I am appalled and embarrassed by the condition of the Christian church.  You hypocrites!  There will be gnashing of teeth.

I can no longer attend the church of my childhood.  The Anglicans have strayed so far from the narrow path that they are no longer recognizable as Christians.  Yet, they are still one of the more "conservative" of the major denominations in the USA.  The situation is truly frightening.

I just read the article, "Praying for the Chaplains," concerning the United Church of Christ.  (See: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11830)

I don't suppose that I learned anything new in that article.  But, I was taken aback by the quotation from Army UCC Chaplain, Tony Ciomperlik, who said: "I define faith as believing in God for what I cannot provide for myself."

Well, that's just swell.  I hope you can be very self-sufficient, Chaplain Ciomperlik!  But, Sir, that is not a Christian position.

Christian faith in God extends to every moment of very day, and to every facet of existence.  I thank God for every breath I take.  Unlike the good Chaplain, I have no faith in myself, nor in science, nor in the government, nor in my fellow human beings.  I strive to do the best I can, I endeavor to learn, I pay Caesar his due, and I comply with the Second Commandment.  But that is not "faith."

I am sorry for Chaplain Ciomperlik.  I am sorry for all want-to-be Christians being mislead by today's church.  God is not someone to be held in reserve, to be fed scraps from the table of self-sufficiency, to be called upon only when we cannot solve our own problems.  God is not a part time help mate.

The church is frightened and cowed by the onslaught of secular humanism.  I know that the voices of the atheists are loud and demanding.  But our churches and clergymen must not compromise the principles of our faith.  They cannot serve two gods.  Nor will I.

Ever notice how bad law springs up out of tragic events?  Well, it may happen again.

I'm talking about the tragic helicopter crash in Phoenix AZ on Saturday.  Two news helicopters ran into each other while trying to get video coverage of a police car chase.  Four people, two in each helicopter, died in the crash.  See http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/94105 for more details.

Now, the press, and apparently some elements of officialdom, are talking about the possibility of bringing homicide charges against the fleeing suspect in the car chase.

Plainly put, that is absurd.

First, it's absurd on the technical, legal level.  Certainly, fleeing suspects are criminally responsible for the deaths of police officers who die chasing them.  That's because citizens have a duty to stop when police order them to stop, and fleeing, itself, is a crime.  But, citizens owe no such duty to members of the press.  Running away from the press is no crime.

On a deeper level, it's absurd because of the implied elevation in importance to be ascribed to the news media.  We live in a media rich environment.  We get used to seeing, hearing, and (God help us) even believing what we are told and shown on TV and radio.  But, we have to remember that these media people are not civil servants.  They are not employed to protect us.  We can't allow ourselves to become confused by the special status conveyed by their press passes, or their right to conceal sources, even from the law.  News people are not a specially protected class.  They are, simply, just like everyone else.

In Arizona, two helicopters crashed because one or both of the pilots wasn't paying attention to where he was going and what he was doing.  I'm not sure about aviation law, but on the highways, this kind of thing would appear to be reckless driving.  In such a case, where a crash resulted in deaths, the reckless driver would probably be charged with homicide.  And, that would be a sensible and proper result.

In the Arizona crash, both pilots are dead.  So, obviously, there will be no criminal charges brought against either of them.  But, that doesn't mean that charges should be brought against anyone else.

Here is a little quote from one of today's news items:

"Libya demanded the complete normalization of diplomatic relations with the European Union today as part of a deal for the release of six Bulgarian medics convicted of infecting Libyan children with the HIV virus, diplomatic sources said today."

Quote From: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article2125019.ece

Does anyone else see the problem here?  I know that it's none of my business, and that the EU can, and undoubtedly will, do just about anything.  But, it is instructive to look at what is being seriously discussed.

Libya has "convicted" a number of folks on ridiculous, trumped up charges.  No right thinking person could take the charges or convictions seriously.  Now, Libya is proposing to trade these hostages for full diplomatic and economic recognition.  And, it looks like the EU is going to do it.

Here is the problem: What self respecting country, or Union, would normalize relations with a rogue state in exchange for hostages?  Or, if the convictions are legitimate, what self respecting country or Union would normalize relations with a state offering to release mass murderers?  Either way, such a deal is clearly abhorrent to any civilized sense of justice or ethics.  It is an uncivilized proposal.

I would like to see these hostages released.  But I will regret seeing the EU humiliated like this.

Hispanic group aims to stop 'wave of hate'

By Stephen Dinan
July 22, 2007

"MIAMI BEACH, Fla. — The nation's largest Hispanic advocacy group says it must come up with a strategy to combat "a wave of hate" its leaders say came from talk radio's efforts to sink the Senate's immigration bill.'

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070722/NATION/107220053/1001

Oh, grow up!  We who opposed the immigration bill don't hate you.  In fact, most of us like you.  We have a lot of respect for your traditional family values, your religious fervor, and your work ethic.  We know that you come here looking for a better life and that you are mostly honest, hard working, God fearing people.  We only ask that you come here LEGALLY.  We want you to come here respecting our laws, and waiting your lawful turn like immigrants from every country.  We want to know who you are, and that you are interested in becoming an American.  We want to welcome you as a friend and neighbor who came across our border proudly and lawfully.  Not as someone who sneaked across in the dead of night, or in the trunk of a car, like a criminal looking for a victim to rob.

Grow up!  It's not the color of your skin, or your accent, or your surname that is the problem.  It's your actions.  If you're here illegally, GO HOME!  If you're here legally, please become and American citizen and assimilate into our American culture.  That doesn't mean you should abandon your Hispanic heritage.  But, It means that you should be an American 1st, and proud of it!

Are you as tired of the Global Warming nonsense as I am?  Well, if you are, I may have some good news for you.  Maybe, just maybe, Al Gore and his stooges will be discredited before they can do any lasting damage.

Take a look at http://www.tylerpaper.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070721/OPINION01/707200320.

"Global Warming Theories Fizzle, New Studies Show
Claims of alarming changes in nature because of global warming are being discredited."

This is not new news.  But, perhaps the voices of reason will finally be heard.  I've known for months that the entire global warming issue is bunk.  The information is out there for anyone who cares to check on the facts for themselves.  For instance, see Junk Science, http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/.  The most telling information there may be the disclosure that " ...the estimate of warming is less than the error margin on our ability to take the Earth's temperature."  That just about says it all.

Bush alters rules for CIA interrogations

By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070721/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_terrorism_21;_ylt=AvmvXeTpryfiDq6nIqFiBiEE1vAI

"The five-page order reiterated many protections already granted under U.S. and international law. It said that any conditions of confinement and interrogation cannot include: ....

• Acts intended to denigrate the religion of an individual."

Oh ouch!  Stop! Stop denigrating my religion.  OK, OK, I'll tell you anything you want to know, if you'll just stop twisting my religion!

How ridiculous!  I wonder which religion was so weak, vulnerable, and sensitive that it had to be protected by special Presidential order?  Hum ...

Honestly folks, if we (the American people, and our leaders) don't get over this reluctance to confront Islam as the enemy of democracy and western civilization, we are going down in flames.

They have their priorities straight.  They know exactly who their enemies are.  They are not shackled by any PC BS.  It's time to level the playing field.  I say, grab'em by the short prayers, and TWIST!

I never thought the day would come when I would write something even remotely favorable about Congressman, Keith Ellison.  I have no respect for the man, whatsoever.  I am sickened and appalled that he is in Congress.

However, I must speak out about the most recent accusations accusing him of comparing President George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler.  I don't think he said that.  Here is what he apparently did say:

"9/11 is the juggernaut in American history and it allows... it's almost like, you know, the Reichstag fire. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

He is comparing the destruction of the Reichstag with the destruction of the World Trade Center.  He is saying that both events were a catalyst and turning point in the political direction of the country.  He is saying that each event coalesced and focused the opinions of the citizenry.  He is saying that both George W. Bush and Adolph Hitler became more powerful in their respective countries because of the events.  He is NOT saying that George W. Bush is a Hitler.

Now, he may have meant to say that.  After all, this quote reveals that the man, if nothing else, is inarticulate.  But, if so, he failed to make his point.

Congressman Ellison's analogy is specious.  There are no significant similarities between the burning of the Reichstag by Nazi goons, and the attack of 9/11.  As physical events, they both did lead to important changes in political direction.  But there, any similarity ends.  There are no parallels between the two events relating to political motivations, or philosophies.  The Reichstag was burned to trick the German people into believing that the Communists were in revolt and that the German Republic's government was unable to cope.  The World Trade Center was attacked by Islamic Terrorists bent on the destruction of western civilization. The two events are totally different.

Let's all remember that liberals are the ones who make unfounded accusations.  For example, how many times have you heard the battle cry: "Bush said Iraq had WMDs?"  The FACT is he never said that.  What he did say was "British intelligence (and other sources) tell us that Iraq has WMDs."  Or, words to that effect.  So, when we conservatives are looking at Congressman Ellison, or anyone else, we should be careful not to let our judgment of the person effect our reporting of what he said.  Let's just stick to the rigorous truth, and hoist them on their own petards.

This Obama guy is a real gem!

He's noticed that a lot of gang bangers are out there shooting each other.

(See: "Obama Calls for Permanent Assault Weapons Ban to Combat Inner-City Violence", Associated Press, Sunday, July 15, 2007)

According to Obama, "There's a reason they go out and shoot each other, because they don't love themselves. And the reason they don't love themselves is because we are not loving them enough."

This reads like a follow up on my earlier blog posting, re "group hugs."

So the answer to this problem is obvious, right?  We will just permanently ban all assault weapons.

Am I the only one who fails to see the logic (any logic) in this?

And besides, who cares how many gang bangers shoot each other, anyway?

As for me, I'll keep my assault weapon handy, just in case my car breaks down in gang banger territory.

What's so complicated about the problem of illegal aliens living in our country?  I can outline the solution to that problem in three (3) simple steps.

1. Secure our borders to make it much more difficult for aliens to sneak in;
2. Require reliable proof of citizenship for all jobs and government services, and;
3. Arrest, hold, and deport all aliens discovered living here illegally.

That's it.  Nothing more is required.

If President Bush will appoint me as Immigration Czar, giving me a modest budget and plenary powers to implement my three steps, I will fix this so called immigration problem in six months. Guaranteed.

Why is something so simple, presented to us as being so complicated?  That is the real, and important question we should be asking.

More on this later.

I've given "A Gate Crasher's Change of Heart" (Washington Post, July 13, Allison Klein) a great deal of thought.  I have concluded that it is one of the most dangerous, and irresponsible pieces of journalism I've read in some time.

For those who haven't read it, it is a story about a gunman crashing a backyard party and holding a gun to a girl's head while demanding money, and the way the situation was defused by the hostess who offered the gunman a glass of wine, some cheese, and hugs.  The story ends with everyone giving the gunman a "group hug."

This is nothing more than a dramatization of that old liberal philosophy about how criminals are really just misunderstood folks who need a little love.  It is so far from reality, that I find myself wondering if the story itself is true.  Assuming it is true, there are terrible problems here.

1.  There is no mention of the police being called, or an arrest being made.  Will these people accept responsibility when this gunman actually shoots his next victim?  Will he be satisfied with a little wine and cheese from the next family he holds at gunpoint?

2.  These people themselves are at serious risk.  This gunman and his friends are very likely to come back for more, and instead of "group hugs" we'll be reading about rape, and murder.

3.  The way this story is presented, it leaves the reader with the idea that the hostess's actions in placating the gunman is a workable solution to violent confrontation.  When, in fact, it was a miracle that her actions worked as they did.  The article should have come with the warning: "Don't try this at home!"

What I see here is a single incident demonstration of what liberals think may be the solution for much larger problems.  For example, terrorism.  How many times have I heard or read about how they wouldn't hate us so much if they could just get to know us better?  How do you say "group hug" in Farsi?

Let's use a little common sense here, please!