Tuesday, June 13, 2006


Okay, you've heard people talk about the characters America "loves to hate?" In the 1980's it was Dallas' J.R. Ewing. In the '90's it was Ted Danson as Becker. Both these characters were fictional, but when it comes to current politics, the one personality that comes to mind as one that we "hate to love" is the larger-than-life Ann Coulter.

Syndicated op-ed columnist Art Buchwald recently recounted his own less-than-favorable opinion of Coulter and her extreme public statements. He took exception to, in part, her recent comments that 9/11 widows who are protesting the Iraq War are "enjoy[ing] their husbands' deaths," and that her only regret about Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma City bombing was that he didn't instead bomb the New York Times building. When asked if she regretted her statement, she replied, "Of course I regret it. I should have added, 'after everyone had left the building except editors and reporters.'"

First of all, I don't really believe that Cindy Sheehan and other protestors rejoice in the deaths of their loved-ones; but as the cartoon above illustrates, their political views don't necessarily correspond with those of their aforementioned loved-ones. Was Coulter's first line out of line? Perhaps. But I'm somewhat ashamed to admit that I laughed when I first read her last quip about the NY Times. You see, I responded to the humor in the statement the same way I took the old jokes about blondes or lawyers, ie. "Q: What do you call a million lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A: A good start." Or "Q: How do you drown a dumb blonde? A: Put a scratch-n-sniff sticker at the bottom of a swimming pool."

Of course, I don't really wish death by drowning (or by any other method, for that matter) on lawyers or dumb blondes; the former joke simply draws attention to, in an albeit extreme fashion, our adverse views of tactics employed in the work of the stereotypical lawyer, while the latter is a commentary on sheer stupidity. In much the same way, Coulter's harsh humor draws attention to our adversity to the liberal views regularly expressed by the NY Times' editors and reporters (which many would consider synonymous with "sheer stupidity." Extreme? Certainly! Inappropriate? Probably. But does Coulter really wish physical harm to the staff of the Times? I seriously doubt it.

The problem is, there are people out there who really do wish physical harm to their political opponents. There are extreme liberals who want to assassinate President Bush and there are extreme conservatives who shoot abortion doctors.

Likewise, there are terrorists who want to literally not just chop off our heads, but to slowly and meticulously saw them off as al-Zarqawi (whose murderous rampage, thank God, has been permanently arrested) and his cohorts did to Nick Berg. Unfortunately, many liberal journalists either don't understand these facts or don't perceive the necessity of using force to ultimately halt the violence.

My pastor recently gave us a summary of the opposing viewpoints of pacifism vs. Just War Theory. As a Christian, I don't believe that we should respond to our enemies with violence unless absolutely necessary. If somebody attacks me, I should not respond with an attack of my own (although human nature often compels us to do so), but I should not be condemned for defending myself. I also believe that we have a responsibility --not only as followers of Christ, but also as individuals or as a Nation with the power to do so-- to defend and protect, with force if necessary, the life and liberty of our neighbors. If somebody attacks my wife or child, I will fight to the death to protect them. And if we honor our Forefathers' fight to secure and defend our freedom, should we not honor the people of Iraq's fight for theirs? Some (like Barbara Streisand in one of her new songs) profess that it's someone else's war. Does the story of the Good Samaritan not teach us that our neighbor's welfare is our concern? Of course it's our war. Any injustice against another human being is to be our concern.

That having been said, we need to focus some of our attention on atrocities being committed in countries other than Iraq, such as the Sudan. But that does not, by any stretch of the imagination, eliminate our need to continue the fight against the terrorists in Iraq. We must not repeat the disasterous premature withdrawal that President Bush, Sr. made in the Gulf War. We've captured Saddam Hussein. We've killed al-Zarqawi. But, as Cal Thomas stated in today's (June 13) op-ed column, "an epidemic is not ended when one [or two] infected [people die]. As with any plague, if the rest of us are to be protected, all who carry the virus [in this case, islamofacism] must either be eliminated or quarantined."

So, to put it succinctly, I hate to love Ann Coulter; but her statements, as extreme and inappropriate as they may be, reflect a Conservative people's deep and sincere disdain for the expressions of those who would protect the rights of the world's bullies to harm the world's defenseless. Those who murder innocent babies in the name of choice must be stopped, those who saw off the heads of innocent civilians must be stopped, and those who conspire to defend them must be stopped. Mercy and forgiveness are virtuous and a response of force should never be the first choice, but sometimes it must be used in order to preserve justice. I would never dream of promoting violence against liberal American journalists, but those who actually perpetrate terrorist violence (such as al-Zarqawi) must be stopped. And if the only way to stop them is to "eliminate" them, then I say Amen, let it be so.


Tuesday, March 28, 2006


I have just created a MySpace account. To visit my MySpace website, click here or simply go to www.myspace.com/kevinlauer.



For more than three years now, President George W. Bush has been attacked by his political enemies on his foreign policy, specifically on the War in Iraq. On Monday March 20, I received the following email from the chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Dear Kevin,

Three years have now passed since the start of the Iraq war.

First Americans were misled by the use of manipulated intelligence and outright false claims about Iraq's ties to September 11th. Since then, we have received a steady stream of propaganda, declaring "Mission Accomplished", describing an insurgency in its "last throes" and claiming great progress as Iraq descends into civil war.

The distortions continued this afternoon, as President Bush took the stage and again misled people. Here's what he said:

BUSH: "First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."

That is false. In fact, almost exactly three years ago he did just that:

"The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." [President George W. Bush, Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]

Republicans in the White House and Congress have a three-part political strategy on Iraq: ignore the reality on the ground, cover up past failures and distortions, and attack the patriotism of anyone who demands accountability. None of that will solve anything in Iraq, and none of it will make America safer.

Fighting back requires only one strategy -- telling the truth. You can combat the distortions and get the truth out in your community by writing a letter to the editor of your local paper. Our letters-to-the-editor tool makes it fast and simple...

Every day more and more Americans are stepping up and speaking out about failed Republican leadership and what it's done to, and failed to do for, our country. And just as importantly, Democrats in Congress and in communities across the country are fighting back.

Last week nearly 90,000 Americans like you singled out Republican Senator Wayne Allard for accusing a Democrat of siding with terrorists by demanding accountability from the Bush administration for its illegal domestic spying program.

That quick reaction by Democrats who won't stand for this kind of disgusting attack put Allard on the hot seat and generated press coverage of his ridiculous, desperate comments. Your steadfast defense of Democrats like Harry Reid, Jack Murtha and Russ Feingold when they have stood up and demanded accountability shows everyone that there will be a political price for underhanded and un-American attacks.

People are tired of this administration's dangerous incompetence and consistently misleading statements. No wonder new polls confirm that Americans continue to lose confidence in George Bush and the Republicans' ability to lead. Only a third of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing overall, and 61 percent disapprove of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq.

These numbers mean that Americans are ready for us to lead.

That's why later this week you'll receive a note announcing a massive Democratic Party mobilization planned for next month. We are putting together the final details for you right now.

Check your email later this week for news about how you can play a leading role in the biggest, earliest election year mobilization in history.

Thank you,

Tom McMahon
Executive Director
Democratic National Committee

Well, let me answer these points one at a time:

"First Americans were misled by the use of manipulated intelligence and outright false claims about Iraq's ties to September 11th."

First of all, I dispute the claim that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's). Just because we didn't find them doesn't mean they didn't exist. In fact, we have indisputable evidence that they did exist! Saddam Hussein used WMD's on his own people prior to the Coalition invasion of Iraq and admitted, after his capture, that he'd had plans to develop more. I am of the belief that the United Nations' handling of the case prior to the Coalition's invasion was so ineptly-handled that Saddam's regime was able to successfully hide or destroy their WMD's before we could recover them.

There is evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime actually supported Osama bin Laden, as well. For example, as Mona Charen points out in an article at TownHall.com,

One [of the captured Saddam Hussein documents] shows that an official from Iraq's government met with Osama bin Laden on Feb. 19, 1995, with the explicit permission of Saddam Hussein. When bin Laden was forced to leave Sudan, the Iraqi documents contain a handwritten note saying, "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location" (Afghanistan). The notes also reveal that Osama bin Laden suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia.

Obviously, Saddam Hussein did have WMD's and he did have ties to Osama bin Laden. But that's beside the point. Why? Because the Democrats would have us believe that George W. Bush and his administration intentionally "manipulated intelligence" and made "outright false claims about Iraq's ties to September 11th." Translation: Bush lied. But the truth is; if Bush lied, so did Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and all the other politicians in the "Bush lied" crowd. They all made similar public statements, claiming that Saddam Hussein was directly-linked to 9/11.

For the record; I believe, and am arguing, that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11. But that's not the argument. DNC Executive Director Tom McMahon claims that President Bush made, and later denied, that claim. Let's look at McMahon's quote of what the President actually said:

"The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Note that the President is citing actions "against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." (emphasis mine). He did not say "only against those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001," he said "against international terrorists and terrorist organizations including those... who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Saddam Hussein and his regime easily fell into that category of international terrorists and terrorist organizations. Even if Saddam Hussein and his regime were not directly-linked with Osama bin Laden (which the evidence shows he and they were), the President's statement did not make that claim.

Who is really "misleading" the people? Look at the evidence. It's obviously the Democratic National Committee. Saddam had his Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Democrats have their Weapons of Mass Distortion.

Mr. McMahon claims that the Republican political strategy on Iraq is to "ignore the reality on the ground, cover up past failures and distortions, and attack the patriotism of anyone who demands accountability." I would argue that these are the Democrats' strategies. A careful, open-minded study of the Democratic claims, including the above-cited email from the DNC, reveals that it is they who are ignoring reality and covering their own failures and distortions. George W. Bush did not make any claims prior to the Coalition's action than the Democrats made. The Democrats were privy to the same information that the Republicans received, and yet the Republicans lied... the Democrats were deceived. The plain truth is that, even if the intelligence was faulty, Republicans and Democrats were equally misinformed. The only intentional deception is being perpetrated now by the Democrats in their politically-driven attacks on the White House.

Next, McMahon challenges what he calls the Bush administration's "illegal domestic spying program." The fact is, such a program does not exist. There is no "illegal domestic spying program." The program that exists encompasses the surveillance of communications between known terrorists overseas and suspected terrorists in the U.S. When you take a domestic flight, you stay within the defined borders. If and when you cross those borders, the flight is no longer domestic, but international. When you (in the U.S.) make a phone call to a foreign country, how is that billed by your phone company? Is it a domestic call or an international call? Think about it for a moment and you will clearly see that the DNC's usage of the term "domestic" in this regard is a use of weapons of mass-distortion.

Let's not forget that President Bill Clinton also used these types of programs during his administration. These are policies that have been used by many Presidential administrations as a practical aspect inherently bestowed upon their Executive powers. It's only now that a Republican President has used this authority that it is challenged and labled "illegal" by the political opposition.

The bottom line is that Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein. The United States is better off without Saddam Hussein. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein. If the Democrats were in power over the past several years, Saddam Hussein would undoubtedly still be in power. President Bush didn't lie any more than the Democrats did. Yes, there have been mistakes made on both sides of the political spectrum; but the DNC's attempts to rewrite history and make George W. Bush out to be "the bad guy" are insidious. And it's up to free-thinking individuals such as myself to point out the truth so that we will not be deceived. If we remain vigilant, we will see the truth and the truth will set us free.


Recommended Reading: "What the Captured Documents Show" by Mona Charen


Hello. It's been quite a while since my last update. I have been extremely busy with some of the ministries with which I am associated, now including the Ohio Valley Christian Music Association. For more information about the OVCMA, visit their website at www.ovcma.com.

Anyway, I thought it was time I added some material to this blog, so here goes...


Sunday, October 23, 2005


A couple of opinions from local commentators:

"Riot only justified presence for Nazis" by Danielle Winters
"Besides unity, let's talk about personal responsibility" by Rose Russell
"Nazi riots incite fright, fascination" by Eric Steele
"Toledo Mayor: Neo-Nazis Had Right to March" by John Seewer
"Mayor Blames Gangs for Anti-Nazi Violence" by The Associated Press

Here's my two-cents' worth. I acquiesce to the sentiments of Danielle Winters in her column that racists are not among my favorite people, whether they be white supremacists, black supremacists, or little-green-men supremacists. Racism is evil no matter what its source.

That's why I'm incensed at the obviously-biased and misleading (to say the least) comments and headlines that read as follows: "White Supremacists Riot in Toledo, Ohio" (ABC News). I have no love or support for the agendas of Neo-Nazis, but it is certainly not fair nor accurate to report this as a White Supremacist Riot when the white supremacists weren't even there. The Neo-Nazi demonstrators were escorted away by local police BEFORE the locals began to riot.

Look at all the footage of the riots. Who was doing all of the violence? It was the crowd that was gathered to protest the legal demonstration. These citizens were destroying their own community and attacking the very authorities and emergency response workers who were there to protect them. Some, like Toledo Mayor Jack Ford, say that the rioters were local gangs while others (like Pastor Mansour Bey of the First Church of God in Toledo on FNC's "Heartland" with John Kasich, 10/22/05) claim that the "vast majority" of the rioters were not gang members, but members of the community. I certainly hope that is not the case, as it would be a very unflattering reflection upon the Toledo populace.

The bottom line is this: The presence of the Neo-Nazis may have angered the locals, but the stated purpose of their demonstration was to protest the violence of local gangs. I certainly don't agree with the message of white supremacists, but all appearances indicate that the Neo-Nazis were protesting peacefully. This was NOT a "white supremacist riot." It was a local thug riot. Black, white, or green, you cannot blame a riot on law-abiding, peaceful citizens when all of the illegal activity is perpetrated by those violently protesting a peaceful, albeit highly objectionable, demonstration.


Wednesday, September 28, 2005


War protestors, including Cindy Sheehan, call for President Bush to remove U.S. troops from Iraq. As an anti-military activist, Cindy Sheehan is desecrating the memory of her son Casey who was killed in Iraq, and destroying the legacy for which he gave his life. At one point it could have been argued that she was simply a pawn of the Radical Left, but she has since become a major player.

In a scathing open letter to President Bush and Vice-President Cheney titled "Dear George and Dick", Sheehan blasted our Commanders-in-Chief for our military presence in Iraq. One of the more civil sections reads as follows: "...how do either one of you look at yourselves in the mirror? How do you live with the fact that so many innocent people are dead because of your beliefs and actions? I know I couldn't. I know I would have a hard time living with myself if I was responsible for one death, let alone legions of deaths."

I don’t think Ms. Sheehan realizes that a withrawal from Iraq would directly cause the deaths of millions of innocents and the terrorists to regain control of the region. If Sheehan and her friends are successful in causing a premature withdrawal from Iraq, then she and they will be personally responsible for even more deaths. You see, pacifism does not create peace, but rather allows the terrorists to continue their reign of terror.

The perpetrators of evil must be removed from power and despite whatever good intentions they may have, those that stand in the way of that end are aiding and abetting the enemy. The only reason we lost the War in VietNam was because we pulled out before it was over. The biggest mistake of former President George H. W. Bush was withdrawing from Operation Desert Storm before we removed Saddam Hussein from power the first time. If we withdraw from Iraq before the new leadership is firmly established and capable of defending itself, then we'll be back in Iraq in a couple decades, doing this all over again. Let's "stay the course" until the race is won, so that Casey Sheehan's death will not have been in vain.

Click on the image of the cartoon above to visit my new Poly-Ticks website and to see the previous cartoons in the series.


Wednesday, September 21, 2005


Poly-Ticks, the new political cartoon by Kevin Lauer. Check back to this page weekly as the above image updates with the new cartoon of the week.

If some of you have been wondering what has happened to me recently, here's your answer. I haven't been blogging partly because I have been working on developing this new political cartoon. Click on the image of the cartoon above to visit my new Poly-Ticks website and to see the previous cartoons in the series. Be sure to let me know what you think of it, good or bad. Any constructive criticism is more than welcome. A special thank you goes out to Dan Lacey of FaithMouse for his constructive criticism and encouragement as I kick off this new endeavor. Enjoy.


Sunday, September 11, 2005


My band, Krusade released our third studio project, "Contact" in February on Godflower Records. One of the songs on the project is "Walk Away", for which I won the Outstanding Achievement in Poetry Award by the International Society of Poets. This song can now be heard in its entirety for FREE on the world-wide-web! Just go to my homepage and turn up your speakers. Let me know if you like it. And if you do happen to like it, click here to purchase the complete album from Godflower Records. Enjoy.


Wednesday, September 07, 2005


If this devotional is a blessing to you, maybe you have a friend or family member that would like to start receiving this daily word. You can forward this to them, and they can use the following link to subscribe. www.liveprayer.com/signup.htm

***I am excited to let you know that the Liveprayer Daily Devotional is now available via AUDIO each day. Simply go to http://www.liveprayer.com/DailyDevotionalAudio.html

(Numbers 35:33-34, Exodus 20:13, 21:22, Jeremiah 1:5, Psalms 139:13-14, Isaiah 49:1, Job 31:15, Proverbs 24:11)


***ABORTION VIDEO!!! Don't think abortion is the slaughter of an innocent baby? Go to: www.liveprayer.com/abortion and after you watch an abortion being performed let me know if you still think so!

"'Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it. Do not defile the land where you live and where I dwell, for I, the LORD, dwell among the Israelites.'" (Numbers 35:33,34 NIV)

It is time for the Federal Government to end abortion before God's wrath is finally unleashed on this nation. Adolph Hitler will be remembered forever in human history for his killing of over 6 million Jews in what we know today as the Holocaust. You can also make the case that he is also directly responsible for the deaths of the 40 million people who died during World War 2. Sadly, after 32 years of legalized abortion, our Federal Government is now responsible for the slaughter of over 40 million innocent babies and is just as accountable to God for these murders as Adolph Hitler was for the blood he shed.

One of the reasons I challenge people before every new year to read the Bible from cover to cover is that it allows you to see who God is. It gives you an insight into the mind and nature of God from the very beginning until the very end. God is a God of love and grace and mercy. However, God is also a God of judgment and wrath. As the children of Israel, God's chosen people found out time and time again, you cannot mock God and you cannot live in rebellion to God and not feel His wrath. God has richly blessed the United States over these past 229 plus years now, but unless the Federal Government gets out of the business of slaughtering innocent babies, we will no longer enjoy His blessings but incur His wrath!

Abortion is a black and white issue. It is MURDER. Those who favor the killing of babies hate for this fact to be pointed out. They love to call themselves "pro choice," when in fact they are pro death! The Bible is clear that life begins at conception and is from God. I have been laughing this past week over the clever attempts by Senator Clinton to find "common ground" on this issue. Let me save the Senator from New York some time and effort. Abortion is a very simple issue. There is NO "common ground." Abortion is about the slaughter of innocent babies and you are either for it, or you are against it.

Senator Kerry was foolish in the recent Presidential campaign in his statements that he is against abortion personally, yet he supported a woman's right to choose. I am sorry Senator, but when every vote you have cast upholds a woman's choice to kill her baby, YOU ARE FOR ABORTION! The only choice a woman has to make is to let her baby live. She is not making a choice about her body, but about the life of the human being she is carrying. When she chooses to kill that life, that is MURDER!

So, what is the answer? First, overturn Roe vs. Wade. So people are clear, all overturning Roe will do is send the issue of abortion back to each individual state to decide if that is something they want to make legal in their state. Second, repeal ALL government funding of Planned Parenthood, the number one advocate of slaughtering innocent babies. Third, evangelism. While it is critical to get the Federal government out of the business of killing babies, it still boils down to changing hearts. That only happens when people come to know Christ as their Savior and receive a new heart. A person who is following Christ is the least likely person to make the choice to kill their baby.

Is overturning Roe impossible? ABSOLUTELY NOT! However, we have a small window of opportunity right now in the two people President Bush will appoint to the Supreme Court.. I am afraid that if we do not deal with this issue now, we will never have another chance. No matter how those in the Democratic Party try to spin it, they will NEVER be in favor of overturning Roe or eliminating the funding to Planned Parenthood. The most likely candidates in the Republican Party in future years all lean towards those who favor abortion. My friend, the time to act on this issue is NOW!

Without question, it was the Christian voters who turned out and re-elected President Bush. I am calling on him to boldly proclaim that he will work tirelessly until the day he is out of office to see Roe overturned. Also, he can sign an Executive Order in 10 seconds and eliminate all Federal funding to Planned Parenthood. It is time for President Bush to step up to the plate and lead. Abortion is not only spiritual issue, it is a political one. God has allowed him to rise to power and to remain in power to take this nation outof the business of slaughtering innocent babies. NOW is time for him to act on this issue.

Many people will say that he can't actually go on the record in supporting the overturning of Roe. They are 100% wrong! Those who oppose the President already accuse of him of having this agenda. Those who support the murdering of babies are already going to fight every Supreme Court nominee who would even think of overturning Roe. He might as well take the offensive and make a real stand on this issue. What it will do is motivate and encourage and mobilize tens of million of Believers throughout the nation to support him and put so much heat on their elected officials, it will become political suicide not to stand with the President in overturning Roe.


As for Planned Parenthood, let them find the money to fund their organization from the private sector. If they feel so strongly about slaughtering innocent babies, let them find people who support infanticide to give them the money they need to carry on their "work." For the Federal Government to fund an organization that is one of the leaders in helping women slaughter their babies is repulsive and disgusting. Again, whatever heat the President would take for doing this, will be from those who oppose him anyway. He cannot run again so he has nothing to lose in repealing all Federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The people of God will support him and GOD WILL SUPPORT HIM!

I love you and care about you so much. I have been in prayer these past few months about this issue, and over and over again as I read God's Word I see that it has only been His grace and mercy that has kept Him from unleashing His wrath on this nation. We deserve it for so many reasons. We have forsaken the God of the Bible for the false gods of this world. We have chosen to live in utter rebellion to God and His Word. However, if for no other reason, the slaughter of over 40 million innocent babies is reason enough for God to pour out His wrath on this nation today!

We are on borrowed time my friend. God will not be silent much longer. This nation has the opportunity, right now, to get the Federal Government out of the business of slaughtering innocent babies. I am shocked at the silence of so many of the top Christian leaders in this nation who were so instrumental in helping President Bush get re-elected. Why they are not holding him accountable on this issue is beyond my ability to comprehend. Are they just happy to have "their guy" in office? What good is it if we cannot see real change on issues that will affect the future of this nation.

I would encourage you to email the President at President@whitehouse.gov and encourage him to take a public stand on overturning Roe vs. Wade and immediately sign an Executive Order eliminating all Federal funding of Planned Parenthood.

I am often asked if abortion is acceptable in the case of rape and incest. The answer is NO! Some people think that if you have an abortion and kill the baby that was the result of this horrible act, it makes it easier for the woman to move on with her life. In reality, the opposite is true. What really happens is this. The horror of an abortion is something a woman NEVER forgets. In having to deal with the memory of the abortion, it also brings back the memory of the violent act that caused the pregnancy. This makes getting beyond the tragic experience that much more difficult.

Let me say a word to those men and women who have the scar of abortion in your life. Sadly, I deal daily with hundreds of women AND men that have made this sad choice at some point in their life. Some of them did this 40 years ago and still are dealing the hurt, and pain, and guilt. You can't go back and change what you have done. 1 John 1:9 says that if we confess our sins, God forgives us and cleanses us of all unrighteousness. Trust His Word. The Bible also tells us that God not only forgives our sins, but forgets them. If He forgets, then you need to forget as well. It is satan who reminds you of your past sins to keep you paralyzed from serving God. HE IS A LIAR!!! Now is the time to trust God's Word, and put this behind you once and for all. God still has much for you to do.

I realize that I am only one lone voice. However, God is going to hold me accountable for what I do in my life and in the work He has given me to do for His Kingdom. I have been preaching on this issue for over 14 years now, writing about it in the Daily Devotional for the past 72 months, as well as bringing it up on my TV program the last 2 1/2 years. I will continue to sound the warning that unless this nation stops slaughtering babies, we WILL incur God's wrath.

In his love and service,
Your friend and brother in Christ,
Bill Keller

(C) Copyright 2005, Bill Keller Ministries. All rights reserved

Monday, September 05, 2005


The recent retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, combined now with the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist has faciltated President G. W. Bush's double-appointment to the Court.

But who will they be? There was a lot of speculation prior to the July announcement of John Roberts' nomination to succeed O'Connor. Today President Bush announced that he intends to offer John Roberts as his appointee as Chief Justice to succeed William Rehnquist who passed away Saturday night from thyroid cancer.[1] This decision will fill, if approved by the Senate, the vacancy left by Rehnquist's death, but will once again open up O'Connor's seat to be filled.

Some analysts anticipated this move, speculating that Justice O'Connor may temporarily return from retirement and fill the vacancy.[2] Sunday morning, Susan Estrich, a law professor at USC correctly surmised that President Bush would "move John Roberts up to Chief Justice" and suggested that the remaining appointment would be Edith Clement.[3] On the other hand, Tom Goldstein, the founding editor of SCOTUSblog.com, suggested yesterday morning that Alberto Gonzales would probably be the most-likely appointee to be named. He cautiously added that there were "a half dozen very-well respected judges and other officials who could be nominated."[4] Edith Clement, Priscilla Owen, Michael Luttig, and Jay Harvey Wilkinson are the other likely candidates suggested by Goldstein.[4]

Either way, I don't think any candidate offered to the position will have an "easy ride," whether they be Liberal, Conservative, or Moderate. I believe the opposition of factions from both Conservative and Liberal groups to Roberts' nomination has proven that. Bill Frist (R-TN) said today that he believes that "Judge Roberts will be confirmed before the start of the Supreme Court's term,"[5] while Charles Schumer (D-NY) said, "the burden is on Judge Roberts to a far greater extent now that he is nominated for Chief Justice."[5] Former Supreme Court Nominee Robert Bork said tonight that "the liberals will do everything they can to derail Roberts."[6] Personally, I think the smear campaign is going to continue and that Frist's analysis is wishful thinking.

One thing is clear, though: President Bush has a rare opportunity to help shape the direction of the Supreme Court for decades. Rehnquist, who was widely-preceived as a Constitutionalist, was nominated by President Nixon in 1971 and served on the Court for nearly 34 years, 19 of them as Chief Justice.[7] With a lifetime appointment to the Court at age 50, Roberts will potenially be shaping the Court for quite some time. Even with two Originalist appointments to the Court, the Liberals on the Court will still outweigh the Conservatives; but even one "stealth" appointment of a "closet Liberal" will be devastating.

While one of Rehnquist's major stances was in favor of States' rights, Judge Andrew Napolitano voiced the opinion that appears to be the majority consensus: that Rehnquist was "faithful to the Constitution" and that his "fidelity [to] the Constitution" will be his legacy.[3] Robert Bork said of Rehnquist, "We didn't always agree on issues, but he was very good..."[6] My prayers are with the President as he makes these careful nominations and with the Senate as they confirm them. We can only hope and pray that whomever fills the vacancies will follow Rehnquist's lead and defend our country from whose who would usurp the Constitution. Another Thomas or Scalia would be a much welcome addition to the Court, but another Souter, Breyer, Stevens, or Ginsberg would be a disaster.


Click here for a previous article on the Supreme Court vacancy.


[1] President George W. Bush, Press Conference, 09/05/05, 8:00 am ET
[2] Special Report w/Brit Hume, FOX News Channel, 09/05/05, 6:00 pm ET
[3] FOX News Special Report, FOX News Channel, 09/04/05, 5:00 am ET
[4] Fox & Friends Sunday, FOX News Channel, 09/04/05, 8:45 am ET
[5] FOX News Alert, FOX News Channel, 09/05/05. 9:30 pm ET
[6] Hannity & Colmes, FOX News Channel, 09/05/05, 9:00 pm ET
[7] FOX News Alert, FOX News Channel, 09/04/05, 2:00 am ET

Monday, August 29, 2005


IS THE UNITED STATES A REPUBLIC OR A DEMOCRACY? Click here to read a great article on the true nature of the American Political System by David Barton of Wallbuilders.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION, or FREEDOM FROM RELIGION? Click here to read another David Barton article on the Separation of Church and State.

Or click on the image for David Barton's bio.


Thursday, August 11, 2005


Guess what's the latest liberal attack on Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts? That he may be gay! What's the evidence? A blog site called The Manhattan Offender cited the facts that Roberts graduated from "a small Catholic boarding school" where he studied Latin and French and "was known for his devotion to his studies." The headline: "How gay is this guy?"

What's wrong with being studious? Actually, I would much prefer my leaders to have demonstrated a penchant for scholastic achievement rather than having been beer-swilling frat-boys in college. I'd like to know that our Supreme Court Justices are going to be presiding over the bench, rather than under it. The Manhattan Offender post was intended as a joke, as the commentator added, "My early years were very similar and, dude, I'm a total 'mo."

Well, maybe this was just a joke, but it didn't go unnoticed. Another site called Wonkette quipped on July 21 that Roberts was "a graduate of an all-boys Catholic school where, as a member of the wrestling team, he regularly grappled with other sweaty, repressed boys. That is when he wasn't the drama club playing Peppermint Patty, for God's sake. He was also an editor of the school newspaper, The Torch. And yet the Right still asserts that 'he's no flame-thrower.'"

According to Reasoned Audacity, Roberts' yearbook records that "he played Peppermint Patty in the production of 'You're A Good Man, Charlie Brown'" in high school. After all, it was an all-boys' school. Remember in the old days, the parts of boys in plays were traditionally played by women, ie. Julie Andrews as Peter Pan. When all you have in your group is boys, your female characters have to be played by >gasp< boys!

Apparently, more than a few people took the comments seriously (or at least saw the potential in it to start a smear campaign) because the rumor quickly started to circulate as an attack on Roberts' character. On July 26, Wonkette followed up with this comment: "We're sort of thrilled that our joking about John Roberts being gay has been officially elevated to a 'whisper campaign' intended to bring him down."

Charmaine Yoest also commented in the Reasoned Audacity article, "Of course it is the height of hypocrisy for the (allegedly) pro-tolerance crowd to start questioning someone's sexual preference. It's a strange and twisted tactic for those who are allied with the gay rights movement to try to make an issue out of someone supposedly being gay." But, of course, they'll even stab their constituency in the back if it advances their agenda.

Well, here's my take on the whole gay rumor thing: We need to dismiss anything read on Wonkette, anyway. The website is nothing but a rant-room for crude and ignorant individuals who have nothing better to do than to accuse their political opponents of being gay. They even attacked the President. "We didn't accuse George Bush of being gay because he holds his hand in a 'nelly way,'" Wonkette ranted on July 29, "We accused him of being gay because he likes c***."

Bottom line: there are a bunch of opinionated bloggers out there who either don't know (or choose to disregard) the facts; and, to be fair, I have to admit that there are some on the right and some on the left. Instead of arguing an intelligent case, they choose to fill their pages with crude, stupid, and baseless jokes, allegations, and insinuations that demonstrate their own lack of intelligence. I did my share of that in my youth and I like to think I've outgrown that stage.

As a conscientious citizen, I prefer to discuss and debate issues in a civilized and intellectually-stimulating manner. A wise man once said that it's better to remain silent and have people think you're ignorant, than to open your mouth and prove it. I hope that when my mouth opens, my pen writes, or my keyboard types, people will at least see that my opinions are sincere and well-thought-out. If you ever catch me resorting to this kind of juvenile propaganda, give me a good, swift kick, will you?



I am interested in your opinion. Is there a time and place for violent protest against a government? Click here to participate in the discussion.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005


by Kevin L. Lauer

As presented before the 2005 International Society of Poets' Summer Convention and Symposium to be held August 19-21, 2005, in Washington, DC.

For those whose voice, choice, life, and liberty were forever stolen and silenced; and for those who fight to end the Holocaust...

All Created equal, but are some more equal than others?
Will you fight to preserve my rights, or only for my brother's?
Life or death or liberty, should it not be my choice?
Yet you demand to choose for me and silence my small voice.
One heartbeat,
One breath,
One blink,
Then death.
All Created equal, yet some more equal than others,
When you would trade our very lives for the comfort of our mothers.

Text Copyright ©2005, Godflower Publishing Co., All Rights Reserved. Photo courtesy The Nine Month Miracle CD ROM, by A.D.A.M. Software, Inc. and the book A Child Is Born by the famous Swedish photographer Lennart Nilsson.

Thursday, August 04, 2005


There are a lot of topics of interest in the news lately and I regret that I am unable to comment on them. I've been very busy as of late and I'm devoting as much writing time as I can to my book, so I probably won't be posting a lot on this forum over the next few weeks. I will, however, take a break from the book every once in a while to post something here. In the meantime, feel free to browse the older posts or to check out my main website at KevinLauer.com or the website for my book by clicking here.

Here are a couple links to articles I've written in the past that may be of conern to current events...

* "Who's Playing God" (from 08/12/2000)
* "Reagan's Legacy to Life" (from 06/13/2004)

Wednesday, July 20, 2005


Last Thursday night, two 12-year-old cousins Garnet Willis and Jon Winterhawk were shooting bottle rockets at passing cars in Spanaway, WA, according to the Washington State Patrol.[1] The fireworks hit a passing Toyota Camry, prompting the car's occupants to stop and pursue their juvenile assailants. [1] In the course of the chase, one of the boys, 12-year-old Garnet Willis, tripped over the median curb, fell into the path of a passing car, and was killed.[1][2]

This case is a great tragedy. Nobody wants a child to lose his life, even knowing that it was the result of his own dangerous prank; but the tragedy is being compounded by the prosecution of the boys' victims. Grieving friends and family and well-intentioned supporters are trying to shift blame to the victims and some are crying for blood.[2] According to prosecutors, the men may be charged with second-degree manslaughter, even if they did not intend to cause the boy's death.[3]

"The boys knew it was wrong," admitted Carol Forgey, Willis' aunt and Winterhawk’s mother.[4]

"Kids will be kids..." said Washington State Patrol Trooper Johnny Alexander[4], indicating that their actions were intentional. Their prank may not have been intended to cause real harm, but that does not justify their behavior nor excuse them from their own fault... nor does it transfer the fault to their victims who chose to defend themselves.

The surviving boy himself admitted that the two men in the car were reacting in self-defense. "These guys thought we were trying to shoot them," said Jon Winterhawk, "so they got out of their car and we started running."[4]

Okay, let me make this perfectly clear. I feel sorry for the loved ones of the boy who was killed, but my sympathies cannot change the fact that the kids caused the accident with their own illegal activities. They assaulted the occupants of the car with a potentially-deadly device and now their victims have been arrested for their natural and completely-justified reactions.

It has been suggested that the men's criminal records somehow prove their malicious intent, but I don't see how their past records have bearing in this instance. The two boys admittedly initiated the events by assaulting the men in the vehicle, not vice versa. Who knows how many other vehicles they may have narrowly missed with their rockets? It just happened that the vehicle which they did hit was occupied by two men who knew how to defend themselves and were not going to sit still while they were attacked.

"I felt like this was cut and dry," said Carol Forgey, Winterhawk’s mother. "The accident happened because of those men chasing Garnet."[1][3] Of course, this is the natural reaction of a grieving relative, so I will pardon Ms. Forgey's faulty logic on the grounds of her grief. But cause-and-effect, by definition, requires that the effect follow the cause. The men were chasing the boys after the boys attacked them. Had the boys not shot a bottle rocket at their heads, the chase would not have occured. So, to correct the faulty statement, the cut and dry conclusion has to be that the accident happened because of those boys playing their dangerous prank.

This is yet another example of what's wrong with our legal system, where the criminals become the victims and the victims become the criminals. The kid did not deserve to die, but his death was the direct consequence of his own violent and criminal actions. And if liberal logic continues to twist the truth --especially in circles of power-- then I fear for the law-abiding, God-fearing American citizen who dares to defend himself from Joe-Criminal-with-an-ACLU-lawyer who chooses his home as his next target. God defend us, because apparently we're not allowed to defend ourselves.



[1] "Spanaway Boy Killed After Chase into Street", by Laurie Au, The News Tribune, Tacoma, WA, 07/20/05, http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5025988p-4585288c.html
[2] "Charges On Hold In Deadly Spanaway Chase" by Keith Eldridge, Komo News, 07/18/05, http://www.komotv.com/stories/38041.htm
[3] "Charges Up in Air in Boy's Death" by Laurie Au of The News Tribune and Genoa Sibold-Cohn of The Herald, Mid-Columbia Tri-City Herald, Kennewick, WA, 07/19/05, http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/6724641p-6612172c.html
[4] "No Decision on Charges in Boy’s Death" by Laurie Au, The News Tribune, Tacoma, WA, 07/19/05, http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5032649p-4590658c.html

Monday, July 11, 2005

NEWS ALERT: 4 Detainees Escape U.S. Base in Afghanistan

Monday, July 11, 2005
Associated Press

KABUL, Afghanistan — Four suspected terrorists escaped Monday from the main U.S. base in Afghanistan, the first time anyone has broken out of the heavily guarded detention facility, sparking a massive ground and air search, officials said.

"They are considered dangerous and are suspected terrorists. That is why they were detained initially," a U.S. military spokeswoman, Lt. Cindy Moore, told The Associated Press....
Click here for the full story

And some of our representatives want Gitmo closed so these terrorist prisoners can be held on U.S. soil? Talk about being suicidal!

Saturday, July 09, 2005


Are we safer with George W. Bush as President? Is victory in the Iraqi War essential to the War on Terror? Is Saddam Hussein connected to Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Should we pull out of Iraq and focus exclusively on bin Laden himself? Let's look at these questions from a different viewpoint.

Think of the War on Terror as a game of chess. There are ultimately two players: good and evil. But there are many pieces on the board. First of all, our opponent in the War on Terror is not the individual pieces on the board, but rather the player himself, the spiritual Father of Evil. Christians call him Satan; the terrorists call him Allah. We must keep in mind that our battle is not against flesh and blood, but rather with the spiritual forces that lead the pawns.

With that in mind, we must recognize that the enemy's pawns and pieces on the board must be dealt with. While our true enemy is the one controlling the pieces, the pieces are the physical obstacles we have to face.

The leaders of the Coalition in this particular game of chess, if you will, have been getting a lot of flak from dissenters as to the strategy behind their game. In order to understand why I believe their objections are unfounded, let's identify the pieces on the board.

First of all, let's assume that Osama bin Laden is the black king, the main target in our game. Many spectators want us to attack the king directly and win the game, but they're ignoring the other pieces on the board. They may even consider the black queen, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but they are completely disregarding the rooks, bishops, knights, and pawns, which are the other terrorist nations and groups supporting the black king and queen.

In this War on Terror, Saddam Hussein is one of the pieces, perhaps a black knight or bishop. It may not be as significant a target, in the eyes of some spectators, as the king or queen; but it would be a fatal mistake to underestimate it.

Let's assume, for the sake of this analogy, that the United States is the white king and Great Britain is the white queen. The other members of the Coalition are the other white pieces. Like it or not, our leaders are controlling the movement of the white pieces on the board. We, as spectators, are not even pawns on the board. We can second-guess the players and groan at their choices of movement, but the decisions are theirs to make. Hopefully, they are better-equipped to play the game and that's why we put them in charge. So we stand by and watch, sometimes whispering our advice, while the game is played out.

The game began when the black king (bin Laden) sent some of his pawns in an attack upon the white king (the U.S. on 9/11). He strategically chose to sacrifice those pawns in an attempt to take out the king. Our team (the Coalition), rather than attacking the well-protected black king, chose first to take out Saddam Hussein, one of the mid-ranking pieces of the enemy player. In response, the black king and queen sent their pawns (the various terrorist organizations and groups) to attack the white pieces on the board. This week, one of those black pawns (perhaps even the black queen herself) attacked the white queen (Great Britain).

And the chess game continues. And the spectators continue to groan and second-guess the players. They say, the black king and queen are still out there. We may have captured some pawns and one or two mid-ranking pieces, but that's not good enough for us. On the other hand, the other side has been attacking our pieces. They attacked the king (the World Trade Center on 9/11/01), the queen (London on 7/7/05), and several other of our pieces throughout the past several years (such as Madrid on 3/11/04). But they have not captured our higher-ranking pieces, either. Yes, they've captured some of our pawns and mercilessly executed them, but we've captured some of their pawns as well.

Were we wrong to focus on Hussein, rather than bin Laden? I don't think so. We're still going after the king and queen, but we've got to clear the way of some of the knights, bishops, rooks and pawns first. If we had checked the king with one of these pieces lurking on an adjacent square, it could have potentially cost us the game. It's a game of strategy perhaps best left to the professional strategists.

It's too early in the game to call a retreat. We're discouraged to see our pawns brutalized and beheaded while the captured black pawns complain about the taste of the caviar at Club Gitmo. And, to top it off, the spectators who are supposedly rooting for the white team are shouting their dissent at our leaders, disrupting the player's concentration and essentially becoming pawns themselves of the black team. Regardless of the ridiculous rantings of liberals such as Ted Kennedy (D-Mass), Iraq is not a "quagmire" and all is not lost, but we must keep our resolve and stand strong lest we let the dissenters turn this into the VietNam of our generation.

Bottom line: the War on Terror is a real-life chess game with world-wide consequences. Which side are we on? We, as spectators, may not always agree with the moves our player makes, but we must remember what our goal is. Our goal is for our player to achieve victory, and providing moral support to the enemy will certainly not help us reach that goal. The American people re-elected President George W. Bush because we believed he was best-equipped to lead the game. The people of Great Britain re-elected Prime Minister Tony Blair for the same reason. Now it's time for the spectators to support them lest our grumbling cost us the game, our freedom, and perhaps our lives.


Thursday, July 07, 2005


British Prime Minister Tony Blair responds to the terrorist attack on London, from the G-8 Summit in Auchterarder, Scotland (AP Photo)

This morning, terrorists struck London in a series of blasts. At least 33 people were reported dead and at least 360 others wounded. With no advance warning, this surprise attack on London's public transportation system took the Nation by surprise.[1]

British Prime Minister Tony Blair got the news from the G-8 Summit in Scotland and made a brief announcement before leaving for London.[1] He said, "There will of course now be the most intense police and security service action to make sure that we bring those responsible to justice.... When they try to intimidate us, we will not be intimidated. When they seek to change our country or our way of life by these methods, we will not be changed. When they try to divide our people or weaken our resolve, we will not be divided and our resolve will hold firm. We will show, by our spirit and dignity, and by our quiet but true strength that there is in the British people, that our values will long outlast theirs. The purpose of terrorism is just that, it is to terrorise people, and we will not be terrorised."[2]

London's Mayor Ken Livingstone echoed Prime Minister Blair's sentiments in this open statement addressed to the terrorists responsible for the attacks: "I know that you personally do not fear to give your own life in exchange to taking others ... but I know you do fear you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society ... in the days that follow, look at our airports, look at our seaports and look at our railway stations ... you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world, will arrive in London to become Londoners, to fulfill their dream and achieve their potential … whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail."[1]

According to FOX News, "a previously unknown group, 'Secret Group of Al Qaeda's Jihad in Europe,' claimed responsibility in the name of Al Qaeda for the blasts, saying they were in retaliation for Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. The group claimed the attack in a website posting and also warned Italy and Denmark to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan." As of press time, the claim could not be verified.[1]

In response to the attacks on London, the European countries of Italy, Czechoslavakia, Hungary, Russia, the Netherlands, France, and Spain raised their terror alert status.[1] The United States also raised the terror alert to "orange" for U.S. mass transit systems.[3]

A statement from the G-8 Summit said, "Those responsible have no respect for human life. We are united in our resolve to confront and defeat this terrorism that is not an attack on one nation but on all nations and on civilized people everywhere. We will not allow violence to change our societies or our values...."[1]

President Bush added, "We will not yield to the terrorists. We will find them; we will bring them to justice."[1]

Russian President Vladimir Putin issued this surprising statement in a televised address: "What happened today shows that we all do too little to unite our efforts in the most effective way for fighting terrorism." And then he urged world leaders to "give up double standards in evaluating bloody crimes."[4]

Putin was actually referring to a Sept. 7 2004 reference he made to the double standards concerning Chechen separatists, but the term could easily be applied to opposititon to the War on Terror in Iraq.

The Omaha World-Herald //
War of the Worlds
Copyright © 2005

The problem is, by and large, we just don't get it. This editorial cartoon[5] ran locally in The Parkersburg News on July 5 and I thought it made a lot of sense. Many people today (specifically, liberals) don't seem to understand the whole threat of terrorism to our world today. They don't understand why we are fighting terrorists in Iraq, they don't understand why we're fighting terrorists in Afghanistan, and they don't understand why so many Conservatives are making a fuss about illegal immigration and our unsecure borders.

Well, this editorial cartoon says a lot. The aliens are attacking us. I'm sorry if it looks like I'm racial profiling, but let's be real. It wasn't blond-haired, blue-eyed, Norwegian cheerleaders who flew three planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on 9/11. It wasn't little old Catholic Italian grandmothers who slit the throats of innocent American hostages while they screamed for mercy. And it wasn't Cousin Jethro from the back-hills of West Virginia who bombed London this morning. It's the aliens. And they are sneaking across our borders to perpetrate these attacks on our own soil.

Now, I'm not against Mexicans or Muslims coming to America and grabbing their piece of American apple pie (that's a metaphor for the American dream, by the way), but they darn well better be doing it legally. I'm not opposed to law-abiding immigrants seeking a better life, but I am opposed to terrorists and other criminals sneaking into our country in order to rape, rob, and kill American civilians. In this day of heightened security and terrorist threat, we must be diligent in protecting our homeland. And that means, in part, tightening security on our horrifyingly lax borders.

According to Canadian Intelligence officials, there are reportedly "at least fifty terror groups now operating north of the border, including al-Qaida, Hezbollah, and Hamas."[6] David Harris, director of the Canadian Terrorism Consulting Group said, "I think there's got to be a decisive focus on this issue and the U.S. government has got to keep hammering away at this so that we in Canada can't avoid the obvious fact. Canadians themselves in general are more or less asleep on this issue because we're not used to seeing ourselves as being at the front of any kind of global conflict, certainly not since the Korean War, really... So it's got to be a focus and the U.S. can be of a great help to itself and to Canadians in putting that kind of focus on us."[7] So the threat isn't just coming from the southern border, but also from Canada to the north. For our own safety, both borders need to be secured and those who violate them need to be stopped at all costs.

Liberals (and let's be clear here; I said "liberals", not "Democrats", so don't go accusing me of being partisan. This is not about partisan politics; it's about National Security.) don't seem to understand just how dangerous it is to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration. But the threat is there, and the threat is real. American liberals and a large portion of the European populace want to stop the terror, but they're not willing to do what it takes to actually accomplish it. Nobody said it would be easy or quick, but we need to be unified with resolve behind those who are fighting for our freedom and safety; because if we back down and retreat now, this will be the VietNam of our time.... but only because we quit too soon.

In regard to these most-recent attacks, our sympathies and prayers are with the people of Great Britain. I am sure that the United States will stand beside them in resolve to bring their attackers to justice, as they have stood with us in the wake of 9/11; for this evil cannot be permitted to continue to threaten the peace and security of the free world.



[1] "Terrorists Strike London in Series of Blasts", FOX News, 07/07/05, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161768,00.html
[2] Transcript of statement made by the Prime Minister Tony Blair, 07/07/05, http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7858.asp
[3] "U.S. Hikes Terror Level for Transit", Associated Press, 07/07/05, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161773,00.html
[4] "G-8 Leaders Vow to Defeat Terror After London Blasts (Update 2)", Bloomberg, 07/07/05, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000082&sid=aho4BtaNimUw&refer=canada
[5] Editorial Cartoon, The Omaha World-Herald, Koterba, "War of the Worlds", 06/30/05, Copyright © 2005
[6] The O'Reilly Factor, 07/06/05, 8:00 pm ET, FOX News Channel
[7] David Harris, Director of Canadian Terrorism Consulting Group, ibid.

Friday, July 01, 2005


With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the battle over the bench enters a new level

First, a word of caution: This message is going to be pretty heated. I generally try to maintain a civil tone and comment on the issues without getting "worked up", but there are certain times when I feel the need to vent and this is one of them. If you're a die-hard liberal or faint of heart, then you may not wish to read this post. If, on the other hand, you are a freedom-fighting, life-loving, warm-blooded American Patriot, then read on.

Picture this: A family walks into a home announcing to the homeowner that they've finally found the house they want to buy, and this is it. The homeowner, shocked to find this family standing in his hallway, announces, "It's not for sale." Completely ignoring him, the trespassing father sends his two children upstairs to pick out their new bedrooms. He asks the homeowner his price, to which the homeowner responds, "There is no price." The intruding couple announces "Sold! We'll take it!"[1]

The first time I saw Century 21's "Not For Sale" commercial[1], I laughed at its jest on a ludicrous situation. When I watch it now, I shudder that the Supreme Court has made it a reality.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Kelo vs. City of New London (04-0108) that the city of New London, CT could use the right of "eminent domain" to seize private property for commercial development by private developers. City officials had thus far bullied 80 homeowners into selling their property while seven homeowners remained to fight for their rights; but the New London Development Corporation, led by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, has usurped the Constitution in this tragic case.[2]

This has got to be one of the most Communistic rulings to ever come from the so-called high court. But there is hope for common sense to return as the tables are being turned on the elite who have been, until now, above the law. But now, their own ruling may be their worst nightmare.

As reported Wednesday night (June 29) on Hannity & Colmes, "a Los Angeles-based activist faxed a letter to the town of Wier, NH, urging local officials to sieze the home of Justice David Souter and turn it into a hotel."[3] According to Logan Darrow Clements of Freestar Media, this is not a stunt and that they "will proceed with [the initiative] if money comes forward."[3] When asked by guest-host Rich Lowry if the ousting would extend to the other Supreme Court Justices (Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Stevens) who had voted in support of the New Hampshire land-grab, he responded, "There are such things as hotel chains, so we can certainly have other locations."[3] Maybe there is justice in this world after all. These Justices (and I use that term loosely) may have life tenure and cannot be held accountable for their decisions, but they can be held to them. Now we need to boycott Pfizer and the other property thieves disguised as businessmen. Let them know that Communism is not welcome in the United States of America.

On June 27, the Supreme Court delivered two more conflicting verdicts, allowing a Ten Commandments display outside the Texas state Capitol[4][5][6][7], while Justices Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, O'Connor, and Stevens banned two others in Kentucky, citing some idiocy about the intent of those who set up the displays.[5][6][7][8] As if they understood anything about intent! The liberal majority once again ignored the rule of law and the original intent of the Founders of the Constitution, and created their own precedent on a whim. God help us.

According to the Declaration of Independence, the basis of the American dream is built upon our God-given rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."[9] The eminent domain debacle and the latest attacks upon the Ten Commandments are just some new examples of the liberals on the Supreme Court and the Federal Judiciary abusing their power and attacking the foundation upon which this country was founded. And this is just the latest testament to the vital importance of the right nominee being placed as the next Supreme Court Justice.

As Sandra Day O'Connor announced today that she was retiring upon the confirmation of her successor[5], the next phase in the battle over the Supreme Court has begun. O'Connor was among the dissenters on the aforementioned eminent domain ruling, but she voted with the majority on the banning of the Kentucky Ten Commandments display. Historically, it's been difficult to predict where she might rule on any given subject; which is illogical, since the Constitution is a solid document which does not change from case to case. Whoever replaces her on the bench must have a working understanding of the Constitution and rule consistently according to its original intent. Unfortunately, the liberals in the Senate won't have any of it.

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said today, "If the President abuses his power and nominates someone who threatens to roll back the rights and freedoms of the American people, then the American people will insist that we oppose that nominee, and we intend to do so."[10] What a joke! The liberal B.S. is starting to flow, right on schedule.

What the American people need to realize is that it is the liberals who are "roll[ing] back the rights and freedoms of the American people." It's not the Conservatives who voted to steal the homes of tax-paying American citizens; it's the liberals.[2] Kennedy's buddies are the ones who are stealing peoples' homes. It's not the Conservatives who want to ban the Bible from American school-children, but insist that we provide Korans for our terrorist prisoners; it's the liberals. It's not the Conservatives who defend pornography as "free speech" while insisting that evangelical Christians shut up; it's the liberals. It's not the Conservatives who insist on keeping legal the murder of innocent children; it's the liberals. Kennedy and his country club Communists are the ones who support abortion (translate: murder) on demand, including the barbaric partial-birth abortion. It wasn't the Conservatives who allowed Michael Schiavo to murder his wife in the name of "quality of life"; it was the liberals. It's always the liberals.

Listen, fellow Americans. There's a place in America for liberalism, but it cannot be allowed to perpetrate these atrocities. There's a time for leniency and compromise, but we can't compromise on the principles upon which America was built. If you want to preserve the life, liberty, and the American Way of life for this, and the next, generation; then support President Bush as he nominates a Conservative Justice who interprets the Constitution as it was originally intended. Let Ted Kennedy, David Souter, and their fellow Communists know that we're not falling for their lies and propaganda. We believe in truth, justice, and the American Way. We believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We're not ashamed to be called Americans and we're not ashamed of the name of Jesus Christ. From the Minutemen of the 1700's to the Minutemen watching our borders today, we are what America is really about, and we're not going to sit idly by while our country is hijacked by Communist baby-killers. America was built upon God, freedom, and Capitalism; and if the Commies don't like it, they can go live with the Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan. See how they like that culture. God bless America, and God save our land. Amen.



[1] TV Commercial: Century 21: "Not For Sale"
[2] "Supreme Court Backs Municipal Land Grabs: Justices affirm property seizures for private development" by Bill Mears, CNN News, 06/24/05, http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/index.html
[3] "Hannity and Colmes", 06/29/05, 9:00 pm ET, FOX News Channel
[4] Justice Rehnquist, majority opinion, U.S. Supreme Court decision,
[5] "FOX News LIVE", 06/27/05, 12:00 pm ET, FOX News Channel
[6] "Dayside" w/ Linda Vester, 06/27/05, 1;00 pm ET, FOX News Channel
[7] "Studio B" w/ Shepard Smith, 06/27/05, 3:00 pm ET, FOX News Channel
[8] Justice David Souter, majority opinion, U.S. Supreme Court decision, McCreary vs. ACLU
[9] Declaration of Independence of the United States of America
[10] "Your World" w/ Neil Cavuto, 07/01/05, 4:00 pm ET, FOX News Channel

Tuesday, June 14, 2005



The Aruban beach where investigators are searching for evidence in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway

The blatant negligence in the Natalee Holloway case did not end with her disappearance, but extends deep into the investigation. The handling of the case by Aruban authorities has been a horrible travesty all along, and it's just getting worse.

To begin with, the Aruban police initially took into custody the three suspects, Deepak Kalpoe, 21, Satish Kalpoe, 18, and Joran Van Der Sloot, 17,[1] who were last seen publicly with Natalee. When the three pointed the finger at two hotel security guards, Antonius "Mickey" John, 30, and Abraham Jones, 28[1][2]; the three initial suspects were released while John and Jones were taken into custody. As the investigation progressed, the police once again took the three initial suspects back into custody while keeping John and Jones under lock and key. After being pressured by the victim's family to focus the investigation on the three prime suspects, Aruban police released the two guards, despite the fact that they had not been cleared.[1]

Van Der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers had initially told police that they had dropped Natalee off at a hotel in the care of the two security guards. According to FOX News, the Kalpoe brothers later retracted their story and told police "that Van Der Sloot and Holloway were kissing passionately and fondling in the back seat of the car. Holloway was extremely intoxicated, they said... The brothers said they left Holloway and Van Der Sloot at the beach and headed home."[1] Van Der Sloot, on the other hand, said that the others dropped him off at home and left with Natalee.[3]

Of course I am not privy to the evidence (or lack thereof) and strategy that the Aruban authorities may be keeping from the press, but this inconsistent behavior and the catch-and-release, catch-again and release-again procedure seems to be very unprofessional, to say the least... not to mention that it gave potential suspects the opportunity to tamper with evidence. And the authorities' decision to release two of the five suspects based solely on the other three's changing of their stories was premature. Just because the three suspects are lying doesn't mean that the other two are not involved.

The Kalpoe brothers' vehicles was impounded and a substance initially reported to be blood was found inside the vehicle. But once it was analyzed by authorities in Holland and the United States' Federal Bureau of Investigation, it was not only determined to not be Natalee's blood, but not to be blood at all. Since the suspects had already conceded to Natalee's presence in the car, the authorities declined to test the sample further to identify whether it had been one of Natalee's bodily secretions. Okay, now what happens when the prosecution progresses and the suspects change their story again, disputing that Natalee was ever in the car? And what if the substance turns out to be semen from one or more of the suspects? That would potentially disprove claims that they'd had no sexual contact with the victim. Unfortunately, the evidence to prove her presence was never completely analyzed.

Today the world was encouraged as the Aruban police focused their attention on an alleged crime scene, indicating that they were on the verge of discovering physical evidence. But, as police began to search the area, they permitted local volunteers to participate in the search. A group of teens discovered a pair of women's panties, a string, used condoms and condom wrappers, and some kind of duct tape that could have been used as a gag. One of the boys, Charles Rafini, turned the findings over to Aruban authorities after picking them up with his bare hands, essentially contaminating the evidence and potentially destroying the only physical evidence tying the victim to her attacker(s). And what did the Aruban police tell the boy? That he had done a "nice job."[3][4] Sounds like gross incompetence to me.

This whole situation is truly every parent's nightmare: their child disappearing on a foreign island where the laws and customs are completely different from ours. Violent crime is so rare on this tropical island that the local authorities have little or no experience in handling such cases. As a result, they seem to be completely bungling the investigation so that not only does it appear that Natalee will not be found alive, but the case may never be solved. I pray that I'm wrong and that the authorities are deliberately feeding us misleading information, but this eternal optimist is once again pessimistic.



[1] FOX News, "Aruba Authorities Begin New Search for Clues", 06/14/05, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159470,00.html
[2] NBC News, "Aruba Authorities Expand Search Area Near Hotel", 06/14/05, http://www.nbc13.com/news/4607599/detail.html#
[3] "Studio B with Shepard Smith", FOX News Channel, 06/14/05, 4:00 pm
[4] "Big Story with Jon Gibson", FOX News Channel, 06/14/05, 5:00 pm

Monday, June 13, 2005


Jackson leaves the Santa Maria courthouse a free man. Photo: Michael Mariant (AP)

Moments ago, a jury in Santa Maria, CA delivered the verdict in the highly-publicized Michael Jackson child molestation trial. Very surprisingly, the 8-woman / 4-man jury found Jackson "not guilty" on all ten counts. Michael Jackson is a free man.[1]

I was not necessarily surprised that the verdict acquitted on at least some of the charges, but I am surprised that they acquitted on all charges... especially considering that Michael Jackson confessed in the Bashir Documentary to sleeping with these boys.[2] But apparently the jury did not believe that there was enough evidence to convict on these charges.

We need to remember that a "not guilty" verdict does not necessarily indicate innocence. It simply indicates that the prosecution has not proven the defendant's guilt. And, in the end, that's the bottom line when it comes to the law. This verdict does not vindicate Jackson, but it does exonerate him.

There will undoubtedly be much public outcry as those who believe in Jackson's guilt dispute the verdict and Jackson's loyal fans defend their idol. The trial itself may be over and Jackson can never be re-tried for any of these allegations, but the public debate over this case is far from over.

As I reported in an earlier entry, racism has already been alleged in the prosecution of this case. Bearing in mind that this is a case combining the celebrity of O.J. Simpson and the racial unrest of Rodney King, a guilty verdict would have been sure to incite a reaction with elements of both previous cases. But the allegations that the jury was rigged against Jackson has now been proven false.

I am concerned about some of the aspects of this trial, such as the perceived probability that jurors had been exposed to the media during the trial. I cannot say with 100 percent assurance that this was a fair trial, but none of the evidence indicates that any of it had anything to do with race.

Is Jackson completely innocent? I seriously doubt it. But the bottom line is that today Michael Jackson was cleared in a court of law. Time will tell how he will fare in the court of public opinion.



[1] "Studio B with Shepard Smith", Live Broadcast from Michael Jackson Trial, FOX News Channel, 06/13/05, 4:00 pm ET
[2] Martin Bashir documentary

Sunday, June 12, 2005


Natalee Holloway is pictured in this "Missing" poster distributed in Aruba

On Sunday May 30, 18-year-old Alabama high school senior Natalee Holloway disappeared from her graduating class trip to the tropical island of Aruba. She was last seen getting into a car outside "Carlos & Charlie's", a nightclub where she and her supposedly-chaperoned classmates were celebrating their graduation.[1]

One week later, on June 5, two hotel security guards were arrested after being implicated by the three young men with whom Natalee had left the club. On Thursday June 9, the three locals who had initially been witnesses against the two suspects, were arrested for suspicion in Natalee's disappearance. Saturday morning Aruban officials confirmed that human blood had been discovered in the car, implicating probable foul play on the part of the three young suspects[1], but the discovery was later retracted as the substance turned out to not be blood.[2] If indeed Natalee has been killed, this would be the first murder in Aruba in two years.[3]

This story would be disturbing enough, but I am very concerned with the sequence of events that I believe allowed, through gross negligence, this tragedy to happen. Here are the facts as they have been reported:

These high-school seniors were alone, unsupervised in a bar on a tropical island where Engish is not the primary, secondary, or even third or fourth language. Chaperones were on the island with the students, but they apparantly were not doing their job very sufficiently if one of their students was able to leave the bar with three strangers.

I don't mean to sound like a prude, but this whole scenario escapes reason with me. The whole process of events that lead up to Natalee's disappearance is ripe with behavior that completely defies common sense. I don't mean to impugn anybody's character, but there seems to be huge gaping lapses in judgment in this case.

First of all, what in the world were these students doing unsupervised in a bar on this island? The legal drinking age in Aruba is eighteen[6][8], but these students come from a culture and legal system where the legal drinking age is twenty-one. Many of these students had probably never tasted alcohol before their trip to Aruba. Now they were left unsupervised in a foreign bar completely at the mercy of a mind-altering substance and natives who may or may not have been a threat? How could any responsible adult allow these minors to participate in what Aruba's Minister of Justice described as "a wild drinking party".[4] It's insane, and it's no wonder that a tragedy like this would be the outcome.

Cases in point: May 2005 - "22-yr-old Oregon State University student Gina Zolonardo's body is found just yards away from a houseboat she'd been partying on just days before."[5] January 2004 - "18-yr-old high school cheerleader Lauren Crossman... falls nine floors from her hotel balcony to her death. Police say it was an accident, but confirm she and her friends were drinking alcohol at the time of the fall."[5] May 2002 - "21-yr-old Michael Norman from Connecticut falls to his death off a hotel balcony. Witnesses say the University of Hartford student had been drinking all night. According to the U.S. Consul, during that year's Spring Break, American students accounted for 2 deaths, 260 arrests, 4 injuries, and a rape."[5] And now Natalee Holloway disappears after a drinking party in Aruba.

Secondly, it was reported that 39 of the 40 chaperones returned to the United States with the other 124 students after Natlalee didn't show up for her flight home.[6][7] One chaperone stayed behind to wait for Natalee to show up.

Natalee Holloway apparantly was a straight-A student, so she wasn't stupid. But when an otherwise-intelligent young lady is exposed to a mind-altering substance such as alcohol for the first time, she may make decisions that defy her better judgment. Natalee was still a minor by her society's standards and her guardians (in this case, the chaperones) were responsible for protecting her. So regardless of whether she left with the three young men voluntarily, Natalee was not at fault here; she was the victim all around -- first of irresponsible and negligent adults in whom she and her parents had entrusted her safety, and secondly to whomever may be involved in her actual disappearance.

I hate to focus attention on finger-pointing when Natalee's condition and whereabouts are still unknown, but parents around the world need to be made aware that these dangers potentially await their children as well. As Natalee's mother said in an interview with Geraldo Rivera, "Natalee represents everyone's daughter..."[9] The search for Natalee Holloway continues and we must pray for her safe return, but we must also take measures to insure that this tragedy is not repeated with another young, naïve victim.



[1] "FOX Report w/ Rick Folbaum", FOX News Channel, 06/11/05, 7:00 pm ET
[2] "FOX News Live", FOX News Channel, 06/12/05, 6:30 pm ET
[3] "FOX News Alert", FOX News Channel, 06/11/05, 5:00 pm ET
[4] Rudy Croes (Aruban Minister of Justice), Interview with Geraldo Rivera, "FOX Report w/ Rick Folbaum", FOX News Channel, 06/11/05, 7:00 pm ET
[5] "Spring Break Dangers", "At Large with Geraldo Rivera", FOX News Channel, 06/04/05, 10:00 pm
[6] Mark Fuhrman, former LAPD Homicide Detective, ibid.
[7] "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren", FOX News Channel, 06/06/05, 10:00 pm ET
[8] Mark Fuhrman, former LAPD Homicide Detective, ibid.
[9] Beth Holloway-Twitty, Interview with Geraldo Rivera, "At Large with Geraldo Rivera", Live from Palm Beach, Aruba, FOX News Channel, 06/11/05, 10:00 pm ET

Wednesday, June 08, 2005


Justice Janice Rogers-Brown (l) and Michael Jackson (r)

It never seems to take long in a political debate before it pops up: it's the race card. No matter what the issue, radical liberals eventually get around to accusing their opponent of racism. This week this wild card surfaced again in three different cases. But what makes it so outrageous is the instances in which they arose.

First, Janice Rogers-Brown was finally confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today (June 8) with a 56-43 vote in the Senate[1]; but not before she was attacked by liberals for, get this, racism. The NAACP accused Rogers-Brown, in a fax sent to Senators prior to the vote, of being "hostile to Civil Rights".[1] The irony of this statement is realized when you note that Janice Rogers-Brown is a black woman.

The second instance is the Michael Jackson molestation trial. Observers are complaining that there are no African-Americans on the jury, but these jurors were approved by Jackson's lawyers.[3] Why aren't they complaining? It seems to me that if there's any racism here, it's Jackson himself who has something against negros, since he turned himself into a white man in the late 1980's. Of course I'm being facecious, but you get the picture.

In the third instance, DNC Chairman Howard Dean jumped back into the limelight Monday (June 6) and stuck his foot in his mouth once again. This time, he said, "You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same.... It's pretty much a white Christian party."[4] He reiterated the sentiment on NBC's Today Show; that the Republican party is "a largely-white Christian party" and that "they don't include other folks."[5]

Okay, let's take a look at the facts. Dean makes these absurd and inflammatory allegations despite the fact that Ken Mehlman, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, no less, is a practicing Jew.[2] Remember Miguel Estrada, the the Hispanic-Republican nominee who was filibustered by the so-inclusive Democrats? And don't forget high-ranking Republicans Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, and the aforementioned Janice Rogers-Brown, who all happen to be African-Americans.

"I'm living proof that the (GOP) isn't what Howard Dean is trying to describe," Simi Valley Councilman Glenn Becerra told the San Francisco Chronicle during a telephone interview. "It's a sad day when Democrats don't have any ideas to put forward and they have to resort to race politics. President Bush didn't get 40 percent of the Hispanic vote (in 2004) because we're a monolithic, white Christian party."[4]

Maybe Howard Dean isn't really upset about the Republican's exclusiveness, but rather the fact that the public are starting to see through the Democratic Party's perpetual lie that they are the Party of the minorities, by the minorities, and for the minorities. Because more and more it's being exposed that the Democratic leadership does not speak exclusively for American minorities. Why do liberals make these absurd allegations when they're the ones that are attacking the minorities? Why do liberals accuse Conservatives of being racist when they're the ones that promote racism disguised as "Affirmative Action"? Maybe it's because they're the ones that are prejudiced.

What about Michael Jackson? A rich, successful black man who bleached himself white and has been labeled by the world to be the "King of Pop" is being persecuted because of his race? Maybe he's on trial because he's publicly admitted to suspicious behavior that indicates a proclivity toward the crime of which he's accused. Maybe it's because the evidence points to reasonable suspicion that he may be guilty. And maybe this case has nothing to do with race, but is, in fact, about justice. There is absolutely no evidence that there is any bias in the trial against Michael Jackson because of his race. If there was, then I'm sure his lawyers would have objected immediately. Why do liberals trump the race card when there's absolutely no evidence of racism? Maybe it's because they're the real racists, trying to incite racial warfare.

And what about Janice Rogers-Brown? A black woman who is racist against blacks? As Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Ut) said today, these allegations are "irresponsible rhetoric" which is "unfair... uncharitable... [and] without any real foundation."[1] Rogers-Brown may be opposed by the liberal NAACP, but she has been heartily endorsed by the Congress of Racial Equality, an African-American organization dedicated to Civil Rights.[1] If there's any bias here it's these Senators' liberal prejudice against Conservative Christians. That's the true common thread among the filibustered nominees, whether they're black, white, latino, or Martian. And maybe that's what this filibuster is really about. Because that's where the evidence points.

The allegation that Republicans are against minorities is absurd; the notion that Michael Jackson is being persecuted because he's black is insane; and the idea that Janice Rogers-Brown, a black woman, is prejudiced against black people, is just plain retarded. I guess common sense is often elusive when you're dealing with liberal activists, especially ones who don't want to be burdened with the facts. But that won't stop independent-thinking voters from seeing through their rhetoric and holding them accountable for their racist lies.


[1] "Special Report" w/ Brit Hume", Major Garrett reporting, FOX News Channel, Wed 06/08/05, 6 pm EST
[2] ibid., Brian Wilson reporting, FOX News Channel, Wed 06/08/05, 6 pm EST
[3] "On the Record" w/ Greta Van Susteren; commentary by Ted Williams & Jeff Brown, Criminal Defense Attorneys, FOX News Channel, Wed 06/08/05, 10 pm EST
[4] San Francisco Chronicle, "Dean: The mouth that won't stop roaring
Even some Democrats weary of blunt talk", Carla Marinucci, 06/08/05, http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/08/DEAN.TMP
[5] "The Today Show", NBC, 06/08/05