Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited


The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?



Friday, December 29, 2006

Candle Light Vigil for Saddam?

According to Reuters, the Iraqi government plans to hang Saddam Hussein at dawn for his crimes against humanity.

I wonder if the idiots at the South Dakota Peace and Justice Center will treat us to a candlelight vigil for the murderous dictator...

"Mainstream" Media?

I don't even begin to know how many media outlets these days can call themselves "mainstream"--and do it with a straight face.

The Argus Leader has an article entitled "Couple in jail and in love struggle to stay in touch" about a couple of love-struck jailbirds. The article is 797 words long, 55 of which actually discuss the crimes for which they have been jailed (theft and trying to sell stolen property, and drug possession).

The rest of this pathetic article pines on about how the two can't even "brush" up against each other in court without the evil hand of the law coming down on them and making their punishment worse. After all, so what if they stole someone else's property and are involved in the drug trade--they're in love!

Another pathetic example was the reprehensible coverage the Rapid City Journal gave to Elijah Page (the confessed and convicted murderer) back in August in the weeks preceding his aborted execution. One of many articles done on this brutal killer took up two pages, had something like 2300 words and no less than 9 pictures of the killer when he was an itty bitty wittul boy. It was a brazen pity plea for someone who brutalized his "friend" for hours before finally bashing his head in with boulders from a frozen stream and then stealing his "friends" property.

And these newspaper execs sit around, wringing their hands and wondering why newspaper sales are going in the tank?

Maybe it's because, despite more than 50 years of propaganda from the media, most people are still in touch enough with reality to see through their Leftist drivel and be disgusted by it.

Cloaking Cowardice inside "Caring" Acts

The Rapid City Journal reports on a protest in several cities around South Dakota yesterday by the humorously named South Dakota Peace and Justice Center.

Ostensibly, the events were to honor the 2,984 U.S. military deaths in Iraq, as their names were read at these events. However, the events had little or nothing to do with honoring our fallen soldiers.

The comments in the article quickly reveal (as if there had been any doubt) that the 2,984 dead heroes are nothing but a vehicle for these people who hate their own country to advance their cause against the country that provides so much to them.

Congress as a whole, including Stephanie Herseth, by their acquiescence, are enabling this war to continue," said Marv Kammerer

The war hawks who connived this war are draining the life's blood out of this country - both in money and in the lives of young people"

"We should bring them home now."

I am doubly-blessed that I don't know any of the fallen soldiers in Iraq. It would be terrible to lose someone I know. But I think it would pain me even more to see their name used as a political football by a bunch of anti-American cowards who are so dedicated to American defeat in Iraq.

There were only about 12 people stupid enough to join this anti-American protest in Rapid, which is good I suppose, because I know there are a lot more anti-American people in Rapid than that.

But the lot of them should at least have the courage to come out and say how much they loathe their own country and the ideals upon which it is founded, rather than trying to cloak their despicable and cowardly acts in some sort of act that pretends to "care" about our soldiers. But then, how can we expect even the courage of honesty from a bunch of cowards in the first place?

The rest of us are not fooled...

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Jesus Knocks Over Tables

Doug Giles' latest column brings up some points I've often made with Christians and secularists alike who think people of faith should just sit in the pew with their hands folded and not aggressively confront error.

(Incidentally, this approach is the cowards approach; it isn't a Christ-like approach).

From Giles' column:

When Jesus Christ got injected into the human mix two thousand plus years ago, from the cradle to the cross, He was a lightning rod of controversy. His incarnation heated up the culture war more than O’Reilly could ever dream of doing.

And how about this:

The initial message the Wonderful Counselor preached, according to Dr. Luke’s take, ticked off the crowd He was addressing so thoroughly that they attempted to throw Him off a cliff. He nailed that haughty mob for the crud they were practicing—and He did so publicly. In public. Ouch. Snap! That’s not very “Christian” of Christ.

Seems Jesus wasn't too worried about being "civil," was he?

More truth about Christ:

Today in our radically wussified, politically correct state of bland, we won’t embrace this Christ because He’d so get under our skin.

How would many of today's Christians like the Jesus who walked the Earth 2,000 years ago?

It’s funny that a bunch of churchgoers who worship Jesus probably wouldn’t hire Him to be their pastor today because He was too much of a hellrazer. His solid/ acidic, anti-bovine scatology posture towards politicians, priests, pet sins, oppressors and others who were playing games with God and man equates a resume that most pastoral search committees wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pew.

So what kind of god do many of today's cowardly Christians (and fun-loving secularists) want?

Y’know, most of us forget the above when we see sweet baby Jesus lying in a manger. Because of our rank illiteracy regarding the scripture, our prejudiced and politically correct approach to the Bible that’s custom tailored a Jesus of our own imaginations, we have developed a deep distaste for anything but a bespoke and neutered little “g” god.

What do we need instead? Giles tells us exactly what we need:

My prayer for you and yours, our churches and our nation is that we flush the feckless, Lysol-disinfected, feminine hygiene Jesus we’ve created to mollycoddle our madness and go back to the rowdy Christ that would, lovingly of course, shake us into shape.

As we come to Christmas (not the Santa Claus time, but the time where we celebrate the birth of our Savior as a man), we should remember that he didn't come to Earth simply to be a baby, simply to have us adore this newborn (though we should).

Jesus came to launch an all-out assault on the Kingdom of Darkness, and he didn't worry about "civility" or "moderation" or such pablum. He said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church, which tells me His Church wasn't passive--it was intended to take the fight to the enemy!

In fact, I do recall this Savior saying in the book of Revelation that he would rather people be either hot or cold, and this mealy-mouthed "moderation" he would spew out of his mouth.

So for the next couple of days, worship Christ the newborn king. We should. The incarnation of our God is a miracle and a wonder worthy of such admiration.

But when the wrapping paper is put away, put on the armor of God, Christian, and start fighting the spiritual warfare you were called to.

Anything less is dereliction of duty.

Merry Christmas!

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Faith Creates a Better Life--And Better Society

Rebecca Hagelin has a powerful new column at WorldNetDaily that both religious and secular folks should check out. It's entitled, "Shocker! Faithful really do sin less." That is indeed not a shocker for religious people, but actually may come as a shocker to secularists who think they can find some meaningful morality outside of religion.

The core of her piece is a new paper from Pat Fagen at the Heritage Foundation that goes into great detail on the impact of faith on social stability.

A few of the findings Hagelin cites:

When mothers and their children share the same level of religious practice, they experience better relationships with one another.

mothers who became more religious throughout the first 18 years of their child's life reported a better relationship with that child, regardless of the level of their religious practice before the child was born.

Compared with fathers who had no religious affiliation, those who attended religious services frequently were more likely to monitor their children, praise and hug their children, and spend time with their children. In fact, fathers' frequency of religious attendance was a stronger predictor of paternal involvement in one-on-one activities with children than were employment and income – the factors most frequently cited in the academic literature on fatherhood.

She also says of the findings

Couples are far more likely to stay together if they're religiously active

Religiously active couples also report greater happiness and satisfaction with their marriages. The incidence of domestic violence drops, too. Men who attended religious services at least weekly were more than 50 percent less likely to commit an act of violence against their partners than were peers who attended only once a year or less

Fagan notes that traditional values and religious beliefs were among the most common factors teens cite to explain why they are abstaining from sex. And religion affects out-of-wedlock childbearing: Compared with those who consider themselves "very religious," those who were "not at all religious" are two to three times more likely to have a child outside of marriage.

the use of cigarettes and the abuse of alcohol and drugs drops significantly among those who are religiously active

people who are religiously active are at a much lower risk of depression and suicide. They also tend to live longer.

Of course fringe dwellers such as the Coat Hangers at Dawn crowd will undoubtedly find some excuse to explain away a reality which inconveniences them. After all, they find sexual responsibility something to be mocked rather than sought after.

Hagelin sums it up, putting these findings into a societal context. You see, religious virtue should be pursued not only for the good of the eternal soul, and not only for the well-being of the individual, but also for the safety and stability of our civilization:
None of this would surprise our Founding Fathers, who knew that no people could be self-governing without religion. In his Farewell Address, George Washington referred to religion and morality as the "great pillars of human happiness" and noted: "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Ted Kennedy Buries Head in Sand

How do liberals deal with facts that demonstrate liberalism is a dead-end street paved with broken promises? Just deny them and hope they'll go away.

As illustrated on Fox News Sunday today:

WALLACE: You said that welfare reform was a legislative child abuse. "Let them eat cake." But now, Senator, 10 years later, the employment rate among unmarried women — the employment rate — has soared, and the child poverty rate has dropped.

Hasn't welfare reform worked?

KENNEDY: No, no. Your figures are wrong in terms of child poverty. Your figures are absolutely wrong.

WALLACE: Well, we got them from the liberal Brookings Institute, sir.

KENNEDY: You're wrong. We've had an increase in the last five years of the number of children that are living in poverty in the United States of America. It's increased by 1,700,000.

Where is the reference for Kennedy's "facts?" His head. That's it.

Liberals are the ultimate blasphemers. They think that, like God, they can create an idea in their head and make it reality. Wrong answer! Only one person in the universe can do that (and it isn't Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy).

Ted Kennedy Buries Head in Sand

How do liberals deal with facts that demonstrate liberalism is a dead-end street paved with broken promises? Just deny them and hope they'll go away.

As illustrated on Fox News Sunday today:

WALLACE: You said that welfare reform was a legislative child abuse. "Let
them eat cake." But now, Senator, 10 years later, the employment rate among
unmarried women — the employment rate — has soared, and the child poverty rate
has dropped.

Hasn't welfare reform worked?

KENNEDY: No, no. Your figures are wrong in terms of child poverty. Your
figures are absolutely wrong.

WALLACE: Well, we got them from the liberal Brookings Institute,

KENNEDY: You're wrong. We've had an increase in the last five years of
the number of children that are living in poverty in the United States of
America. It's increased by 1,700,000.

Where is the reference for Kennedy's "facts?" His head. That's it.

Liberals are the ultimate blasphemers. They think that, like God, they can create an idea in their head and make it reality. Wrong answer! Only one person in the universe can do that (and it isn't Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy).

Friday, December 15, 2006

New Ways to Waste Money

From today's Argus Leader:

About 170 South Dakota farmers are in line to receive payment for combatting global warming sometime this spring...

Farmers signed up acres for the program earlier this year, agreeing to either practice no-till farming or maintain grass or alfalfa on their land. These practices prevent the release of carbon dioxide, the main gas implicated in global climate change.

I remember several years ago, a comedian named Brian Regan who had a routine where he talked about so-called "conservation."

A man asked a farmer, "What do you do for a living?"

The farmer replied, "Well, I don't grow corn."

Looks like the bureaucrats who love to waste our money have come up with another way to waste it. Getting farmers to fight something that doesn't exist.

Who's more stupid: these bureaucratic idiots, or us for not firing them?

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Prairie Conservative Goes the the Watercooler

Greg Belfrage is moving his blog from the Prairie Conservative to the Dakota Watercooler. He plans to cover some non-political topics in addition to the usual political fare. Check him out.

Welcome back, Greg!

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Prayers Go Out to Senator Johnson and Family

As is pretty much common knowledge by now, Senator Tim Johnson suffered a stroke around mid-day today.

He was taken to the hospital, but according to a blog post from Todd Epp, Todd's wife talked to one of the senator's aides and they think they caught it early, so hopefully any damage will be minimal.

From the folks at Dakota Voice, our prayers go out for Senator Johnson for God's healing, and comfort for his family.

Senator Ed Olson Attacks Autonomy of Churches

Sibby and the War College have already beat me to this, but it's important enough to be mentioned again and again.

In a David Kranz Argus Leader article today, South Dakota Senator Ed Olson says this:

Now that legislative agenda brings challenges, but Olson expects another effort by lawmakers in reaction to the Referred Law 6 campaign.

"It is time to have a serious discussion about tax exemptions for churches. People are ticked, don't want to be preached to from the pulpit, didn't want signs plastered all over their house of worship. The people spoke, and their voices were heard," Olson said.

I don't think he wants to open that can of worms, but if Senator Olson insists, so be it. He'll find out pretty fast how short his train of support on this really is.

If churches shouldn't be able to address issues of right from wrong, then what good are they? Just social clubs for people who sometimes crack open the Bible.

And what good is that?

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Too Stupid to Vote

I bet you thought the days of people "too stupid to vote" were over, once we put all the idiot AlGore voters behind us--you know, the ones too stupid to figure out how they wanted to vote.
You'd be wrong. Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily draws attention to one of Sean Hannity's recent "man on the street" segments of his radio show.

The segment, which took place on Dec. 7, which is Pearl Harbor Day (the day the Japanese attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor, for you public school grads out there). It wasn't just that several people had no clue what the day was about that Farah found remarkable:

But what struck me about this simple test was that every single person who flunked the test had voted Democratic in the midterm elections. They did this because they believed the Democrats were "for the people," or "supported labor" or "fought for the little guy."

Lest you think Farah is some Republican Kool-Aid drinker:

In a few weeks, the party of idiots will be running both houses of Congress. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the Republicans deserved to win. I think I've been very clear about the opportunities squandered by the GOP over the last 12 years and especially the last six. But, let's face it. The people who will be running the most important of the three branches of government come January owe their political careers to stupid people, deceived people, people who don't even know what happened at Pearl Harbor.

If you've ever wondered how liberals could come up with the nutty ideas they do--and then stubbornly insist they reflect reality--then this explains a lot. It's because they are usually so profoundly ignorant of history, not to mention a host of other facts, that in their warped world, their ideas actually make sense.

The only problem: their solutions won't work in the real world where we all live.

The really scary part: they're in charge of our nation's lawmaking body for the next two years.

Episcopal parishes split with diocese

I knew there were still Bible-believing folks in the Episcopal Church, despite the efforts of some to portray the church as having gone completely over to the Gospel of Liberalism.

This from the Fresno Bee:

The Diocese of San Joaquin, made up of about 50 churches in 10 counties, is the only diocese in the country to vote to separate from the American Episcopal Church. The division is primarily over interpretation of the Bible and views on the ordination of homosexuals.

In 2003, V. Gene Robinson was elected in New Hampshire as the church's first openly gay bishop. Bishop John-David Schofield of the Diocese of San Joaquin said earlier this month that the practice of homosexuality was unacceptable to God and "an abomination" to Scripture.

Across the country, the 2.2 million-member denomination is struggling to remain unified. In Virginia, two of the state's biggest Episcopal churches — with roots dating to colonial times — are expected to vote next week to sever ties with the denomination.

Expect more Bible-believing Episcopal churches to make this move. A number of denominations are plagued by liberal leaders who would rather be trendy than Biblical, but they still have many members who believe God meant what He said.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Arsonists Helping the Firemen

The Heritage Foundation has a good analysis of the Iraq study group report.

One of the first things it brings out is the rejection of the "cut-and-run-for-victory" strategy of the Democrats, along with the timetable strategy.

It also points out the utter stupidity of the recommendation to bring Iran and Syria to the table. When I first heard this, I thought something along the lines of foxes guarding the hen house, but Senator Joe Lieberman says it well:

"Asking Iran and Syria to help us succeed in Iraq is like your local fire department asking a couple of arsonists to help put out the fire. These people are flaming the fire."

Most of the Middle East terrorism is either staged or funded through these two bloodthirsty regimes. Instead of bringing them into the Iraq "process," we should instead be preparing to move our forces to these two countries, once the job is done in Iraq (something we might have already been able to do, had not the Democrats undermined the whole operation since before Day One). There will never be peace in the Middle East, nor will there be an end to terrorism, as long as barbaric governments like those of Syria and Iran remain in operation.

Monday, December 04, 2006

Other people's money

There has been a lot of discussion in recent days--and rightly so--about the nature of charity in America. It's been brought to the forefront of public discourse by ABC's 20/20 show last week where Wal-Mart shoppers in Sioux Falls out-gave Macy's shoppers in San Francisco.

A Renew America post yesterday contains a wealth of information on this subject, including some information on why liberal religious types don't misunderstand the Bible when they think New Testament Christians were communists.

Part of the information cited includes Article 1 Section 8 which outlines congressional authority. You will notice that NO power was given to dispense charity, including any for farm subsidies (as I mentioned in my column in the Rapid City Journal last week).

There is simply no support in the Bible or the Constitution for the legal plunder committed by our government today.

Sunday, December 03, 2006

That's Exactly the Problem with the Courts

An article from Forbes today identifies exactly the problem we have with the courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court:

Justice Stephen G. Breyer says the Supreme Court must promote the political rights of minorities and look beyond the Constitution's text when necessary to ensure that "no one gets too powerful."

Looking "beyond the Constitution" isn't a part of Breyer's job. The Constitution is the highest law of our land, and it is the law upon which the justness of all other laws are based. It isn't within the scope, mandate or authority of judges to "make it up as they go."
In his interview, Breyer argued that in some cases it wouldn't make sense to strictly follow the Constitution because phrases such as "freedom of speech" are vague. Judges must look at the real-world context - not focus solely on framers' intent, as Scalia has argued - because society is constantly evolving, he said.

It is true that society is constantly evolving, but human nature is not. What's more, right and wrong are not "evolving." They are transcendent and unchangeable. Something that was wrong yesterday doesn't suddenly become right today because 51% of the people say it is.
"Those words, 'the freedom of speech,' 'Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech' - neither they, the founders, nor those words tell you how to apply it to the Internet," Breyer said.

How can someone this obtuse be a judge??? The internet didn't have to be invented at the time the First Amendment was written in order to be able to apply it to the internet. That's like saying, "Well the law doesn't specifically prohibit me from killing a person named 'Arthur G. Jones,' so it it must be okay." There are principles that reasonable people can apply across a broad variety of settings. But Breyer, by his own admission, lacks the reasoning ability and discernment to do this (just one more reason why he and his ilk should be impeached for betraying their oath to protect the Constitution--something you can't do while you're subverting and ignoring it).

Here's another doozy:
Pointing to the example of campaign finance, Breyer also said the court was right in 2003 to uphold on a 5-4 vote the McCain-Feingold law that banned unlimited donations to political parties.

Acknowledging that critics had a point in saying the law violates free speech, Breyer said the limits were constitutional because it would make the electoral process more fair and democratic to the little guy who isn't tied to special interests.

Where in the Constitution is the "exception clause" that says you can ignore it if ignoring it will "make things more fair?"

One last pearl of wisdom from Breyer here. In his defense of a woman's "right" to kill her unborn child, he refers to Roe v. Wade:
"The more the precedent has been around, the more people rely on it, the more secure it has to be," he said.

Secure. Secure like the precedent of NOT allowing women to kill their unborn children was BEFORE they threw that one out in the name of convenience? Like the precedence of states being able to outlaw sodomy, before they threw that one out in 2003?

The simple fact of the matter is these judges are a law unto themselves. The doctrine of precedence doesn't mean squat unless they want it to. If there is precedent they like, then we roll out the holy doctrine of stare decisis. If we DON'T like precedent, well then our society has just "evolved" beyond that.

Congress needs to do it's job and rein in this lawless bunch NOW...and the people need to do their job and hold congress accountable for doing theirs.

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Elaboration on Moderation

Jon Schaff has a post on moderation today at South Dakota Politics, a blog I enjoy and read daily. And while he disagrees with something I said on moderation, we are perhaps closer in agreement than it might seem on the surface.

I agree with what Mr. Schaff says, in that you can have too much of just about anything. And almost any behavior can be taken to excess. You might even say the Greatest Commandment could, in a sense, be taken to extreme.

For instance, Jesus said the greatest commandment was to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." Yet some in the ministry might take this to mean they should work so hard that their families are neglected. This isn't what Jesus meant, either. There has to be a certain balance, one that balances all the positive priorities without creating a safe harbor for the bad things. That is perhaps the greatest single challenge for human beings.

Often times it's difficult to explain something without going into a soliloquy, so we rely on shorter terms that we hope will get our point across without making the reader feel like he's fallen into "War and Peace." That's where my statements about moderation fell short.

The kind of moderation I find disgusting is the kind that is so lauded these days: the kind that calls for compromise of important principles.

Of course, in the world of politics you can seldom get everything you want the first time around. Sometimes you have to give a little to win a little.

But when you so water down your stand on an issue that in the end you gain nothing but the facade of victory, then you've not only failed to advance your cause, but you've become a laughing stock before your enemies. They know you're a pathetic pushover that they can throw a bone to and you'll act like you're happy.

That's the kind of "moderation" and "compromise" that cost the Republicans control of Congress last month. For the past several years, they have given in to cries from the Democrats and their propaganda arm in the media for "moderation" and "bipartisanship."

It was made even more pathetic because they were--ostensibly--in charge! They haven't acted like leaders since some time in 1995. They've been unable to achieve a Federal Marriage Amendment, permanent tax cuts, or even meaningful border control. They've been too worried about looking like nice guys to a media that will never like them--ever.

Bush made the same mistake from Day One when he came to the White House. That "new tone" business might have worked back in Texas, where Democrats were a little more reasonable, but it was dangerously naive to believe that national Democrats were ever going to play nice. The best you could hope for from them was that they might smile and shake your hand...before stabbing you in the back. Just as they've done to Bush over and over and over.

Hopefully that makes my position on "moderation" a bit more clear, and why I have such complete disgust for it.

Because moderation in the strictest sense isn't what is being called for today; instead, it's the kind that sacrifices core principle on the altar of looking like a nice guy.

Friday, December 01, 2006

South Dakota Involved in Supreme Court Environmental Wacko Suit

The Aberdeen News is reporting that South Dakota is caught up in an environmental wacko lawsuit that wants the EPA to regulate the much-ballyhooed "greenhouse gasses."

Here's what's before the Court:

Simply put, justices will have to decide whether greenhouse gases from vehicles are air pollutants that should be regulated by the government. It's the first time the high court has tackled the topic of global warming. Oral arguments were this week. A decision is not expected until summer.

The EPA says it doesn't have the authority to regulate "greenhouse gasses," but of course silly things like law, the Constitution, and things like that have never been an impediment to environmental wackos.

Nathan Peterson is the South Dakota rep with the wacko group The National Environmental Trust.
Peterson said The National Environmental Trust has been working on the greenhouse emissions issue since 1999. That's when various environmental groups asked the EPA to regulate greenhouse emissions. In August 2003, the EPA declined. Then, Massachusetts, The National Environmental Trust and other groups challenged the ruling in court. In 2005, a District of Columbia court let the EPA's decision stand. Earlier this year, a petition was filed with the Supreme Court asking it to review the case. In June, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments.

And they say Christians are nuts...

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Libs are Cheapskates...Unless it's With Other People's Money

You might have heard about the 20/20 contest which aired last night. It had a Salvation Army bucket in San Francisco--a bastion of liberalism--and one in humble little Sioux Falls, to see which would collect the most money for charity. I had zero doubts as to which would win.

Compared to Charles Dickens' tale of crime, war and deception set in London and Paris, ABC's "20/20" program cast Sioux Falls in a generous light comparing charitable giving of the city and San Francisco.

What were the results?
Stossel said San Francisco collected half as much in Salvation Army buckets in front of Macy's, compared with Sioux Falls at Wal-Mart. Maj. Paul Duskin of the local Salvation Army said the two-day total reached about $1,000.

Seems libs are cheapskates when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is. The only time they really "care" about someone else is when they can reach into YOUR pocket to demonstrate it.

This is why we need to return to the traditional American value of private charity and compassion. Not only does the Marxist model not work (proved that with the failure of the welfare state), it's disciples are hypocrites.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Why Conservatives Give More to Charity

Human Events has two posts regarding charity and how conservatives are usually more giving than liberals (of their own money, that is).

You can read Why Conservatives Give More to Charity and What Is Charity? 'Who Really Cares' Explains, both of which are about the book "Who Really Cares?"

One thing that makes this information so credible is that the author doesn't even advocate, as I do, that government butt out of what it has no constitutional authority for and is incompetent at. The book merely presents the information, compelling as it is.

We're Addicted to Washington's Financial Cocaine

Sibby has already blogged on Dr. Walter Williams' excellent column today entitled "Why we love government." But it's so on-target, I couldn't help but add my commendation of Dr. Williams.

It's what separates the so-called "compassion" of liberals--which means reaching into someone else's pocket to be compassionate to people--as opposed to the compassion that conservatives advocate: reaching into YOUR OWN pocket to be compassionate. Numerous philanthropy studies have shown that conservatives are almost always more generous with charity.

And their charity is usually something more lasting than an impersonal government check; it often involves what "compassion" means: "suffering with." To borrow another parable, it often means teaching someone how to fish, rather than just giving them a fish.

Government handouts just breed more government handouts. Not to mention being unconstitutional (look Article 1 Section 8, or the Tenth Amendment--not to mention numerous statements from the Founders--and tell me where government gets the authority to take from one person and give it to another in the name of charity).

Williams sums it up perfectly:

The bottom line: We love government because it enables us to accomplish things that if done privately would lead to arrest and imprisonment. For example, if I saw a person in need, and I took your money to help him, I'd be arrested and convicted of theft. If I get Congress to do the same thing, I am seen as compassionate.

Study Finds New Evidence that Childhood Family Factors Influence Sexual Orientation

As used to be common knowledge, and many of have continued to say, a new study reveals more evidence that homosexuality is caused by childhood problems with the family.

According to the LifeSite article on a Danish study:

"Our study provides population-based, prospective evidence that childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood."

Instead of pretending homosexuality is normal, natural and healthy, we should instead be trying to help these folks live a normal, fulfilling life.

Patting someone on the back and affirming their homosexuality is like affirming someone who is eating a slow-acting poison. Contrary to being "compassionate," it's the least loving thing you can do--but it is the easy thing to do, and that's where it's appeal to pop society comes in.

As the Catholics indicated recently in their guideline "Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care," we need to help homosexuals achieve a healthy lifestyle, just as we would any person who is stuck in a destructive lifestyle.

Otherwise, you're just passing them more poison...

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Women talk three-times more than men!

According to a Zee News article about the latest study

In fact, according to Dr Brizendine, a University of California psychiatrist, women tend to talk almost three times as much as men, with the average woman chalking up 20,000 words in a day - 13,000 words more than the average man.

I guess my only comment is, "Naw, really???"

Well, that and, "Who was stupid enough to pay for such a study?"

Monday, November 27, 2006

Once Again, Abortion Protects Rapists, Molesters

This dirtbag molested his granddaughter...and more than 60 other children.

The granddaughter became pregnant by her incestuous molester at one point, but guess what: kill the baby and get a free pass!

The girl said once she found out she was pregnant, she didn't know what to do.

"At first I didn't know what to think," she said. "I thought he was taking me to a doctor to make sure my baby was OK, but it wasn't, it was an abortion clinic."

Not only did this unborn child pay with its life for the crime of its grandfather, the mother now lives with the loss of her child...and the molester kept himself free longer.

Thanks, South Dakota (Un)Healthy Families, for helping molesters cover their crimes at the expense of their victims.

We're Baaaaack

Made it home after a good Thanksgiving with the in-laws. It was cold where we were in North Dakota, but it looks like we beat the snow.

Hope everyone had a blessed Thanksgiving!

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Bill May Give Husbands Veto Over Abortion

The Moscow Times reports on an effort in Russia to give fathers a say in whether women can kill their unborn children.

What say you, Dear Reader? Do you like the idea? Do you hate it? Are your feelings mixed? Why or why not?

If you'd like to sound off on the issue, send an email to letters@dakotavoice.com and we'll publish some of them.

Just one thing I ask. Before you fire off your email, give genuine consideration to this fact: the child being aborted is also the child of the father. How does this factor in--or why SHOULDN'T it factor in--to your answer?

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Light Posting for Thanksgiving

Posting at the blog, and www.dakotavoice.com, will be very light as the folks at Dakota Voice spend time with their families during Thanksgiving.

Remember to give thanks for

- Life
- Liberty
- Prosperity
- This wonderful country God has allowed us to live in
- For all the troops away from home and in faraway lands, keeping us free and safe here

And as always, give thanks to God for His providence, for His salvation that purchased peace between us and Him at great price, and just for being who He is!

God bless you and have a safe, happy Thanksgiving!

Be Like Europe? No Way!

Economist Dr. Walter Williams has an informative column at WorldNetDaily today, entitled "Should we really copy Europe?" Having lived there, I can answer with an emphatic, "NO!"

Dr. Williams offers a few comparisons for why people in this country who look to Europe as a model are either woefully ignorant, or just plain idiots:

Government spending exceeds 50 percent of the GDP in France and Sweden and more than 45 percent in Germany and Italy, compared to U.S. federal, state and local spending of just under 36 percent. Government spending encourages people to rely on handouts rather than individual initiative, and the higher taxes to finance the handouts reduce incentives to work, save and invest. The European results shouldn't surprise anyone. U.S. per capita output in 2003 was $39,700, almost 40 percent higher than the average of $28,700 for European nations.

Over the last decade, the U.S. economy has grown twice as fast as European economies. In 2006, European unemployment averaged 8 percent, while the U.S. average was 4.7 percent. What's more, the percentage of Americans without a job for more than 12 months was 12.7 percent, while in Europe it was 42.6 percent. Since 1970, 57 million new jobs were created in the U.S., and just 4 million were created in Europe.

What is Europe doing to fix the problem? Actually, working very hard to make it even worse:
What's the European response to its self-made economic malaise? They don't repeal the laws that make for a poor investment climate. Instead, through the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, they attack low-tax jurisdictions. Why? To support its welfare state, European nations must have high taxes, but if Europeans, as private citizens and businessmen, relocate, invest and save in other jurisdictions, it means less money is available to be taxed.

I lived in England for three years, and spent a week in Germany, so I've had an opportunty to see Europe up close. In fact, having lived there, I can testify to what a depressed place it is, economically.

When I was in England in the late 1980s, there was a poor class and a rich class, with few middle class people, compared to the United States.

We also know little of poverty in the U.S. I had the boundaries of my mind expanded quite shockingly there. I saw families (not in the inner city, but in average towns just a few miles outside American air bases) huddled together to sleep on couches because they couldn't afford to heat more than one room of the house. I saw many average people who couldn't drive, and couldn't afford a car or even gas for one if they could drive. Many wore their clothes for several days in a row because washing them was too expensive. And frankly I knew more British people who were on the dole (welfare) than ones who weren't.

I had many long conversations with my British girlfriend's dad; in fact, when we were at her parent's house, I didn't see much of my girlfriend. He was of that noble generation that lived through World War II. He even remembered seeing German V1 rockets hit London when he was a boy.

He used to lament for the state to which his proud country had fallen. And while he looked to America with admiration, he cautioned that we Americans should learn from their mistakes. I think he genuinely agonized over seeing the once great country of Britain fall to little more than a tourist attraction (they were and are still more than that, but that relative comparison was any easy one for him to make).

I was opposed to socialism before I went to Europe. But after spending time there, living under it's "hammock," paying taxes for TV broadcasts and outdoor water spigots, and seeing the malaise, I am doubly opposed.

That is why I'm so ardently opposed to the encroachment of socialism in America. That's also why I oppose the Democrats at almost every turn--because they are socialism's evangelists and high priests in this country.

America was founded on individualism, personal responsibility, industry and competition, and equality of opportunity without guaranteed equality of outcome. Socialism is opposed to each and every one of these American values.

So to me, socialism is not only a bad idea that completely ignores human nature, it's completely unAmerican.

We already have an unhealthy dose of socialism here; we don't need more of the disease that is already crippling our great nation.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

New Tactic In Fighting Marriage Initiatives

The Washington Post has an article featuring how the homosexuals and their "useful idiot" apologists in Arizona were the first and only ones to defeat a marriage amendment.

Here's one of the effective lies they told:

"It's not a liberal-versus-conservative issue," said Steve May, a former Republican state representative who is gay and who served as treasurer of the campaign against Proposition 107. "It's about, 'I don't need to take away health care from Al and Maxine, this nice old couple in Tucson.' "

Response from the marriage amendment proponents:
"They misled voters. They scared seniors into believing they would lose Social Security benefits," said Cathi Herrod, spokeswoman for the pro-107 campaign. "Our problem was we did not have funds to respond to the attacks."

It might have worked here in South Dakota too, but we just kept countering their lies and deceptions at every turn. Sometimes you just have to keep doing that; otherwise, the lies get accepted as truth.

Another thing they had going against them in AZ was a "domestic partner registry" in Tucson that their poster-children, an elderly man and woman, were signed up on.

Unlike all the fear-mongering that went on here about losing privileges heterosexuals might already have, these poster-children actually probably would have lost the benefits bestowed by this registry.

However, they still would have been able to obtain them through the usual channels. It just wouldn't been handed to them on a silver platter...as if they were actually married people.

As I've said before, even heterosexual couples shouldn't automatically receive the benefits of making the commitment of marriage. Just like the concept of homosexual "marriage," though not nearly as badly, it cheapens the sacred nature of marriage.

Future states that want to protect marriage from homosexuals and their apologists need to take note of this development...and be prepared to fight it on every front.

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Doing what we taught them

Freak dancing. That's what they call the clothed near-intercourse that goes on in some dancing. Not good even in a night club, but inexcusable at a school function.

From ABC:

Charles Salter has banned all dances until the kids clean up their act, and now parents and schools from California to Connecticut are cheering.

"It's basically when two people are like grinding against each other in a kind of sexual way," Aliso Niguel freshman Kori Roberts says.

Here's the truly sad part:

With steady diet of music videos featuring sexually expressive dance routines and revealing clothes, the kids don't understand why adults don't understand. "We don't really know what else to do," says 14-year-old Sara Saldino. "That's basically what we grew up with. In middle school we were already doing that and watching TV and seeing that. It's what we know."

And these kids are absolutely right in that this kind of behavior is "what we know." Why? Because that's what our society has taught them. That's what we've taught them by allowing it to happen.

A situation where human sexuality is on a level with animals. It's hazardous both to the physical health, and the emotion and spiritual well being. It also does nothing for the nobility and stability of our civilization

It's not only a sad statement on the moral status of the upcoming generation, it's an indictment of the moral failure of our current generation.

Friday, November 17, 2006

Why Kill It?

There was an interesting Letter to the Editor in the Rapid City Journal today. It pertains primarily to partial birth abortions, but has applicability to other types of abortions as well.

I'd like folks who voted against Referred Law 6 to think it over and answer this question:

Why kill it?

I would appreciate if someone could help me understand better the following:

If abortion isn't murder, why must an abortion doctor first kill a baby before it is yanked from its mother's womb? If it's not alive, why isn't it just yanked out and thrown right in the trash?



If it isn't alive, what does it matter if we poke a hole in its skull and suck it out right before the head is all the way out of the mother? If it isn't alive, why bother ripping it apart before extracting it--after all, wouldn't it be safer to extract "it" in one piece? For that matter, if we aren't ending a human life, why bother with the facade that abortion should be "rare" at all?

If you voted against RL6, please think these questions over. You don't need to answer me; just answer them for yourself...and your God.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Leaving the Wolves Den

Two more Episcopal churches are leaving their denomination over that denomination's support of homosexuality and radical feminism, among other things.

There are still lots of good Christians left in denominations such as the Episcopal church, ELCA Lutherans and some of the other denominations that have chosen the politically correct agenda of men rather than God's way.

Some have stuck around in the hopes of bringing their denominations back to the Word, but many, like these churches, are reaching the conclusion that sometimes the heresy is so entrenched in the leadership that they're wasting their time.

2 Timothy 4:3 said the time would come when some people wouldn't tolerate God's word and would substitute whatever flavor-of-the-day that makes them feel good. Acts 20 and Matthew 7 also warned us that wolves in sheep's clothing would come and try to lead people astray.

Those times are upon us. Fortunately, these are two churches that have decided to get away from the wolves den.

Rudy Doesn't Make the Grade

I'm hearing more and more about Rudy Giuliani gearing up for a 2008 presidential run.

First let me acknowledge and tip my hat to his leadership to New York City (and to an extent, the rest of the country) on 911 and the dark days immediately following. He was decisive at a time when anything less would have made the disaster even worse. He's to be commended for that.

However, if Guiliani wants to put a Democrat in the White House in 2008, he should proceed with his efforts to make a full-fledged bid for the presidency.

Conservatives--who make up the base of the Republican Party--will never support Guiliani. His liberal stance on abortion and the homosexual agenda are not going to cut it with the base. No matter how much he may try to cash in his 911 capital, conservatives aren't going to make the exchange.

Remember Bob Dole in 1996? As dissatisfied as most of us were with philanderer-in-chief Bill Clinton, there wasn't much in Dole for conservatives to get fired up about; he, too, was too liberal.

And if the base doesn't get fired up about a candidate, then those malleable moderates who vote whichever way the wind blows, they're not going to see the energy for that candidate they need to help them detect wind direction.

We just saw that this election season; can we learn the lesson before 2008?

Talk About Not Getting It

Some Left wingers have been asking of the still-upbeat pro-life movement "Don't they get it?" since the defeat of the abortion ban in South Dakota.

I have an answer to that one, but perhaps they should look in their own camp before asking that question.

From a Sky Valley Journal report on passage of the marriage protection amendment in Wisconsin:

Gay and lesbian faculty and staff at the University of Wisconsin-Madison say they might quit their jobs because of the state's passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions.

And more:
Some employees vowed to lobby state lawmakers for domestic partner benefits despite the overwhelming vote last week for the amendment.

And finally the piste de resistance:
Trekell said he has received e-mails from people "as they are crying at their computers and students just enraged and vowing vengeance."

Crying at your computer just because someone won't pat you on the head and call you a "good boy" for sodomizing your buddy? Give me a break.

That last part gives me a little concern, though. Vengeance? In what form? If it's a political effort to sway public sentiment, then that's their First Amendment right. But if it's something else, they'd better cool their heels and get a grip.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Fathers and Daughters: Children Aren't Ornaments

Carrie Lukas has a good piece on the importance of fathers at National Review Online.

Our society (through movies, TV shows and commercials) sends the message that fathers are just bunglers at best, who wouldn't be able to make it out the door in the morning if there wives weren't there to correct them and do everything for them. Without undermining the importance of wives and mothers, most fathers are better than the media gives them credit for.

As my daughter (just turned 9) grows, more and more I'm amazed at what she is learning from me--and at times it's very scary. It's sobering if nothing else, because while I try to be a good father to my children, sometimes I let "urgent" things crowd in and I don't try as hard as they deserve. But with God's help and continual reminders to get back to my primary duty, I think my children have a good shot at turning out alright.

Why? At the risk of sounding like we're tooting our own horns, our family takes Deuteronomy chapter 6 seriously and tries to live by it:

These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

We constantly look for opportunities--even driving to McDonald's--when we see some relevant life-lesson to bring it up and discuss it with our children (our son has just turned 4, so he doesn't get most of it, but you'd be amazed at what he does remember and put together later). I usually throw some comments about something we see as we drive around, or hear on the radio, and let my daughter ask questions and express her own thoughts and observations on things.

Children desperately need their parents to point them toward the truth and help them internalize it to the point that they develop "ownership" of that truth. They don't need some liberal idiot of a parent who's more interested in being their "friend" than they are in equipping their children to become responsible members of the next generation.

Children also don't need to be the subjects of liberal experiments to remake reality in their own permissive image. They need to know right from wrong, they need to know what the truth is and what the lies are that lurk in waiting to overtake them.

Children need a safe and stable environment, and some adults need to grow up themselves and provide it for their children. Children aren't just an accessory for the annual Christmas postcard. They are real human beings that deserve responsibility out of their parents, instead of being treated as afterthoughts falling somewhere far behind the recreational and sexual priorities of a parent who never learned to put someone else ahead of their own basest hungers.

Parenting isn't just a job--though we would all do well to remember that it is that--that we do whether we like it or not. It's a charge from God to provide for and guide and protect a young human being that God has placed in our care.

If you're a parent, God has left something very important to him in our care. If we want His favor, we would do well to remember how much he cares about children, and would be good stewards of those he has entrusted to us. I tremble for some of the mistakes I've already made, and some of the things I've already neglected to do; how much more should I be afraid if I only saw my children as ornaments at best, or even nuisances to be endured?

Parents: don't leave your children to fend for themselves. Protect them from the lies that would destroy them. Protect them from people who would use them for their own ends. And protect them from their own sinful nature. The day will come when they're grown that they'll have to choose right or wrong on their own. When that day comes, it's no longer up to you what they do. But if you've equipped them well and taught them right, even though they'll surely make some mistakes, they'll likely come out alright.

Now go and read Lukas' column if you haven't already. She makes the case for caring for our daughters (and all our children) far better than I have here.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Rewriting History

WorldNetDaily features an article today about the ongoing liberal attempt to rewrite history.

This is nothing new overall, since they've been trying to rewrite America's Christian heritage out of our history for decades, but it is a very detailed accounting of some of those attempts--and certainly in the running for the most brazen attempt at it.

I've often pondered the multitude of Christian symbols and emblems in our national capitol, and how the secularists must have to turn a blind eye to them. This article reveals that they've managed to come up with a lie that might sound plausible at first glance--especially to those dumbed-down by our liberal secularist public school system.

These revisionists are actually trying to claim that the relief of Moses and the Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court are not the Ten Commandments, but represent the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The man who compiled this research, Pastor Todd DuBord of Lake Almanor Community Church in California, actually had to dig and go back a ways to find

a 1975 official U.S. Supreme Court Handbook, prepared under the direction of Mark Cannon, administrative assistant to the chief justice. It said, "Directly above the Bench are two central figures, depicting Majesty of the Law and Power of Government. Between them is a tableau of the Ten Commandments…"

The WorldNetDaily article is good, but read the pastor's report to get the full picture of the historical cover-up.

Sibby's Right

It pains me to say this, but I have to agree with my friend Sibby on his "When moderation is extreme" post (actually it doesn't pain me, but I thought the split-second of disorientation it caused you libs would be worth it). :-)

Sibby is absolutely correct. Truth isn't built on "warm fuzzies." Warm fuzzies from the Right are nothing more than white flags in the face of nonstop aggression from the Left--and make no mistake: the Left is unimpressed.

I don't agree with Barry Goldwater on everything, but one thing he said is a truth you can take to the bank:

-Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue.
-Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
-Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.

The Lord I follow said the same thing a little differently: I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

By the grace of God, I have this same reaction when I encounter secular "moderation." This is why I have more respect for a committed liberal--as unhinged as they are--than I do a mealy-mouthed "moderate" any day. Such a pansy approach to right and wrong makes me sick, and I have an overwhelming urge to spit it out.

Moderation when using alcohol is a good thing; moderation in pursuit of justice is a cop-out.

Fight for Life Goes On

Letters continue to come in to the Rapid City Journal on either side of the Referred Law 6/abortion issue. I know some of them are trickling in from before the election, but it's obvious that some of them were sent afterward. This issue isn't going to go away.

In the week since the election, I've seen lots of libs bellyache that pro-lifers "just don't get it."

Actually, it's you, the pro-abortion lib, who doesn't get it. Right and wrong doesn't hinge on 51% (or 54% or even 100%) of the vote. It hinges on a universal truth that human beings are created in the image of God and are sacred from conception. That universal truth transcends human opinion, and it always will.

Liberals love to mock Christian conservatives about science and the "omniscience" of science. While science isn't all knowing (it's the search for truth, not truth itself), there is a greater truth that flies over their heads at mach 3: liberals are the ones who ignore science in favor of their religion--the religion of secular humanism.

In this particular case, science overwhelmingly points to the unborn child as a unique human being, even from conception. From the fact that the child has DNA completely unique from the mother or father (from the moment of conception), to the fact that it has a beating heart in about 22 days, to the fact that it can feel pain in just a few weeks (ironically, right around the time when most abortions occur).

The pro-life effort suffered an unmistakable defeat on Nov. 7. But we're not going away. We cannot--and we will not--look at a vote and say, "Okay, that's settled then. The majority has decided the murder of human beings at certain developmental stages is morally correct now, so we can all go home." (How very "scientific" that would be, huh?)

This campaign was the best opportunity in 33 years to educate people about the human dignity of unborn humans. Obviously, the job isn't done, and those of us who value human life--both spiritually and scientifically--will be here to finish the job.

Don't you get it?

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Images from the VoteYesForLife Effort

The loss to HB 1215 was hard to take last night, but you have to play the cards you're dealt.

We knew going into this that we were at a disadvantage. The pro-life position had logic and facts firmly on their side, but the pro-aborts had emotionalism to hang their hat on, and unfortunately when dealing with the average human being, emotionalism is going to be the safer bet. It's a lot easier to paint a sob story about a woman that you can see and interact with, than one about an unborn child that is easy to ignore because it's hidden behind the veil of the womb.

But this issue will not go away. Just because a majority of people says they want something, that doesn't make that the right choice. Our unborn children will continue to be killed, and women will continue to ruin their lives and health by giving in to the easier choice, so the pro-life community will continue this fight, just as the abolitionists and civil rights leaders continued on in the face of defeats.

Below are a few pictures from the VoteYesForLife.com office in Rapid City last night. What a great bunch of people to work with! Some of them came from other states to join us, they believed in this cause so much.

The VoteYes call center

Elizabeth Kraus, West River Coordinator and architect of South Dakota's marriage amendment.

Jim Munro (right), Elizabeth's husband, also West River coordinator

Watching results come in

Steve and Lisa Wesolick. Steve is a Rapid City attorney who also works with the Alliance Defense Fund, a group of lawyers who defend religious freedom. Expect to see much more of this guy!

Leslee Unruh being interviewed in Sioux Falls

The main Rapid City team

Elizabeth and Jim

Elli Schwiesow, coordinating "wrap up" with her campaign crew. Her Dist. 32 loss was such a shame. You'll never find a kinder, more capable leader than Elli. Hopefully she'll be back when voters realize what a dreadful mistake they've made with Tom Katus (sorry, I don't have the same grace Elli displayed last night).

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

No New Surprises from Polls

Our Editor, Bob Ellis has been at several of the polling places throughout the day and reports back, (as of 3:15 pm) "So far, no inconsistencies or irregularities." We will continue to watch the polls and furnish updates. Keeep praying and get out with your vote!


Election Coverage

We will be providing election coverage tonight at www.dakotavoice.com, and possibly some blogging here, so stay tuned...

Monday, November 06, 2006

Abortion Does Not Unrape the Victim

A recent radio commercial from the VoteYesForLife.com folks featuring Rep. Elizabeth Kraus of Rapid City is the most comprehensive yet concise statement I have ever heard addressing concerns about rape/incest and Referred Law 6:

This is Elizabeth Kraus, state representative from Rapid City. As a woman, I voted to prohibit most abortions because I care about women, especially victims of rape and incest.

Women need to know that they must report a crime of sexual assault within 72 hours. Every hospital in the state provides the morning after pill. But it's not just about emergency contraception.

With early treatment, many STDs can be prevented. Early treatment provides needed counseling and gets the DNA evidence needed to get the rapist off the street.

Abortion does not "unrape" the victim; it subjects her to a second act of violence.

In the crime of incest, pregnancy is often the only evidence that ends the abuse. Abortion destroys that evidence, allowing the crime to continue.

Referred Law 6 helps protect victims of rape and incest from pregnancy, disease, and gets criminals behind bars.

Vote YES on Referred Law 6.

South Dakota MAINstream Coalition Ad

Another ad from the South Dakota MAINstream Coalition in the Rapid City Journal today.

For those of you who may have been politically cloistered, when someone from either party tells you their views are "mainstream," what they're telling you is that they are a stealth liberal. Bank on it.

Yes on C

I think this is the first Yes on Amendment C ad I've seen in the Rapid City Journal. It quickly and concisely explains why we need to protect marriage from homosexual activists.

Sunday, November 05, 2006

The Healing Starts Here

Oh my! Yet another ad in the Journal today talking about how the Bible speaks to us about abortion. Where ARE they digging up all these religious relics? I guess most Christians (and other religions, too) actually do understand that killing the unborn in the womb is wrong.

Imagine that!

Baptists for Life

Um, yet another ad from some Christians who acknowledge that God values human life, even human life in the womb.

As I've said before, it ain't that hard to figure out what God says is right and wrong...not if you're really interested in knowing in the first place.

Click the ad for a larger view

Handmade--By God Himself

Here's another good one from the Journal today. It's signed by just a few of those pastors who don't try to quibble with God, but instead take Him at His Word and value life.

Click the image to see a larger version.

Truth vs. Error

There's an excellent full-page ad in the Rapid City Journal today which responds to that bunch of wolves who call themselves Pastors for (Im)Moral Choices.

It points out that the view of this mixed-up bunch of people that like to call themselves "men of God" are a minority view who don't have a clue about the Book they claim to build their religion on.

It points out that the Bible DOES speak to us about life and whether we have the right to take innocent life (just as it says a lot of things this pack would rather ignore).

Click the image for a larger view

Saturday, November 04, 2006

Rushmore Rally Was Fantastic

The rally at Mt. Rushmore went very well today.

Though November's are usually very cold in South Dakota, the weather was excellent this morning, even up in the Hills. Though I'm heartier than most, still, I didn't even wear a jacket. And the sky was sunny and clear blue, with hardly a cloud at all.

You can read about what was said here, but I just wanted to include a few personal observations here that I didn't include in the story.

There were a lot of folks present that I didn't mention in the article, including the main organizer Bob Fischer, attorney Steve Wesolick (who lives in Rapid City and works with the Alliance Defense Fund), Pastor Don Brendtro spoke briefly, Allen Unruh (husband of Leslee), Dale Bartscher (former pastor of First Christian Church in RC, now working with SD Family Policy Council), my friend Chris Hupke (formerly of the SD Family Policy Council, now with Focus on the Family), Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family, Matt Lockett of Bound4Life, and many more that I either didn't see, or saw and forgot to mention.

I also saw Tom Katus there; I believe he was there for at least half of the rally. When I asked his opponent for District 32 senate Elli Schwiesow if she'd seen him, she hadn't but was very pleased that he'd made it; she said she hoped the Lord really blessed him for being there. That's Elli! Many on the Left paint her as such an evil person, but having known her for 10 years or more, I can tell you that there's not a kinder, gentler soul that I have ever encountered; her grace is an example I can only aspire to.

I didn't see her, but I'm also told Judy Olson Duhamel was there, so it was nice to see some prominent Democrats out at a rally for life and marriage.

Didn't see any protesters, though. I didn't specifically go looking for them (thought of it, but it was just too good of a day to marr it by looking for party poopers), but if they were around, they were in stealth mode. Didn't see them in the main amphitheatre area or around the upper terrace.

It was really cool to hear those echos coming off the rocks when the people would shout "Yes" or "No" to one of the speakers' prompts. It really made it sound like the theme with which the event was being billed: that the rocks were crying out.

Had a funny incident that I briefly mentioned when that dog barked after Dobson asked if people were going to get out and vote on Tuesday. One of the Park Rangers had a dog, probably a bomb dog, along the side of the amphitheatre, and he really let his agreement be known. :-)

Got a chance after the rally to speak with my dear Buddy in the Lord Mark Skogerboe, who pastors in Minnesota, but has spent so much of his time helping us here in South Dakota. Mark has worked on Alan Keyes' presidential campaign and Judge Roy Moore's campaign for governor of Alabama.

Mark has such an incredible heart for God! Though my faith is still small in comparison, over the 2.5 years I've known him, he's caused my faith--and my perspective--to grow probably 10 times what it was.

Mark is also the spiritual godfather of Dakota Voice (I know that probably just made him the sworn enemy of some of you out there). There would likely be no Dakota Voice had Mark not planted this crazy idea in my head over two years ago, and persistently watered it despite my own lack of faith.

I've never personally known a man more committed to his faith, to the point of great personal sacrifice, than Mark Skogerboe. Most probably don't know it, but the good people of South Dakota owe him an immeasurable debt of gratitude for what he did in 2004, and all he's done this year.

Well, that's about it, I guess. Whether we win or lose on Tuesday, it's been a good fight.

Except for a few more hours work, it's now up to the work of the Spirit of God (which I pray He will pour out on this state in a flood, the likes of which we've never experienced), and it's up to the voters of South Dakota. Because one of the great mysteries of God is that despite his unfathomable power, He still allows tiny human beings to exercise free will, just as we always have since the Garden of Eden, to choose His way or our way.

We have the same God-given freedom before us that the people of God had so long ago when God said, "This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life."

Will the Killing Stop Here?

This full-page ad was in the RC Journal today. The top photo features Megan Barnett of Aberdeen and her daughter Maria from Aberdeen. You may recall that Maria was conceived in rape, but Megan chose to give life to her daughter rather than the abortionists knife.

Look at Megan: does she look like she loathes her daughter?

Look at Maria: did she deserve to die because her father was a rapist?

(Click the ad to see a bigger image)

What if YOU Were an Exception?

Another good ad in the Rapid City Journal today. This one makes the important point that a life is a life, regardless of how that life was conceived.

Friday, November 03, 2006

Children Are Sacred

Here is the Lakota ad you might have heard about. It's a beautiful ad.

It stresses the importance and sacred nature the Lakota put on children. Whites used to recognize this also, and hopefully will do so again. We are all God's children, and should all treasure human life as much as He does.

Click on the ad to see it much bigger.

A Man Conceived in Rape

Bill Connor is a South Dakota man who was conceived in rape. He might not be here today, had he been conceived after Roe.

This ad appeared in the Argus Leader (today, I think). You can also read Bill's inspiring story here.

Click the ad to see it much bigger.

Why South Dakota’s Proposed Marriage Amendment Needs That Second Sentence

Received this today. It's a very detailed explanation of why the oft ballyhooed second sentence is in Amendment C.

You can read it below, or download the pdf



Why South Dakota’s Proposed Marriage Amendment Needs That Second Sentence

October 13, 2006

The proposed constitutional amendment on marriage that South Dakotans will vote on next month has been drafted with care and foresight. It is not too broad, but merely acknowledges current realities and real-world contingencies.

The first sentence of the amendment limits marriage to the union of a man and a woman. The second sentence adds that “civil unions,” “domestic partnerships,” and “other quasi-marital relationships” will not be valid in the State. Some South Dakotans are asking whether that second sentence goes too far.

Vermont, Connecticut, and California have proved that other States can create marriage-like institutions and name them something other than “marriage.” Are South Dakotans supposed to pretend that civil unions and domestic partnerships don’t exist? An amendment without a second sentence would be years out-of-date and entirely incapable of protecting marriage.

Some opponents of the marriage amendment will not support it no matter how brilliantly it is drafted. Their chief complaint is with our ancient understanding of marriage, and not with the details of the second sentence.

I. The Laws of South Dakota

Proposed Constitutional Amendment. On November 7, South Dakotans will vote on a marriage amendment that will appear on the ballot as Constitutional Amendment C. If it gets a majority of the vote, the following text will be added to Article XXI of the South Dakota Constitution:

“Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or
recognized in South Dakota. The uniting of two or more persons in a
civil union, domestic partnership, or other quasi-marital relationship
shall not be valid or recognized in South Dakota.”

Current Statute. South Dakota already has a statute that restricts marriage to a man and a woman. That law reads:

“Marriage is a personal relation, between a man and a woman, arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of parties capable of making it is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute a marriage; it must be followed by solemnization.” South Dakota Codified Laws §25-1-1.

The underlying policy of Section 25-1-1 has been on the books for many decades, but the key phrase “between a man and a woman” was added in 1996 by Session Laws 1996, chapter 161, approved February 21, 1996. At the time, the courts in Hawaii appeared ready to impose same-sex “marriage” on that State, and South Dakota and many other States responded by passing what became known as “Defense of Marriage Acts” (DOMAs).

The proposed constitutional amendment codifies the statutory definition of marriage as requiring a man and a woman, but it also does more. The amendment will provide added clarity and certainty where current law is silent.

Conjugal Marriage in South Dakota. Although the current version of Section 25-1-1 is only a decade old, the man-woman requirement for marriage in South Dakota law is older than the State itself. For example, in 1887, two years before the State of South Dakota was created, the following provision was enacted by the Territorial Assembly of Dakota: “From and after the passage of this act, women shall retain the same legal existence and legal personality after marriage as before marriage, and shall receive the same protection of all her rights as a woman, which her husband does as a man. . . .” Territorial Laws of Dakota, chapter 98, § 1 (approved Feb. 17, 1887), Compiled Laws of Dakota, Civil Code, §2600 (1887) (emphasis added).

II. The First Sentence of the Proposed Amendment

The ancient understanding of marriage is under attack across the globe, and the first sentence of the proposed amendment is a partial response to that attack. The sentence would have been advisable for South Dakota even if judges in Massachusetts hadn’t legalized same-sex “marriage,” but Massachusetts provides the best American example of why marriage needs to be defined explicitly in the South Dakota Constitution.

Four Massachusetts judges held that the male-female requirement for marriage was outmoded and unconstitutional, and they ordered that marriage be transmogrified to accommodate two persons of the same sex. Goodridge v. Dept. Public Health, 798 N.E. 2d 941 (Mass. 2003). If South Dakotans want to insure against that same result in their State, they ought to amend their Constitution.

With an amendment in place, South Dakota’s courts will have clear guidance from the text of the Constitution, the document through which the people of South Dakota have expressed their will. Similarly, if an executive or administrative agency in South Dakota is required to make a decision about a same-sex “marriage” from Massachusetts, Canada, or elsewhere, the law will be as clear as words can make it.

III. The Second Sentence of the Proposed Amendment

The second sentence protects the amendment against redefinitions and word-play. Its importance is shown by the examples of Vermont1 and Connecticut2 which have created civil unions that give same-sex couples exactly the same legal benefits and obligations as married couples. In those two States, there are no legal differences between the two institutions (except for the name).

The first sentence of the proposed amendment says what South Dakotans believe that marriage is. The second sentence says that South Dakotans will accept no substitutes, however named.

Without the second sentence, a South Dakota court or executive or administrative agency would have no guidance on the legal status of a Vermont or Connecticut civil union. The statute, which speaks only of marriage, certainly does not provide any.
1“Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage.” 15 Vermont Statutes Annonated §1204(a) (as added by 1999, no. 91, Adj. Sess., § 3).

2“Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether derived from the general statutes, administrative regulations or court rules, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage, which is defined as the union of one man and one woman.” Connecticut General Statutes Annotated §46b-38nn (as added by 2005 PA 05-10, § 14).

Quasi-Marital Relationships. Sentence two encompasses all relationships that are “quasi-marital.” In America today, a Vermont civil union and a Connecticut civil union clearly are “quasi-marital relationships.” Hawaii’s current reciprocal beneficiaries law3 is more limited and probably does not create a “quasi-marital relationship” – but if the Hawaii law were to be expanded it might become a “quasi-marital relationship.” Conversely, if the Vermont or Connecticut laws were to be renamed but otherwise unchanged, they still would be “quasi-marital relationships.” Names are important, but it is the underlying legal reality that determines the status of the named relationship.

California has established “registered domestic partnerships” (see below), and those partnerships also are clearly “quasi-marital,” but New Jersey’s “domestic partnerships”4 are more limited (as currently constituted) and may or may not be “quasi-marital” under South Dakota’s proposed amendment.

Whatever judgment is made about New Jersey’s “domestic partnerships” under South Dakota law, the decision will apply to both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. New Jersey allows male-female couples to establish a domestic partnership if the partners are age 62 or older. N.J.S.A. 26:8A-4.b(5).

The term “quasi-marital” is unique to the marriage-protection law of South Dakota. As near as we can tell, no other State uses the term. The pending text was 3“The purpose of this chapter is to extend certain rights and benefits which are presently available only to married couples to couples composed of two individuals who are legally prohibited from marrying under state law.” Hawaii Revised Statutes §572C-1 (as added by Laws 1997, chap. 383, § 1).

4“[T]he legislature believes that [domestic partnerships] should be formally recognized by statute, and that certain rights and benefits should be made available to individuals participating in them, including: statutory protection against various forms of discrimination against domestic partners; certain visitation and decision-making rights in a health care setting; and certain tax-related benefits; and, in some cases, health and pension benefits that are provided in the same manner as for spouses.” New Jersey Statutes Annotated §26-8A-2.c. (as added by Laws 2003, chapter 246, section 60). drafted expressly for the people, laws, and precedents of South Dakota, because the term “quasi” is entirely familiar to South Dakota law.

South Dakota’s courts have dealt with quasi institutions and quasi actions in nearly 300 cases. In those cases, quasi has been conjoined (sometimes with a hyphen, sometimes not) to all of the following:

admission ministerial act proprietary interest assignee municipal corporation public banking business negotiable remedy contract nonresident domestic rights of redemption contractual obligation corporation sovereign corporation permanently suretyship criminal personal property suspect class Indian reservation principals technical meaning in rem prerogative writs tenant judicial property title, and legislative trustee.

The South Dakota code uses quasi in some 60 sections. Most involve the “quasi-judicial functions” and “quasi-legislative functions” that are granted to various administrative agencies. South Dakota Codified Laws §1-32-1(10)-(11). Many of the cases have involved the definition and scope of those functions.

South Dakota’s Attorney General has issued official opinions on whether the South Dakota Housing Development Authority is an “independent quasi-governmental agency,” Opinion No. 88-41 (1988), and whether the Custer County Food Pantry is a “quasi-governmental organization,” Opinion No. 89-26 (1989).

With this history, no one can pretend that South Dakota’s courts or administrative or executive agencies will be baffled by the meaning of “quasi-marital relationship.” They have plenty of experience with “quasi” institutions and actions.

The Dynamics of Change. The use of the term “quasi-marital relationship” is wise and far-seeing. South Dakotans will be voting on an amendment intended to endure for generations, and it must take into account institutions and concepts and names that may not now exist. And even those institutions that now exist are not going to continue unchanged.

As noted above, California has established registered domestic partnerships for same-sex couples,5 but the California law was amended just recently. On September 30, 2006, the Governor signed Senate Bill 1827 which allows registered domestic partners to file joint tax returns under State law, something they were prohibited from doing under former law. The newly enacted bill removes what may have been the last legal distinction in California between married couples and domestic partners.

The California example shows that laws change, and that a term like “domestic partnership” may have different meanings at different times. Another State’s “domestic partnerships” may constitute a “quasi-marital relationship” at one time but not another. The results turn on the facts, not the titles.
Is Sentence Two Necessary? Sentence two is essential because current legal developments make it so. There are now in the United States civil unions and domestic partnerships that are either identical to marriage or its substantial equivalent. These quasi-marital arrangements did not exist when South Dakota’s DOMA was enacted in 1996.

If the second sentence were to be removed from the proposed amendment – ostensibly to make it more narrow or less ambiguous – the amendment would be silent about laws in Vermont, California, and Connecticut that are now on the books. The amendment would be a decade out-of-date and totally inadequate to deal with future developments.

It is impossible to say with absolute certainty what “quasi-marital relationships” will be interpreted to mean at some future date, but that is no reason
5“Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” West’s Ann. California Family Code §297.5(a) (added by Stats. 2003, c. 421 (AB 205), § 4, eff. Jan. 1, 2005).
to omit it. At some level, all language is ambiguous; law is not mathematics. Removing the second sentence would produce worse law, not better. The supposed gain to be had by removing the allegedly ambiguous term would be vastly overshadowed by new uncertainties.

A judge presiding over a trial that asks whether a Ford Taurus is “the same” as its Mercury Sable twin is, we hope, going to make an inquiry beyond the nameplates. In the case of marriage, the “quasi-marital relationship” language tells a court to look beyond the label that another State has affixed. Without the second sentence, a judge has no guidance whatsoever.

IV. Conclusion

South Dakota’s proposed amendment has been thoughtfully drafted. Its terms are not broad, but limited and narrow. It defines marriage and makes that definition exclusive. Also, because the authors were not oblivious to developments elsewhere, the proposed amendment covers marriage-like arrangements that mimic marriage.

Marriage has its own dignity and compelling purposes that are rooted in real human experience. It is not based on animus toward homosexuals or anyone else.

Marriage needs both statutory and constitutional protection because it is under attack from those who will succeed if they can find just a handful of judges to agree with them.
# # # # # # #

More Doctors Support Referred Law 6

Even though some would have you believe practically no doctors support South Dakota's abortion ban, there were two more ads in today's Rapid City Journal from doctors in support of Referred Law 6. Here is one of them.

Rushmore Rally Tomorrow

The Rushmore Rally for life is tomorrow morning at Mt. Rushmore. It's going to be a historic event, so don't miss it!

My Dakota Voice colleague Greg Johnson has some great coverage about the upcoming event here, so read it and we'll see you there!

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Pro-Aborts Misrepresenting VoteYesForLife.com

VoteYesForLife.com says some pro-abortion folks are calling people and posing as volunteers for the campaign. Only these fraudulent "volunteers" are telling people there are no provisions for rape/incest in Referred Law 6 (see Section 3 of HB 1215 to dispel this myth).

If you get a call like this, dial *69 after you hang up and get the caller's name from the operator. Then call VoteYesForLife.com at 605-271-3975 and they'll take care of it from there.

It's bad enough they're trying to mislead people about this bill in their commercials; now some are making fraudulent phone calls. When you can't win on the merits of your argument, deception may be all that's left...

Not Much Money Where the Mouth Is

I don't really have a problem with money from outside the state coming into the abortion battle going on here. While Referred Law 6 is our bill, no one doubts it will have national impact. Abortion wouldn't be the big national deal it is if abortion hadn't been imposed on the states by a rogue federal Supreme Court in 1973. So while some people get worked up--or pretend they get worked up--over out of state money, I'm not one of them.

Having said that, I thought I'd perouse the financial report of South Dakota Campaign for (Un)Healthy Families just to see if I saw anything interesting...and I did. It was a little hard to miss.

When I glanced down the State column, those "SD"s were pretty rare; in fact, it reinforced the 8% in-state funding I noticed that the Argus Liar...er, Argus Leader glossed over (they gave the figures, but somehow failed to take any note whatsoever that 92% of the pro-abort money came from out of state). Note how they reported it:

The Healthy Families campaign said it raised $1,835,552.64 in donations during the reporting period. Nearly $160,000 of that was raised in South Dakota, according to information released by the campaign.
Meanwhile, they did tell us that 65% of VoteYesForLife.com contributions came from within South Dakota.

As I said, personally I don't give a hoot where the money came from. But given that the Unhealthy Families contributions were so lopsided, and given all the blather about in-state/out-of-state, I would have thought that 92% figure at least worth a passing mention.

But I guess it was more important for the Argus to portray VoteYesForLife.com as a bunch of moneybags with the headline "More money falls on Vote Yes side."

Anyway, the interesting thing I found in all this was that, for all the heated rhetoric from the pro-aborts, they don't seem to be much for putting their money where their mouths are. Sure, not everybody can afford to make big contributions, but surely they could have done better than that, for all the (im)moral indignation they proffered.

Perhaps it'll turn out that way on Election Day, too. Maybe we'll find out they're good for a lot of hot air and not much else...

Clicky Web Analytics