Kudos to Catholics

October 19, 2003. A Catholic church in the Bronx barred a homosexual couple from further participation in the church's choir after their "marriage" in Canada was made public. One of these men has been in the church choir for more than 30 years. The two were told they could not be a public ministry after their actions became public knowledge via newspapers. These homosexuals had been together since 1978 and went to Canada for a "wedding" after a court in Ontario recognized gay marriage in June.

Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York had this to say, "I don't know these individuals or the specifics of their circumstances, but in the church, if there is the possibility of what we call scandal, and there would be a possibility that the teachings of the church would be questioned or people could believe that the teachings of the church on a certain matter had changed or were unimportant, a pastor has not only the right but the obligation to act," the paper quotes Zwilling as saying.

The Catholic Church recently reaffirmed its position on homosexual unions when the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a document asserting, "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil."Legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil." .....good way to put it, my Catholic friends!

On at least two occasions in two different church congregations I can recall there were people placed in church music ministry positions who were cohabiting with someone of the opposite sex without benefit of marriage. Those were grave errors by the leadership who allowed it in those respective congregations . Tolerating evil in church-goes is one thing; to tolerate such within the leadership is another. Too often the message is "We accept you as you are", with the implication that you may also "Stay where you are." ..........that may be okay for someone sitting in the congregation, but definitely a bad idea for those in leadership...... and that's ...................

......................My Biased Opinion

Shepherds Cry Wolf

October 10 , 2003. As a shepherd I know the devastation that predators can have on a sheep flock. Less than 10 years ago the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) introduced 66 wolves into Yellowstone and central Idaho. They projected via their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that sheep lost to wolves would be about 57 head annually. The same USFWS recently confirmed that 51 head of sheep were killed by a single pair of wolves in the Sept. 15-19 time period. So these government guys in the USFWS estimated 57 head would be killed in a year, and then discover that 51 were killed in 4-5 days..........nice work guys!

This EIS also estimated the 66 wolves introduced would multiply to 129 wolves by January 2002. A current count, according to Tom McDonnell, of the American Sheep Industry Associan (ASI), shows a minimum of 660 wolves. The range of their habitat exceeds 100,000 sq. miles.....and the USFWS guestimated the wolves would only occupy 4500 sq. miles. I have to ask; "Are these government employees incompetent or just plain deceiving liars?" Do you remember the recent case out west where government employees planted lynx hairs and then claimed these cats lived there and were an endangered species?

When I was a student in the College of Agriculture and Forestry at WVU many Forestry majors were similar to my next door neighbor and first cousin, Lewis Rowan. They were farm boys with a love of the outdoors and a respect for agriculture and the environment. They owned firearms and loved to hunt. Lewis, in fact, was selected as an All American on the NCAA Rifle Team. He had at least two other classmates who did the same. Lewis later served as a forester where he helped farmers and foresters to be efficient producers while conserving our precious natural resources.

I spent more than 20 years on college campuses and saw the idealistic nature lovers from concrete paved cities literally invade forestry and wildlife programs. Now we have too many people who love the outdoors but have no respect for food producing enterprises, especially animal agriculture. This same period of history coincides with left leaning tendencies throughout our culture. The USFWS is now home to too many left-leaners and liars (yeah, I know they are usually one and the same) who may also be incompetent.....I may be wrong, but nevertheless that's ..................

......................My Biased Opinion

Voting Booth or Phone Booth?

September 29, 2003. Have you noticed that elections seem to be driven by polls taken before the election rather than the will of the people to choose the right candidate? All these pollsters make phone calls and then tell us who is likely to win. The California recall election is unfortunately a classic case of what's wrong with polls. Tom McClintock by almost any conservative's viewpoint is the only principled candidate in the race, but since he trails body builder, movie star Arnold Swarzenegger as the leading Republican candidate he is being shamelessly criticized by many because he "can't win". That kind of talk has been going since the beginning of the race. All such talk about a "wasted vote" for McClintock naturally affects voters. "Politics IS the art of compromise. Compromise in anathema to McClintock...which arguably fatally handicaps him as a politician." writes Geoff Metcalf in his column at Newsmax.com..

Compromise and biblical principles don't mix, so maybe politics and religion don't mix sure enough. Personally I'm with McClintock because there is no substitute for a principled life in or out of politics. Voting for an unprincipled politician is like getting out of a fishing boat with a hole in it and stepping into another boat just because it has a smaller hole in the bottom.

Though painful it may be, sometimes we have to hit rock bottom before we realize it is time to look up. If we keep electing those who compromise we will soon hit that bottom.............and that's

......................My Biased Opinion

September 23, 2003. Only three days after I wrote the Cali-foreigners piece on September 16, Gray Davis said this in a speech "My vision is to make the most diverse state on earth, and we have people from every planet on the earth in this state. We have the sons and daughters of every, of people from every planet, of every country on earth" Now look at my comment written three days earlier. " I must conclude that many people living in that state(CA) surely come from another planet." So okay, I made a slight error. I said Californians come from another planet, whereas Governor Davis says they come from every planet. You know....he was probably more accurate than I. That's okay just so long as we agree they are from outer space, and therefore out of touch......................and that's

......................My Biased Opinion

September 16, 2003. California has to have some of the most messed up people on earth, and I'm not even thinking about the Hollywood bunch or the city of San Francisco with its 25 definitions of gender (besides male and female). Hardly a day goes by that we don't hear of some person or group of people who has run amuck. I must conclude that many people living in that state surely come from another planet. The latest news is that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court has ruled that the scheduled gubernatorial recall election must be postponed because some people are as dumb as the Florida voters when it comes to punching holes in voting cards. We know of course that it is nothing more than dirty politics as usual. This type decision implies that blacks aren't smart enough and Hispanics haven't learned our language so neither group is able to accurately vote Democratic. The liberals want a fool proof system and therefore implying that blacks and Hispanics are fools. The decision of the 9th Circus Court is not the worst, it's just the latest news item.

Worse than that decision is the way Governor Davis has pandered to Hispanics. That man has given away the store. In California illegal immigrants seem to have more rights than residents. I understand they can get free medical help, free lunch, free schooling, triple Green Stamps, frequent border-running miles, and an effort is being made to let them go to college for tuition that is "instate", all the while illegals no doubt avoid paying income tax. A farm boy from Nebraska couldn't cross the California border and get a deal like that.

I also understand that there is a radical group of Hispanics that intends to take some of the southwestern states back as a separate country or a part of Mexico.....sound unreal?.............. elected officials pander to Hispanics so don't expect them to make waves regarding our borders, and out of control judges have repeatedly made fools of themselves at our nation's expense, so it appears we could very likely loose some territory......after all we are giving everything else away.

If it weren't for the rich agricultural lands in California, I would be tempted to suggest we let Mexico have California....and that's....

......................My Biased Opinion

September 8, 2003. Harvard University gets more than $12 million from the Department of Defense every year but has banned the ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Corps) programs from campus. Yale, another Ivy League school, received a $5 million grant from the U.S. Army while forbidding ROTC to meet in its classrooms. Yale, does however offer courses like "Introduction to Lesbian and Gay Studies". Ivy Leaguers, of course, are not the only anti-military colleges in the nation as others like Stanford and Wellesley have banned or restricted ROTC on campus, disallowing military recruiters on campus, etc.

I get a lot of mail asking for money to sign this petition or that letter of protest that will then be used by the organization that sent me the information. Then the organization will send all their petitions to U.S. Congress members, the President, the Department of Defense, etc. to make a "loud" protest about some inequality such as the ROTC/military issue like I just briefly outlined. To an extent that is okay, BUT can you see the futility in this type effort once you understand the nature of our elected officials in 2003? First we vote in voting booth, then we pay money to groups to ask our politicians to please reverse the decisions they already made. Besides, If the people we have elected are not honorable enough to make the right decisions, what does a petition do? For example, if Congress and the Department of Defense know about the abuse of military people on campus, why haven't they already pulled the plug on finances?...........unless of course they realize it is your money and not theirs that is being misappropriated. And, just how many petitions do I have to sign each year to change a dishonorable representative's mind? Huh?? It seems to never end; our governments are taking about 40+% of our income, spend it unwisely because they are poor and/or crooked representatives. Then we pay someone in a effort to get the politicians to change their minds?

More drastic measures are necessary. Our state-run primary and secondary schools get a lot of attention(read:poor results, more money needed). It is no secret that graduates are becoming dumber by the year while the cost to matriculate through the "Blackboard Jungle" gets higher and higher......forget trying to talk the skunks into holding their water(translation: it's a foolish fight)....................walk the other direction............and take your kids with you............and that's pretty much....

......................My Biased Opinion

August 21, 2003. George W. Bush is not a great president....................he just looks like one when compared to Bill Clinton. He has a lot of good qualities as a man, and has shown strong leadership in some departments, but he has some real weak spots when it comes to being the right man for America. He may be right for America for "such a time as this", but not in the long run. Right after Bush's election to office many conservatives, especially Christians were falling all over themselves much like high school sophomore boys do when they get a look at the new girl who enrolled in their school. Let's face it, after having Bob Dole as a losing candidate followed by eight years of the dysfunctional duo of Bill and Hillary in the White House, it is easy to understand why some were overjoyed when George W. was elected. However, just like the new girl at school, he doesn't look so hot now that the novelty has worn off.

I voted for Bush and am glad I did. I'll no doubt vote for him again. However, Bush is the wrong type man for America because he is way too liberal. Our already bloated federal government is growing bigger under his leadership, he is soft on the illegal immigrants, he has totally ignored criminal activities of the previous administration, he fails to use his position of power to denounce lawless judicial decisions, and what about the Islam-is-a-peaceful-religion comments that come from the Bush administration? As a side bar issue, tell me why it was necessary for him to meet with homosexual activists and with Jessie "shakedown" Jackson? (Incidentally my spell checker asked me if I wanted to substitute Gassy for Jessie) He may be tough on Al Queda and Sadaam because they don't vote in the U.S., but he fails to stand firm on important matters at home. He fails to take a firm stand for many issues because he supposedly wants a "new tone" in Washington. Frankly, "two-tone" is a better description; he does some conservative talking and way too much liberal acting, and that's......................

......................My Biased Opinion