The latest clip from Cox and Forkum was too good not to share.

If you did not get the chance to see the commentary last night on the CBS News “Free Speech” segment, you missed a good one. You can click here for the video and complete text of the short (1min) monolog by Brian Rohrbough, the father of a boy killed in the Columbine.

I am surprised that his words have made it onto national television – free speech to the liberal media is a thing to cover radical, left, wing nuts and not Christians. The following is the text of his brief message from the CBS news website:

I’m saddened and shaken by the shooting at an Amish school today, and last week’s school murders.

When my son Dan was murdered on the sidewalk at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, I hoped that would be the last school shooting. Since that day, I’ve tried to answer the question, “Why did this happen?”

This country is in a moral free-fall. For over two generations, the public school system has taught in a moral vacuum, expelling God from the school and from the government, replacing him with evolution, where the strong kill the weak, without moral consequences and life has no inherent value.

We teach there are no absolutes, no right or wrong. And I assure you the murder of innocent children is always wrong, including by abortion. Abortion has diminished the value of children.

Suicide has become an acceptable action and has further emboldened these criminals. And we are seeing an epidemic increase in murder-suicide attacks on our children.

Sadly, our schools are not safe. In fact, we now witness that within our schools. Our children have become a target of terrorists from within the United States.

First, thank you to Brian for speaking up on national television. I find no issue or flaw any thing he said. For the left who criticize him for politicizing school violence I caution against people in glass houses throwing stones.

Anyone in for a laugh, I urge you to read the comments on the CBS news page which contains this story. If it doesn’t speak to the near insanity of the average liberal mentality, I do not know what dose.

Also, a Hat Tip to Anchoress, she hit the nail on the head with a call for a sane dialog with regards to the place of religion in schools.

H/T: The Descerning Texan for finding this one.

I found an interesting article in the Examiner this morning which contrasts the patriotic tendencies of both liberal/democrats and conservative/republicans.

Liberals and Democrats might assert that they are just as patriotic as conservatives and Republicans. But there seems to be a definite divergence in the parties’ intensity of patriotic feelings, regardless of who is president.

Since 1987, the Pew poll has asked respondents to agree or disagree with the statement, “I am very patriotic.” There has been a consistent difference in the degree to which Democrats and Republicans agreed with that statement. In the 2004 poll, 71 percent of Republicans completely agreed but just 48 percent of Democrats did.

What accounts for this difference? I think it goes back to an intrinsic split between how liberals and conservatives view the world.

[…]

If you believe that until we achieve the ideal, you cannot love the country, you will not consider yourself very patriotic. You will also have a very long wait. Your reservations will always outweigh what you love about this country. And liberals are attracted to that view.

Conversely, if you see the faults of this country, but still love it because you recognize that it is the best of the available alternatives, you will be able to answer that question in the affirmative. You will love this country, faults and all, and waving the flag doesn’t reflect your support for a particular president or policy, but for the whole idea of this country. Since conservatives believe it is impossible to reach perfection, they are more likely to love this country despite its faults.

I will restrain myself from comment to much on the attached, though I do think there is some merit to the overall idea, it may be an over simplification of the real situation.

Just some food for thought.

Cross Posted from Stop the ACLU: Hasn’t this politically correct mentality gotten out of control enough? Talk about slippery slope…now kids can’t even celebrate the non-religious traditions of Christmas because it might make someone might associate them with Christmas? This has gotten beyond ridiculous!

For more than a week, Mary Anne Bender helped her 10-year-old daughter learn her Christmas pageant lines and daydream about what costume she’d sew for the after-school play at Windmill Point Elementary.

But on the second day of practice, fifth-grader Kayla Vance was told she can’t play Mrs. Claus in A Penguin Christmas because the principal has axed any mention of the word “Christmas” in holiday festivals.

Criticized last year by a parent who demanded strict separation of church and state issues, Principal Bernadette Floyd has decided instead to take a more generic approach to holidays, school district spokeswoman Janice Karst says.

“It was an unfortunate set of circumstances,” said Karst, noting the school’s music teacher was unaware of Floyd’s policy. “Any reference to a religious holiday has the potential to offend anyone who is not part of that particular persuasion.”

Although Karst said Floyd told her there will be “many opportunities” for Kayla to perform during holidays this school year, Bender said the principal told her there’s not enough time to reschedule a different holiday play or sing-along this winter.

“The only alternatives she told me about are in the spring,” Bender said. “I feel like I have the principal that canceled Christmas.”

Floyd did not return a phone call seeking comment, but Karst said principals across the district have moved away from religious-specific celebrations centered around Christmas and Easter and instead staged “winter wonderlands” and “spring flings.”

Windmill Point parent Heather Cowart, mom to third-grader Logan, said she was upset last year when Logan’s teacher demanded he not bring Santa cupcakes, candy canes or other Christmas-themed treats to a “holiday party.” Even donations of canned goods to the needy had to be wrapped in newspaper, not traditional wrapping paper, Cowart said.

Meanwhile, Parkway Elementary School had a Christmas tree in the front lobby last year, and other schools have enjoyed visits from the jolly old elf himself, the parents said.

“I don’t understand why these secular things are being taken away from our young children,” Cowart said. “Last year Logan got in trouble for saying ‘Christmas’ in class. Is that a bad word now?”

I have gotten several emails talking about sending Christmas cards to the ACLU. I understand the motive behind this, but maybe your money could be better utilized elswhere than to just throw it away on a symbolic gesture that is unlikely to cause any impact. This kind of mentality doesn’t even need the ACLU to push it anymore. It has sunk into the mindset of many schools and in trying to play it safe many over-reach. The Alliance Defense Fund usually send out letters to schools around the Christmas season advising them of their rights, what they can and can’t do legally, etc. Save the money you would waste on a stamp to send the ACLU a Christmas card. Maybe give the money you would have thrown away to a more worthy cause like the Alliance Defense Fund.

I thought I would share this from Jay over at Wizbang – it got a couple of chuckles from me.

Yesterday, the Nobel Prize for Medicine was awarded, and soon the one in Physics should be announced. That reminded me that the last one awarded every year is the Peace Prize, and I started thinking about who might be so honored this year.

The winners, I’ve noticed, tend to fall into three categories: the obscure, the wildly inappropriate, and the politically correct. (I call them the “Who?,” “WHAT?!?!,” and the “Shoulda seen that one coming” categories.) I’ve had a hard time taking the Peace Prize too seriously ever since I saw that the honor roll contains such luminaries as Henry Kissinger, Yassir Arafat, Jimmy Carter, and a whole host of United Nations bureaucrats and bureaucracies, including the office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees, United Nations Peacekeepers, and in 2001, the whole United Nations and Secretary General Kofi Annan in particular.

Instead of getting worked up about this yet again, I thought I’d have a little fun with it instead. Why not try and predict who will get it this year? I have a few nominees I’ll toss out, and invite you folks to critique my choices or make your own.

Abu Moussab Al-Qarqawi, former leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq: For greatly contributing to world peace by dying earlier this year. (Disqualfiied, as recipients must be alive at least long enough to be nominated.)

Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah: For allowing the settlement of the fighting between Hezbollah and Israel in southern Lebanon.

Cindy Sheehan, “Peace Mom”/Mama Moonbat: For her continued efforts to promote peace and understanding, most recently by repeatedly stating publicly her fantasy to go back in time and murder the infant George W. Bush.

George W. Bush, president of the United States: For his efforts to free millions of Muslims from brutal, repressive tyrannies.

Kim Jong-Il, dictator of North Korea: For helping such historical rivals as China, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and numerous other nations a reason to look past their animosities and cooperate.

Mohammed Bouyeri, murderer of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh: For his efforts in fighting criticism of Islam, sending a message to those who dislike the faith to keep their silence, instead of foolishly and recklessly provoking Muslims much like the Danish cartoonists who dared make depictions of Mohammed.

OK, that’s my list. Who do you think ought to be honored this year?