Coach Tony Dungy Lives What He Believes

As the Indianapolis Colts finish their preparations for this year’s Super Bowl game, Indiana (& other) Colts fans are enjoying the privilege of being AFC & potential Super Bowl XLI Champions. What should not be lost in the typical Super Bowl hoopla is the amazing manner in which Coach Tony Dungy, Colts head coach, lives his faith.

Thirteen months ago, Tony and his family suffered the terrible tragedy of the death of James Dungy, his son. How does one respond to such an event? Coach Dungy responded from the foundation of the Christian belief in which he places his faith. In an address to the Athletes in Action breakfast prior to last year’s Super Bowl, he spoke about his son’s death. But it was not a message of despair. It was a message of incredible hope. Given at a time that could have been filled with personal darkness, Coach Dungy testified that through his son’s death, others were given an opportunity to see the light of Christ. His address at that breakfast was a phenomenal testimony of Christian faith. After reading it myself, I swore to make it the first entry in my blog site. I did on May 16, 2006.

I also promised to revisit this testimony, and this seems to be the appropriate time to do so, especially since the Colts Head Coach continues to conduct himself as a true, living ambassador for Jesus Christ. Simply put, the man expresses total, humble gratitude to God for the opportunities he has been given. Following the Colts AFC Championship win, both the Colts owner (Jim Irsay) and Coach Dungy verbally thanked and praised God when receiving the trophy, as did some other players. In the two weeks between the AFC Championship game and the Super Bowl game, Coach Dungy has remained as peaceful, calm, and unflappable as ever. He is genuinely filled with Christian joy. I am certain that Coach Dungy wants to win the Super Bowl game more than almost anything else right now. I am fairly certain that if the Colts do not win, that the Coach’s mild, humble demeanor will be criticized. But what cannot be criticized is his approach to life as a devoted man of God. It shows in every way.

In an Associated Press story printed in the Kokomo Tribune on 1/29/07, Coach Dungy’s remarkable legacy was once again highlighted. In Jackson, Michigan, his hometown, he participated in an event at Frost School honoring his mother. The article concludes:

Dungy’s deceased parents were both popular educators, his father at Jackson Community College and his mother at Jackson High School. With two ministers in the family – Dungy’s grandfather and uncle – and a deeply devoted mother, attending services at United People’s Church was part of the routine, as well as simply treating people well. ‘Our dad wasn’t a man of many words, but he made it clear that getting an education and working hard were important,’ [Sherrilyn] Sims said. ‘My mother was more outspoken, and she would always say, ‘Love is the most important thing.’ She didn’t just say that. She lived it and made sure we did likewise.’ Dungy returned the love last summer when he went to a Jackson Community College dinner and auction to raise funds for the Dr. Wilbur Dungy Endowed Chair, honoring his father. He brought along two former assistants – Bears coach [Lovie] Smith and Detroit Lions coach Rod Marinelli – then made time the next day for kids at a football camp. In June, Dungy is expected back in Jackson for the camp. ‘It may sound Cinderella-ish, but Tony Dingy is only too good to be true if you don’t know him,’ Russell [Davis] said. ‘In Jackson, we’re lucky enough we know him.’

Thank you, Coach Dungy, for living your faith.

Must They Sound So Much Alike?

It comes as no surprise to me that America’s enemies would not take kindly to our latest strategic move against them: numerical military build-up in Iraq. One would expect the type of bravado from al-Qaeda leadership. Indeed, it has been issued by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the so-called “second-in-command.” Says al-Zawahiri, “Why send 20,000 only, why not send 50 or 100 thousand? Aren't you aware that the dogs of Iraq are pining for your troops' dead bodies?”

Yes, I can understand the enemy’s response; they are, after all, waging a war they want to convincingly win. But what motivates the American left and their political party of choice – the Democrats? “You can put a hundred thousand troops in, and you can up the casualties, up the stakes, increase the violence, and not get a resolution.” This was Sen. John Kerry’s (D-MA) answer to David Gregory’s (Today Show, 12/2006) question about sending additional American forces to Baghdad.

Must the American left/Democrat party sound so much like our enemy? ‘Nuff said.

(Photos: left, Ayman al-Zawahiri; right, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA))

How About We Concern Ourselves With Victory?

I am writing ahead of the 2007 State of the Union Address to be delivered by President Bush. Throughout the day, it has sounded as if the speech has already been given as analysts go back and forth about what is meant by what he will say. Good grief.

Without a doubt, the President will address the Global War on Terror (GWOT) and the war in Iraq (one and the same in my book). The topic of troop “surge” is unavoidable. Of course, our partisan mainstream media has been gloating over opposition to increasing troop strength there ever since President Bush made this proposal known. Never mind that one of the Democrat’s talking points for quite a long time has been the lack of additional military strength committed to the Iraq front.

I have one question. In spite of our freedom to disagree, don’t you think that it is time to concern ourselves with victory? There are some analysts and commentators whom I have a great deal of respect for who question this latest strategy. I’m not too sure what it is supposed to accomplish, especially if the additional troops are given no more freedom to prosecute this war than those who have gone before them. But what do I know? I’m no in-the-know military strategist. But I do think that it is a rather bad idea for Congress to oppose this effort to the point of debating “resolutions of disapproval!” Are they really so ignorant of what motivates and aids our enemies? Apparently not. From today’s hearing of Gen. Petraeus before Congress:

LIEBERMAN: “I want to ask you, what effect would Senate passage of a resolution of disapproval of this new way ahead that you embrace, what effect would it have on our enemies in Iraq?”

PETRAEUS: This is a test of wills at the end of the day, and in that regard, speaking purely as a military commander if confirmed, albeit, one who frankly does understand enormously and treasures the value of free and open debate, free speech, who has put himself in harm's way to protect those great features of our democracy, nonetheless, having said that, a commander in such an endeavor would obviously like the enemy to feel that there's no hope.

LIEBERMAN: And the resolution, Senate-passed resolution of disapproval for this new strategy in Iraq would give the enemy some encouragement, some feeling that -- that -- well, some clear expression that the American people were divided?

PETRAEUS: That's correct, sir.

I ask again: How about we just concern ourselves with victory? Is that too much to ask in this war?

(Photo: Lieutenant General Petraeus)

Thank You, Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah)

Senator Robert Bennett (R-Utah) deserves a big THANK YOU from us all. He pushed for an amendment to the Senate version of the ethics and lobbying reform legislation that stripped the provision requiring reporting of “grass-roots” lobbying. What is so significant about this? Glad you asked!

This provision included in the House version of the bill is a direct assault on our First Amendment guarantee to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This provision included in the Rep. Pelosi (D-CA) version makes us all lobbyists and, therefore, in need of reform. “The legislation would make changes to the legal definition of “grassroots lobbying” and require any organization that encourages 500 or more members of the general public to contact their elected representatives to file a report with detailed information about their organization to the government on a quarterly basis.” (Amanda B. Carpenter, “Pelosi Targets Grassroots Freedom of Speech,” 12/18/2006) One can easily see how this is an unnecessary burden that limits our Constitutionally derived freedom to contact our elected representatives. Ironically, the reform bill contains provisions that exempts the organizations that really do employ lobbyists. Read the details in the article on the Human Events site. (See also “Pelosi's Liberal Ally Defends Ethics Bill Targeting Grassroots Communication” by Amanda Carpenter. Click here.)

Again, thank you, Sen. Bennett. Now we need to ensure that it is removed from the final bill.

Guilty As They Prove Innocence

The case of criminal rape charges against the Duke Lacrosse players has been troubling. I am troubled by two elements: First, the situation from which the case stems. Second, the reaction from Duke faculty members.

The grounds for this case stems clearly from an event in which all participants had no need to be involved. That is, of course, a raucous party in which strippers were employed. Had all participants chosen to avoid this act of immorality in the first place, there would have been no occasion for any of the alleged acts to have taken place. Normally, many who identify themselves as liberals embrace the type of “parties” where participants are free to “express” themselves without inhibition. In their routine, convoluted ways, they decry any attempts to label such socially poor behavior immoral as violations of Constitutionally guaranteed rights of free expression. Normally. However, in this case, it became the celebrated liberal cause of protecting the “helpless innocent” from the power and corruption of the privileged white male.

Thus enters some of the great defenders of the poor and downtrodden – Duke University professors. On the basis of nothing but allegations of rape, and even in the face of a continuing body of evidence that favors the alleged perpetrators, 88 members of the Duke faculty fanned flames of needless hysteria by writing and/or signing a letter declaring that they were “listening” to students “who knew themselves to the objects of racism and sexism.” (The link is to another blog which contains the content of the letter – the only location I found in my quick search for it. Interestingly, the blogger notes that it was removed from the Duke University site where it was originally posted). These are University professors who would normally jump at the chance to defend anyone accused of a crime being heralded as guilty without a trial, except that in this instance the alleged perpetrators represent to them the “privileged” and the “powerful” who must be stopped.

Defending her signing of the “listening” letter, Duke English Prof. Cathy Davidson writes that she remains “dismayed by the glaring social disparities implicit in what we know happened on March 13.” The incident, she states, “underscores the appalling power dynamics of the situation.” As the evidence of the case has been collected, though, the “dynamics of the situation” has proved to be made up. By all the indications given, the defendants in this case will be forever guilty to some of the Duke faculty’s "best and brightest" no matter how innocent they prove to be.

(photo: Collin Finnerty, one of the Duke University lacrosse players charged with rape in Durham, N.C., in connection with an off campus party held by lacrosse team members)

Peter Heck Show Website

Good news! The new and improved Peter Heck Show website is now up and running. I invite any reader here to give it a try. At the very least, you are treated to very snazzy photos of Peter (used here with absolutely no permission). Of great benefit is the ability to listen to and download the radio programs. Most excellent! Looking forward to more good things.

If you have not tried it, give the Peter Heck Show website a whirl…

http://www.peterheck.com/

Al Qaeda Sends a Message to Democrats

I don’t understand why this is so difficult for Democrats and the left to comprehend. Our enemies are making it clear: they believe that the proposals concerning the prosecution of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) by the Democrat Party benefit them. And, like the liberal organizations that backed the Democrat Party in the mid-term elections, they believe that they should have a say in the implementation of those Democrat Party proposals.

As I have asked before, when armed militant enemies of the United States endorse the campaign promises of one of America’s major political policies, don’t you think it might be time for that political party to review and reconsider their message?

December 22, 2006 2:28 PM
Brian Ross and Hoda Osman Report:
Al Qaeda has sent a message to leaders of the Democratic party that credit for the defeat of congressional Republicans belongs to the terrorists.
In a portion of the tape from al Qaeda No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahri, made available only today, Zawahri says he has two messages for American Democrats.
"The first is that you aren't the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost. Rather, the Mujahideen -- the Muslim Ummah's vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq -- are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones who lost," Zawahri said, according to a full transcript obtained by ABC News.
Zawahri calls on the Democrats to negotiate with him and Osama bin Laden, not others in the Islamic world who Zawahri says cannot help.
"And if you don't refrain from the foolish American policy of backing Israel, occupying the lands of Islam and stealing the treasures of the Muslims, then await the same fate," he said.

Happy New Year