderie that comes from knocking on doors day after day for two years, a sense of shared suffering that helps hold adult mormons together. When the door gets slammed in your face enough times, you instinctively either convince yourself what you are doing is right or you go home. We have seen lots of missionaries hit the mission field begrudgingly and turn into the most devout fellows by the end of their mission. Why? Have they really found “the truth”? Or have they convinced themselves that what they are doing is right as a defense mechanism? I think the latter.

From a very young age, boys are taught that they will serve a mission when they get to be of age. They do so to please their parents and the relatives. Conversely, serving without honor, not going at all or perhaps worst, coming home early are marks of shame and for many young men it is easier to go along with the program than to embarrass your family. There is an additional factor. Young mormon women are encouraged to marry returned missionaries. Think that is not am incentive?

Ultimately, the mormon missionary effort is designed to make good mormons out of young men, men who will go home and get married and never question the church. You can’t have them look too closely, or they may not like what they see. So they indoctrinate them to be unquestioningly loyal to the church and never even to entertain questions. The mormon church story is a house of cards, pull one out and the whole thing collapses. The return missionary is designed to never even touch the cards.

The Vatican weighs in on what should be a common sense issue but somehow still needs to be spoken. The warnings come for Catholic women consdering marrying muslim men. The Vatican makes some valid statements...

>>>Calling women "the least-protected member of the Muslim family," it spoke of the "bitter experience" some Western Catholics have had with Muslim husbands, especially if they married outside the Islamic world and later moved to his country of origin. <<<

Why any woman would agree to move to an Islamic country after the horror stories we have heard over and over is beyond me. Maybe not every muslim man does this, but plenty of them seem to turn into a different person once they get their family behind the Koranic curtain.

>>>But Vatican officials and leading Catholic prelates have expressed increasingly critical views about the spread of Islam and the challenge this poses for Catholicism.

The Vatican's top theologian, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, said earlier this week the West "no longer loves itself" and so was unable to respond to the challenge of Islam, which was growing because it expressed "greater spiritual energy."

The migration document also discouraged churches from letting non-Christians use their places of worship.<<<

Well, duh! What are the odds of having Mass said in a mosque? The so-called interfaith dialogue with Islam only goes one way, Christians give, muslims take and then call for our deaths. Pretty sweet deal huh!

That is a salient point about the West, especially Europe's self-loathing that has led to an influx of Islam. If we are not careful we will end up with all of Europe, Asia and Africa being under Islamic rule. I guarantee that they have no interest in "dialogue" and "peaceful co-existance".

I saw a couple downtown as I was going home. A muslim man, a clearly American woman with her head covered and a pretty baby girl with a shock of curly blonde hair. How long before she gets her head covered in obsequiousness to the muslim god?

While there are very real differences in theology between Catholics and Protestants, we do have a common foe. The enemy of my enemy is my friend perhaps? At least on this issue...

More from the deliciously dry and smarmy John Derbyshire on his state of "tolerant homophobia". You really have to read the whole thing. I find him absolutely a riot, his refusal to hide from the ugly invectives of the radical homosexual movement is commendable. The idea that "We can't have a rational argument with you about this, so we will call you a homophobe and lump you in with the killers of Matthew Shephard in order to silence you" holds no water with him, and rightfully so.

Derb dares to point out the error of another icon of political correctness: AIDS is not really a public health issue as much as a gay health issue in America...

>>>Male homosexuals apparently all believe that (a) AIDS has been a ghastly tragedy for them, deserving of widespread sympathy from the rest of us, not to mention lavish government-research funding paid from our taxes; (b) that the presence of this horrible disease in our society is no responsibility of theirs whatsoever; and (c) that AIDS is pretty harmless anyway, now easily controlled by drugs.

But look at this report from the New York Academy of Medicine. "HIV remains the leading cause of death among New Yorkers aged 25-44 years...drug abuse and sex between men fuel the epidemic.... About 3.9 percent of all men between the ages of 40 to 49 years have HIV infection or AIDS...." <<<

Rather than spending gzaillions of fruitless dollars on AIDS research, why don't we discourage it's main mode of contagion: sexually risky behavior, i.e. male homosexual intercourse. GASP! How dare I suggest that? I must be in need of sensitivity training...

A thought provoking article from the Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com on president's and religion. Turns out Bush is not the only President who has made public professions of his Christian faith. Such well known radicals and nutcases as Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman and Kennedy made frequent references to God in their speeches. Yet Bush earns the title "messianic militarist" from Ralph Nader and is " pilloried as a faith-based imperialist"

Quick, who said the following:

"Steadfast in our faith in the Almighty, we will advance toward a world where man's freedom is secure."

Wild eyed fanatic George W. Bush? Nope. It was well known cult leader Harry Truman.

How about this?

"America seeks no earthly empire built on blood and force. The legions which she sends forth are armed, not with the sword, but with the cross."

Must have been that filthy Crusader Bush, right? Nope, it was ideologue Calvin Coolidge.

So why then is Bush treated so contemptuously by the secular media? Is it because he is seen as a rube, a mental midget by those who consider themselves his betters and his open declaration of his faith reinforces that? Is he more fervent about it? Perhaps and perhaps but I think the real reason is sincerity. Folk like Joe Klein are repulsed by Bush's faith because he seems so sincere and serious about it. Even Billy Bob Clinton invoked the Almighty now and then and went to church, but the left saw that for what it was: a necessary charade to appeal to the trailer trash folk who believed in such superstitions. But Bush, now he is dangerous because he really believes this stuff!

Who is more dangerous, a man who truly believes in his convictions or a man who has no convictions and uses the appearance of faith as a cynical tool?

America needs more nuance and less sincerity! John Kerry in 2004!

Here comes the condemnation…

American forces FINALLY moved into the "holy city" of Najaf today to root out radical Muslim leader Muqtada al-Sadr, one of the leaders in whipping up opposition to the U.S. liberation of Iraq. The real news should be why we waited so long to do so.

The poor dears had a couple of holes in one of the pagan shrines…" Four holes, each about 12 inches long and 8 inches wide, were visible on the golden dome of the Imam Ali mosque." The Muslims blame us for the damage, we blame the Muslims. Why do we care?

Do you suppose that any Muslim terrorist would care in the least if a Christian church or a Jewish synagogue were damaged in a bombing? Heck, that might be seen as a bonus! Quit inciting your people to blow themselves and U.S. soldiers up and you wouldn't get holes in your domes!

Some of the gunmen shouted "America is the enemy of God!". Why in the world do we treat these people with kid gloves? They hate us and nothing is going to change that other than mass conversion to Islam or the death of every Christian and Jew in the world. We should have taken this guy out weeks ago.

No doubt France will protest our entry into such a "holy" place. We ought to turn those tanks to the northwest and head for Paris..

Just kidding.

Maybe.

Ooh, they are turning on one of their own….I love it when liberals fight!

Fox News reports that loud mouth lesbian Rosie O'Donnell has raised the ire of the black community for comments on The View. Apparently Rosie claimed that Martha Stewart has been treated unfairly, comparing her conviction to the acquittal of Jayson Williams and O.J. Simpson.

>>> "Black people have so few role models," O'Donnell ranted. "They said, 'You know what? I don't care. You're not taking [Simpson and Williams]," O'Donnell said in drawing comparisons to Stewart's conviction. <<<

Yikes! "Diversity" groups are outraged of course, demanding an apology. I guess some topics are off-limits even for liberals to discuss amongst themselves. How ironic that Rosie is defending Martha on the grounds that she was discriminated against for being white!

OK, how bad of an idea is this….

The Cincinnati Enquirer is reporting that the Archdiocese of Cincinnati is reinstating into active ministry one Reverend Raymond Larger. Why was he suspended in the first place? Why nothing serious, he just solicited an undercover MALE cop for sex in a Dayton park in August of last year.

Is it a coincidence that the Cincinnati Enquirer just ran a series on the shortage of priests in Cincinnati and they reinstate a guy who was soliciting a male undercover cop for sex in a park? Accorsing to the Cinci Archdiocese, it wasn't really that bad…

>>>More than a dozen archdiocese priests have been suspended during the past two years for misconduct, mostly for sexually abusing children.

While most of those priests remain banned from ministry, church officials said they viewed Larger's case differently because it did not involve children. <<<

Oh, that makes it OK then, no doubt he doesn't find other men attractive until their 18th birthday. After all, he should be fine because he said he is sorry >>>"I am deeply sorry for my wrongdoing," Larger said in a statement<<< and his psychologist said he is just fine >>>They also noted that Larger's psychologist believes "it would be appropriate for Father Larger to return to active ministry." <<< Heck, it has been like 9 whole months since he last (as far as we know) was trying to pick up male hookers for gay sex. Back to the altar you go!

Check my math here, but this has numerous problems associated with it. A) He is a practicing homosexual, b) he is clearly not living a celibate lifestyle as mandated by the church and c) HE BROKE THE LAW, not only being sexually active in contravention of Catholic church laws but he broke the civil law by soliciting what he thought was a prostitute. So he is an oathbreaker to the church and a common criminal. This guy is sneaking off to Dayton to solicit some guy in a park for random sex. But it is OK because the person he was soliciting wasn't a child.

Once again, we see the error of the celibate priesthood as being unbiblical and impractical. Let's review what the Catholic theology and the Bible says.


Max Thurian, Catholic theologian, makes this claim in defense of the celibate priesthood reprinted on the Vatican website: "Christ never married. His life is valid justification for the vocation to celibacy." Well maybe, but Christ was also without sin and immune to the temptations of this world. "Observing celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven does not mean being any the less a man; by renouncing a natural form of existence, the priest discovers life in all its fullness. Christ was certainly no less of a man because he did not have affections other than those for his brethren, and a bride other than the Church." Christ was no less a man, but again He was also fully God and thus is NOT the same as mortal, sinful man. In another poor reading of the Word, Thurian says: "for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven» (Mt 22:30)." Did he catch the context or even the words? In the resurrection. We haven't come to that point if we are still alive and indeed there will be no marriage in heaven as there is no procreation and no sin. Christ is responding to the Sadducees trying to trip Him up and he is speaking of the situation AFTER the resurrection, which means nothing in context of priests marrying.

What does the Bible say? A couple of the passages Catholics use to defend the celibate priesthood are1 Cor 7 and Matthew 19. In 1 Cor 77-9, Paul says: "For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. " Paul wishes all men were as himself but he knows that is not the case, and thus should man marry rather than burn with passion. The difference is mandatory versus a truly voluntary celibacy.

In Matthew 19:11-12, Christ teaches: "But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it." " He who is able. Not all who seek to be ministers of the Gospel, only those who are able. In fact, the office of bishop is set forth in the Bible and the qualifications for being a bishop include: "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)" ( 1Tim 3) Precisely. How can a man with no family officiate over a church family. While the Bible expressly calls for bishops to be husbands and fathers, it also expressly forbids being "given to wine" and no one packs away the booze like a Catholic priest.

Is voluntary celibacy a bad thing? Certainly not! Indeed one who is not married, but choice or otherwise should live a chaste life. But man from the every beginning was in need of a helper, a woman to complete his mortal existence until returning home, a woman with which to have a family and raise the next generation until such time as Christ returns. In Genesis 2, the Lord says: ""It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him….Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" Job, Noah, Moses, Abraham, David, all were great servants of the Lord and all had wives.

By insisting on an unbiblical celibate priesthood, the Roman Catholic church will continue to have two major problems amongst their priests, one a lack of quality candidates and two an attraction to the priesthood by homosexuals and other deviants. We have only scratched the surface of the problem of homosexuals, pedophiles and other deviants in the ranks of the Catholic priesthood, and undoubtedly the truth runs much deeper. In concept and theory, in man's limited understanding, the celibate priesthood makes sense. In the real world, it leads to perverts in the priesthood and situations like homosexual priests trying to pick up prostitutes in parks. Follow the Word of God, not the wisdom of man, and you get better results every time.

A win for Christians and for TRUE freedom of religious expression!

A court in Michigan overturned a school's decision to exclude a Senior's quote from the yearbook because it contained a Bible verse. Tellingly, she was not looking for money only the right to express her constitutionally protected viewpoint. Oddly, when "principled" liberals sue, it almost ALWAYS involved cash changing hands (i.e. Jess Jackson, tobacco lawsuit, malpractice suits, etc.) the agreement came down to this...

>>>The ACLU said that under the terms of the settlement, the school district agreed to place a sticker with Moler's original entry in copies of the yearbook on file at the high school; ordered current yearbook staff to not censor other religious or political speech; to train its staff on free speech and religious freedom issues; and to write Moler a letter of regret.<<<

That is what the First Amendment is supposed to be about. The government not telling someone that they cannot express their religious beliefs. The students write the yearbook and pay for the yearbook, and doesn't it make sense that they should get to have their say in the yearbook?

Seeking the right Kingdom?

An otherwise meaningless story from CNN.com quoted Quentin Tarantino, famous for his violent and disturbing films, who is the chief judge or something at the Canne film festival...

>>>Leading the jury is American director Quentin Tarantino, one decade after winning a Palme d'Or for cult movie "Pulp Fiction."

"If there's another level of heaven, that's where I'm at," Tarantino, whose latest offerings "Kill Bill" parts 1 and 2 are being screened out of competition, said.<<<

Perhaps I am reading a bit too much into this, but this captures the mindset of the secular establishment. Once critical of the greedy 80's. the Hollywood left now seeks to grab as much power as possible in this lifetime, awards, spouses, acclaim, adoration. Heaven for them is self-gratification here on earth. What was Christ so often said about the self-righteous?

THEY HAVE THEIR REWARD.

Enjoy it while you can Mr. Tarantino, because the day of reckoning comes for us all. Canne film festival accolades won't mean a thing to the Lord.

Chuck Colson has a short piece on Townhall.com today regarding partial birth abortion. It is not very long but includes a bunch of great links about partial birth infanticide at the bottom.

The most interesting stat he provides is this, in response to the disingenuous arguments about partial birth abortion being needed to save women's lives...

>>>In fact, as Sekulow points out in his own reflections on the case, in 1999 in Kansas - the only state that requires a report on the reason for a partial-birth abortion - in every case of a partial-birth abortion the reason given was "mental health".<<<

Huh, giving birth might be stressful, but is that a medically necesary procedure? In truth, partial birth abortion is NEVER necessary. Check out the American Center for Law & Justice who are keeping close tabs on this issue.

Good stuff on Nation Review from Catherine Seipp....

Catherine examines the Dennis Miller phenomena. That is to say, the generally liberal person who realizes that the world has changed since 9/11 and feel-good liberal garbage doesn't make sense. I watched the premier of his show on CNBC and I loved this line:

>>>"In dangerous times, I think this county has to cover it's a**. Simple fact is, I'm of both persuasions. If two gay guys want to get married, I could care less; if some psycho from another country wants to blow up their wedding, I expect my government to kill him preemptively."<<<


Now I may not be so accepting of gay marriage, but he hit the nail on the head about killing those out to kill us...

Catherine points out that liberals are aghast at Miller's change of heart. She references her doctor saying: "But it's true; Miller's a Nazi now." which as Seipp points out is the tired old liberal slander about anyone who disagrees with them.

There is a lot more in the article, definitely worthwhile reading.

This story has been out for few days and I haven't gotten around to commenting on it, but it needs comment because I think it is quite unfortunate. Nancy Reagan came out in favor of stem cell research.

Much like Christopher Reeve who is a vehement proponent of stem cell research, Mrs. Reagan is willing to harvest embryonic humans to find a POTENTIAL cure. Now I wouldn't support it even if the research were guaranteed to be successful but we are talking here about hypothetical cures, with no guarantee of success, at the cost of embryonic human beings. To my worldview this is little different than creating test tube children for the express purpose of harvesting their organs. I have no idea what Christopher Reeve or President Reagan is going through, but in desperation the calls for stem cell research seek to save one human being at the expense of many others.

No matter how positive the possible outcome, creating human life for the purpose of destroying it in research is immoral. Yet we have animal rights activists opposing animal research. Any human being, even an embryonic human with a unique genetic makeup, is far more valuable than any number of animals.

I wonder what President Reagan would say if he were able to speak on his own behalf?

More from the Best of the Web, this time the hypocrisy is from John Kerry (who granted is virtually indistinguishable from te New York Times)

"This is a moment for America to try to deal with this without any partisan politics. This is not about politics. This is about our country. This is about how we're going to be stronger."--John Kerry on Abu Ghraib, quoted by CNN.com, May 8

"Over the past week we have all been shocked by the pictures from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. . . . John Kerry has called on Donald Rumsfeld to resign, and today we're asking you to support him by adding your name to the call for Rumsfeld to resign. . . . Keep the ball rolling. Donate now!"--John Kerry campaign e-mail, quoted by the Washington Times, May 7

John Kerry saying one thing and then doing another? Shocking! Now if Bush uses imagery from 9/11, a legitimate example of his leadership, as part of his campaign, liberals go apoplectic.

The "Kerry for President" campaign's new motto: "Do as I say, not as I do!"

More on our "objective" media...

OpinionJournal.com's Best of the Web rightly points out another example of the vaunted New York Times ignoring some key facts to make their point. In shamelessly trying to smear Bush, Times reporter Fox Butterfield "wrote that Texas prisons 'were under a federal consent decree during much of the time President Bush was governor because of crowding and violence by guards against inmates.'" The not so subtle implication here is that prisons in Texas under Bush were as bad in terms of abuse as Abu Ghraib. What Butterfield conveniently fails to point out is the decree in question had been in place since 1980, which I believe puts it under the reign of Ann Richards (Poooorrrr Geo-rge!) and 15 years before Bush became Governor.

Next up the New York Times blames Bush for the slave trade, the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand leading to World War I and the extinction of dinosaurs!

By the way, how frustrated am I with the Indians?

They have all the makings of an exciting, contending perhaps, team. Young solid starters. Young solid hitters. OK defense. But that bullpen STINKS! Last night, even though we had a 3-2 lead and "the Punk" (i.e. Pedro Martinez) was out of the game, I just knew they would blow it. The ninth blown save of the year. Unbelievable.

I feel badly for C.C. Sabathia who who pitched pretty well against one of the dealiest lineups in baseball, only to watch it evaporate. As Paul Hoynes of the Cleveland Plain Dealer put it: "This is the fourth time the bullpen has blown a victory for Sabathia. He's 1-1 with a 2.28 earned-run average, but could easily be 5-1." That has got to wear on you. Why bother pitching hard if you are going to have to turn it over to that incompetent crew? He may have to pitch a complete game to get a win...

Maybe they can open the wallet next year to get some bullpen help. If they do that, and if Wickman stays healthy, they should be favored to win the AL Central. As for this season, at least it won't be dull!

But wait, there is more!

I was checking on Joe Klein's archives and came across a piece with this headline: "Does Bush Really Get Us?" I gather from the article that the "us" in question is the American public. Seriously, does Joe Klein really think that he understands the average American in Kansas and Kentucky? Us? Hey Joe, get out of the big cities and come to where America really is. You might find out that Bush DOES get us, and perhaps YOU don't.

The editorial is otherwise forgettable but for the title. Typical Klein fare:

"Woodward's book will feed the endless, fruitless speculation among the President's critics about the nature of his certainty, his allergic reaction to doubt or introspection. Is it religious, Oedipal or congenital?" Oedipal? Oh come on Joe that is cheap even by your rather unexacting standards.

"Clearly, the President and Karl Rove believe that Americans want a strong, God-fearing, plainspoken leader who doesn't burden them with complexities." Oh us poor, simple Americans. Are those daft people the "us" Klein is commiserating with?

"But there is an annoying condescension to this style of leadership. It assumes that nothing has changed since 9/11, that Americans are too busy living their lives to ask tough questions about that planeload of flag-draped coffins—an image the Pentagon didn't want you to see—heading home last week." BUSH is the one that assumes that nothing has changed since 9/11? It is Klein and his ilk on the Left that want to repeal the Patriot Act, seek to withdraw from Iraq and let the UN protect us, worry about what world opinion polls tell us, and turn the war on terror into a sociology lesson.

Does Bush get "us"? Puh-leeze.

The perils of a self-righteous media.

I have only marginal respect for the media as a whole, especially the supercilious "objective" journalists who are anything but. Time Magazine is one of the many media outlets that falls over itself to create fault where none exists in Bush's actions. Joe Klein has outdone himself with his most recent piece in Time titled "The Perils of a Righteous President". From beginning to end, Klein exhibits a blindness caused by his disdain for Bush and Christians in general, as well as a pitiful lack of understanding of the very foundations of Christianity.

Klein starts out with this gem in the very first sentence: " After his grudging public apology for the behavior of U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison, George W. Bush attended a ceremony commemorating the National Day of Prayer." Grudging? Maybe he heard a different speech than I did. Bush is angry and embarrassed by the actions of those under his command, and as commander-in-chief he stood like a man and apologized. How many apologies did we ever get from Clinton?

Klein continues, now throwing all faithful Christians along with Bush to the lions of the self-righteous secular media: "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced." Huh? Faith WITH doubt is no faith at all. I sorta believe in the Word of God, I sorta believe in Jesus? These are not the statements of a person of faith but of a person covering their bases. God's Word is clear and unequivocal, leaving not room for fence sitting. You are either with God or you are not.

Klein then moves to an authority of moral guidance, a Jordanian businessman, no doubt selected for quotation because he agreed with Klein that the war is all about us seizing their precious oil. If only it were! Then we wouldn't be paying $2 a gallon for gasoline. Hey Kerry, keep talking about raising taxes on gasoline!

Klein's broad brush is not done painting just yet. His next volley encompasses the hated advisors to Bush, who receive the same disdain as the President for daring to challenge liberal idols: "But Bush's moral certainty almost seemed delusional last week in the vertiginous realities of Iraq. A distressing, uninflected righteousness has defined this Administration from the start, and it hasn't been limited to the President. Bush's overheated sense of good vs. evil has been reinforced by the intellectual fantasies of neoconservatives like I. Lewis Libby and Paul Wolfowitz, who serve Bush's two most powerful advisers, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld." He then goes on to throw the "C" word (crusade) out just for fun. At this point he sounds distressingly like bin Laden. But wait, the best is yet to come!

Here it is! "But democracy doesn't easily lend itself to evangelism; it requires more than faith. It requires a solid, educated middle class and a sophisticated understanding of law, transparency and minority rights." Did you catch that? It requires "more than faith", it requires "education" and "sophisticated understanding" In other words, religious folk are lower class rubes who need to be educated by people like Klein. The ARROGANCE is breathtaking, they really believe this stuff.

He seems almost spent at this point, but not yet! He has more: " It is conventional wisdom among democracy and human-rights activists—and yet the Administration allowed itself to be blinded by righteousness. Why? Because moral pomposity is almost always a camouflage for baser fears and desires." Conventional wisdom among democracy advocates? Who are these unnamed democracy advocates? Klein's buddies on the Left, like Castro apologist Oliver Stone? Democracy is more than an idea, it requires action. Wishing the Middle East would be more democratic won't get it done. Talking about it at the UN won't get it done. Seizing the reins of power from tyrants and giving it back to the people is how it is done. It worked in Germany. It worked in Japan. It worked in Italy. It is working in Russia. It will work in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It goes on and on and on, one base attack on Bush's faith, his intelligence, his advisors, his motivation, everything after another. Even at his most despised, Clinton never raised this sort of ire.

Perhaps we should look at the idea of righteousness in Christian doctrine, expressed in our only infallible guide the Bible.:

"But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Matthew 9:13

Hmm, God is calling sinners to repentence, including admitted sinners who have humbled themselves and repented like President Bush.

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Romans 3:10

Hmm, for the Christian we are told that NONE are righteous, not Billy Graham, not the Pope, not President Bush, not me and not Joe Klein. All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. That hardly seems an arrogant position…

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" John 7:24

God tells us what is righteous through His Word, not Joe Klein and not our subjective opinions.

" For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. " Romans 5:19

Obedience to the One who is sinless that we may be made righteous by Him, not of our own efforts but by submitting to the Lord.

So let's review. To the devout Christian, we are all sinners, we all need salvation, our works are meaningless to the Lord, and Christ is the only answer. Joe Klein just doesn't get it. I am starting to believe that we do live in different nations, existing side by side in parallel universes. Let the liberals lean on their own strength and understanding. I will depend on the Lord, He is my Rock, my Savior, my Redeemer and in Him I place my trust.

Also from Fox News...

The Mexican Air Force reported seeing some UFOs on Monday.

What took me aback was that Mexico even had an Air Force. I wondered why since they really haven't been involved in a military conflict in any meaningful way in over a hundred years, but apprently a lot of what they do is drug interdiction.

Huh, who knew?

The cult of Martin Luther King Jr.

Fox News reports on an acrimonious fight in Zephyrhills, Florida over the changing of a street name from Sixth Avenue to Martin Luther King Avenue. Residents of Sixth Avenue didn't want their street name changed, so of course out comes the racism card. Name change proponent Irene Dobson proclaimed opposition to the name change racist:

"They say it's not, but I wasn't born yesterday," Dobson said.

You can't question anything about MLK. Not his academic work, not his alleged marital infidelity, not his political views which bordered on socialism. We can dig up unfounded allegations about all sorts of historical figures, like Thomas Jefferson, but MLK is OFF LIMITS. Of all the icons of political correctness, he stands first and foremost as untouchable.

Do we really need to name every street in America after MLK? I mean come on, he was an important historical figure but I don't see him as more important than Reagan or FDR or any number of other Americans. I expect that we will get a push to add him to a coin sooner or later even though he wasn't a President. It is time for the civil rights movement to stop living in the past. Rather than spending time and energy fighting about naming streets after a guy dead for 30 years, why not focus on creating jobs and stopping young black men from killing each other? King's dream wasn't to keep reliving the past over and over but to work towards creating a brighter future. I hate to presume to speak for King, or anyone else, but I can't believe that he would approve of this waste of energy. Of course he also likely wouldn't approve of his self-designated successor Jesse Jackson extorting money to keep himself rich with no benefits for black Americans, only resentment.

I especially question this part. Wasn't King all about non-violent resistance? Would he have approved of overt threats because a street was not renamed in his honor, based on one protestor's sign proclaiming: "No Justice. No Peace in Zephyrhills" In other words, change some stupid street name or we might just riot ala Los Angeles and Cincinnati, destroying our own neighborhoods. Boy that will show 'em!

Shocking?

Not from Teddy...

Hugh Hewitt broke a story that is ignored by the entire "mainstream" press. Ted Kennedy, that paragon of virtue and morality, claimed on the floor of the United States Senate: "Shamefully we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management."

On the floor of the Senate.

Teddy has now come right out and equated the torturous regime of Saddam with American democracy. In Iraq prewar, torturers and rapists were celebrated and encouraged. In postwar Iraq, we will bring these people to justice for the crimes they committed against Iraqi prisoners and against their fellow soldiers. No doubt these prisoners are bad guys one and all, but we cannot and will not stoop to their level.

This may be the sickest statement ever by Ted, and that is saying a lot. He is one of the powers behind the scenes for Kerry and this shows you what sort of America hating fools were are dealing with. They call for Rumsfeld to step down? I call on Ted Kennedy to step down and to pay to replace the carpet of the Senate chambers after he spewed this garbage.

Hey, it probably isn't his fault. Knowing Ted he was likely three (or eight) sheets to the wind when he said this, so he isn't really responsible.

Tee hee!

I guess I shouldn’t find this funny but I do. John Kerry, champion of the working man! Except he is so busy campaigning that he failed to cast what might have been the deciding vote to extend unemployment benefits.

Hey Johnnie! Maybe you should try to show up for your day job once in a while instead of working on the next one!

As NewsMax points out, he was campaigning in Kentucky of all places instead of voting. One thing I can say about our state, we ain't a votin' for Johnnie Boy! Stick to Massachusetts and other places they find you tolerable. Oh wait, there isn't such a place in the U.S. Maybe you should try moving to France?

I guess it is just me being the frenetic fundamentalist that I am, but why in the world is the National Council of (Liberal) Churches given so much weight? To hear the AP tell it in this story, they speak for the entire Christian world. According to the National Council of (Liberal) Churches, we should turn over control of Iraq to the UN, as the “…only way to create ‘lasting peace.’” Yeah, just like they have in so many other places like Korea which is still technically at war and where hundreds of thousands of troops have faced off for decades. Just like Bosnia. Just like Somalia. Yeah, that is a GREAT idea!

Once again we see “mainline” used instead of “liberal”. There is nothing mainstream about the NC(L)C. They have nothing to do with the Gospel and everything to do with every leftist social cause that comes down the pike, typically on the wrong side.

As always, I can count on the Southern Baptist Convention to be a voice of reason. Richard Land, head of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said: "This is not a breakdown in the system. This reflects a breakdown in society," Land said. "These people's moral compass didn't work for some reason. My guess is because they've been infected with relativism."

Bingo! When we were attacked on 9/11 all the liberals wanted to do was study WHY? Why do they hate us? Why can’t we all just get along? Now, where are the questions? Why do our young people have no sense of right and wrong? Why is this behavior seen as funny or acceptable? Where are the liberals looking for the “root causes” here? The fact is all they care about is using this to attack Bush. It is never about “why”, it is always about blind hatred for President Bush.

A powerful defense of the Patriot Act from Federal Judge Michael B. Mukasey. Far too many people blindly condemn the Patriot Act, without the slightest clue as to what is in it. Compare that to the slavish devotion to the "assault weapons" ban which is laughably easy to bypass (I have on more than one occasion since it's passage purchased high capacity,i.e. 20-30 round, magazines for my Ruger Mini-14. All perfectly legal)and yet is defended by the anti-2nd amendment left despite knowing nothing about it.

As per prior posts, we are engaged in a WAR! So WAAAAHHHH!!!!! if you are inconvenienced. Judge Mukasey made an especially pithy statement regarding the alleged racial/ethnic/religious profiling supposedly running rampant in America:

>>>No doubt there were people taken into custody, whether on immigration warrants or material witness warrants, who in retrospect should not have been. If those people have grievances redressable under the law, those grievances can be redressed. But we should keep in mind that any investigation conducted by fallible human beings in the aftermath of an attack is bound to be either overinclusive or underinclusive. There are consequences both ways. The consequences of overinclusiveness include condemnations. The consequences of underinclusiveness include condolences.<<<

This editorial should be must reading for conservatives and liberals alike. The Patriot Act is designed to protect us from those who wish to kill us. It may not be perfect, indeed it may need some modification but it certainly deserves better than outright dismissal stemming from utter ignorance.

Pollster Frank Lunz was on Bill Bennett's Morning in America today, and made what I thought was one of the best points to date regarding Iraq and the war on terror in general. Lunz commented that the American people want to have both a guns AND butter economy, that we want to pursue a war without any of the inconveniences that normally go along with it. Americans seem oblivious to the fact that we are at war, seemingly chalking up the deaths in Iraq to some harebrained adventure and completely forgetting that we face an enemy that would just as soon kill every man, woman and child in America as look at them. At least when facing the Soviet Union we had the security of mutually assured destruction to keep the carnage in check. Not so with radical Islam, a religion that is perfectly content with losing their own lives to take a few infidels with them.

America needs to wake up NOW and remember why we are fighting and the cost of losing. Retreating from Vietnam condemned the Vietnamese people to decades of subjugation, but outside of wounding our pride didn't directly impact America. The cost of retreating from the conflict we face today is 9/11 after 9/11. I have said it before, this fight will go on until one side or the other is no longer able to fight. It may require that we sacrifice, that we go without some of the numerous creature comforts we are accustomed to. I would rather take my shoes off before boarding a plane than have it crashed into a building with my shoes intact.

This enemy is no less a threat, and perhaps more so, than Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. If that generation of American's could sacrifice so much, we can as well to ensure that our children grow up in a world devoid of terrorism.

An excellent piece by Newt Gingrich...

Former House Speaker Gingrich addresses the prison debacle and the amazing double standard applied by the media on OpinionJournal.com. Here is an excerpt...


>>>Not surprisingly, the anti-American left in our own country and in Europe--with its selective memory, remembering forever any American mistake while forgetting every anti-American and antihuman atrocity by others--is already on radio and television exploiting this as an opportunity to condemn America.
The pan-Arab media, with their selective outrage, honor and give prominence to terrorists and barbaric mobs. The smallest American error is given banner headlines, but is, in contrast, excoriated. It is suicidal to reinforce this double standard.

One needs to point out that the pan-Arab media said nothing when the Syrian dictator Hafez al-Assad destroyed Hama and killed more than 10,000 of his own innocent people, or when Saddam Hussein used poison gas on Iraqis and created 300,000 anonymous graves.

Nothing negative was said by the pan-Arab media when Americans were burned, mutilated and dragged through the streets of Fallujah, or when two Palestinian gunmen ambushed a pregnant woman last Sunday in her station-wagon and at point-blank range methodically killed her four children ages two to 11, and then killed her.<<<

The difference between US and THEM is not that what those few soldiers did is OK, it is that unlike radical Islam we will not tolerate or celebrate these acts and will indeed punish most severly those responsible.

An excellent piece by Newt Gingrich...

Former House Speaker Gingrich addresses the prison debacle and the amazing double standard applied by the media on OpinionJournal.com. Here is an excerpt...


>>>Not surprisingly, the anti-American left in our own country and in Europe--with its selective memory, remembering forever any American mistake while forgetting every anti-American and antihuman atrocity by others--is already on radio and television exploiting this as an opportunity to condemn America.
The pan-Arab media, with their selective outrage, honor and give prominence to terrorists and barbaric mobs. The smallest American error is given banner headlines, but is, in contrast, excoriated. It is suicidal to reinforce this double standard.

One needs to point out that the pan-Arab media said nothing when the Syrian dictator Hafez al-Assad destroyed Hama and killed more than 10,000 of his own innocent people, or when Saddam Hussein used poison gas on Iraqis and created 300,000 anonymous graves.

Nothing negative was said by the pan-Arab media when Americans were burned, mutilated and dragged through the streets of Fallujah, or when two Palestinian gunmen ambushed a pregnant woman last Sunday in her station-wagon and at point-blank range methodically killed her four children ages two to 11, and then killed her.<<<

The difference between US and THEM is not that what those few soldiers did is OK, it is that unlike radical Islam we will not tolerate or celebrate these acts and will indeed punish most severly those responsible.

Wow, something profound from TV Guide.com!

This was well put and obviously well thoguht out, especially the last line!


>>>Movies in Time: The Lost Battalion
Does anybody remember the World War I veteran? Thanks to Tom Brokaw, Stephen Ambrose, Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg, World War II veterans are deified. Vietnam veterans have a memorial in Washington, D.C. The lasting popularity of M*A*S*H assures that the Korean War will never be forgotten. Yet there is only a handful of living survivors from the Great War, and virtually all of them are over 100 years old. What are we doing to honor them? The History Channel aired this 2001 fact-based drama about 600 Americans surrounded in the Ardennes by the Kaiser's divisions. Led by Maj. Charles Whittlesey (Rick Schroeder) — a lawyer — this motley collection of Irish, Jewish, Polish and Italian "New York gangsters" repulsed wave after wave of attacks, weathered friendly artillery fire and endured a five-day siege with little food, water and medicine before being relieved. Of the 600 who entered the siege, fewer than 200 emerged unscathed. Schroeder brings a square-jawed innocence to Whittlesey, who clings to his position despite the catastrophic losses to his command. "Life would be a lot simpler if we could choose our duties and obligations," he tells a subordinate. "But we can't and we shouldn't." Whittlesey's devotion cost him dearly. Although he won the Medal of Honor, he committed suicide three years later. (I doubt that sort of thing would go over well on JAG.) My grandfather, Sgt. Frank Donnelly, enlisted in the U.S. Army at 15, and after chasing Pancho Villa into Mexico, "Pap-Pap" fought in the trenches of France, where he earned the Purple Heart. A surgeon wanted to amputate my grandfather's leg, but Pap Pap managed to talk him out of it by pointing his .45 automatic pistol in the man's face. Suffice it to say, the casualties were staggering. "In less than four months," said author John Mosier (The Myth of the Great War), "we lost more men than in the entire Vietnam War." Pap-Pap died before I was born, so in tribute to him and to all the other Great War veterans, I wish to say this: Any talk about a "Greatest Generation" is a crock. As far as I'm concerned, any generation that contains people willing to risk their lives, their happiness and their sanity for a cause greater than themselves is pretty damn great. (Unless of course, you're willing to blow yourself up to kill innocent people, in which case you're simply an ass.)<<<

One of my pet peeves as a Southern Baptist is the rather indifferent way we treat membership in our churches. As many have put it, once you walk the aisle and get dunked you are in like flint, with nary a hint of church discpline. This is a quick hit on a new website I came across, but I like it!

>>>the most critical issue facing Southern Baptists today. It really has three aspects: (1) We allow virtually anyone willing to walk an aisle, say acceptable words, and be baptized to become members of our churches. This dilutes, as Whitney said, our message and liberalizes our message. (2) Once on a church role, the only means of removal at most SBC churches are death or voluntary withdrawal ... the latter usually due to moving to another area. This allows non-participating “members” to swing the outcome when a contentious issue comes up. (3) Because we allow the unregenerate to be full members, sin abounds and pastors fear to address it. It is only the rare SBC church that exercises church discipline.

To remedy this situation: Churches must counsel would-be members to be sure they are regenerate before they are admitted to full membership. Church rolls must be regularly purged of non- or only very occasional participants. Pastors must not shy from addressing prevalent sins, and churches must exercise loving church discipline per Matthew 18.<<<

I say amen to that! We have too many "members" who never show up, never serve in church and certainly don't financially support the local church or our missions programs. If the church doesn't gently rebuke those in sin within it's midst, what good is it? I am not advocating a mormon type annual inquisition by the bishop to determine temple worthiness but at least paying attention would help and perhaps give some spine to many pastors who fear "CONTROVERSY"!

One of my pet peeves as a Southern Baptist is the rather indifferent way we treat membership in our churches. As many have put it, once you walk the aisle and get dunked you are in like flint, with nary a hint of church discpline. This is a quick hit on a new website I came across, but I like it!

>>>the most critical issue facing Southern Baptists today. It really has three aspects: (1) We allow virtually anyone willing to walk an aisle, say acceptable words, and be baptized to become members of our churches. This dilutes, as Whitney said, our message and liberalizes our message. (2) Once on a church role, the only means of removal at most SBC churches are death or voluntary withdrawal ... the latter usually due to moving to another area. This allows non-participating “members” to swing the outcome when a contentious issue comes up. (3) Because we allow the unregenerate to be full members, sin abounds and pastors fear to address it. It is only the rare SBC church that exercises church discipline.

To remedy this situation: Churches must counsel would-be members to be sure they are regenerate before they are admitted to full membership. Church rolls must be regularly purged of non- or only very occasional participants. Pastors must not shy from addressing prevalent sins, and churches must exercise loving church discipline per Matthew 18.<<<

I say amen to that! We have too many "members" who never show up, never serve in church and certainly don't financially support the local church or our missions programs. If the church doesn't gently rebuke those in sin within it's midst, what good is it? I am not advocating a mormon type annual inquisition by the bishop to determine temple worthiness but at least paying attention would help and perhaps give some spine to many pastors who fear "CONTROVERSY"!

Now Kerry is after Bush on heatlth care costs...


>>>PITTSBURGH (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry launched a weeklong offensive on Monday against President Bush over skyrocketing health care costs in a bid to spread doubts about Bush's new drug benefits program.<<<

But nary a word about what he would do differently or what he would do about tort reform. Again, Kerry is all about bashing Bush and nothing about what HE would do. He is so all over the map on every issue.

Up next, Kerry blames Bush for upcoming cicada swarms "They come every 17 years sure, but what is Bush doing about it? Where is the anti-cicada coalition?"

Hear hear!

An excellent piece on diversity in sports by a guy who seems to know what he is talking about!

Richard E. Lapchick writes on ESPN.com's Page Two about the Europeanization of the NBA. I had listened to Scoop Jackson suggesting a corporate conspiracy by The Man to get the black players out of the NBA. When Lapchick followed up, it turns out that Jackson admitted that it might not really be happening but that is the way it seemed to blacks. Therein lies the problem. We don't even have to really discriminate against blacks, they but need perceive that we are for us to be guilty.

Lapchick rightly points out that the European players are here because they can play the game, in fact the U.S. has fallen behind the world in hoops because we don’t teach kids how to defend, pass or shoot. It is all about driving the lane, one on one breaking a man down and eventually an off balance three pointer clanking away.

It is no coincidence that the best team in the NBA, one that plays the best as a team and the best looking basketball, in general is largely non-US: " The Spurs, the NBA's hottest team entering the playoffs, have four starters and one reserve who are international players."

It is not a white or black thing, it is a basketball thing. Teach young American kids, black and white, to play the game and the tide will change. We no longer live in a world where we are so superior in basketball skills that we can roll over others by showing up. The posturing and garbage from Alan Iverson, Latrell Spreewell and others doesn't help kids learn the fundamentals of the game: passing, rebounding, defending and shooting.

Maybe the NBA should raise the basket and make them learn to shoot again?

Hear hear!

An excellent piece on diversity in sports by a guy who seems to know what he is talking about!

Richard E. Lapchick writes on ESPN.com's Page Two about the Europeanization of the NBA. I had listened to Scoop Jackson suggesting a corporate conspiracy by The Man to get the black players out of the NBA. When Lapchick followed up, it turns out that Jackson admitted that it might not really be happening but that is the way it seemed to blacks. Therein lies the problem. We don't even have to really discriminate against blacks, they but need perceive that we are for us to be guilty.

Lapchick rightly points out that the European players are here because they can play the game, in fact the U.S. has fallen behind the world in hoops because we don’t teach kids how to defend, pass or shoot. It is all about driving the lane, one on one breaking a man down and eventually an off balance three pointer clanking away.

It is no coincidence that the best team in the NBA, one that plays the best as a team and the best looking basketball, in general is largely non-US: " The Spurs, the NBA's hottest team entering the playoffs, have four starters and one reserve who are international players."

It is not a white or black thing, it is a basketball thing. Teach young American kids, black and white, to play the game and the tide will change. We no longer live in a world where we are so superior in basketball skills that we can roll over others by showing up. The posturing and garbage from Alan Iverson, Latrell Spreewell and others doesn't help kids learn the fundamentals of the game: passing, rebounding, defending and shooting.

Maybe the NBA should raise the basket and make them learn to shoot again?