Google Custom Search

Saturday, November 04, 2006

The Curious Chris Dodd Snub of Lieberman

Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut has raised more than a few eyebrows during this campaign over his support for Ned Lamont, the man who challenged Senator Joseph Lieberman in the Democrat primary. Lamont beat Lieberman in the primary to become the standard-bearer for the Party in the U.S. Senate race.

A mere 24 hours prior to Lieberman's defeat in the primary, Dodd had proclaimed his long-time friend and colleague to be 'one of the greatest Senators in American history.' 2 days after the primary Dodd was endorsing Lamont although Lieberman decided to campaign to keep his seat as an Independent.

Dodd has also made a quite a few campaign appearances on behalf of Lamont.

The actions of his long-time friend have left Lieberman a bit perplexed, although he graciously speaks of Dodd in friendly terms and says they will continue to work together. Some of the voters in Connecticut, however, question how it is that just two days after issuing glowing praise for Lieberman, Dodd proceeds to snub his friend in endorsing Lamont.

The is really no question here at all. To Senator Dodd, Party loyalty is the end-all and be-all of politics. Even friendship should not get in the way.

Heaven forbid a politician should challenge his or her Party's leadership and speak out of their conscience. Apparently to the Democrats this is the unpardonable sin.

New York Times Sells Out to Anti-Semitism

First it was Jimmy Carter who claims that Israel is the last sanctioned 'state of apartheid.'

Then George Soros and his gang at post some of the most blatantly anti-Semitic statements that one would more expect from Neo-Nazi groups rather than an organization that funds the campaigns of Democrats.

Now it's the New York Times. The Times has sold out to vitriolic, anti-Semitic Arab interests in allowing a full-page ad to be published by a group that is dedicated to the defeat of politicians in Washington, such as Rick Santorum, who are staunch supporters of Israel in the present Jihad. The ad spouts some of the most hateful language one can imagine toward Jews.

In allowing the ad the Times has sold its soul to evil.

Can we really trust anything they say? Do we really care who they endorse other than to remember that 'birds of a feather flock together?'

Many thanks to Pamela Geller Oshry at Atlas Shrugs for the above information.

VOTER FRAUD! Smart Cards Stolen in Memphis!

Election officials in Shelby County, Tennessee, home of the Memphis-based campaign of Harold Ford, Jr. who is running for the U.S. Senate, confirm allegations made by the county GOP that smart cards which are used for early voting in this coming Tuesday's mid-term elections are missing. Up to a dozen of the computer-programmed cards have been stolen, according to the officials.

When it was first learned that the cards were missing, election officials replaced the cards, a few of which were stolen a second time.

Although election officials insist that the cards are useless because they have been de-programmed, computer experts say that it is quite easy to re-program the cards and use them again, allowing thieves to vote multiple times. Election officials dispute that claim, however, stating that the cards can only be re-programmed by the county elections office that issued them.

Computer experts, however, point to the ease with which a thief could steal a card and then re-program it using resources that can be found at any retail computer store.

Could this be the first example of an attempt by Democrats to steal an election?

Friday, November 03, 2006

Pelosi Missing, Kerry in Hiding, Demos Ashamed

Media watchers around the country have noted that California Democrat Nancy Pelosi, who is slated to become Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives should the Democrats win control of the House, curiously has gone missing in the final days of the campaign. Carefully and strategically ducking any opportunity to appear before the public, the famed Leftist who represents San Francisco's ultra-liberal Congressional district is laying low in the last week of the campaign, fearing voters will associate her extremist views with the Democrat Party.

This is no fear but a reality. It is no secret that those who control the Democrat Party espouse views that are repugnant to mainstream America. Fearing yet another rejection of the Party in this year's midterm elections, Democrats have carefully hidden these Leftwing extremists, hoping that voters will forget who and what they are voting for next Tuesday.

Here is another of the Democrat senior leadership that has been jerked out of the media spotlight.

Apparently Kerry is now 'missing in action' as he retreats from the spotlight following his colossal verbal bombshell in which he characterized our troops as dumb and uneducated. He didn't even make his 'apology' before the cameras.

Obviously the Democrats are ashamed of their leadership. Further, they apparently think Americans are truly dumb backwoods hicks to actually believe that by pulling these liberals from public view for a few days we will forget what they stand for.

The following is an article I wrote last week on Nancy Pelosi's record on the issues.

Nancy Pelosi, D-Ca, serving California's most ultra-liberal San Francisco district. stands to be 3rd in line to the Presidency if the Democrats win the House in two weeks. Pelosi has served as minority leader of the House and would be selected to become Speaker, replacing current Speaker Dennis Hastart, should the Democrats take control.

This is a most ghastly prospect for the country if one carefully and objectively considers Pelosi's record on the issues. Here is a primer--

*Pelosi has received the lowest rating possible for a politician by 'Gun Owners of America' for her consistent stance against 2nd Amendment issues. As a staunch San Francisco liberal, Pelosi has steadily advocated for an erosion of gun owner rights, ignoring the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, and voting for legislation that would criminalize gun owners whose guns are stolen and then used in the commission of a crime, among other notable tactics of the anti-bun bigots.

*Pelosi stated recently that national security should NOT be an issue in this campaign for control of the U.S. Congress in 2006. Most Americans strongly disagree, placing the issue in the top 5.

*Pelosi voted against the Bush tax cuts and has vowed to repeal them in a Democrat-controlled Congress. Throughout her career she has voted consistently for tax increases on a variety of levels, the most notable being a string of votes during the 90s that would have resulted in Americans paying over $950 more dollars per year in gasoline taxes, if they had passed. In addition, during the 1990s Pelosi voted for measures that increased taxes by nearly 241 billion dollars, the largest tax hike in American history under Bill Clinton.

*Pelosi was recently quoted as saying that the capture of Osama bin Laden 'would not make America any safer.'

*Pelosi has consistently voted against welfare reform, against requiring welfare recipients to work, and a host of other measures that more moderate members of her Party joined with Republicans in supporting.

*Pelosi is a rabid abortion supporter, receiving a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, and a 0% rating from the National Right to Life Committee.

*Pelosi has advocated for 'bi-lateral talks' with the North Koreans over nuclear weapons, calling for a return to the failed policies of the Clinton Administration in the 90s during which Kim Jong-il not only lied but duped the Americans into believing he was using the materials we were sending him for his nation's energy supply, when all the while he was building nuclear weapons, as he admitted in 2002. The Bush Administration has insisted all along that talks with Kim should be multi-lateral, including the Chinese, given the fact that Kim will listen to no one but the Chinese government. Bush was proved right this past week as Kim apologized for the nuclear tests after receiving a sharp rebuke from China. Pelosi, however, prefers a return to the policies that led to our being the laughing stock of Kim Jong-il.

Are you excited yet? This brief primer should be ample reason to fear this woman rising to such a position of prominence as Speaker of the House should the Democrats win control.

However, Pelosi is not the only problem. The Democrat Party is swarming with other Nancy Pelosi just waiting to gain control of Congress so that they can unleash on the nation their extremist, leftist agenda that will be a harsh blow to American liberty.

We as Americans MUST not allow this to happen.

Before You Vote You MUST See United 93

The film 'United 93,' which details the bravery of the Americans who were aboard the ill-fated airline that was headed for the White House on September 11, 2001, is not for the faint of heart. In fact, it is excruciatingly draining. Yet it is a MUST-see for all Americans, especially before Election Day next Tuesday.

As a living testament to the men and women aboard that plane who were willing to die before allowing the aircraft to crash into our nation's capital, the film is stark. One passenger, Todd Beamer, after telling his wife on his cell phone that he loved her, whispered to his fellow patriots, 'Let's roll,' just before they stormed the hijackers, burst through the door to the cockpit, and attempted to wrest control of the plane from the hijacker pilot before the aircraft plowed into the Pennsylvania countryside.

The four hijackers, all young Muslim men of Middle Eastern descent, stabbed one passenger in the neck with a long knife before butchering the pilot, the co-pilot, and a stewardess. As the events unfolded the passengers became aware through their phone contacts that the Twin Towers had been hit and that another plane had crashed into the Pentagon. They each tearfully bid their loved ones goodbye.

My reason for highlighting this film now, at this point in time, is very simple. Americans have either a short memory or a bad case of denial. A mere five years after that horrific day many of us have forgotten why we were attacked, who did it, and the task that is before us. Some of us conveniently allow ourselves to be lulled to sleep by politicians who are so brain-damaged by the 'politically correct' movement that they refer to terrorism as merely a 'law enforcement issue' rather than a war.

The attackers and the masterminds behind them had already declared war on America. It is called 'Jihad' or 'Holy War.' In the name of Allah and while mindlessly repeating Islamic gibberish these blood-thirsty barbarians proceeded to take 3000 American lives and blow to smithereens the hopes and dreams of their families in one single morning.

So when the mainstream media hits us with the total count of American soldiers killed in Iraq, remember it has taken us five years to get there. The Jihadists mangled 3000 Americans in one day.

As election day approaches, Americans need to remember what happened. We need to watch 'United 93' before voting. The mantra of 'Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11' is like saying Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with the attack on the Twin Towers. That entire area of the world is infested with the barbarism of the Islamic Jihadists, from Afghanistan to Iran, to Iraq, to Syria, to Lebanon, to Saudi Arabia and beyond. Iran has nuclear weapons that they demonstrated could reach Israel, and they are financing and fueling the Islamic insurgency in Iraq.

The naive and cowardly statements and views of the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Conyers, Harry Reid, Howard Dean and many more are totally unacceptable. It is no accident that the Jihadists want a Democrat-controlled Congress.

As a matter of fact, any American who is worth his salt will hang his head in shame for even THINKING about voting for these befuddled clowns.

Am I angry? You bet I am. This nation is involved in a war that will determine the future of civilization and western culture. When I hear the cowardly, putrid rhetoric coming from the Democrat leadership concerning the dangers we face, I want to ask them, 'Who's side are you on, anyway?'

Yes, I question their patriotism. They want us to lose. Our politically-motivated, yellow-bellied defeat in Viet Nam was not enough. They want us humiliated all over. It is interesting that some of the very same players that figured into our loss in that war are now the major players in the Democrat Party who, once again, believe that the only option for America is to play the role of the weakling.

Thus, when you are ready to vote next Tuesday, before pulling that lever or marking that box beside a candidate's name, quietly ask that candidate in your mind's eye, 'Just who's side are you on anyway? Are you one of the ones the Islamic Jihadists want to win? Or are you a true American patriot?'

We owe it to the men and women who lost their lives on United Flight 93 and the other aircraft, as well as those who died in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, to vote for those who have made it clear that nothing less than a decisive victory over Muslim Jihadists is acceptable.

Nall, Baxley, and Riley in the Final Stretch

Libertarian Loretta Nall, Lt. Governor Lucy Baxley, and Governor Bob Riley square off in less than a week in Alabama's gubernatorial election. The following is a brief analysis of voter perceptions and trends as we move into the final stretch of the campaign.

What Loretta Nall has been lacking in name recognition, money, and high-profile endorsements by the largest media outlets, she has more than made up for in substance, creativity, and honesty. Running her campaign on a shoe-string budget, Nall found herself propelled into the spotlight in the waning days of the campaign as the Associated Press published a major story on her views, which was carried nationwide. Nall was soon receiving invitations to appear on Fox News, MSNBC, NBC Today, and numerous radio programs as far away as Toronto, Ontario. She has been able to capitalize on the attention, and in my opinion she has made some inroads among voters. The fact that her opponents have their obvious deep flaws has led voters to recognize that there is a clear alternative to the candidates of the two major Parties.

I don't see Nall winning this race, but she could well make Libertarian history in the state by being the first candidate of the Party to receive a double-digit percentage of the vote.

Lucy Baxley comes across as a sincere, down-to-earth southern woman who doesn't have a clue as to how to conduct a campaign. While no one can doubt that she is 'good people,' she has made a series of blunders that have not helped her case, including playing the gender card in claiming that Governor Riley dismisses her because she is a woman. That may or may not be true, but the candidate's penchant for incessant whining has evidently led many voters to dismiss her, but not because of her gender.
Her poll numbers are down in spite of a series of scathing revelations about Riley. It appears at this point that Nall is the one who is benefiting from both Baxley's and Riley's missteps.

Bob Riley has been stung by three overriding negatives. First, there is the Masonic scandal surrounding Riley's membership in a 'no-blacks-allowed' Lodge. Then, there is the Cato Institute rating of 'F' because of the Governor's dreadful record on taxes. The voters rejected his plan three years ago to implement the largest tax increase in the state's history, to which the Governor responded by signing an executive order to reassess property on an annual basis. And third, there is the explosive story that broke a couple of weeks ago indicating that Riley may have received funds that were funneled through a PAC from Indian casino interests in Mississippi that allegedly threw their support behind Riley in order to benefit from the casino ban in Alabama. Records indicate that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff may have been a part of this deal.

Polls show Riley cruising to an easy victory, and frankly, his numbers have been high enough to make it nearly impossible, in my opinion, for him to lose. Even if his numbers dropped by ten percentage points he would still win with a majority of the votes cast.

This is a shame. Nall clearly has the best ideas out of the three. But, barring a last-minute bombshell of drastic proportions over the weekend, I don't see anything that would stop Riley from being elected to a 2nd term.

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Look Who's Rooting for a Big Democrat Win!

Have you ever noticed that America's enemies always favor Democrats in nearly every election? Well, look who's rooting for a big Democrat win in the midterm elections this year. None other than Al-Qaeda and the U.S. Communist Party.

According to Palestinian Watch, the Democrats are favored not only by Arabs in general but by known terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Why?

Why would a group of individuals who are known to advocate for not only America's defeat in the War on Terror but the complete destruction and annihilation of Western Civilization as we know it be calling for the defeat of George W. Bush and the Republican controlled Congress?

This seems to be a complete no-brainer to me. The policies of the Democrats would make it easier for terrorists and other enemies of America to go about their business of systematically dismantling America's power and fortitude, leading to our demise. Thus, Al Qaeda would prefer for Democrats to control Congress and ultimately gain the White House in 2008.

This is not the first time such a thing has happened. In 2004 Kim Jong-ill of North Korea, Fidel Castro of Cuba, the Syrian government, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban all called for the defeat of George W. Bush in his bid for re-election.

When your enemies make it clear which candidates they want in charge, prudence dictates viewing those candidates with suspicion. We have every right as Americans to be highly suspicious of Democrat candidates who have gone on the record to support policies that our enemies find pleasing.

Florida Boys Head to West Coast

The Florida Boys are headed to the West Coast this week for a series of concerts in California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Arizona. After appearing this coming Saturday night at the Performing Arts Center in Ormond Beach, Florida, the Southern Gospel Quartet will head out for their semi-annual tour of the western states.

Gospel Music is always well-received on the West Coast. Having the disadvantage of being located far away from the epicenter of Southern Gospel, the South, fans on the West Coast flock to see and hear their favorite groups that usually travel to that part of the country only twice per year.

The Florida Boys' investment in bringing Gospel Music to the area is extensive. Les Beasley, manager of the group, and Claude Hopper of the Southern Gospel group 'The Hoppers,' promote an annual event in California called 'The Great Western Gospel Fan Festival,' which attracts thousands of fans each year.

Promoters Polly Grimes, Ralph Dean, and many more on the West Coast have worked tirelessly through many years of persistence to build a solid fan base for this form of music in the West.

For more information, or to view the Florida Boys' list of concerts dates in the area, go to, and click on 'Schedule.'

The Pattern of Disdain for Our Troops

Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) still doesn't get it even after his apology to the troops for his remarks to the effect that young persons who don't study hard and get good grades will 'end up stuck in Iraq.'

The Senator's belated apology came only after a 48-hour stream of pressure from top Democrats, the cancellation by Democrat candidates of a couple of Kerry appearances to campaign on their behalf, and the decision by the DNC to pull Kerry off the campaign trail entirely for a few days until the whole thing blows over.

Kerry's problem, however, is that this is a pattern. Ever since the Viet Nam War the Senator has consistently given testimony before Congress and interviews in the Press which portray an alarming underlying disdain for everything the military stands for.

When pressed on the issue, Kerry's standard defense is to hide behind his service in Viet Nam as some sort of 'proof' that he supports the troops. Benedict Arnold also served in uniform. This did NOT excuse Arnold's betrayal of his fellow soldiers. Kerry seems to forget that no amount of hiding behind his uniform in any was excuses statements he has made that attack our troops for over 30 years.

Several Democrat apologists have remarked that John Kerry isn't on the ballot. Well and good. Neither is President Bush. Yet Democrats have somehow made this election all about the President.

John Kerry is the face of the Democrat Party, like it or not. His views represent the views of the majority of the Party faithful and the Party leadership. This is one of the many reasons why they should not be elected to any office in the land.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Way Down Upon the Suwannee River...

Way down in the Florida panhandle near a small town called 'Live Oak,' the famed Suwannee River comes alive twice a year with the sounds of gospel music. 'The Suwannee River Jubilee' is held each year, once during Father's Day weekend in June, and once during the first weekend of October.

The Jubilee is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year. In the summer of 1987 two major Gospel Quartets, the Florida Boys and the Dixie Echoes, launched this annual gathering of the gospel greats, which through the years has featured groups such as the Cathedral Quartet, the Kingsmen, the Gold City Quartet, the Inspirations, the Nelons, and many more.

Fans are treated to various activities during a Jubilee weekend, such as rafting along the Suwannee River, softball games, and a free beans and cornbread supper. For those who bring their RVs, camping is available on the grounds.

This year, the hosts of the event, the Dixie Echoes, are offering pricing packages that include either hotel or camping accommodations. The lineup of talent this year includes the Dove Brothers, the Kingsmen, the Chuck Wagon Gang, the Florida Boys, the Dixie Echoes, and the Booth Brothers.

For more information on this event, you can visit

The blog owner is Tracy Crouch, bass vocalist for the Dixie Echoes.

A big thanks to Tracy for providing much of the information for this article.

A Man's Answer to the Wonderbra

It was only a matter of time. The 'Wondercup' has arrived. Those men who have felt duped by women who artificially enhance their size now have their chance at revenge.

An Australian company is manufacturing and marketing a line of men's underwear called 'The Wondercup,' which, according to their slogan, 'lifts, separates, and extends.' The product is sold in top stores worldwide and is marketed to over 70 countries via the Internet.

Sales of this most interesting item have exploded, fueled by the marketing slogan, 'The new Wondercup technology in these attention-grabbing, all-cotton Patriot briefs will have you seriously looking bigger and feeling better.'

Well now, this is splendid news. It's about time that we men had a socially acceptable method of making our genitalia look bigger without having to stuff bananas, socks, or cucumbers down our shorts.

Can you imagine the embarrassment of having an intimate encounter during which at a most crucial moment a zucchini falls out of your shorts? Well, those days are now gone. We have now moved up in the world, joining the ranks of our female counterparts who have long enjoyed the luxury of underwear that lifts and separates.

I can just hear the snide remarks of some women who will claim, 'But real men don't need the Wondercup.'

Of course they don't. And real women don't need the Wonderbra.

What do ya say we just go back to being who we are and accepting ourselves as we are without all the artificiality? There is nothing wrong with paying attention to one's appearance, but enough is enough!

Notes from Here and There

Good Evening!

I have just a few brief comments on my notes from here and there, which you may or may not find interesting. Take them for what they're worth--the musings of a patriot who wishes to embolden other patriots.

**John Kerry sure knows how to give a sincere, heartfelt apology--that is, after being jerked off the campaign trail by frightened Democrats, and after his stinging defense of his words did not work.

**I stand with Barrons Online Magazine in their prediction that Republicans will retain control of both Houses of Congress, albeit by a slim margin. Barron's has been the ONLY correct prognosticator of election results in the past three elections.

**Should the Democrats win anything it will be the House. I can't imagine an extremist such as Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, but this may be a gift-horse in disguise if it happens. The extremist Leftwing will be on full display for the next two years, giving Americans the opportunity to see first-hand the danger these people are to the country.

**Lieberman will retain his Senate seat, but as an Independent. He stands to win big.

**Katherine Harris, I am sorry to say, will lose in Florida. The manner in which the Republican Party elite snubbed her entire campaign is shameful.

**McCaskill will lose to Talent in Missouri, and Ford will lose to Corker in Tennessee. The Virginia Senate race is a wild card.

**People who predict political races are usually wrong. Election results rest entirely in the hands of the voters. Be sure to vote.

The Achilles' Heel of Libertarians

As a believer in libertarian principles, I am quick to say that I do not always agree with the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party is to be distinguished from libertarian principles. Although the Party is usually consistent with these broad principles of liberty, there are instances where they veer off course. Their stance on immigration is one of those instances.

The Libertarian Party has long stood for the concept of 'open borders,' which maintains that human liberty is enhanced in this country by having a very lax policy of immigration. The foundational reasoning of this concept is that we are a nation of immigrants. Therefore, we should not prevent anyone from coming here.

Such a policy was acceptable in an era where there were no government handouts, no threat of annihilation by terrorists, and a willingness of immigrants to adopt the language and culture of this nation.

Today we face a much different scenario. Government handout programs provide children of impoverished nations, such as Mexico, the means by which to get free education, free healthcare, and a myriad of other programs not available in their country of origin. Terrorists routinely immigrate to this country for the specific purpose of killing Americans. Immigrants no longer wish to adopt the language and culture of their new homeland, but expect to be able to Pledge Allegiance to Mexico in our public schools, have the National Anthem sung in Spanish, and wave the Mexican flag at rallies.

Genuine American citizens who love this country do not engage in such activity.

In light of this fact, it is difficult to fathom the present Libertarian push to relax our immigration laws in an era in which we should be tightening them. Granted, the Republicans and Democrats have done no better. The 'border fence' is a joke. If we adequately enforced immigration law there would be no need for a fence. In addition, if the Republicans would stop groveling to businesses that engage in the unlawful hiring of illegal immigrants, and if the Democrats would stop depending on the votes they bought by the handout programs available to the children of illegal immigrants, we could quickly bring this volatile situation under control.

To date, however, nobody in the leadership of these three major Parties are willing to provide adequate solutions to a growing national problem.

Several Libertarian candidates would mandate that Spanish be taught in schools as a second language. But why should Americans be required to learn Spanish if we don't require immigrants to learn English? This does not solve anything but simply perpetuates the notion of entitlement on the part of those who come here supposedly because they PREFER our customs, our ways, our philosophy of government.

The day is coming when Americans will get their fill of this selling of the nation to foreign interests. We are quickly approaching that day. The resentment and outrage over the unwillingness of ANY politician to stop the madness is growing by the day. Before hostility erupts across the fruited plain, somebody, somewhere needs to step forward to take the bull by the horns and stop this gradual conquering of America.

So far, the Libertarians are no better on this issue than the Republicans or Democrats, I am sorry to say.


A federal district judge for Eastern Michigan has struck down the Terrorist Surveillance Program by which the U.S. government monitors phone conversations between persons in this country and overseas terrorists. Anna Driggs Taylor, appointed to the bench by Jimmy Carter, ruled that the program violates the provisions of the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution, the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act, Title III, and the Separation of Powers Doctrine.

A chorus of legal scholars, however, say that the ruling is fraught with error and a gross misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution. This is the first time in U.S. History that a court has issued a ruling that strikes down a President's authority to order surveillance when Americans are in danger.

Critics of the ruling suspect that the ruling is politically motivated. The Judge even takes an overt swipe at President Bush by stating in her ruling, 'There are no hereditary Kings in America,' an obvious reference to the fact that the 43th President is the son of the 41st President.

Perhaps the good Judge should remember that there are no Queens in America in our judicial branch, either.

This blatant act of judicial activism comes on the heels of several other examples of Judges who believe they write law rather than interpret the law, specifically the edicts issued by several state Supreme Courts that 'instruct' the legislatures to write laws concerning gay marriage.

Since when do the Courts in this country issue commands to the legislative branch? The Courts interpret the law, period. They do not make laws. To 'instruct' a legislature to write a law is tantamount to the Court writing that law itself.

Bobby Chesney, a national security law specialist at Wake Forest University, said, 'Regardless of what your position is on the merits of the issue, there's no question that it's a poorly reasoned decision.'

In addition, Bryan Cunningham, a former federal prosecutor in the Clinton Administration, wrote that Taylor made "breathtaking mistakes" in her application of the First and Fourth Amendments. He said, 'Regrettably, the only plausible explanation is that she wanted the result she wanted and was willing to ignore and misread vast portions of constitutional law to get there, gambling the lives and security of her fellow Americans in the bargain.'

It is no coincident that the plaintiff in the lawsuit that resulted in this regrettable ruling is the ACLU, which represented a group of lawyers, scholars, journalists, and non-profit groups that regularly communicate with people in the Middle East. Their fear was that they would become targets for surveillance.

However, unless these individuals are communicating with known terror suspects, why would there be any fear at all that their phone calls would be monitored?

I suspect that the real reason behind the suit is simply to stop the surveillance program that liberals have long abhorred.

This is quite interesting given the fact that some of these very same groups were quick to applaud the public disclosure of Instant Messages and emails between Mark Foley and the House Page, which supposedly show that Foley had ill intent. If private communication is supposed to be private, then evidently this applies only to persons who talk to terror suspects overseas. The rest of us continue to run the risk of having our private conversations monitored if we as much as mention in passing the word 'S-E-X.'

Of course, duplicity and hypocrisy have long been the hallmarks of the leftwing in this country. Like everything else, surveillance programs are BAD only if they are inconvenient to the liberal intelligentsia.

And thus, Judge Anna Briggs Taylor has opened the door to the possibility of another major terrorist attack on this country. The reprehensible nature of this ruling is magnified by the fact that the only thing that foiled the recent plot to blow up airliners was government monitoring of the conversations of terror suspects. Without this program in place we are in grave danger.

I must also mention that the top Democrats in Congress hailed this ruling and applauded the Judge's 'courage.'

We can only hope that the Federal Appeals Court will strike down this embarrassing decision issued by a judge with a political agenda and an ax to grind.

Tuesday, October 31, 2006


Senator Hillary Clinton, potential Presidential candidate for 2008, revealed today the philosophy on American foreign policy that drives the Democrat party. The clueless Clinton still insists that bilateral talks with North Korea should be the hallmark of foreign policy, despite the fact that her husband's bilateral negotiations with North Korea resulted in one of the most embarrassing and damaging blows to any Administration in American history.

Kim Jong-ill's development of nuclear weapons took place under Bill Clinton's watch, the result of an alarmingly naive policy of bilateral talks in which Kim pledged not to build nuclear weapons if the Americans would supply his country with the materials from which he could provide a much-needed energy source to the backward, struggling nation. Clinton, with the help of Jimmy Carter, obliged without as much as a hint of requiring Kim to allow the U.S. to verify that the materials were being used as an energy resource only.

The result was eight years of scheming, lying, and duping the Americans into believing these materials were being used to provide energy, when all along Kim put the materials to use in developing weapons with which he could one day hold hostage nations like Japan, South Korea, and ultimately the United States.

Yet Hillary Clinton and her ilk in the Democrat party refuse to acknowledge this gargantuan failure. Kim Jong ill has demonstrated time and again that he listens to no one but the Chinese government. Bilateral talks between the U.S. and North Korea serve no purpose but to allow Kim the opportunity to continue to spout lies that are intended to deceive the U.S.

The Bush Administration has long insisted that talks with Kim must be multilateral, making a place at the table for the Chinese, who would then use their influence to keep Kim in check. China's slap at the enigmatic Kim over his recent nuclear test was enough to produce an apology, thus proving the point that talks with the North Korean dictator MUST include the Chinese in order to produce positive results.

Democrats still fail to get it. From Hillary to Kerry to Kennedy, they continue to call for bilateral negotiations. Not only did Hillary today state that she would implement bilateral talks with North Korea but with Cuba as well. She used the term 'internationalism' to describe her philosophy of foreign policy.

This being the case, how do bilateral talks denote internationalism any more fully than multilateral talks, which include a variety of nations?

Apparently, given the contradictory nature of the Democrat stance, Hillary obviously uses the term 'internationalism' as a code word for opening up negotiations with nations like Cuba, granting international prestige to rogue nations that have a clear history of burying dissent and crushing liberty. The term is also indicative of the desire to turn over the oversight of American foreign policy to bodies such as the United Nations, giving the U.N. ultimate veto power over American national interests.

It is not to be forgotten that it was none other than Bill Clinton who advocated our joining the EU's International Criminal Court, which would have compromised American control over its own criminal justice system.

Regardless of the ultimate dire ramifications of such a policy, Hillary's inability to recognize the difference between success and failure with regard to North Korea portrays an alarming lack of insight and discernment on the part of one who would be President.

What is even more disturbing is that the Democrat party portrays the very same blindness.

A Mason's Take on the Riley-Masonic Scandal in Alabama

The picture you see to the left appeared on the BBC and is found on a Masonic website in Wales. This particular order of Freemasonry is dedicated to unraveling some of the mysteries of the organization in order to assuage fears associated with its secrecy.

In Alabama, however, there is no secret to the fact that the Grand Lodge of Alabama excludes Blacks and that Governor Bob Riley is a member.

A fellow blogger who is himself a Mason has started a website dedicated to dispelling the myth that the Freemasons is a racist organization. His intent is to expose the racial exclusionary practices of some Masonic orders in the South that run contrary to the original intent of the founders of the Freemasonry movement.

Alabama Governor Bob Riley is a member of the Grand Lodge of Alabama, which adopted a highly offensive anti-Black proclamation in the late 1800s, which it has never rescinded. This information, which was first disclosed to the public by Alabama talk radio personalities Russ and Dee Fine, resulted in their being fired while still on the air.

On the website listed below, which is operated by a blogger who is a Mason, you will find an intriguing theory about the entire matter, linking the Bob Riley/Masonic scandal story to President Bush's visit to the state to stump for Riley. While parts of the theory, in my opinion, are over the top, it is an interesting read.

There is no doubt, however, that the Fines were fired as a result of pressure from the Grand Lodge, as a phone call in the middle of the night to the Fines indicates.

The question remains, should a sitting Governor be a member of an organization that excludes Blacks?

There is no doubt that a private organization has the right to exclude anyone it wants. That is not the issue. The Lodges of the Prince Hall, the Black Masons, have indicated they do not wish to be members of the Grand Lodges. This is their right as well. Again, this is not the issue.

The issue is should an elected government official, who is there to serve ALL the people, be a member of any organization that deliberately and by design excludes persons on the basis of race alone?

And should radio talk show hosts be summarily fired for asking the question?

Visit this Masonic website for the complete story--

Libertarian Loretta Nall Answers Debate Questions

The Alabama gubernatorial debate was held last evening. The event was missing the one candidate with the most sensible approach to government, Libertarian Loretta Nall. Nall was barred from the event much in the same manner as she was barred from the ballot. Alabama law favors not only incumbents but the two major parties alone. Thus, the citizens were deprived of the right to hear Nall's views side-by-side with Bob Riley and Lucy Baxley.

Nall has a remedy, however. She has answered the debate questions on her website. She also appeared on a Birmingham radio talk show this afternoon, the Mike Murphy Show, to answer each of the questions posed to Riley and Baxley in the debate.

It is worth taking a look at the candidate's answers. You may do so by visiting:

One of the more appealing aspects of Nall's views has to do with taxes. She would eliminate the sales tax on groceries and prescription and over-the-counter drugs. She would stop the annual reassessment of property for property taxes. The candidate would make up for the shortage in state revenue by implementing a state lottery that would be managed by private enterprise.

It seems to me that this is a step in the right direction in the attempt to put the lid on taxation. It is also a compassionate approach to taxation, relieving the poor and the sick from having to pay taxes on their food and medicine.

Once again, be sure to visit the candidate's website for her full answers to the debate questions.

Kerry Debacle Provides Glimpse Into Attitude of Democrats

Other than showing to the world that he is about three cards shy of a full deck, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) gave us a brief glimpse into the attitude of the Democrat party leadership today. He told a group of students in California to study hard or they'll wind up in Iraq, the meaning of which is clear. Smart students don't join the military. Only the dumb ones get 'stuck in Iraq.'

The good Senator, of course, went to View Nam as a young man, which puts on full display his lack of intelligence (to use the Senator's logic).

Be that as it may, the statement made today by the pride of Massachusetts more importantly displays the real attitude Democrats have toward the military and those who join it. They are simply not too smart. One has to study hard, make good grades, and graduate with honors in order to avoid having to resort to the low-life task of defending the country.

This is in spite of the fact that some of America's brightest youths attend schools such as West Point and that many students who graduate at the top of their class in high school delay their college education in order to spend a few years serving their country.

Kerry's comment set off a firestorm of controversy. Yet Kerry refuses to apologize for the remark. One Democrat congressman stated, 'He is not content with just blowing the 2004 Presidential race. Now he wants to blow the 2006 mid-term elections as well.'

He just might. Even some Democrats are up in arms. Veterans' groups are up in arms. Republicans are up in arms. Service men and woman serving in Iraq are up in arms. Any American who truly loves this country should be up in arms.

The problem with Kerry and his ilk who run the Democrat party goes far beyond a few words uttered in a speech. The problem goes straight to the heart of the Party leadership ever since the Viet Nam war. By embracing people like George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and John Kerry, the Democrats make it clear that their values are far removed from the heartland of America. They really do feel that people who fight in wars are to be viewed with suspicion, not only for their 'lack of intelligence' but for their actions that result in death. Most of the hard-core Democrat party actitivists spout such nonsense as 'It is just as bad for our military be killing people in Iraq as it was for Saddam to kill people.'

That one statement alone makes it abundantly clear that in the view of these ultra left-wing militants our military personnel in Iraq are just as despicable as Saddam, not to mention that it portrays an alarming inability to discern between good and evil.

They would probably support placing our troops on trial before the International World Court of the European Union, which most Democrats support our joining.

This is one of the many reasons why it is imperative that Americans resist putting the Democrats in control of Congress. The underlying mindset that motivates the Party elite is a dangerous one.

Monday, October 30, 2006

Is Baseball a Dying Sport?

Is Major League Baseball on the way out as 'America's Favorite Pass-time?' Some would claim that the sport lost that distinction years ago as the NFL surpassed baseball as the most-watched sport on TV. That may or may not be true. In actuality auto racing draws the largest number of fans in America and has for quite some time. In addition, although the NFL has consistently scored much higher ratings on TV than baseball, no one can deny that in any given year more fans enter the turnstiles at U.S. baseball parks than at football stadiums.

I am not here to argue the point, however. I fear that baseball is a dying sport. This year's World Series between the Detroit Tigers and the St. Louis Cardinals hit a record low in television viewership.

As a baseball purist I could point to a number of precipitating factors that have hurt the sport, such as implementing the Designated Hitter, embarking on an expansion program that lead to over-saturation, the addition of the 'wild card' and an extended play-off series which makes the World Series almost anti-climactic. I do believe that each of these things have hurt rather than helped the sport.

A deeper look reveals some other less obvious factors. Baseball came of age prior to the TV generation. Football on the other hand, at least the NFL variety, came of age at the same time as the advent and growth of television. Football is a sport that tends be more tailor made for TV than baseball, which is most definitely best enjoyed at the ball park.

In addition, baseball has been sorely lacking in leadership at the top, in the Commissioner's office. Today the Commissioner tends to be a pawn of the owners. It was not always so. The last strong, independent advocate for the sport was the late Bartlett Giamanti, the Harvard President who resigned his post in order to devote his life to his passion--baseball. Giamanti died in office almost 20 years ago.

The game itself is deeply embedded in the soul of America. The French writer de Toqueville said, 'If you want to understand America, watch baseball.'

I have been watching all my life. And perhaps herein is the problem. America has changed, and not always for the better. I came of age when baseball players were larger than life heroes who played not for money or fame but for the sheer joy of the game. Sunday afternoons were spent at my Grandfather's house watching 'Yankee Baseball' on CBS with Dizzie Dean and Pee Wee Reese. Those were the years that Mickey Mantle, Whitey Ford, Roger Maris, Joe Peppitone, Bobby Richardson, and Elston Howard graced the diamond, much to the delight of us boys who fancied ourselves as the next baseball stars on the horizon.

Through the years I watched Willie Maize make his famous 'basket-catch,' Steve Carlton pitch his no-hitters, and Carl Yastremski thrill audiences at Fenway Park in Boston.

These baseball giants were by no means perfect, but one had the distinct impression that the talent they possessed was honed by hours and hours of practice rather than artificially induced by some muscle-enhancing drug. The tacit expectation was that they were supposed to be role models to the nation's youth. Whether they were, in fact, roles models or not was not the point. In public they lived into that role.

Today the game suffers from wealth-seekers, dishonest 'athletes' who artificially enhance their performance with substances that mask their under-achievement, and a consortium of owners who make decisions based upon what will bring them the most revenue rather that what's best for the game.

Those periods when players either went on strike or threatened to strike certainly didn't help matters, particularly when you are arguing over 30 million bucks vs. 20 million.

There is still time to save the game. First, confidence in the integrity of the game and its players must be restored. Then, the players must at least give the fans some sign that they play because they love the game rather than to advance to multi-millionaire status. It's ok to make millions if you are good, but just don't throw a tantrum like a 2-year-old if you don't get everything you want. That makes the players look cheap, disingenuous, and petty in the eyes of the fans.

Of course, I would make further changes, such as getting rid of play-offs and going straight to the World Series featuring the two teams that won the most games in their respective leagues.

But even if I don't get that, I would settle for a restoration of the integrity of the game first and foremost.

America needs this sport. It's part of our soul.

Maybe I Won't Get Targeted for This

Halloween is approaching quickly, and I wish to interject a few calm, rational thoughts into the hysteria one often encounters this time of year concerning the dreaded 'night of evil.' Perhaps I won't become a target of Christian hysteria in writing these things.

This morning I was listening to a certain radio program, talk radio in fact, on which the host launched into a two-hour lecture on the 'dark and evil origins' of Halloween, topped off by a plea for Christian churches to avoid even so much as using the term 'Halloween' and to opt instead for a 'Fall Festival' or some other innocuous-sounding name.

I do not particularly wish to use this article as a means by which to discuss the whys and wherefores of good and evil. Such a subject would take all of one's time, effort, and attention for weeks, months, perhaps years on end, and even then the subject would not be adequately covered. Suffice it to say that I do believe that evil exists in the world and that honorable people of faith should fight it.

Wisdom, however, dictates that we choose our battles wisely. I am not convinced Halloween is worth the effort.

When alarmists point out that Halloween had its origin in ancient paganism, the automatic assumption seems to be that any observance of 'Halloween' will result in the inadvertent unleashing of all of the dark forces of evil upon an unsuspecting mankind. It is to be remembered, however, that most of our religious celebrations within the Christian tradition had their origin in paganism as well, and that early Christians proceeded to 'Christianize' those celebrations as soon as they were in a position of power. For example, we borrowed and Christianized many of the symbols that are used at Christmas.

The Church had its way of Christianizing ancient pagan celebrations revolving around Halloween. And thus, with All Saints' Day being celebrated by Christians around the world on November 1, the evening before All Saints was designated as 'All Hallowed Ev'n,' or all hallowed evening. The word 'hallowed' is reserved for God Himself in the Christian tradition, the term being used by Jesus in the Lord's Prayer to refer to the name of God. The concept is that God's name is Holy and is thusly to be revered and hallowed.

All Saint' Day is a most sacred time when the more liturgical bodies of Christianity remember the ones of their number who passed on to their heavenly reward within the past year, as well as those Christian saints through the centuries who have left a heritage of courage and perseverance.

So what am I getting at in all of this? Simply this--evil only gains power over those who allow it. And a simple day on the calendar that was once used by persons of a different faith and culture is no guarantee that having a celebration on that day is an evil endeavor, any more than celebrating the birth of Christ on a day when pagans used a 'Christmas' tree is an invitation for gargoyles and goblins from the spirit world to be unleashed on the planet.

If Halloween is truly 'All Hallowed Evening' in anticipation of All Saints' Day, then how could it be in any way evil?

In this case, evil is in the eye of the beholder. Halloween becomes what we make it, just like anything else. We can use the day to do great harm or we can use it to do something productive, worthwhile, and meaningful, such as remembering the legacy left behind by our forebears.

And so, my wish for you for tomorrow night is that you have a very hallowed evening!

Conspiracy of Silence

I would like to suggest that the mainstream news media, not just in this country but in Western Europe, has engaged in a conspiracy of silence for political purposes. Before you dismiss my assertion as the paranoid blabbering of an alarmist, consider the following:

*Stories about President Bush's monumental success in his policy toward North Korea have been few and far between. Never are the words 'success' and 'North Korea' and 'Bush' mentioned in the same articles or clips. This is in spite of the fact that everyone knows that Clinton was duped, bilateral talks failed, and including the Chinese on any negotiations with North Korea is vital. Where are the stories about this? They are almost non-existent with the exception of a few paragraphs buried somewhere between ads for autos and insurance on page C-12.

*You won't read or hear about the volatile situation in France. It is worse now than when it all started last year. 2,500 cops have been injured since Jan. 1, 2006 in France alone. Muslim Jihadists are setting the streets ablaze and attacking cops. Yet, where are the stories on the front page of the New York Times? How about CBS Evening News' lead story? I will tell you why precious little is being reported. To do so plays right into the hands of President Bush, whom they want to come limping out of the midterm elections. Terrorism is growing all across Europe, not just in France. To acknowledge this is to hamstring Democrats, liberals, and others who wish to capitalize on Bush's perceived failures in Iraq.

*Where is the good economic news? Every single report I have seen or read states,
'Americans are nervous.' Americans are always nervous about their economic future. That is besides the point. Where are the stories on this very strong economy? You won't find them unless they are presented with an obvious anti-Bush bias, complete with dire warnings that although unemployment is as low as we will ever see it, Americans are 'worried it won't last.' Although inflation is way down, Americans are 'worried it may go back up.' Although the stock market has reached record levels, Americans are 'afraid it will crash.' So? This is part of our national psyche. It has nothing to do with the strong economy we now have. But you won't hear this good news reported at face value in the mainstream media.

Now that we have looked at a few examples of what you won't hear, let me tell you what you WILL hear. Michael J. Fox all over the airwaves talking about how Bush is to blame for the lack of stem cell research, for one. Although I can fully sympathize with Fox's plight, the statement he is making is a lie. This administration has funded stem cell research at an unprecedented level. I am sure that neither Fox, nor the DNC, nor the media, want you to know that, except in passing.

You will also read the New York Times endorsing Lamont for the Senate in Connecticut. The Times is deathly afraid of Joe Lieberman winning another term since he has been a vocal advocate for the fight against terrorists. We certainly can't have an Independent Thinker who votes his conscience in office. That would foil the Democrat/George Soros/Bash-America-First/Leftwing Media plan to take over Congress and basically roll over and play dead in the face of terrorism.

Like Jacques Chirac who of late looks like a whipped puppy dog who doesn't know what to do about the massive unrest in France, this gang of the weak and incompetent that wishes to be in control of our government will probably wait until Muslim Jihadist are rioting in OUR streets before they start ringing their hands like Chirac wondering what to do.

Oh, and by the way, it wasn't by accident that the New York Times is running a front-page pictorial today, one week before the election, on soldiers being buried at Arlington.

Has George Soros been meeting with the Times along with the major network news brass?

Sunday, October 29, 2006

C. S. Lewis Revisited

C. S. Lewis is known around the world for three things, all of which have to do with writing. First, he was one of the leading authorities on medieval and renaissance Literature, and his many works on the subject can be found in university libraries across the globe. Second, he was a writer of children's books, the most notable of which is the series known as 'The Chronicles of Narnia.' And third, he is one of the leading authorities in the world on what is known as 'Christian Apologetics,' that discipline within Christianity that is dedicated to making the case for the Christian message in the face of skeptics who doubt its validity.

Although Lewis has received wide acclaim for his critical works in the field of literature and his children's novels, particularly with the recent popularity of the Narnia series, he is perhaps best known for his works in Christian apologetics.

In 1933 Lewis wrote a book entitled, 'The Pilgrim's Regress,' in which he details his own personal pilgrimage to the Christian faith. As a renown Oxford scholar and college professor, Lewis' monumental work shook the academic world which had already succumbed to the deep skepticism that would become rampant across Europe. His subsequent works in apologetics would bring him further acclaim, the most notable being 'Mere Christianity' and 'The Screwtape Letters.'

Prior to his embracing Christianity Lewis was an avowed atheist. Thus, his works tend to have all the greater impact, told from the point of view of one who had been thoroughly convinced that God did not exit yet who came to the conclusion over time that the very faith he had disavowed was the source of ultimate truth. Even his children's works contain theological overtones that arise from Lewis' conviction that the Christian message is the last best hope for humankind.

These works resonated with readers worldwide, as 'The Chronicles of Narnia' alone have sold over 100 million copies.

One of the more intriguing aspects of Lewis' life revolves around his relationship with an American woman, Joy Gresham. Gresham had found Lewis' books to be most enlightening and had written to him expressing her admiration. The two began to correspond, and a strong, trans-Atlantic friendship began to develop. Gresham would later travel to England to spend the Christmas holiday with Lewis and his family. The relationship was purely platonic, the two being very close friends without the complications that arise out of romantic entanglements. The fact that Gresham was married, albeit unhappily, would further preclude any romantic link between the two.

Gresham eventually divorced, and she and her two sons moved to England in the mid-1950s. Although Lewis and Gresham were still only very good friends, when the British immigration service refused to renew Gresham's visa in 1956, Lewis decided to marry her so that she could stay in the country. Being the wife of a British citizen meant that she could not be forced to return to the U.S.

Shortly after the marriage, Gresham was diagnosed with cancer. Doctors gave very little hope for her recovery. It was at this point that Lewis disclosed to Gresham that he had actually been in love with her all along. Thus, the two were married a second time, this time by an Anglican priest at Gresham's bedside in the hospital.

Gresham would recover for a season, long enough for the two to take a honeymoon to Ireland and Wales. However, her cancer eventually returned in 1959, and she died on July 13, 1960.

C. S. Lewis grieved deeply over the loss of his wife. His own health began to fail him shortly after her death, forcing him to leave his post as a professor at Cambridge. Then, on November 22, 1963, Lewis died a quiet death that barely made a ripple in the Press.

Yet, generations of persons all over the world have enjoyed his splendid works which continue to influence the course of lives today.

Of Black Cats and Halloween

It seems that black cats are a no-no this time of year. As Halloween approaches many animal shelters across the country place a moratorium on the adoption of black cats for the fear that they will be used in pranks, or worse, in Satanic rituals.

The Humane Society, however, maintains that despite the good intentions this practice may not be helpful to the black felines at all. Black cats already get a bad rap. Their rate of adoption is below that of other types of cats. And with the difficulty in finding homes for the many black cats that occupy selters, animal activists say that even a temporary halt to adoptions increases the risk that more of the animals will have to be euthanized.

I remember growing up that the black cat was always a symbol used at Halloween, it's image placed on decorations that adorned doors and windows, and used in church socials, carnivals, and so forth. I also remember being told by friends, 'Just hope a black cat doesn't cross your path. It's bad luck.'

I never put much stock in such warnings.

I never saw any difference between black cats and white ones, or calico ones. Some even claim that black cats act differently than others. Probably so. The poor creatures probably sense the attitude and emotion displayed toward them by many misguided humans, and act accordingly.

Wouldn't you? If you were viewed as an object of evil, a symbol of bad luck, or the vessel with which to play dark jokes on people, don't you think you would act a bit differently?

If you are an animal lover, do yourself a favor. Go and adopt a black cat. It's the right thing to do.

But don't forget, you'll have to wait until after Halloween....

Sixpence None the Richer

The band known as 'Sixpence None the Richer' found its way to stardom in the mid-to-late 1990s with two chart-topping hits, one of which was featured on the WB-TV's hit show 'Dawson's Creek'--'There She Goes' and 'Kiss Me.' Videos of these two songs became staples on MTV and VH-1.

Little did many fans realize that this group had its roots in Christian music and was known primarily as a Contemporary Christian band.

The band's popularity in mainstream secular music, however, is shown by the fact that even now one can find numerous articles and fan pages dedicated to the group, a full two years after they disbanded. The group's co-founder and female vocalist, Leigh Nash, recently launched a solo career after taking time off to focus on her family and giving birth to her first child.

In the early 90s group co-founders Leigh Nash and Matt Slocum met at a church retreat. It was then that the concept of a Christian band began taking shape. The name of the group is a tribute to C.S. Lewis, the famed British author and atheist-turned-Christian, who penned the classic Christian apologetic entitled 'Mere Christianity.' A passage in the book uses the term 'sixpence none the richer,' leading Nash and Slocum to conclude this would be the perfect and unique name for their group.

By the time Sixpence None the Richer became a hit band on the national secular stage they already had a sizeable following among fans of Christian Contemporary Music. These fans would be of great support to the group during a couple of troublesome years with recording labels. However, the band was back in full force in 2001 and once again achieved charting action in secular pop.

After a fruitful 10-year run, in 2004 the group disbanded, with Nash stating she needed to focus on raising her family, and Slocum stating he was going to do some traveling and further his education.

Nash returned to the studio and the stage in 2005 as a soloist, releasing her new album entitled 'Blue on Blue.'

Sixpence None the Richer was an exceptionally talented band that many of their fans still miss. Their six CDs are still available for those who may wish to further indulge themselves in a most pleasant musical experience.