Sunday, July 31, 2005

Frist Changes Stripes on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Here is a NY Times article on Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist's departure from President Bush on embryonic stem cell research.
"While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases," Mr. Frist says, according to a text of the speech provided by his office Thursday evening. "Therefore, I believe the president's policy should be modified."

The move could also have implications for Mr. Frist's political future. The senator is widely considered a potential candidate for the presidency in 2008, and supporting an expansion of the policy will put him at odds not only with the White House but also with Christian conservatives, whose support he will need in the race for the Republican nomination. But the decision could also help him win support among centrists.

"I am pro-life," Mr. Frist says in the speech, arguing that he can reconcile his support for the science with his own Christian faith. "I believe human life begins at conception." But at the same time, he says, "I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported."

First of all, I don't get the obsession with embryonic stem cell research. I'm not aware of any research from them that has yielded any sort of health benefits while research on adult stem cells has been much more successful. Yet the rush to kill embryos goes on full speed ahead.

Second, how can you claim to be pro-life, that human life begins at conception, but that embryonic stem cell research (ie destroying embryos to suck the life out of them) should continue. That claim reminds me of John Kerry stating that he believes life begins at conception, but women should have the right to choose.

This little "life" issue isn't one you can waddle down the middle on, Dr. Frist. Or shall I just keep calling you Senator Frist, because it's very unlikely you'll ever be anything more. It's "life" versus "science" and he chose science. Scientists think we evolved from sea scum, so I wouldn't hitch my political cart to their theories.

Friday, July 29, 2005

Picking Supremes in Kansas

There is an article in the Capital Journal about the conservatives' efforts to toss out a number of judges off the Kansas Supreme Court...especially after rulings such as the recent one in which the court ordered the legislature to come up with more money for schools (clearly above and beyond their judicial bounds).

First of all, I love how Chris Moon (the reporter) says conservatives "forced through -- on sweeping public approval -- a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Kansas." How do you FORCE through something with sweeping public approval? Give me a break.

Now, onto the matter of changing the courts. The conservatives can spend a ton of money in this effort and it will result in no why bother with it? There are more efficient ways to spend money...say on defeating the liberal queen of Kansas and electing a true blue conservative as governor. How long has it been since we've had a conservative governor? We had 2 terms of Bill Graves (Republican in name only) and now 1 with Queen Kate. Spend your money on defeating liberalism folks! Win the BIG HOUSE and get your new governor to appoint solid conservatives!

Getting voters to oust a judge is a tough getting someone to buy a new garage door opener when the one they have opens and closes their doors and they'd rather not even think about how a different one would be better for them. Most voters don't care enough about how their garage door opens and long as it does. They're going through their lives in their own way and if they read something about judges ruling that schools should have more money...well, who is to argue with that!

I wouldn't throw my money at convincing people to kick out a judge, but we'll all benefit much more when we kick out the queen who appoints them and replace her with someone who will run our state better and appoint judges who will not legislate from the bench.

Monday, July 25, 2005

Urgent call to prayer from Community Connections

Your First Southern Baptist Community Connection and Prayer Ministry Teams are convinced that our only hope in the battle for the soul of America is prayer. We believe God put President Bush in office largely for the current situation regarding the Supreme Court nomination. If we, the Body of Christ, do not arise now with a massive prayer movement and turn the tide of this battle, history will reveal that the soul of America was lost on our watch. Church, we have come too far and worked too hard, and more importantly, too much is at stake to lose this spiritual war now.

Until the judicial nominee is confirmed, we urge you to please join us in committing to fast and pray:

  • Pray for President Bush: for wisdom, strength and boldness. Pray against any deception or compromise. Pray that any counsel inconsistent with God’s will would not be received. Pray that he clearly hears only God’s will.
  • Pray for the Senate that they confirm the right choice. Pray against filibustering of God’s chosen person. Pray that there will be no compromise among conservatives.
  • Pray for the appointees: We believe God has groomed and shaped the perfect person for the Court. Pray that he or she is found, appointed and confirmed. Pray that he or she has strength and wisdom for the battle.
  • Pray the Word: Isaiah 1:26; Psalms 2; Psalms 24; Isaiah 9:6-7 and others God will show you.

Praying church, arise! We can win this battle for the control of the number one entry point over the last 50 years of moral and spiritual decay in America. It will only happen "if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways"!

Sunday, July 24, 2005

Racial profiling

I saw news coverage of security measures being taken at transit systems in the UK and in NYC...going through the bags of white and black women. If they're so carefully screening bags, how did more bombs explode in London last week? Oh yeah, they were carried by middle eastern men. You probably wouldn't want to check the bag of a middle eastern man, even though nearly all of the terrorist acts have been carried out by such a man, for fear that you would be a racial profiler. Heaven forbid!

Those who are charged to protect us need to identify those who resemble the people who are trying to kill us...especially if they are carrying bags! It's more important to keep us alive and in one piece (instead of hundreds of pieces scattered along a subway car) than it is to remain politically correct. They are at war with us! Innocent muslims need to bare with us as we take common sense steps to protect ourselves. They know, as we do, what color is the skin of our attackers. A little inconvenience to them is the price we must pay to stop catastrophes from happening again.

Saturday, July 23, 2005

More barbarism...this time in Egypt

Egyptian resort town blasts kill scores

Evil has reared its ugly head again. I just hope these small but very deadly explosions in London and Egypt aren't leading up to something massive on our own shores. God know where the cowards are hiding and scheming. Let's pray that they are stopped before they can kill millions of innocents.

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Priceless pic of John Roberts' kid dancing

While President Bush and Supreme Court nominee John Roberts were straight-faced during the introduction of Roberts' as Bush's pic, Roberts' 3 year old son was dancing a jig in front of them. The pic is priceless. I don't know how I would have handled that. I probably would have stopped the speech and said, "Would someone please get this kid on film? This is too funny!" Look at the face of the horrified wife. You think that kid got in trouble later?

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Holding to the truth...even with a knife to your throat

Read Chuck Colson's latest column about Nien Cheng, a wealthy Chinese Christian who had been thrown into prison. They thought by stripping away her worldly possessions, she would crumble. Instead, she held fast to the TRUTH.
Cheng’s embrace of the truth also allowed her to envision that justice would eventually prevail, and that good could come out of this evil. In this, Cheng was fortified, of course, by her Christian faith. Alone among the world’s great religions, Christianity gives value and meaning to evil and suffering. British novelist Dorothy Sayers captured the essence of this. Christianity, she wrote “affirms . . . that perfection is attained through the active and positive effort to wrench a real good out of a real evil.” This is the essence of what Christians call redemption, and it underscores another truth: We have to understand the evil in ourselves before we can truly embrace the good in life.

In this story, the Christian who held firm to her beliefs was released and survives. Millions of Christians have been slaughtered for their beliefs. Jesus said it would happen that way. I grouse about how Christianity is the one faith that you can insult and mock and still be politically correct, but I'm so thankful that we don't have to endure torture and imprisonment for our beliefs. That said, if we don't fight to protect our constitution, and don't stand up for our beliefs in the public square, the enemies of Christ wouldn't object to driving us under the cover of darkness. Stay vigilant, and stick to the truth!

Ann Coulter compares Roberts to Souter

Ann Coulter, who I admire and even met and talked with for awhile a few months ago, is misguided I think in her newest column in which she criticizes the Roberts pick. I hope she's very wrong. She compares him to the Souter pick, a "stealth candidate." I don't think Roberts could be considered a stealth candidate because he was on most conservative's short list. Most conservatives are celebrating the pick, so I don't understand why she's grousing about it.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Bush picks Judge Roberts

President Bush has chosen federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. as his first nominee for the Supreme Court, selecting what appears to be a solid conservative whose approval by the Senate SHOULD be confirmed easily...but probably won't. I've already seen interviews with Dems that give us a glimpse into the battle ahead. The White House is hoping that "the Ginsburg rule" will be in effect...she refused to answer questions about her personal beliefs and was confirmed anyway. Groan. Don't expect the Democrats to let Roberts pull "the Ginsburg rule" on them. This is going to be interesting.

Read David Limbaugh's post on the reasons why Judge Roberts is a great pick!

The reason I like the best is that the president thumbed his nose at political correctness again in picking a white male. I wouldn't have minded a black woman (in fact, Judge Janice Brown was my pick in an earlier post) or a long as the person was a true-blue (or should that be "true red" these days?) conservative. He has the courage to pick the best candidate...even if that candidate is a white man.

Bush to announce Supreme Court Nominee tonight

As reported in Bloomberg.

Insiders expect that Bush's choice will be Judge Edith Brown Clement of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

People for the American Way don't like her, and NARAL calls her a "worrisome choice" she must be a great pick!

Thursday, July 14, 2005

NARAL Hosts "Screw Abstinence Party"

NARAL, already over the deep-end and flailing about in a sea of nonsense, is hosting a "screw abstinence party." Read about it here.

They don't want the Bush administration to continue funding abstinence education, because apparently they prefer American girls to have as much sex as they want and deal with the consequences of STDs and pregancies through creams and abortions.

How do the paid employees of NARAL drag themselves out of bed each day? Their sole purpose is to promote the slaughter of developing humans! And this excites them?

Don't want STDs and pregnancies? Don't have sex. It's guaranteed. But it's silly to spend money to promote such a ridiculous concept I guess! Sheesh.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Message from CWA

Reminder . . .

Concerned Women for America will meet this Tuesday, July 19 at 7:00 in the Fellowship Hall at First So. Baptist Church (1912 SW Gage Blvd, Topeka).

(Like-minded men welcomed)


The way we see the world can change the world. In every action we take we are either contributing to the broken condition of the world or participating with God in transforming the world to reflect the righteousness of God.

Renewal can occur when Christians are committed to living out their faith, seeing the world as God sees it, viewing reality through the lens of divine revelation.

The topic for this meeting is "Why a Biblical Worldview." We will also discuss some current events and pray for our country and its leaders.

Plan to attend and bring a friend with you.

Sylvia Chapman
Prayer/Action Leader

Ten Commandments

Read this column on the meandering Supreme Court on the issue of displays of the Ten Commandments on public property.

Looks like we all need to put Ten Commandment displays in our courthouses with a disclaimer stating that the Ten Commandments are a vital part of our history and served as the foundation for our nation's laws. Read them at your own risk of being offended.

Constitutional Judges

From David Limbaugh's latest column:
I have often wondered whether liberal politicians and journalists, most of whom surely believe they are more sophisticated and enlightened than their conservative counterparts, truly don't understand the concept behind the intricate balance of powers the Framers incorporated into the Constitution or simply don't care.
I've wondered the same thing. They must think the ends justify the means, because they don't care if judges overstep their bounds by legislating from the bench as long as their own agenda is pushed forward. Unable to make liberal social gains through the ballot box, they get them through the courts.

The recent Kansas Supreme Court ruling that the legislature hadn't spent enough money on education is a good example. Where is it written in our state constitution that the state MUST spend $X per pupil? That's the job of legislators. It's why we elect them. If they don't spend enough on education, we fire them and elect new people. The judges shouldn't be able to "rule" that educators need to spend more money. That is overstepping their mandate. If I was in the House, I don't think I'd be paying much attention to such a ruling. "You do your job, and we'll do ours, thank you very much."

We need judges who are willing to do their jobs...interpreting the laws on the books, and not making them up as they go along and overriding the duties of our elected representatives.

Thursday, July 07, 2005

Terrorists Strike London

Let us all be in prayer today for those who have suffered at the hands of brutal thug terrorists in London. Today's attack is a reminder that the war goes on...and not just in Iraq. They will kill us wherever they can. Evil is not geographically confined to any one region.

The legacy of Sandra Day O'Connor

Read the latest column by Ann Coulter on the legacy of Sandra Day O'Connor.


Others say her worst decisions came in the area of religion. In determining the constitutionality of religious displays on public property and government aid to religion, Justice O'Connor evidently decided she preferred her own words, "entanglement" and "endorsement," to the Constitution's word "establishment." No one could ever understand O'Connor's special two-prong entanglement/ endorsement test – including Justice O'Connor. Over the years, she struggled to resuscitate her own test by continually adding more tines to the prongs.

Among the tines to the "endorsement" prong is the "outsider" test, requiring that the government not make a nonbeliever feel like an "outsider." But wait! There are spikes on those tines! O'Connor discovered a spike off the Feelings tine of the Endorsement prong, which requires the court's evaluation of the feelings of the nonbeliever to be based on a "reasonable observer" who embodies "a community ideal of social judgment, as well as rational judgment."

For all the blather about O'Connor's moderation and pragmatism and motherly instincts, Mommie Dearest signed on to the most monstrous opinion in the history of the court, Stenberg v. Carhart, which proclaimed a heretofore unnoticed constitutional right to puncture the skull of a half-delivered baby and suction its brains out – just as the framers so clearly intended.

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

The Roe Effect

Opinion Journal has a brain-spinning column by James Taranto on "The Roe Effect." I have read about this hypothesis before, and love the irony of it...Democrats protect abortion at all costs, and end up killing their future voters--therefore diminishing their own political power. Black women have more abortions than hispanics, who have more abortions than whites. African Americans are naturally more inclined to vote Democrat than Hispanics, who are more inclined to vote Democrat than whites. With millions of potential voters not currently living thanks to abortion (and since those would-be voters, if alive, would likely follow the same voting pattern as their parents), the Republicans have gained an advantage.

The situational analysis in Taranto's column is twisting and turning and makes me think of Vizzini in "The Princess Bride" trying to outwit Westley. If you've seen it, you know what I mean.

Anyway, the ironic situation may continue to the point that there aren't enough pro-choice voters (because they were aborted by their pro-choice mothers) that we get rid of liberal judges on SCOTUS and Roe is overturned. It's tragic and horrific that all of those babies have been exterminated, so it's conflicting to appreciate the irony of a hypothesis that their non-existence helps to put conservatives in office to push the pro-life agenda.

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Judge Janice Rogers Brown for Supreme Court

There's a good article in today's Wall Street Journal' Opinion Journal on the current battle to fill the seat vacated by Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. It ends up making the conclusion that I've reached: Janice Rogers Brown should get the nod.

She's a conservative with a long record on California's Supreme Court and had been one of several judges being filibustered by Senate Democrats. But after being confirmed last month, she now sits on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a court that has produced more than its share of Supreme Court justices. Thanks to the deal seven Democrats hammered out with seven Republicans she is, by definition, not "extreme" enough that her nomination would constitute "extraordinary circumstances" justifying a filibuster.

Anyway, filibustering Judge Brown would also block the first black woman from taking a seat on the high court. Never underestimate the power of "a first" in getting Supreme Court nominee through the Senate. Justice O'Connor, the first woman to sit on the high court, sailed through 99-0 in 1981. Five years later, President Reagan sent up Antonin Scalia to be the first Italian-American to sit on the highest court in the land. He is now the bane of the left, but in 1986, he won confirmation 98-0.

Unlike Alberto Gonzales, Ms. Brown wouldn't give heartburn to conservatives. Plus, she just received Senate confirmation for the Court of Appeals, which means it would be tough to fillibuster her as too extreme...and what price would the Dems pay for blocking the first black woman from sitting on the Supreme Court? I would think she has nearly all of the ingredients Mr. Bush would want...except for the fact that she's not Hispanic.

Sunday, July 03, 2005

Billy Graham didn't endorse Hillary

Billy Graham said Friday that he didn't intend to endorse Hillary Clinton for president when he told her husband at a massive New York City revival meeting last weekend that she should "run the country."

His son Franklin Graham, who heads the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, tells the Charlotte Observer: "For a long time, my father has refrained from endorsing political candidates and he certainly did not intend for his comments to be an endorsement for Senator Hillary Clinton."

"My father, of course, was joking," the younger Graham said, when he hosted the Clintons onstage and told the crowd of 90,000. "They're a great couple... He should be an evangelist because he has all the gifts and he could leave his wife to run the country."

Although Billy Graham has called himself a Democrat, Franklin said that didn't mean he supported the former president, saying, "His political views, as well as mine, are quite different than the Clintons." The Clintons, however "remain good friends," he added.

Rev. Graham felt compelled to issue the clarification after receiving more than 100 e-mails and calls of protest, the Observer said. Rev. Graham's words of praise for the former first couple prompted significant consternation among some of his most devoted followers. National Clergy Council President, Rev. Rob Schenck, for instance - who had traveled from Washington, D.C., to Queens, New York just to hear his "role model" preach - walked out of the event after the Clintons were feted onstage.

"I was stunned and appalled," Rev. Schenck told the Christian Wire Service. "It was disturbing to watch Billy Graham, a man whom I've admired for years, being used by evil to mislead countless Christians," complained Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, head of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny [BOND].

Thank God. It's disturbing enough for Billy Graham to give them the credibility of a "great couple," let alone speculate that she should run the country ~shudder~.

Friday, July 01, 2005

The Religious Left Fights Back

Opinion Journal's Houses of Worship features an article on the so-called "religious left" battling back against Christian right-wing extemists (like me, I guess).

"If the last election proved anything," notes a recent issue of The Economist, "it was that middle America found an overtly religious party much less weird than an overtly secular one." Religious progressives would agree. Yet despite their feeling comfortable with God talk, they share certain traits that may limit their appeal to other people of faith.
First, they're composed mostly of mainline clergy and church elites who are often culturally out of step with the rank and file. They're leaders with no obvious grass-roots constituency. Second, they treat traditional religion with either suspicion or outright contempt. Believers who raise concerns about complex social matters--such as embryonic cloning or the role of condoms in fighting AIDS--are dismissed as crazed theocrats. Third, religious progressives are often allied with left-wing partisans such as financier George Soros, and Pax Christi, all of which loathe the Christian Right as much as radical Islam.

The religious left wants to use the teachings of Christ and Old Testament scriptures to call us to increase the welfare state. Rather than caring for the poor themselves, they aim for the government (ie, the Feds forcing taxpayers to increase their charitable giving through it--the ultmate umbrella organization). Meanwhile, the religious right fights to shring the size of government and take care of charitable donations on their own, thank you very much.

How the religious left somehow finds scriptural backing for abortion and stem-cell research is curious to me. Can you please point me to the passage that makes it ok to kill unborn children?

Back from DC

I just returned from my weeklong trip to DC with my wife. Here I am in front of the White House. When we got to the middle of the WH there was a motorcade that left the area where we had been 10 minutes before. When we were heading over to the other side of the WH, there was a motorcade coming back. Must have been a McDonald's run!

We also spotted a secret service guy protecting some elderly gentleman in a Starbucks. I didn't get a look at the protectee so I don't know who it was, but the secret service guy was easy to recognize with his curly-cue ear mike and, of course, the shiny black sedan they entered.

That was our first experience with DC. Kudos to the city. I'd always heard such horrible things about it...the crime and the filth. We did a lot of walking and subway riding and never once felt in danger or observed anything sinister. There were many homeless people begging for spare change along the way, and it seemed like there were more metrosexuals and homosexuals that manly men, but that was just an observation.

I was at a conference all week, so we only got to tour together for about a day and a half. We toured the Capitol building with a Russian intern from Senator Brownback's office. She is a student at KSU (getting a masters in Sociology). She really knew her stuff! Excellent tour.

We spent a lot of time in museums, including the Spy Museum, National History Museum and Natural History Museum.

If you haven't been there, you MUST do it! I'm anxious for my kids to be old enough so that we can take them on a history trip!