The Gospel Truth

The Idea of A Conspiracy

February 26, 2010
Leave a Comment

I am so tired of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and many others whom I respect and listen to with a modicum of regularity disparage the idea of a conspiracy.

It might be that none of the aforementioned ever graduated from college and have little feel for the dedicated study of history but like the intellectual elite they disdain so much, their way of thinking is virtually identical.

It is my view that one cannot even read history without admitting the existence of malevolent forces that are intent of destroying the good that millions of men and women accomplish in their lives.

History to me is a bright and sordid reflection of man’s human nature in action.

Conspiracy is at the heart and soul of life, liberty and the pursuit of individual happiness.  It is the focal point of all of our serious political, economic and moral debates in this country.

It is not something that should be casually denied but an idea that should be seriously explored.

As a history student in the sixties, and seventies I was often tempted to look for sinister combinations of like-minded individuals, bent on controlling future events.

My professors held that rational people, especially historians, never fell victim to such wayward and unconventional thinking.

However I couldn’t resist the temptation because I could easily see the persistent collision course of ideas of the City of God, versus the ideas of the City of Man, played out in the pages of history.

Conspiracy theorists have recognized this historical dichotomy as the ideas of the Enlightenment, liberalism, modernism, and neo-paganism, versus the forces of tradition, morality, and religion.

It is what Pat Buchanan called the culture war in 1992 at the Republican National Convention in Houston and or what Pope John Paul II called the culture of death vs. a culture of life later that decade.

Irish priest, Father Denis Fahey’s underscored this idea in his 1935 book, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, when he wrote that modern world history can be best understood as a cosmic struggle between forces of spiritual truth, and the forces of materialism and subversion. It is a truism that these opposing forces are irreconcilable.

I made this the theme of my book, The Scorpion and the Frog: A Natural Conspiracy because it underscores the fact that the conspiracy idea is as vital to the study of history as politics, economics or psychology.

Because of man’s fallen human nature, I believe it is the engine that drives history.

A unified conspiracy idea, fueled by a curious mixture of greed, idealism, utopian arrogance, selfishness, and megalomania is a natural phenomenon that serves as a “Rosette Stone” to explain the historical duality of good versus evil that has plagued mankind for millennia.

These are all human consequences of man’s rejection of God in the Book of Genesis.   A true understanding of history is impossible without it.

The idea of universal brotherhood lies at its core.  It strives to achieve its worldly goal of global unity, the so-called New World Order since the beginning of recorded time.

It strives not just to change the world, but change human nature as well.  It denies God, the fall of man, sin, Revelation, and the redemptive cross and the promise of eternal life with the Judeo-Christian God.

The evolution of the conspiracy idea dates back to Gnosticism.  Since then it has evolved into other manifestations, preserved and advanced through its worthy gatekeepers, the ever-mysterious Knights Templar, the Illuminati, the Freemasons, Communists, Socialists, Progressives, and finally liberals, who are all involved in the New World Order.  Maybe Beck would agree with me here!

No matter what they have called it, it is the same idea of elite man calling himself to his full divinity and suzerainty over the entire human race.

It is the same human failing that has motivated powerful men since the time of Alexander the Great, through the modern tyrants of Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.  I call this “conspiracy,” even though it has been called many other things.

The conspiracy idea of history contains all the elements that illuminate the deep-seated battle for the soul of mankind that has characterized history for millennia.

Conspiracy is more than an idea.  It is a philosophy, a veritable way of life that permeates the very fibers of its advocates’ being.

In this respect is a natural conspiracy that causes a knee-jerk reaction in its apostles to every issue of good and evil, just as any doctor’s hammer would.

It is an inexorably part of the fabric of mankind that many have chosen to enslave their fellow human beings without even being conscious of their complicity.

It is truly as the allegorical scorpion said to the dazed frog just after he fatally stung him in the neck in the middle of the swollen river, I did it because it’s in me nature!

Is Liberalism a Mental Illness? Part II

February 15, 2010

So back to my original point!  Is liberalism a mental illness?  Funny thing in the late 19th century religious liberalism was considered a sin.

Father Felix Sarda Y Salvany wrote a book with that title. His focus was more on a critique of the mistaken notion that one religion is as good as another–what I call the Spiro Agnew theory of life and slums-you seen one—you’ve seen them all! I think today they call that religious indifferentism today.

His book defined liberalism as the dogmatic affirmation of the absolute independence of the individual… This sounds a lot like Existentialism and the empty substance of the pro-choice rhetoric of the last 40 years.  I would certainly agree that this is a serious sin.

Go back and read what some of the exchanges were on the Erstwhile Conservative and I think you might see what he meant.

Father Salvany also found that liberalism as such was irreconcilable with Catholicism. This could be what Pope Paul VI called the smoke of Satan.

Today liberals and many other others have denied the concept of sin…so we are back to the psychiatrist’s couch again.

Personally I believe that most people who think they are liberals or call themselves liberal don’t really understand the full meaning or the historical context of the word and are probably not part of this discussion.

The only way to find out is to  weigh your thinking against what is written here.

But for the doctrinaire liberal who places his or her faith in the never-ending progressive edict of the French Enlightenment, I believe that maybe they should think about consulting a mental health professional.

I say this because of my original definition of insanity that is expecting a different result for the same kind of thinking.

For generations, the Young Communist League, Marx and Engels and their 1848 Manifesto, socialists, progressives and now liberal have promised the world to the workers, the poor—all disenfranchised groups.

They have promised that there would be peace, fraternity and brotherhood and they have failed…dismally failed.

Joseph Sobran said Communism is “liberalism in a hurry”–a kind of  “frog in the pot” type of social engineering that seeks the same sort of social order as communism, that is a secularist, materialist society in which power is centralized and the state controls economic life.

All of these ideologies are destructive of human freedom and morality and are derivatives of the same misanthropic school of revolution that was hatched in Paris and the lodges of France in the late 18th century.

What has 18th century France given us?  Nearly 300 years of revolution!  It has overturned the basic pillars of society with its relentless attacks on the family, the church and private property.

And for what?

A heaven on earth—a kind of utopia where peace and universal brotherhood will reign for eternity!  And these are the same folks who condemn Christians for their pie in the sky nonsense?

Contrary to all their lip service about “choice” I thinks liberals are against human freedom.  To a real liberal all the banter at the EC blogsite about free will was basically just that- banter.

I don’t think liberals believe in free will.  They deny sin and even evil…with the exception of anything that a conservative says or does.  To a liberal they are the personification of evil.  Just listen to the histrionics of Keith Olbermann sometime.

To a liberal people are victims of their genes, their environment, hormones—you name it—no one seems to be responsibility for anything except Obama’s demon of the week.

Their idea of choice is a big joke and the joke has been on women for nearly 40 years now.  Abortion was “invented” for men, by men and for the pleasure of men.


Personally I think many, many women are forced into killing their unborn babies in what I call “shot gun abortions.”

Their free will probably has little to do with their “choice.”  I wonder why the liberals are not up in arms about this.

Must be the hypocrisy of their thinking because their entire movement is founded on a lie and perpetuated by lies.

10,000 women victims of back alley abortions?  Remember that canard.  No one challenged that number!

Where did they get it?  They simply made it up!

With the invention of penicillin the numbers in the 1950s were in the low hundreds–important to those women but still not the grossly exaggerated number of the ideologues.

Bernard Nathanson, the erstwhile atheist-abortionist, who later became a Catholic performed–or what is the term—, provided over 75,000 abortions in the early 1970s in New York where abortion was perfectly legal.  He was there at the foundation of NARAL, which started using that hyperbolic figure before 1973.

Back alley abortions?  About 90% of them were performed in clinics, hospitals etc. ..probably by the same doctors who would become the next abortion providers after Roe.

Their kind of thinking is all about change. Not just a change in the political regime but a change in human nature.

I used a quote from Hillary Clinton in my 1999 book, Liberalism: Fatal Consequences, where the current Secretary of State said we are not interested in social reconstruction—it’s human reconstruction.

Mrs. Clinton and her gang of ideologues want to change, not so much the way we live but the way we are…that is our natural instinct to want to make our own choices, to use our free will in line with God’s commandments and the natural law.

Ideologues, like Mrs. Clinton think they can mold people into the docile robots that she envisions that will be able to affect her utopian dreams on earth where there is no poverty, illness, war, disease or maybe even no death.

It will be a Marxist’s dream, the enlighten heaven on earth without God, sin, morality, or evil.  They will have created man in their own image and likeness.

And when the people resist this unnatural “change” that’s when unrestrained force becomes the order of the day.  This has been the case in every utopian society from Robespierre and Danton to Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Castro.

It is all a pipe dream—a pie on earth kind of dream that has substituted utopian fantasies for reality.

The legacy of the French Revolution with its trinity of virtues–Liberty, Fraternity and Equality has not given us universal peace or freedom from want.  To the contrary it has left a pernicious legacy of  the guillotine, the gulag and the abortion mill.

Their ideas are all madness and by inference I think the case can be made that liberal ideologues are mentally ill.

Blogger’s Note: On Saturday evening, March 6th between 7-9 PM, First Run Theater will present Bill Borst’s new one-act play, A MOMENT OF GRACE as part of its annual audition readings at DeSmet High School’s Thomas Hunter Theater.

It is a prolife play that centers on a random meeting in a faulty elevator where the issues of life, death and suicide are exhaustively explored.

Local professional actors Kevin Beyer and Michelle (Borst) Hand will read the parts    Admission is free.

Is Liberalism A Mental Illness? Part I

February 11, 2010
1 Comment

The above title is a staple attention-getter I often use more in jest than anything serious.  My quick draw addition to a recent blog response to the Erstwhile Conservative prompted a hit a serious nerve, an end-of-debate kind of response that made me consider the gravity of such a charge.

Now I am not a doctor, let alone a psychiatrist. I haven’t stayed at a Holiday Inn in over 35 years, so I do not pretend to know or understand anything much about mental illness.

I seem to get in trouble every time I try to use such terminology in my writings.  For example in an article for the St. Louis Review a year or two ago, I used the term spilt personality with regards to the Catholic Church and Vatican II in the early 1960s.  I got a few hostile comments as to my equating it with schizophrenia.

I do have three History degrees and have taken a couple courses on philosophy and psychology.  I do know that mental illness is intimately tied to reality and the perception of reality.

In my opinion those perennially optimistic or pessimistic people are borderline people who are susceptible to going over the edge when it comes to reality.

My glass is neither half full or half empty.  The reality is that it is at 50% of its capacity.  If I am thirsty than it is half empty.  If I am near the satiation point–well you get my drift.  It is a subjective decision that should be made where all such choices present themselves.

Insanity has been described as trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.  This is a sign of a mind that has a very weak perception of reality and could lead to a complete divorce from the real world.

Now as for liberalism as a way of thinking or even as a way of life let me first add that in real terms both liberal and conservative are basically meaningless terms.

I use them only because it takes too long to explain the changes that history and current events has enacted on their original meanings.

Liberalism has had a number of different meanings since the 19th century when it was mostly used in reference to economics.  My astute late roommate at Holy Cross told me that Barry Goldwater, the avatar of 20th century conservativism was a 19th century economic liberal.

Based on the word for “free” it heralded the virtues of laissez faire or government “hands off.”  That is a very good description of what the Ron Paul kind of conservatives want and maybe even Sarah Palin.

Political liberals today with the sole exception of abortion, want as much control as they can get by hook or by crook.  Big Government is their means to affect a social and economic revolution that wishes to concentrate power in their hands in perpetuity.

Members of the court have been citing it for years now as precedent, implying that its tenets can never be changed.  I think that makes them conservative in that regard.

People, who oppose this blight on the nation’s conscience that has far surpassed the Dred Scott decision in its entrenchment of man’s inhumanity to members of the human species, cannot be called conservative—perhaps moral traditionalists is a better nomenclature.

Those who want to conserve this alleged right do so in the name of progress, not tradition.  They want their reforms to be the orthodoxy of the present and future.

When I was in college, I visited a friend in Virginia.  He gave me a great tour of the nation’s Capitol.  On the way out of the Senate building, I bumped into a Catholic priest.  I don’t even remember how that happened or where he was from but in the course of our brief conversation, he gave me a motto, which I carried around proudly for several years.

My attendance at the Cross worked itself in the conversation somehow…it always does even this day…and I told him how I have heard lectures by Barry Goldwater and Father Hans Kung, the erstwhile German theology professor.

My enthusiasm for both speakers prompted him to say, “Oh you must be conservative in politics and liberal in religion.”

I thought for a second and then nodded in polite assent.  That’s what I was and tried to be until I started to understand the painful realities of Vatican II and Kung’s heterodox positions on a number of issues.

Conservatives are very good on precedents when it comes to law.  Roe v. Wade has been regrettably the law of the land since 1973.

As the abortion debate heated up for me in the mid 1980s I realized that it was impossible to have a bifurcated approach to issues from both perspectives.  That’s where the schizophrenia I mentioned early started to breed its toxic cells.

There had to be a consistent strain of thought that saw things through the prism of reality based on reason. With that I will leave yet begging for an answer to my original question:

Is Liberalism a Mental Illness?

Blogger’s Note: On Saturday evening March 6th between 7-9 PM, First Run Theater will present Bill Borst’s new one-act play, A MOMENT OF GRACE as part of its annual audition readings at DeSmet High School’s Thomas Hunter Theater.

It is a prolife play that centers on a random meeting in a faulty elevator where the issues of life, death and suicide are exhaustively explored.

Local professional actors Kevin Beyer and Michelle (Borst) Hand will read the parts    Admission is free.

Free Will: The Battle of the Blogs

February 8, 2010

The Only Choice!

To anyone who has been following my series of exchanges with Duane Graham, of the Erstwhile Conservative, the key issue that we have been sparing on is abortion, especially with regard to free will.

During our early exchanges, I told him my belief on free will: free will is a faculty of our human nature but that doesn’t mean it is sacred or holy.  Like all gifts from God, the ability to reproduce, think, run etc, they can be used for His greater glory or to enhance our own ego.  The choice is ours.  Just because it comes from God does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that all exercise of it are sacred as well.

Our blog debate really took off when he said that God was Pro-choice.  I have heard that canard before but never encountered anyone who wanted to try to logically prove it. As this fallen-away conservative–was he mugged by a banker–wrote:

It appears to me that God values our capacity to make free choices above all else. He made us free moral agents, which has to say something about what he thinks about free moral agency, correct?

I mean, surely you wouldn’t argue with the logic that we can know something about what God values by the choice He made in creating us and giving us free will, would you? No, of course not, because that is exactly the point you made about the morality of choices as opposed to the “indifferent” and “existential act” of choice itself.

So, now that we have agreed that God’s decision to let us decide for ourselves what is right and wrong is a reflection of his preference for “choice,” we can then move on to just how we, as civilized folks, decide how to proscribe the choices of members of our civilization to preserve our society. That, of course, is a complicated issue, but at bottom it involves a collective decision as to just what is “right” and just what is “wrong.”

Originally I almost missed this little example of advanced legerdemain. As I retorted:  God is evil because He gave us free will?  He is pro-choice since he gave free will–the choice to do evil…on the surface he might sound like that to you but the definition of pro-choice tries to take morality and goodness out of it.  I think it is obvious which side of the choice God and his followers favor.

The metaphor of Eden was you have free will but there will be serious consequences if you eat the apple.  That doesn’t sound like I am personally opposed but you can choose to do what you want.

Graham’s ideas seem to parallel those of the mentally lapsed Catholic, Nancy Pelosi, the current Speaker of the House.  I shutter every time she exercises her vocal cords.

Pelosi and Graham believe that their God-given right of a free will, which is probably the highest power that distinguishes us from the lower class of animals, buttresses every choice they make, elevating in to sacred heights.  It sounds like a power rivaling the divine right of kings that eventually drove Europe to centuries of strife and bloody revolution.

As Graham answered me on his own blog God freely chose to create us with choice-making abilities at least similar to his own. Therefore, I am entitled to believe (if I accept Christian theology at face value), that such a “gift” is sacred.

You rightly say that the exercise of such free choice is not in itself sacred. Hammers are sacred and using them to build houses is also sacred. But using them to beat sense into Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity is not, no matter how much I may wish it were.

I really don’t know why liberals or libertarians  have to use violent examples to get their point across…and they accuse conservatives of extolling “hate,” but that’s a matter for the couch or the confessional.

As I replied I seriously doubt that God is indifferent or neutral on “choice.”  Sure he gave us choice but He means it in a different context of what pro-choicers mean it…unless you want to be cynical and accept the belief that most pro-choice people actually favor the abortion choice over that of life…making their position of the opposite of God’s…for too many different reasons than I can enumerate here.

A Show of Freedom

My blog battle neatly segues into my attendance with my #1 son, Mark at the Glenn Beck Show Friday night at the Chaifetz Center on the St. Louis University campus. A group called the Constitutional Coalition, which had a number of educational events going on around the city last weekend, sponsored beck’s appearance.

There was a lot of flag-waving, loud applause for everything from the convocation, pledge of allegiance to the singing of the national anthem…traditions that seem to be as lacking in the White House as Christmas was this past year.  They did everything you would expect, except pass pitchers of tea around the aisles.

Michelle Bachmann, the lovely Congresswoman from Minnesota warmed up a crowd that was already on fire with anticipation.  Glenn Beck is the hottest thing to hit conservatism since Rush Limbaugh first opened his mouth in the late 1980s.

Beck was magnificent and in his strongest element. He used the stage like a Shakespeare actor entranced in a dramatic soliloquy about the meaning of our country and the direction it has taken, replete with the elements of a profound tragedy as he tearfully got down on his needs and extolled the right to fail.

Beck is first of all an excellent teacher who uses his rostrum as a bully pulpit to preach his gospel of Trinitarian American values–life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which Bachmann had reminded everyone was originally supposed to be “property.”  These are the basic rights of every human being who is conceived in the world.  Only America’s vaunted experiment in liberty has been able to make them the centerpiece of its national mystique.

And for that reason Marxists have targeted them, or what Glenn calls “progressives” who have used evolutionary powers, instead of pure Marxists’ revolutionary powers.  (Think the frog in the boiling water!) They hate the freedom of our system because it infringes on their power quest.

At the Coalition luncheon on Friday they played Michael Moore’s screed on capitalism, where he was quoted as saying that you couldn’t regulate capitalism because you can’t regulate evil. So to the left free choice or free will is evil and has to be eliminated from human nature.  This is the essence of liberalism or its own alias–progressivism.

Right now we are laboring under the most anti-business administration since FDR’s 2nd term. It is wonder businesses are fleeing this country because the people in power literally hate capitalism and will do anything and everything to undermine it.

The left seems highly conflicted on choice.  When it includes anything other than slaughtering millions of innocents in the womb, they are opposed to it–think school choice, freedom of assembly etc. This is a far cry from Graham’s belief that free will is sacred.  I have always contended that liberalism is a mental illness.  Maybe this is proof of it.

A Political Football Part II

February 3, 2010

I hope CBS lives up to its promise and does not go wobbly on the Tebows because of the vicious attacks from Planned Parenthood extremists.  I do not see the harm of letting Tim’s mother Pam share her personal experience and demonstrates the courage it took to choose life and sacrifice over choice and expediency.

The Pro-abortion crowd is having conniptions over one thankful athlete for his mother’s positive choice.  Let’s face it all choices are not equal.

Those who choose abortion over life are making a choice for their better interests while Tim’s mother was willing to sacrifice her health, maybe even her life for her unborn child.

Why can’t they advertise this kind of courage at the Super Bowl?  What kind of people could be opposed to Pam Tebow’s heroism?

It is the left who have turned morality into a political football.  It is they who have politicized the family, sex and the womb.  It is they who try to censor the positive reflections of an outstanding son and love for his mother.

But then again true motherhood is the enemy of “choice.”

I think true pro-choice people, who value the choice no matter what is chosen should applaud the Tebows, especially since many say they are uncomfortable with the abortion choice.

The morality of choice–any choice is not the existential act itself but the means chosen to make one’s choice.

They should want this ad to appear…but the reality of it her choice demonstrates what they are really about-the elimination of a living, human being.

And I’m not agreeing with Monday’s editorial in the New York Times–some choices should NEVER be exercised…and this is one of them.

Tim Tebow’s birth is in their analysis is a terrible defeat.  They condemn his mother for having the temerity of choosing life over what they are selling.

As my old friend, Joe Sobran recently wrote about this issue, having one’s own unborn child destroyed is now among the sacred rights of women. Deny it if you dare!

It has turned us inward…yet we get all emotionally about children being buried alive in Haiti yet we casually accept abortion as a constitutional right.  Somethings does not compute in the American psyche.

No wonder so many people need pills to sleep and the couch to ask for validation.

Maybe you might think that this kind of ad doesn’t belong on during a game that has become almost a religious rite of its own.

You may be right…but if the pro-abortion crowd had not said anything, I think most Americans will applaud a woman who would not allow her child to die because she had a medical problem.

They would have had the same response had Mrs. Tebow rushed into a burning building to save her son.

If her positive choice makes them feel bad about themselves–all I can say that was their choice.

That is the dark side of choice–the remorse the guilt that Planned Parenthood denies…until they can cash their checks.

The Coach

Then there is Rick Majerus, the St. Louis University basketball coach.  The Jesuit-educated, Majerus has been a long-time success on the court…and I applaud him for that success.

However in the last two years he has offered his “expert” opinion on abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

His inane commentary on these vital issues makes me wonder how he has won any game on the court–maybe he just had good players.

He says he is for a woman’s choice but does not understand what that choice really means— maybe he sould meet Tim’s mom…or more importantly–Tim!

He says that embryonic stem cell research means hope…No it doesn’t!  Not a single “cure” has been attributed to embryonic stem cell research while adult stem cell research, which does not sacrifice a “human being”, has been successful in combating dozens and dozens of diseases.

All the ESCR has is its hope— sounding more like a recycled Obama campaign ad…filled with the sound and fury but really signified nothing.

Every time the coach says something on these subjects, he makes a fool of himself.  I think his comments are a poor reflection on his Jesuit education and the school that now pays him–not to preach his morality but basketball.

Maybe we could start a rumor that he learned to think in a publ;ic school.

After telling us how highly he valued freedom because of the sacrifices of his uncles who risked their lives in WW II and the civil rights activities of Martin Luther King, he takes a non sequitur turn–I guess that’s a left turn— and implies that this gives him and every red-blooded woman on earth the freedom  to do whatever they want. Go figure!

I guess that means they can drive drunk, rob a grocery store or jump off a bridge if they so chose.

I have twice as much Jesuit education as the coach and I can tell you they don’t teach such faulty reasoning in Logic class.  Maybe he was sick that semester or traveling with the basketball team.

The Linebacker

Then there is the case of Scott Fujita, a linebacker for the Saints.  He has been speaking his mind, about issues, apparently he hasn’t thought a lot about.

It seems that the NFL rejected an another ad for ManCrunch, a gay dating service.  He has no problem with gays or their ad.

Fujita appreciates the focus on the family that the Tebows’ ad provides.  But he had a problem with their means of doing so.  The ad?

As an adopted son after his single teen mother gave him up because she did not have the means to support him, he is very thankful that she had the couraage and support system to carry out the pregnancy.

What he means he’s glad that she didn’t kill him.

But as a pro-choice man he would not expect that of everybody.

I really don’t understand how someone can be so detached from a discussion of his near-death experience.

He must have had the same Logic class that the coach did.  Is that really the kind of choice society should let its members make?

So while I applaud the efforts of the quarterback and deplore the illogical musings of the coach and the linebacker, I really wish we can just get back to the games without all the politics being interjected into the box score.

As Yogi said why can’t they just let us watch the game!

About author

After graduating from Holy Cross, Bill Borst earned an MA in Asian History from St. John's University and a Ph.D in American History from St. Louis University. (1972) A former New Yorker, he taught for many years in the St. Louis area, while also hosting a weekly radio show on WGNU from 1984-2006. He currently is a regular substitute for conservative Phyllis Schlafly on KSIV radio. (1320) He is the author of two books on social history, "Liberalism: Fatal Consequences," and "The Scorpion and the Frog: A Natural Conspiracy." He just retired as the Features editor of the Mindszenty Foundation Monthly Report. In his 11 years from 2003-2013 he wrote nearly 130 essays on Catholic culture and world affairs. Many in St. Louis also know him as the "Baseball Professor," because of a course that he offered at Maryville College from 1973-74. It was arguably the first fully-accredited baseball history course in the Midwest.The author of several short books on the old St. Louis Browns, he started the St. Louis Browns Historical Society in 1984. In 2009 his first two plays were produced on the local stage. "The Last Memory of an Ol' Brownie Fan," ran six performances at the Sound Stage in Crestwood and "A Perfect Choice" ran for two performances at the Rigali Center Theater in Shrewsberry. His third play, "A Moment of Grace," ran six performances at DeSmet High School in January of 2011with First Run Theater in January of 2011. He is currently working on a 4th play, "A Family Way," which is a comedy about a happy dysfunctional family. He can reached at