The Gospel Truth

A King, Bishops and Sacrificial Pawns

February 10, 2012

Religion and Barack Obama seem like polar opposites.

It is my contention that President Obama’s life, career and religious beliefs are, not only enigmatic but virtually opaque.

What do we really know about him?

Over the last three+ public years, we have found him to be thin-skinned–Governor Brewer of Arizona revealed that.

Image Detail

He got what he asked for

He is petulant, lacks patience when challenged and is haughty to a fault.

What do we know about his religious faith?

He has been to a real church just a handful of times.

And on those occasions it was a radical black church way out of touch with the American ethos.

His 20-years of faithful attendance at the church of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright with gospel of black liberation is enough proof of that.

At the recent National Prayer Breakfast, the president let a few more cats out of his secret bag of tricks and innuendos.

He said that he prays every night.

I am wondering if when prays, he is looking out the East Wing, while kneeling on a small rug.

Image Detail

The president tells how he prays

He probably used more Biblical quotes in that one speech than he has during his presidency.

In most of them he twisted the meaning to suit his political ideology.

For example–he stated that we are our brothers’ keepers, an oblique reference to Cain’s snide remark, when questioned after he slew his brother Abel.

If so then let the individual American keep his brother.

Let him give to the charities of his choice.

Well in Obama’s world, this is not a requirement for the individual.

Where was the government when Abel needed him?

It is the collective responsibility of the entire country to keep our brothers.

What he really means is that as the president of the United States, he has the power and the religious duty to confiscate the wealth of our nation and give it to whomever he deems as “our” brother.

I guess that like the right to abortion, this presidential duty lies in the penumbra of the general welfare clause.

He also said to whom much is given, much is expected.

I have always thought this is a fair and reasonable demand that God has put on those He has blessed.

It is incumbent on us as individuals or in voluntary unity with our friends and business associates to seek out the honest poor, the needy, and any one who cannot help themselves.

The St. Vincent DePaul Society is founded on this principle.

Image Detail

Had the right idea

But again the president is not only interested in confiscating our wealth, he wants to snatch our possible moments of grace for adhering to this gospel imperative.

Religion to him seems like nothing more than another weapon in his arsenal of divide and conquer.

We learned during the early years of his perennial campaign what he thought of people who clung to their religion.

Take the Catholic Church for instance.

While he caters to the Catholic vote, and has the loyal support of several nominal Catholics, such as his current vice-president, Joe Biden and former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, his continued attacks on Catholic beliefs and now the Church itself is audacious.

I guess first he took our hope and now we must endure his audacity.

This is so because in 2008 54% of the Catholic population, including an undetermined number of bishops, priests and nuns voted for him, despite his pr-abortion proclivities.

His 2009 visit to Notre Dame underscored how much and far a wedge he has driven in the Catholic membership.

Now class just do as I say!

Now her has taken on the American hierarchy with his unyielding stance on the lack of a conscience rights clause in his Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

It seems that within the bill’s 2300 pages that no one had the time to read, nor discuss when it was passed in 2010, there were mandates forcing all Catholic and religious institutions in the health care industry to pay for contraceptives, many of which are abortifacients, and sterilization–all of which are in violation of Catholic teachings.

The Church now has until 2013 to comply with the law or else face the consequences, which could be paralyzing fines, lawsuits and the virtual elimination of viable religion from the health care industry.

This is precisely their long-range goal in my opinion.

Freedom of religion has quickly changed under Obama into freedom from religion.

What is the church to do?

For the first time in eons the Catholic leadership seems intent on fighting back and even biting the hand that has been feeding its social programs for decades.

They have finally realized that all of their coziness with the Obama government, their initial qualified support of the Health Care Bill and their acceptances of millions in taxpayer dollars has long and binding strings on it.

But of course many conservatives warned them.

Many years ago I questioned the wife of a prominent local conservative about her crusade for School Choice.

I correctly suggested that it might not be worth it to our schools because this kind of money always has strings.

Image Detail

The Church after government funding

She resented my comment and questioned my Catholic faith…as if School Choice is Catholic doctrine.

Two of the liberal Catholics in my Men’s Bible Study have reached the tipping point–according to one of them (from what to what?)

This is serious when the liberals in my church finally feel their ox–personal freedom being gored.

I sat there in astonishment as they sounded…well…just like me.

In groups such as this I am usually, though not always, the loud voice crying in the wilderness.

I can’t wait for Catholic liberals–note the deliberate distinction above–to shout separation of state, their tired and worn mantra that is nothing more than verbal symbol they drag out everytime the Catholics and evangelicals try to fight back.

Obama’s rant at the prayer breakfast was nothing more than a deliberate melding to the point of obscuring the separation and distinction of government and religion.

While the enthusiasm is running high–the Archbishop of St. Louis issued a forceful letter on this issue that had to be read from the pulpit during each Mass last weekend, I question how deep is their outrage.

What I fear is that at the last-minute Obama will take back his threats–offer the Catholic Church a peace pipe of hope and an exemption from the teeth of his law.

Image Detail

A premature celebration?

Of course there will be a time limit on the exemption.

The bishops will celebrate victory in October and hordes of naive Catholics will vote for his re-election en mass and then suffer the reality of his disingenuous lies after November.

What they don’t seem to understand is according to the Wall Street Journal, is that the HHS diktat isn’t something unique to President Obama.  

What is really offensive is the political essence of government-run medicine.

When politicians determine who can and who cannot receive benefits, as well as who pays for the nation’s medical care, government will have absolute power over every American’s life from cradle to grave.

They can use it for their own political expediency and as Obama has already demonstrated the American public will be damned!

The Bishops have gotten themselves into a high stakes game of chess with an untrustworthy King with most of its members serving as sacrificial pawns.

Our Catholic leaders remind me of the Peanuts cartoon, and the saintly Charlie Brown with the facsimile crown of thorns on his sweater.

Obama is Lucy, which is short for…maybe I had better not go there….yet.

Lucy always asks Charlie to kick the football she has teed up.

Image Detail

A metaphor for the Catholic Church?

He always does and she always pulls it away at the last-minute.

He never learns.

Can Catholics leaders and their docile pawns?

If not it’s checkmate!

In the Shadows of Roe

January 12, 2012

Worse than Pearl Harbor, January 22, 1973 is a day that has lived in infamy for 39 years.

With the 39th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that effectively established the alleged unlimited right to an abortion through all nine months of a woman’s pregnancy, it is fitting to explore some of the basic components of that decision so that we may be able to explain, convince and change the hearts and minds of many who tend toward the choice side of the equation.

I Roe v. Wade— the Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state’s two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the woman’s health.

Saying that these state interests become stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the woman’s current trimester of pregnancy

Image Detail

She just wants to live like everyone else

(This was never actually the case and the subsequent history of the decision exposed its faulty premise.)  

II Penumbra—One of the most important aspects of the Roe decision was the way it stretched the Justices’ logic beyond all creditable belief.   The opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, declares that abortion is a “fundamental right” under the U.S. Constitution and substantive due process under the 14th Amendment.

Writing for the 7-2 Court, Justice Blackmun found this is a fundamental right under the “penumbra” of the right to privacy.

Nowhere in the amendment does the word abortion or anything akin to it appear.

Blackmun said he “discovered” this inalienable right to terminate a pregnancy is in the penumbra of privacy rights protected by substantive due process.

Image Detail

50 million have died in the shadows of Roe

What or where is the penumbra that jeopardized the lives of virtually every unwanted unborn child in America?

It resides in the darkest shadows that Justice Blackmun saw emanating from the 14th amendment.

In other words, he created a “right” for all women that has served as a death sentence for over 50 million unborn babies since 1973.

As a result the unborn have as many rights as Nazi German’s Untermenschen and the ante-bellum South’s black chattel had. 

III Norma McCorvey— In June 1969, Norma L. McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child.

She returned to Dallas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped, as she could then obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas‘ anti-abortion laws allowed abortion in the cases of rape and incest).

However, this scheme failed, as there was no police report documenting the false rape.

She told Congress in 1998 after she had joined the prolife movement that it was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the “right” to abortion out of legal thin air.

Image Detail

Another woman duped by the radical feminists

But her lawyers Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told McCorvey that what she had signed would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions.

Weddington never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control either.

McCorvey’s daughter was born well before the decision was ever decided. 

IV Doe v. Bolton— Doe was decided on the same day as Roe.

In a very real sense it is more important that the much-more well-known Roe decision.

The Georgia law in question permitted abortion only in cases of rape, severe fetal deformity, or the possibility of severe or fatal injury to the mother.

Other restrictions included the requirement that the procedure be approved in writing by three physicians and by a special committee of the staff of the hospital where the abortion was to be performed.

In addition, only Georgia residents could receive abortions under this statutory scheme: non-residents could not have an abortion in Georgia under any circumstances.

The plaintiff, a pregnant woman who was given the pseudonym “Mary Doe” in court papers to protect her identity, sued Arthur K. Bolton, then the Attorney General of Georgia, as the official responsible for enforcing the law.

The anonymous plaintiff has since been identified as Sandra Cano, a 22-year-old mother of three who was nine weeks pregnant at the time the lawsuit was filed. Cano, like McCorvey joined the prolife side of the aisle.

More important than Roe

She loudly complained that her attorney, Margie Pitts Hames, lied to her in order to have a plaintiff. Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman could obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health.

The Court defined health as follows:

Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, ‘an abortion is necessary’ is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. This is effect, over-rode Roe’s trimester limitations right up until the exact moment of the child’s birth.

Practically this meant for whatever reason the woman determined.

V Right to Choose— The person who created this slogan should be in the Abortion Hall of Fame.

Abortion-rights advocates have persuasively argued that whether or not to continue with a pregnancy is an inviolable personal choice, as it involves a woman’s body, personal health, and future.

They believe that both parents’ and children’s lives are better when abortions are legal, thus preventing women from going to desperate lengths to obtain illegal abortions.

More broadly, abortion-rights advocates frame their beliefs in terms of individual liberty, reproductive freedom, and reproductive rights.

Abortion-rights individuals rarely consider themselves “pro-abortion,” because they consider abortion an issue of bodily autonomy, and find forced abortion to be as legally and morally indefensible as the outlawing of abortion.

But the truth of the matter that none of them ever encourage a woman to keep her baby because it would hurt their cause.

Image Detail

Abortion is a terrible choice for both victims

Radical feminists hold up coat-hangers and back-alley abortion, as the symbols of their movement.

Years later this lie of 10,000 female deaths from the so-called back alley abortion, which really is a misnomer.  Most illegal abortions took place inside an office, clinic or a hospital.which was another falsehood.

Since the discovery of penicillin in 1928, the death rate from illegal abortion was less than 50 a year. 

VI Partial Birth Abortion–— the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls “partial-birth abortion.”

The procedure described in the statute is usually used in the second trimester, from 15 to 36 weeks.

It is often referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction. In reality the baby is nearly delivered.

Image Detail

A tame illustration of a barbaric act

With his/her head still partly in the birth canal, scissors are used to penetrate the back of the neck and skull.

A vacuum tube is inserted and the baby’s brain is extracted from its head, collapsing the skull.  The dead newborn than is delivered.

This horrific practice was performed on an average of 2500 times a year in the United States and has served as ghastly proof of the evils inherent in this choice.

On a similar note, I was taken back by an article on Republican candidate, Rick Santorum, who over the course of his Congressional career was a untiring voice for the unborn.

With reason and logic on his side he made his pro-abortion colleagues quivers before his very words.

He once asked ow fellow Senators, Democrats Frank Lautenberg and former Senator Russ Feingold who opposed his proposed ban on Partial Birth Abortion if the baby slipped out of the birth canal before the doctor could stick his scissors in her neck, could the born baby still be killed because that was the mother’s choice?

Neither would say no.

Image Detail

All home births

In 1999 during a debate with Senator Barbara Boxer of California, Santorum asked her:  Would you agree that once the child is born, separated  from the mother, that the child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed?

Boxer responded: I think when you bring the baby home…

 So I guess according to this senator life really begins at home.


A Rule Book for Politicians…Part II

January 20, 2011
1 Comment

Slavery has often been called the country’s original sin.

The founding fathers pragmatically put it in the body of the document so that there could be a United States.

Without this first great compromise, it is likely that the nation would have broken into at least two and maybe like ancient Gaul into three distinct parts.

Given the pain, misery and sorrow that the compromise allowed, I sometimes think it would have been better not to have compromised on such an important moral issues and let the political chips fall where they may.

Of course as brilliant as were Washington, Madison, Adams et al., they did not possess a prophetic sense.

Most of the Eastern and Northern colonies believed that slavery as a singular economic institution was ultimately unprofitable and would eventually just fade away.

None had the foresight to see that a young inventor, named Eli Whitney applied his genius to developing a workable cotton gin that revolutionized the cotton industry, and made the South even more dependent on cotton.

View Image

Did his genius cause the Civil War?

King Cotton need even more slaves, giving rise to an ever-important slave trade that just underscored the abuses done to a different race of mankind.

The nation fixed the problem with its Civil War Amendments that allowed for black adult males to have the right to vote.

But after the federal occupying troops left the 11 Southern states in 1877, notorious Jim Crow Laws, and Black Codes institutionalized a legalized system of segregation that permeated Southern culture far into the 20th century.

And all this was for a moral compromise.

The courts, even with the freedom amendments, still protected the South under the U. S. Constitution.

That was until 1954 when the Earl Warren Court decided the Brown vs. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas, which officially desegregated all the public schools in America.

This was a very popular moral decision that was very bad constitutional law.

According to the Constitution the Federal Courts had no right to interfere with the states’ right to educate its children.

I know that sounds crass of me but that’s what the 10th Amendment says and the last time I looked it was still a part of the document.

So in its efforts to right a wrong the Court had violated the separation of powers, which is one of the most vital cogs in the protective wheel of our balance of powers.

Good came out of the decision but the harm had been done.

Set a precedent that violates the letter of the law, even if you are doing a good thing and you make it easier for the next violation, which most likely be up to no good.

This the principle of the Nose of the Camel.

And while the nose may not smell so bad and may even be kind of cute, we all know what happens when the entire camel is lodged within the tent.

View Image

Once his nose is in the tent...

In a word, the tent becomes uninhabitable.

Liberals like to call this Camel Principle by its popular name, that is the living constitution.

The logic behind this that was applied to the Topeka school system was that the Constitution was written a couple hundred years ago, exclusively by men who would not have been able to understand the world Americans inhabited today.

So using the elastic clause and the 14th Amendment, the Court has been able to fashion just about anything they thought need doing.

In other words, Sociology trumped the law.

The best and most offensive example of this was the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that was forced on the American people, on January 22, 1973.

It was not only a sad day in our country but was a blight on our most important institution, namely marriage.

Roe was the end result of the Brown decision in 1954.

If the one eliminated our original sin, this one created an even bigger actual sin.

The one educated millions of black children and the second has resulted in over 50 million unborn children, including 17 million black children, being sacrificed on an altar of choice.

Historic irony?

This case did not happen.  At least three members of the Court, Harry Blackmun, William Douglas and William Brennan conspired to find just the right case to drive home this alleged right for women.

View Image

The architect of Roe

The creative justices manufactured the artificial right of women out of a penumbra in the right to privacy in the 9th amendment, adding Astronomy to Sociology to their arsenal of legal precedents.

Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg

Astronomy was their guide

Norma McCorvey, a poor unmarried pregnant woman, who had already given birth to her child  while the decision was pending.

She easily became the unwitting dupe of the agenda-driven left.

At first she claimed she had been raped and could have gotten an abortion under Texas law but without a police report her lies were exposed.

View Image

Easily became a dupe

On a side note the use of the word right in terms of an abortion is an only an affront to the English language, it is an abomination that mocks 200 years of American history.

What women have is not a right but a license to rid them of any of their unborn off-spring.

It is a privilege that was granted to them by seven men, ultimately for the benefit of men and to the detriment of women.

You don’t believe me?

Just ask Hugh Hefner, one of the most consistent supporters of a woman’s right to choose, both financially and ideologically.

The next big push on our freedoms and out civilization of freedom is ObamaCare.  This virtual take-over of one sixth of our economy is designed to force Americans to buy a product that we might not want.

Like Brown if this does eventually pass Court muster, the government can force us to buy or maybe even sell anything they feel might not be good for the general welfare.

Maybe something like a new Chevrolet Volt.

View Image

Buy this car...or else!

Given what I have written in the past two weeks, is in a nutshell why the Tea Party arose at approximately this time and place in history.  One of their battle cries has been to get back to the Constitution.

And the reason for this, the Constitution is our governing principle.

Since the Progressives in 1900 the country has gradually gotten away from being a nation of laws but more a nation of sociologists, who want to staple, fold, bend and mutilate our governing principle so out of shape that they will have carte blanche to do and enact what ever laws they deem necessary for our control.

And for this they are mocked!

A recent article in the New Yorker Magazine questioned whether the Constitution had become a cult.

Like the leaders of business and insurance, now it is the Constitution that is being marginalized and turned into something foreign and alien to American society.

This reminds me of the card game that the baseball players relaxed with in the movie, Bang the Drum Slowly.

They called it TEGWAR..the Exciting Game Without Any Rules.

Bang the Drum Slowly Poster

Gave us TEGWAR


The ball players made up the rules as they went along, relieving the mark of all of his money.

Sound familiar?

Are All Women Stupid Or Is It My….?

October 29, 2010

I used this expression for the hope of attracting curiosity seekers, who might think I have a death wish or something of that nature.

Actually I believe most women are smart…at least smarter than men.  The ones I knew in grade school were usually the best students.

Of the top 10 I think only lifelong friend, Bobby Valentino and maybe one other guy cracked that starting line-up.

However over the course of my life, I have noticed that something happens to many of them as they turn 15.

My observation reminds me of one of my favorite stories.

This guy is on his knees and he is praying to God:

Dear God, I want to thank you for making women sooo beautiful and sexy.

I want to thank you make them so soft and cuddly…but I have to ask you one thing:

Why did you have to make them so dumb?

A deep voice comes from behind the altar:

So they would like YOU!

That would even be funnier if it did not have serious applications for today’s women.

A lot has changed since I formed my understanding of the fair sex–and very little of it any good.

I think there is a deep strain of ignorance, stupidity or false pride that has permeated much of the feminine side of American culture.

I have always believed that women were the keepers and protectors of the culture.

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, is a vital truism that we seem to have discarded in the pangs of our own self-destruction.  And their view from the pedestal had fewer obstructions.

The problem seems to stem from the women’s movement.

I do not mean the suffragettes or the Bloomer Girls of the early 20th century, who fought for the 19th Amendment, which gave women their right to vote.

No, I mean the feminist movement of radicals Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem, who coined the non-sequitur, a woman needs a men like a fish needs a bicycle.

View Image

A new feminism

Their movement is best described as a cold-hearted conspiracy to destroy true feminism and alienate women, not only from their families but from their own bodies.

Professor Jacques Barzun once said to understand America, one must know baseball.

I say to understand women, one must read Gramsci–Antonio Gramsci, the Sardinian founder of the Italian Communist party.

Knew women

Gramsci, who wrote most of his important stuff while in prison, said that the best way to destroy the West–that is Western Civilization— is through its women.

He observed that Italian women were hermetically attached to their Catholic faith and the only way to foment a long march through their culture was to separate them from their faith.

And the best way to that was through sex.

This idea was adopted by the Marxist Frankfurt Institute for Social Research, a group of sociologists and think-tankers, who left Germany just before the onset of the pogroms and the death camps.

Many emigrated to the United States where they joined university faculties.

The most prominent was Herbert Marcuse whose gave us the best quote of the 1960s, make love, not war!

Betty was his protege

His star pupil and Marxist operative was Mrs. Friedan.

It was her book, The Feminine Mystique that launched a million divorces.

She sold women on the idea that they must compete with their husbands in order to have self-esteem.

Of course men had one very important weapon–they could impregnate their wives to keep them down on the suburban farm.

There was a movie,  I saw in 1964 with Polly Bergen as the heroine who was just about to be elected president of the United States when she had to announce to the country that she was pregnant.

Kisses for My President [VHS]

Set the Stage for Hillary

It was her unborn baby that had prevented her from being the Hillary Clinton of her generation.

Their wombs now became the greatest obstacle to their new quest for power.

Advance forward to 1973 and Roe v. Wade when seven men on the Supreme Court found the mysterious right in the clouds of constitutional law that gave women the right (privilege) to eliminate the little interlopers who would thwart their wills to surpass men in their boardrooms.

They were promised that they could, not only cleanse their wombs of an inconvenient child without a word from the father or a stain of guilt, but also find existential validation in the process.

This was the message of the New Feminists and millions of women bought it…and Western Civilization has paid a steep price for it ever since.

The feminist movement also caused men to delay marriage or just shack-up with their liberated girlfriends, much to the harm of marriage stability.

Don’t get me started on their trophy wives.

Who is behind this historic change in women’s relation to their own culture?

Why men of course!

Alfred Kinsey started it all with his book on sex but it was one of his early fans–Hugh Hefner who launched a magazine empire based on the pristine naked flesh of the girl next door that gave it momentum and longevity.

View Image

Big influence on Hef

Hefner was a genius who not only legitimized prurient materials but gave us a cultural icon, the sterile bunny…one of the most profound oxymorons from the 1950s.

An oxymoronic icon

Hef’s women were gorgeous and desirable, not unlike the object of affection in the joke above, but they were designed only for pleasure and not the reproductive responsibilities of the family.

My question then is this what smart women do?

Has it really been worth to them, given the unintended consequences of more frequent divorce, irresponsible men, rebellious and sexually active children as young as 10-11, rampant STDs, and epidemic sterility?

I saw a line of combat soldiers walking a patrol in Afghanistan on the front page of the New York Times.  At least two of them are women.  The Times also had an article about service women, with missing limbs.

Last night I watched two women boxers pummel each other in a cage to the delight of men in the audience.

Women at war?  Women beating each other up?  Even women playing football?

What do these women want?

That’s what men do to each other.  Women are supposed to be smarter than that!

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, men and women are not fungible.

If culture were left to the men, we would all be back in the caves.  Perhaps that’s where these manly feminists are leading us.

Is this the kind of equality women signed up for?

Could this not be another throwback to Roe v. Wade?

Thanks to Gramsci women who once would only kill to protect their children are now destroying the fruits of their womb at home while killing enemies overseas.

I saw a sign in a parking lot in Falls Church, Virginia in 1963 that said if women ever get equal rights with men, it will be a step down for them.

I don’t know who wrote that but it has remained with me for nearly a half century as the most profound statement I have ever read.

So are all women really stupid?

Of course not!

But many, who have bought the feminist message of the 21st century and have sacrificed their innocence, family and self-respect on an altar of choice, are certainly no smarter than the woman who said, we have to pass it, so we will know what is in it.

View Image

Pass it first

Now that’s really stupid!

Check out this message about Roe  v. Wade:

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